156 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, November 7, 2019”

  2. Hickory –
    Continuing the discussion from last thread, it would be dead easy to replace grazing animals with existing technology, and we do it already.

    Mammals are inherently inefficient because thy spend huge amounts of energy heating their bodies. Per kilogram body weight, a lion eats ten times as much as a crocodile. If America decided it preferred farmed catfish to beef, grain inputs to the animal protein industry would fall dramatically.

    But even cold blooded animals are inefficient compared to microorganisms. There is another 10:1 efficiency improvement. The problem is that people like eating microorganisms even less than they like eating catfish. Using genetic engineering to create microorganisms that produce animal protein would vastly reduce the inputs to the animal protein industry.

    1. We could even recycle dead people efficiently by grinding them up and throwing them into the culture tanks. ( Grinding provides oodles of surface area which allows the microbes to get at THEIR food faster, lol.)

      It’s hard to say what will happen, but my money says we won’t ever eat much in the way of microorganisms other than what we’re eating already.

      The population will crash before we get to that point, technologically and culturally.

      The concept is beautiful, but the thought is disgusting to almost everybody, making it a political and cultural non starter.

      But it might be feasible, meaning profitable, in the not so distant future, to use solar powered robots to harvest pasture rather than actually grazing cows, and breed them to be fed in confinement, the way we raise chickens.

      I can see fish farming in not so clean water treatment plant discharge being a viable proposition, since running water with some excess nitrates, etc in it thru a lake with fish could be a win win situation.

      But this wouldn’t be practical in very many places, due to the lack of suitable land near enough to existing water treatment plants.

    2. “to beef, grain inputs to the animal protein industry would fall dramatically.”
      By grazers, I was referring to the traditional method of rising livestock (grass fed), not the method of feeding grain from prime farmland to feedlot animal factories. That is a different story.

      There are vast places in the USA where goats, sheep and turkeys could be raised in great abundance. Many of these places are suitable for little else in regard to food production. These ‘marginal’ lands are hilly, rocky, sometimes semi-arid, but collectively can support huge herds of animals. Enough for most of this countries meat demand/desire.

      The prime farmlands could reserved for grain and legume production aimed at direct human consumption, or as feed-stock for the more elaborate and technologically intensive methods that the article was highlighting.

      I’d like to see an energy analysis of these various ‘advanced’ food producing systems [factory grown proteins]. How many joules input /gm protein final product output [from a non-biased source]. That result will be a large determinant in whether these methods will be applicable, at scale.

      1. Well said, Hickory

        You are one of the very few people who have a good grasp of agricultural realities, past, present and possible.

        1. Thanks OFM. I’ve never been involved in any commercial production, but have been keenly interested in these topics for decades.
          I very much appreciate the perspectives you’ve shared with the rest of us .

      2. I was referring to the traditional method of rising livestock (grass fed), not the method of feeding grain from prime farmland to feedlot animal factories. That is a different story. There are vast places in the USA where goats, sheep and turkeys could be raised in great abundance.

        I agree that more info would be nice. In particular, I’m curious how much livestock is purely grass fed these days, and how much grass fed costs vs the conventional grain fed. Grass fed is much more expensive at retail…

        1. Yes, simple grazing of livestock yields less than livestock first grazed and then finished with centralized feedlot grain feeding.
          But it is also a system that requires much less input of external energy and prime farmland to support it. And that means it is much more sustainable.
          Winners and losers in all these kind of decisions and choices.
          When there is less fossil fuel to throw around at the food producing sector, food will definitely cost more.

          Average corn yield bushels/acre in USA was less than 30bu/acre up until the late 30’s, and in the past 80 yrs has rapidly climbed to above 160 bu/acre now! That incredible increase in average yield was due in part to breeding/genetic improvement, and in part to better tillage, harvest, weed control, irrigation, and especially fertilizer. Everything other than the plant genetics is a fossil fuel dependent input.

          1. Well, I’d have several questions.

            First, how do we know that pure grass fed ranching consumes less energy than CAFO? Before people looked skeptically at farming, they didn’t know how much energy it consumed. Grass fed is more expensive, and ranches are very spread out (which means a lot of travel), so I’d say it requires a careful analysis.

            2nd, cattle ranching uses an enormous amount of land which could be used for wildlife. It uses more land than farming. That doesn’t seem so sustainable.

            3rd, how much methane do grass fed cows emit?

            4th, are you assuming that fossils are absolutely essential for farming?

            2. Nick, I know of no way to say this other than as a public request-
              I do not find your commentary to be relevant to the postings I enter, in any kind of real world sense.
              Please refrain from responding to my entrees. Thank you.

            3. First, how do we know that pure grass fed ranching consumes less energy than CAFO?

              No formal analysis is needed.

              If you raise beef exclusively on pasture, the only energy inputs are for pasture maintenance, and these are relatively trivial expenses, and are generally PAID ANYWAY, getting the animal up to weight to be sold to a feed lot operator.

              Fences must be maintained, pastures need some fertilizer and lime, some new grass seed occasionally, etc. These are trivial expenses in relation to the amount of meat produced, but they can be prohibitive in any part of the country where farmland is expensive, and that’s most places, where there’s enough rain to produce enough forage to make grass fed beef work, in terms of MONEY. They are trivial in terms of energy inputs as well, compared to feed lot production, or feeding out to market weight on your own premises.

              Grass fed beef costs more for two reasons. One, it’s a marketing and consumer quirk. The demand for it is growing faster than the supply, and this creates a seller’s market.

              The other reason is that unless you own large tracts of land that’s worth next to nothing, in terms of generating income, except to use it as pasture, it actually costs MORE to raise grass fed beef than it does grain fed beef, in terms of running a farm in most places.

              My neighbors who do grass fed exclusively don’t NET as much per animal, per acre, or per dollar invested in their farms, as the ones who feed out with grain on their own premises, or sell their animals to feed lot operators.

              Growing demand plus consumer preferences changing plus high production costs ( due to high land prices in most places) all add up to high prices.

              If grass fed prices wholesale go up another twenty five percent or so, wholesale, it will be more profitable for some farmers around here to switch to grass fed….. if they can rent or buy more land for pasture.

              An acre of corn feeds out a lot more beef, more profitably, than an acre of grass, by a country mile, and land for pasture is in short supply for this reason more than for any other reason.

  3. Most of us here, excepting our occasional troll visitors, fully understand that Old Man Business As Usual is on his last legs, and will known only as history by our great grand children.

    But I think maybe I’m the ONLY regular here who literally grew up ( proud but ) poor, and LIVES among poor people, in intimate contact with them on a daily basis, not as an outsider such as a social worker or cop but actually ONE of them, albeit one of the lucky ones who has broken free of the chains of poverty.

    Every body I know is welcome at my table, unless they happen to be on my personal shit list for some reason. I ‘m just as red around the ears as the worst of them, and don’t care if they don’t know which spoon is which, and anyway, I only have two kinds, big and bigger ones, lol.

    MAYBE I understand something in my GUT that the rest of us, collectively, only understand between their ears.

    The age of the personal automobile as we know it today will be over a LOT sooner, and I do mean a LOT sooner, than almost anybody is likely to guess.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/follow-this-simple-rule-for-car-buying-if-you-want-to-get-rich-says-millionaire-money-expert.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

    “If you make the median per capita income of about $42,000 a year, for example, you should limit your budget to $4,200. If you make the median household income of about $62,000 a year, don’t spend more than $6,200 on a car.”

    “According to a 2019 report from Experian, which tracks millions of auto loans each month, the average amount borrowed to buy a new vehicle hit a record $32,187 in the first quarter. The average used-vehicle loan also hit a record, $20,137. That’s far more than what most American households can afford.

    Even so, Experian found that 20% of borrowers are taking out loans of $50,000 or more. That means, median income earners who buy median-priced cars are essentially spending almost 80% of their gross salary.”

    “Worst of all, after they pay a 20% effective tax rate on their annual gross income, they’ll be spending almost 100% of their net income on the car!”

    I would post more but it’s not considered kosher, you’re supposed to earn the right to read by x’ing out the ads, lol.

    I think maybe Elon Musk is the one super famous super duper visionary business leader today who REALLY and SERIOUSLY TALKS A LOT IN PUBLIC about autonomous cars wiping out most of the automobile industry. There are others who do, of course, but they don’t seem to have ten percent of the audience he has.

    My money says he understands that even if we could could pay the environmental price, we are at the point we are unable to pay the price of OWNING new cars.

    It’s hard to find a pickup truck anymore that looks like it will still run a few years down the road for less than five grand…….. and that’s one that’s twenty years old with a lot of scratches and dings on it that needs new tires.

    BUT there IS a way we can continue to afford to own new cars, and I have posted my thoughts on this possibility here at some point.

    If we don’t have any other option, and it’s obvious we DON’T,not today anyway, we can and we WILL build and buy bare bones micro cars that will suffice to get suburban and rural people to the places they HAVE to go, once the supply of older cars drys up.

    A bare bones very light weight low slung and very narrow fore and aft two seater limited to say forty five mph would go probably go at least a hundred miles on a battery only one tenth as large as the one used in a Tesla S.

    Would doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, cops, and other such people buy such a car?

    Suppose they don’t have any CHOICE, other than to give up their Mc Mansion with the lawn and back yard pool, and pay four or five times as much rent, for as nice a place down town, as their current house payment, AND let that house go into foreclosure to boot? Five times as much rent for a nice place in a RESPECTABLE and DESIRABLE neighborhood with mass transit would be cheap, because such places ALREADY rent for double or triple a typical middle class house payment.

    But if and when autonomous cars are on the road by the million, and can be summonsed just by hitting speed dial, such cars won’t be needed in large numbers.

    If we were to get into a do or die situation, we could put such cars into mass production in twelve months or so. We did it with other machinery all the way back as far as WWII. There’s absolutely nothing NEW or unique about such a car.

    A quarter or more of the component parts are off the shelf as of today, and almost all the rest can be built on existing machinery by punching a few buttons these days.

    1. Old Farmer Mac,

      In time there will be plenty of used EVs that can be purchased. The TCO of a Tesla Model 3 is already pretty competitive with a new Camry, in time as oil prices increase the EVs will be better on a TCO (total cost of ownership) basis.

      Using a random VA zip code of 24141 (Fairlawn, VA) at Cargurus there is a 2012 Nissan Leaf with 46K for $6590, I know you would prefer to spend on tenth that on a car, but eventually you will be able to find an EV at that price. The range for the 2012 Leaf when new was 70 to 100 miles on a full charge.

      https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylisting/viewDetailsFilterViewInventoryListing.action?sourceContext=usedPaidSearchNoZip&newSearchFromOverviewPage=true&inventorySearchWidgetType=AUTO&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity=d2077&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity2=&zip=24141&distance=100&searchChanged=true&modelChanged=false&filtersModified=true#listing=243147264

      There is a cheaper EV the Mitsubishi i-miev but range is only 60 miles $4200 with 34k, the 4200 includes 300 for delivery from Ohio to New river, VA, note I don’t know where you live I picked a random town near Blue Ridge Parkway.

      https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylisting/viewDetailsFilterViewInventoryListing.action?sourceContext=sitelink&newSearchFromOverviewPage=true&inventorySearchWidgetType=AUTO&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity=d2166&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity2=&zip=24141&distance=100&searchChanged=true&modelChanged=true&filtersModified=true#listing=254671053

      1. Hi Dennis,

        I’m with the guy that wrote the linked article. I don’t believe it’s good sense to spend more than ten percent max of your income on the purchase of a car.

        The biggest reason that so many people are broke is that they fail to THINK before they spend their money.

        I know plenty of people, personally, who put ten or twenty percent of what their neighbors and co workers put in new cars and the rest into investments who are pretty much on easy street now for that reason alone. They knew or learned how to get along ok with older vehicles.

        In most states you can keep two older cars ,maintenance, tags, insurance and repairs for substantially less than just depreciation alone on a nice new car.

        But you do need to locate a local guy who’s a retired mechanic, etc, to help you pick out the cars you buy, and hopefully repair them as necessary for you as well, if you are not knowledgeable or interested in doing your own work.

        An extra three or four thousand a year put into the stock market has a way of adding up if you leave it alone and let compound arithmetic do it’s thing.

        Rental property can do even better, if you want to leverage your investment by doing your own management chores.

        I helped a good friend pick out a house thirty years ago that he moved into for about the going rental rate for a similar house in the immediate neighborhood with only three thousand down. He just paid it off, and that initial three is worth over 200 k now, and he SAVED money every month, compared to rent, after the first three years or so, even after maintenance and repair costs were added to the PITI payment.

        For the last fifteen years, the savings were at least three hundred per month at the beginning and probably six hundred an the end. That would have been free cash flow if he had rented it.

        There’s a joke that goes, man, ” The OWNER ( of the company where they work) drives a Buick. Why can’t we get a Buick?”

        Wife, “We’re not rich enough to drive a Buick. We’ve got to have a Lexus or everybody will think we can’t afford it.”

        1. I was going to add that the reason I posted my original comment is that I think there’s a very real possibility that the people who are buying new cars these days by the tens of millions may lose the jobs that enable them to borrow so much purchase money.

          If a major recession hits, the ripple effects could spread all thru the economy and the market for new cars could crash and burn.

          I believe a major economic crash is inevitable, but of course I can’t say when. It might come any time between tomorrow( one chance in then thousand tomorrow) or seven or eight chances out of ten within two or three decades imo.

          The world financial system is nothing more than a house of cards stuck together by FAITH in the existing political power structure, as best I can see. If the people ever get scared, it could all crash like a dead tree in a high wind.

          It could happen for climate reasons, or bad luck when the wrong politician gets shot, or because of a resource war, or other reasons.

          One of the corollary laws of probability theory states that if something CAN happen, it WILL happen, given trials or time enough.

          1. OFM,

            Don’t have any idea what your income is, but a lot of people could afford the used Mitsubishi I found, clearly as these cars get older, prices will fall.

            Just pointing out the EVs available now, gasoline is likely to become expensive before long.

            Agree 10% of income is probably a good rule of thumb.

            1. Yep. Used cars are a perfectly good idea, but they’re unrelated to the question of EVs vs ICEs.

              If you want a used car, then buy a used EV.

            2. I’m property rich but I’m seriously cash poor.

              BUT I live better, as I see things, than ninety five percent of the population of the USA, lol.

              I can walk to a national park.I can see for many miles from high spots on my property. The view from our sun room would be worth a couple of million bucks, easy, in some American cities. Maybe even ten million bucks.

              A couple of people I know from my city days who now live in penthouses come to visit to walk in the woods and sample the local artisanal liquors….. the sort you need a CONNECTION to sample, lol.

              There’s no way I would swap places with them, in terms of surroundings or overall lifestyle, but I wouldn’t mind having money enough to do some SERIOUS travel,etc.

              I could buy or lease a new car or truck, but it would mean cutting back substantially on the critical ( to me) other things I spend money on such as buying some blight proof chestnut seedlings to help get them reestablished, or books, or turning my little farm into a mostly sustainable little piece of paradise that I will probably have to sell someday,if I need money for a personal care giver, etc.

              I STILL love the sight of tire smoke and the sound of a big four barrel V*8 on the drag strip or an old Detroit Diesel going thru the gears, but I just can’t see how ANYBODY who seriously contemplates life could find it more desirable to own a new car than it is to have ample time to read, think, spend with friends,or out in the natural world, doing things, rather than sitting in a cocoon in traffic in a new car.

              My old one is just as comfortable as a new one.

              But of course a lot of people have several times more money than they need, and THAT means they will continue to buy new cars and trade them off while they’re still good, and THAT in turn makes it possible for people like ME to drive old cars for peanuts.

              Trickle down economic theory is LEGIT, in some respects, lol.

              Candide: Themes – SparkNotes
              https://www.sparknotes.com › lit › candide › themes
              The Folly of Optimism Pangloss and his student Candide maintain that “everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.”

          2. The world financial system is nothing more than a house of cards stuck together by FAITH in the existing political power structure

            Yeah, that’s been the case since the first hunter-gatherer tried to exchange some pretty cowrie shells for some fur.

            There’s a reason that the end of the business cycle was called a “panic” before Hoover provided his euphemism: “depression”.

  4. Trolls! This is a carryover from the last non-petroleum thread.

    There have been a lot of complaints about trolls lately. However, I do not believe they are trolls at all.

    In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain.

    I believe such people as described in that definition are almost non-existent. Most people described as trolls are just really dumb people who actually believe the crap they spout. I watch a lot of call-in shows on Youtube. The most popular shows are those who have the most stupid callers. They get slammed and everyone on the show has a good laugh.

    I am saying I believe these so-called trolls are not that dangerous. They just give us a good laugh from time to time.

    1. Those who believe someone is a troll should try to refrain from responding as for a true troll, that is exactly what is hoped for. There is a small “x” box next to everyone’s name, for anyone you would care to ignore, simply click the x and their comments will be hidden. As long as nobody responds to their comments, they will remain invisible to you.

      1. Dennis, it is my opinion that these so-called trolls actually give us a good example of the thinking process of those who disagree with us. We know how climate deniers think. We see the faults of their thinking process. We can either answer their arguments or call them trolls.

        If you can’t answer a man’s arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.

        Elbert Hubbard: American Journalist

        I seriously doubt that very many “true trolls” exist. They are not trying to simply disrupt. They actually believe the nonsense they spout.

        1. Ron,

          It gets tiresome to constantly answer the same talking points repeatedly.

          Or some find it so.

          Generally I agree, but when we have to resort to name calling, it seems that some of us have started to become frustrated.

          1. Oh never mind. I will continue to attempt to answer their arguments. Others can simply ignore them. Others can just call them vile names. 😉

            1. I try to interact with some of them on occasion. I believe maybe a third of them are automated, after some fashion. That kind won’t or can’t reply, and if it does the answer is obviously a canned response.

              The rest imo are stupid or merely ignorant people, imo, with the exception of maybe about one out of each hundred or so. Go to Qoura where there’s a large audience for almost any topic, and you will always find a few polished individuals saying in essence “I’m a Democrat with all these credentials such as being a med school professo and forced global warming is a hoax”.

              Ron’s right about at least two thirds of them and maybe almost all of them.

              They’re quick with the same lists of scientists who DON’T believe in forced warming, etc.

            2. I quite like it when the comments get a little spicy.
              There’s a few commenters here that’d I suggest are shitposting a bit, but it’s not too overdone; except for Nick, he’s on another planet lol
              Anyway, I take Ron’s point, some opinions expressed here are quite unrealistic, and being able to read about them here is helpful in gathering awareness of how others feel about collapse i.e. denial.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitposting

    2. The question with the trolls is whether they are just random dumb people or part of a media campaign to disrupt conversations about peak oil and climate change on line.

      In other words, they may be a denial of service attack on this website.

      1. Oh please, don’t exaggerate our importance or influence on the general public. Nobody really gives a shit what we have to say. A “media” campaign to disrupt our conversations? What media would that be?

          1. Alimbiquated, you are missing the point altogether. The price of Trolling has nothing to do with the abundance of trolls. The idea of Troll believers is that we have a message to spread, so dangerous to their world view, that it is worth their effort to disrupt our discussions about it. Bullshit! If you believe that then you have visions of grandeur. No one really gives a shit about what we are talking about.

            Trolls, according to the definition I quoted above, do not exist. Or, even if a few such nut cases do exist, our influence upon the world is not worth their efforts to disrupt it. And if they think it is, then they are just too stupid to bother with.

            In trying to figure out whether certain posters are trolls or not, all you have to do is apply Occom’s Razor. What is most likely, that the poster really believes the bullshit he professes and is really just trying to convince us as well, or that he fears our posts will spread throughout the world and upset his worldview. Therefore he must do everything in his power to disrupt our conversations.

            Now I ask you, which is most likely?

  5. ISLANDBOY’S AUSTRALIAN GREEN DELUSION ?

    LATEST NEWS: Renewables meet 50% of electricity demand on Australia’s power grid for first time. Wow, let’s all dance around the table to celebrate this wonderful news. But wait:

    AUSTRALIA IS NOW THE WORLD’S THIRD LARGEST FOSSIL FUEL EXPORTER

    In absolute terms, Australia is the world’s fifth largest fossil fuel carbon miner, behind only China, the U.S., Russia and Saudi Arabia. Australia’s fossil fuel exports are higher than U.S. fossil fuel exports, despite the fact that the U.S. has a population 13 times larger, gross domestic product (GDP) 15 times larger, and export value 8 times larger. Australia is the largest coal exporter in the world and on recent reports the largest LNG exporter too. But let’s ignore this, stick to the feel-good Green Delusions and head for the mall.

    1. Islandboy thinks that we should transition away from burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and posts examples of that transition starting to happen.

      You seem to object to that. So: what do you think we should do?

      1. “Islandboy thinks that we should transition away from burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and posts examples of that transition starting to happen.”

        Australia isn’t transitioning away from fossil fuels, it’s exporting them — in increasing amounts. Unfortunately!

        1. And I agree that it would be better if Australia decided to leave it in the ground, rather than making it available for others to burn.

          I think Islandboy would also agree with that idea. Do you think that Islandboy would agree with that idea?

          1. If Australia doesn’t supply it, someone else will. The planet needs to pretty much stop burning fossil fuels “yesterday”.

            Smoking kills

            1. Yes, it’s really the consumer side that matters, not the supplier side.

              But, in a perfect world suppliers would also take steps to reduce fossil fuels: if they restricted supplies it would raise prices and reduce consumption.

            3. Australia may well be the last place on Earth with enough coal and gas in the ground to export them on the grand scale over time.

              I wonder how much these exports contribute to the well being of a typical citizen of the country.

              Maybe somebody here knows.

              Hopefully Scrub Puller is still around, lurking. He might know.

          2. Of course I agree “that it would be better if Australia decided to leave it in the ground, rather than making it available for others to burn” but, there is also another angle. If, as I have been known to point out, coal plants in the US and Australia are having serious challenges competing with natural gas and increasingly renewables how much longer will it take for the same situation to arise in countries that have to import coal?

            In many cases the powers that be are stubbornly barrelling ahead with the build out of new coal fired plants, ignoring reports like the following:

            Wind and solar kill coal and nuclear on costs, says latest Lazard report

            The cost of wind and solar continue to decline and are now at the point where they beat, or at least match, even the marginal costs of coal-fired generation and nuclear power, according to the 13th and latest edition of Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis, one of the most highly regarded assessments in the world.

            The new Lazard report puts the unsubsidised levellised cost of energy (LCOE) of large scale wind and solar at a fraction of the cost of new coal or nuclear generators, even if the cost of decommissioning or the ongoing maintenance for nuclear is excluded.

            Wind is priced at a global average of $US28-$US54/MWh ($A40-$A78/MWh), while solar is put at a range of $US32-$US42/MWh ($A46-$A60/MWh) depending on whether single axis tracking is used.

            This compares to coal’s global range of $US66-$US152/MWh ($A96-$A220/MWh) and nuclear’s estimate of $US118-$US192/MWh ($A171-$A278/MWh).

            Wind and solar have been beating coal and nuclear on costs for a few years now, but Lazard points out that both wind and solar are now matching both coal and nuclear on even the “marginal” cost of generation, which excludes, for instance, the huge capital cost of nuclear plants. For coal this “marginal” is put at $US33/MWh, and for nuclear $US29/MWh.

            The cost of solar, Lazard notes, has fallen 89 per cent over the past decade, and is still falling at an average rate of 13 per cent a year. The more mature wind technology has fallen 70 per cent over the same period of time, and is still falling at around 7 per cent.

            The two technologies also beat gas on various measures. Solar is far cheaper than peaking gas, and wind beats out the more conventional combined cycle gas. Australia, it notes, has amongst the world’s cheapest wind and solar costs of the markets it has analysed.

            It is my expectation, or some might say “vain hope”, that as renewables continue to grow (exponentially 😉 ), at some point fossil fuel based generation of electricity will collapse fairly rapidly as consumers opt for lower cost renewable sources. The material I post tends to point to indications that the possibility that much of the new fossil fuel based electricity generation infrastructure will turn out to be stranded assets is real. We will just have to wait another decade or so to see how it all turns out!

            1. The problem still is: There is no cheap storage technology on the market, that can store electricity for more than a few hours of full demand.

              So there is the need of backup capacity to almost full needed capacity. If all coal / gas / atomic plant must close because of price, you will have outages of several days every month.

              Pumped storad, lead battery or lithium ion battery is no technology to supply a country for a week where solar / wind doesn’t work – such periods come every year.

              Redox flow giant batteries, hydrogen deep storage with hydrogen gas plants / giant fuel cell arrays are still existing only on the blueprint. And they must be financed, too.

            2. Well, sure, when we succeed in building enough wind and solar to replace all fossil fuel plants, we’ll need some seasonal storage. But:

              Storage won’t need to provide anything close to 100% backup: there are many other solutions to seasonal variations in renewable generation: long distance transmission; demand side management, and supply diversity will make large contributions. Demand side management is especially important: it’s very cheap and greatly neglected because…drum roll…it’s very cheap, which means it’s far less profitable for utilities than expensive new generation and other central infrastructure.

              We’re not going to build all that generation overnight, so for better or worse this is a long-term problem.

              Hydrogen deep storage, and hydrogen gas plants both use existing technology. They could be built now, but we’re not building them now because…we don’t need them yet. When we do, there’s no reason to think we can’t build storage as quickly as generation.

            3. Demand side management should be getting a lot more attention, but it’s not politically compatible with today’s politics.

              Candidates for elected office are afraid to talk about it.

              I’m guessing that at least half the overnight demand for everything except space heat could be diverted to daylight hours or handled by one relatively small battery in the case of a typical family, and without anybody really noticing it, simply by charging a peak rate at night when the wind isn’t cooperating, or in areas with no wind power.

              Adding one more little red light to the panel on all our gadgets won’t cost more than a few cents.

            4. The idea that you should pay more for things in short supply seems to shock many people.

              Another example in parking. Even in places like Manhattan, with extremely pricey land, people make a huge fuss if public land wasted on free parking gets used for anything sensible.

            5. Storage is not really connected to renewables. Renewables are killing traditional production methods because they win on the spot market. The fact that their output is so variable is actually accelerating this process.

              Storage is an issue, but all that means is that highly flexible traditional plants may be able to compete against batteries (and conservation, which is a big problem for all electricity suppliers). But all this is irrelevant to renewables.

      2. Nick G,

        Do you think the transition is happening fast enough?

        I do not.

        If it was happening an order of magnitude faster and we were drawing down carbon emissions, I would still be concerned. Just my 2 cents.

        1. I agree – the transition could and should be much faster.

          A stiff carbon tax could do the trick: just raise fuel and utility taxes sharply, calculate those taxes based on carbon emissions, and rebate the revenues back to the people.

          For instance, if we were to increase federal fuel taxes by 10 cents per month over a 5 year period (for a total of $6.00), and rebate all of the revenues by reducing Social Security withholding taxes; and increase the CAFE MPG requirements sharply; it would be almost painless for most drivers but we’d reduce our trade deficit, reduce pollution, reduce the risk of war, and make almost everyone wealthier and safer.

          There would, of course, be a minority that would be hurt. Rural poor with no reportable income and retirees would require fine-tuning the rebate system. Oil producers, truckers, car makers might need a few transitional subsidies, but we could help people like that, and it would be a heck of a lot less expensive than invading Iraq.

          1. Yes. But if you are really worried bout the rural poor, subsidize them directly.

          2. “it would be almost painless for most drivers ”
            Sorry, but can’t agree with you on this.
            The tens of millions of working poor have no spare dollars for higher fuel costs (increased $1.20 cents/gallon in just the first year under this plan). For many, this is a very heavy tax increase.
            Keep it in mind.
            This is most of the people in the country.

            1. It’s discussed here in the newspapers, too.

              There is only one possibility to avoid rebellion:
              Tax it as high as you want – and distribute all of it even to all people.

              So poor people will get even an income increase from it, even when gas gets more expensive – since they don’t fly much and have smaller homes, paying less CO2 tax than richer people.

              After some time when higher income people buy more electric cars, there will a bigger market of used electric cars poorer people can buy.

              Transport will get more expensive first (until it changes), but even here rich people buy more stuff, so it will be a surplus for low income people.

              As time goes by, this amount will decrease. The tax can be increased per ton over time.

            2. Don’t forget the rebate (aka dividend).

              Gasoline consumption in the US is about $140B gallons per year, and there are about 140M taxpayers. So, taxpayers use about 1,00 gallons per year.

              When the tax is $1.20, the total revenue per person would be about $1,200, and each person would get that back as a rebate.

              So, you might ask, what’s the point if everyone just gets their taxes back? Well, each person would have a big incentive to reduce their fuel consumption. After all, they could reduce their fuel consumption without reducing their rebate, so that would be the smart thing to do: they could trade in their 10MPG pickup for a 55MPG hybrid, and reduce both their fuel cost and carbon tax by 80%. If fuel is $2.50 per gallon they’d save $3,000 and they’d still get the $1,000 rebate.

              They’d be $3,000 ahead!

            3. I agree with you Hickory. 4 or 5 bucks over 10 years with 2/3 of the tax back loaded to the second half of the 10 years. Time to prepare for consumers and manufacturers.

              Also end the manufacturing of light weight ICE in 2030.

            4. Time to prepare for consumers and manufacturers.

              Well, talk to Chilyb: I suspect he’d go for the 5 year option.

              Seriously, if we want to help poor folks, we should implement this kind of plan just as soon as possible, because (as Eulenspiegel pointed out quite nicely) this plan is somewhat progressive (aka redistributive): the average poor person would have more money than before, even before they did anything to reduce their fuel consumption.

              And there are lots of things that folks can do quickly to reduce fuel consumption: on average people change vehicles about every four years, so people can switch to cheaper vehicles pretty quickly. They can car pool.

              Did you know that carpooling is bigger than mass transit in the US? carpooling is incredibly cheap, it’s easy with smartphone apps (poor people have caught up with smartphones), and you can do start doing it literally overnight.

            5. Carpooling and mass transit

              No thank you, not necessary. We can do better. Not that I’m against it.

              My nearest interstate is currently being increased from 5 lanes to 7. Won’t be finished until 2023.

              I don’t commute, except 2 miles to the gym

            6. Carpooling and mass transit
              Depends-
              In San Francisco having a car is a liability for a large segment of the population. West LA or New York also (My wife, from New York, didn’t have a drivers license until her 40’s, but got one after moving behind the Orange Curtain in CA.)
              I’m living in Central Oregon and drive frequently, but chuckle at the F150’s, which are compacts for the local population. I drive a Yaris.

            7. The Orange Curtain

              I haven’t heard that in a long time. Was never really sure what it means. But believed it meant white flight out of LA suburbs in the 60’s and 70’s to Orange county.

            8. OC has changed. It was a place for cave guys to practice politics for quite a while.
              I remember when Dana Point had 400 people in residence. Lived in Laguna for quite a while. Kinda of “Tap City” for me, as income was easy to come by. Never very deep thinking, and I needed to escape frequently. I can stay 3 day max currently, and need to get out. My sister lives in Newport.

            9. “Carpooling and mass transit
              No thank you, not necessary. We can do better.” ~ HB

              So, HB, you would have it that we must stop CO2 burn and therefore embrace EV’s, but not need more mass transit, car pooling and public transport buses? You would have it that personal EVs are sufficient to solve all the CO2 burn problems, but more buses are not necessary, primarily because it’s too much unpleasantness for you to bear riding one? “We can do better”? You have some embarrassing incongruencies in your ‘save the planet’ arguments.
              It seems to me that if one values reducing CO2 production by humans, then buses and mass transit will likely be a best practice.
              You seem to me to be a bit out of touch HB; a BAU EV shill at best, not a serious, or otherwise, analyst of future trends; just here to predict a future that best suits your preferences.

              Our Sense of Entitlement Could Be the Biggest Barrier To Solving Climate Change

              https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/carl-duivenvoorden/-climate-change_b_7110062.html

              No extra buses for HB in the future please, they’re not to HB’s preferences and liking, and therefore, there won’t be any need for any of those!

              One thing I notice about the cornucopian gang, and that I’m pointing out here by giving HB a spicy take, is that their predictions of the future are aligned with their preferences for the future. Quite a methodology they have. It seems to me that perhaps the cornucopian gang here makes insufficient effort to understand the world and all it’s complexity, and how things may play out in the future amongst all alive; they’re just here to express their wishes for the future, and call that their predictions. Anybody buying it?

            10. Nothing says more about your concern of the future than your screen name

              Mass transit isn’t a vialible means of getting around the LA basin. The buses I see are 90% empty. Most carpoolers are long distance commuters. The LA smog filled basin is a first class environment for EV’s with millions of roofs ready for panels. It would only make the location more enjoyable, valuable and expensive. The kind of place you could visit on vacation.

              This is Tesla country

            11. I’ll keep my own personal vehicle (F-150 Supercrew) until I’m dead and buried thank you very much. Thanks to it I have the Freedom to come and go as I need…not when it fits somebody else’s schedule. Plus it’s extremely convenient not to worry about getting shot or knifed by any of the types you see on shared public transport in big urban areas.

            12. Personal freedom is great – that’s what electric cars and pickups are for.

              Have you ever tried Uber or Lyft? They’re incredibly convenient, and they show what you can do with shared transportation with smart phones.

              A lot of the sketchy people (homeless, and so on) you see in urban areas are veterans, who haven’t recovered from PTSD they got in wars fighting to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East.

              If we want to honor our freedom warriors, if we want to be truly patriotic, we’ll find ways to use much less oil. Electric cars and pickups are another, better way to use our domestic energy, so that the US can be energy independent.

            13. If your afraid of the public because of the current gun policy of the state’s. You can always shop at Amazon and you won’t have to deal with Wal-Mart mass shootings. Not to mention it’s delivered to your front door for convenience. The internet can deliver your favorite movie to your home to avoid risk. An if you have a total fear of society Tony, there are blow up dolls for you and your needs.

              I would include F150’s as light weight ICE

            14. We don’t have Uber or Lyft where I live. Participating in society and having a job means you need to have your own transportation.

            15. I’m in the same boat as you TonyMax. I’ll give up my seat on the bus to Nick, etc.

              I rarely need a pickup these days.
              I do occasionally haul things like gravel, lumber, big plants, and stuff, but not so often that owning my own truck is necessary. I don’t prefer a pickup when traveling/camping. Inside secure space is much better with a SUV or van.
              It is interesting how many (vast majority?) people with trucks only really need them on a handful of days. The rare event controls the decision for the whole year.
              I’d just a s soon rent on on the occasions where I need it- let someone else deal with the depreciation, while I ride around in something better on most days.

              Speaking of that, I yield most of my gas to you Tony. I still use a little, but electricity turns out to be a cheaper way to get around. And I cherish my time not spent at the gas station, or auto maintenance joint. I rarely go anymore.

            17. I lived on 20 acres in Sonoma without a pickup, but had a large van. Horses, llamas, donkeys, chickens, grapes, plums, olives, etc.
              Mostly drove a Yaris and Honda.
              Not that I didn’t borrow a friends truck occasionally.

            18. Tony

              I always find it funny how worried rural folks are about all those evil people in the big city.

              Big trucks will cost a lot in fuel cost after peak oil arrives in 2025. You will need to keep your truck because nobody will want it.

            19. Hightrekker,
              I was just out between Sebastopol and Occidental yesterday. Nice fall day.

            20. Hickory–
              I miss Sonoma. I moved to Oregon from Mexico (PV), but was in Sonoma for a long time before that.
              My wife wants to move back to Maui.
              So it look like another move.

    1. Daddy Doug, what did you do ? Laugh at those who cared for a better future for others.

  7. Speaking of Australia (welcome to the future).

    AUSTRALIA BUSHFIRES: RECORD NUMBER OF EMERGENCIES IN NEW SOUTH WALES

    Australian authorities say an “unprecedented” number of emergency-level bushfires are threatening the state of New South Wales (NSW). More than 90 blazes were raging across the state on Friday. Gusty winds and up to 35C heat have exacerbated the fires, many of which are in drought-affected areas.

    “We are in uncharted territory,” said Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons. “We have never seen this many fires concurrently at emergency warning level.” At one point, 17 emergency-level fires were burning simultaneously across NSW. Authorities said they were concerned about the severity of the fires ahead of its hottest months, a year after the nation experienced its warmest summer on record.

    “Even if global temperatures are contained to a 2C rise above pre-industrial levels – a limit set out in the landmark Paris accord, agreed by 188 nations in 2015 – scientists believe the country is facing a dangerous new normal. LAST YEAR, A UN REPORT SAID AUSTRALIA WAS FALLING SHORT IN EFFORTS TO CUT ITS CO2 EMISSIONS.”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50341207

    1. Meanwhile,

      “When it comes to global fossil fuel dealers, Australia is a kingpin. It is the world’s largest coal exporter, having captured a larger share of the global seaborne coal market than Saudi Arabia has of the global oil market. Australia is the largest liquefied natural gas exporter, too. From 2000 to 2015, Australian coal exports more than doubled and LNG exports tripled, and since then LNG exports have nearly tripled again. When you tally the greenhouse gases from the fossil fuels exported by each country, Australia’s coal and gas exports total over 1.1bn tonnes of carbon dioxide.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2019/sep/24/australia-has-dodged-global-attention-on-fossil-fuels-because-of-assiduous-diplomatic-efforts

      1. Australia is also a kind of kingpin when it comes to exporting online trolls and crackpots. In many of the climate science forums the significant number of Aussie deniers participating is puzzling until you realize that Oz holds the keys to the kingdom in the amount of coal they can export to Asia. So they export the FUD.

        You wonder how many are fleeing from their homes now.

        1. “You wonder how many are fleeing from their homes now.”

          A lot (if the BBC can be believed),

          “Thousands forced to leave their homes, while bridges, schools and power lines destroyed.”

          https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50357103

          As I recall, southeastern Australia bushfires are supposed to be most common (and most severe) during summer and autumn which would be Dec.–March).

      2. Despite the fall in iron ore prices and the correspondent drop in export revenue, iron ore remains Australia’s largest export, followed by coal. These two commodities alone represent over a quarter of all export earnings. Primary products still represent the majority of Australia’s top exports, with beef and wheat the largest agricultural sources of export earnings, and oil and gas, gold and other metals representing the other top goods exports. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/AustraliaTrade

        That means that Australia provides the raw materials, while other countries have the more advanced sectors of the economy: high tech manufacturing, etc.

        High levels of “primary” exports make it harder for other more advanced exporters in Australia to prosper – a form of “dutch disease”.

        So, fossil fuels are helping keep Australians as second class citizens.

        1. “So, fossil fuels are helping keep Australians as second class citizens.”

          Yet another of your ignorant, ill-informed comments. What planet do you come from Nick? Maybe you should come out of your bubble and travel a bit. You might learn something — but I doubt it.

          “A wealthy country, Australia has a market economy, a high GDP per capita, and a relatively low rate of poverty. In terms of average wealth, Australia ranked second in the world after Switzerland from 2013 until 2018. In 2018, Australia overtook Switzerland and became the country with the highest average wealth. Australia’s poverty rate increased from 10.2% to 11.8%, from 2000/01 to 2013. It was identified by the Credit Suisse Research Institute as the nation with the highest median wealth in the world and the second-highest average wealth per adult in 2013.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia#Economy

          1. Yes, I chose the wrong words there. My point: Australia is overly reliant on “primary” exports. The rest of the economy would be better off if they exported less fossil fuel, and other basic commodities. Venezuela is a much more extreme case, but it’s illustrative: it thought it was wealthy, too, until it wasn’t. Manufacturing is the primary victim – for instance, 15 years ago Australia had several car makers, now it has none.

            I pointed out a drawback for Australia in it’s dependence on fossil exports (and other primary resources), and you got quite angry. And, you get angry when people point out some corners of the world where alternatives to fossils are getting a start. It’s puzzling.

            So…do you agree that fossils need to go? Is it that you hate fossils, but you’re lost all hope of anybody doing anything, so you get angry when someone suggests that there’s hope because any kind of hope seems unrealistic?

            1. I find Doug’s comments quite informative and interesting, not emotionally charged at all.
              Not sure what hate and anger has to do with anything Doug has had to say (just because someone thinks you’re ignorant & ill-informed, and perhaps a bit of a buffoon, it doesn’t mean that they’re hate filled & angry with you).
              Are you, Nick, as good at inferring the emotional states of others from written text, as you are at accurately foreseeing the future of humanity?
              Weak tea, as usual.

            2. I’m referring to words that are critical of the other person, as opposed to comments which are about the ideas being discussed.

              And, there was no reference to hate, and no suggestion that anger is an immoral feeling.

              I think any reasonable person would say that Doug has strong feelings about this stuff. As do you, and so do I.

              I’m angry that my country is fighting oil wars, killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of people, and spending trillions of dollars. I’m angry that a small group of wealthy fossil fuel investors is crippling our democracy in order to preserve their profits. I’d like to see us kick the FF/oil addiction ASAP.

              So, I’m asking Doug – what motivates you? What would you like to see us do??

            3. Nick, you have my respect for not replying back in kind of the personal attacks. It’s a hole that is easy to get sucked into.

              Society increased wealth doesn’t come from selling it’s natural resource assets at the highest price, but from a society that develops natural resources to viable products. I understood your comment.

            4. Thanks.

              Yes, Australia would be better off to rely primarily on it’s integrated supply chain for domestic manufacturing (which exports much of its products), rather than being a raw material supplier to manufacturers in Asia.

              And, of course, Asia may surprise it’s raw materials suppliers: it would very much like to do “import substitution”, where domestic supplies of renewable energy eliminate imports of fossil fuel, especially coal (whose pollution IIRC kills a million Chinese a year).

            5. “I’m referring to words that are critical of the other person, as opposed to comments which are about the ideas being discussed.” ~ Nick

              If by ideas you mean your naive cornucopian fantasies; yeah, they seem kinda unrealistic predictions of the future. I’m pretty sure the future you foresee is not at all probable. But hey, it’s hard for most folks to admit they’re gonna die in a famine, so they cling to all kinds of magic.

            6. I was born into a cornucopia fantasy along with 170 million other Americans with the only a guarantee that I would die. For over 63 years that fantasy has only advanced with unbelievable technology that couldn’t be comprehended by anyone in the 1950’s. If you live in fear and don’t live your life to it’s fullest, like it could be your last day. You are a loser.

    1. https://qz.com/1737145/the-economics-of-driving-seven-teslas-for-2-5-million-miles/

      It’s very likely that electric cars will be cheaper than conventional cars to own and operate for business purposes pretty soon, especially in fleet applications other than rentals.

      And there’s no reason at all that a rental location can’t have some electric cars in it’s mix, because lots of people rent cars on a daily , weekly or even monthly basis while using them only for local trips, so that charging won’t be a problem for these customers.

      I’m thinking that within a few years, just about all mid to upscale hotels will have parking spots reserved for guests with electric cars, so going electric would actually save business travelers some time, as well as some money.

      1. I parked at a hardware store on Friday.
        Found a Fuel Cell car parked in the next spot over.

  9. A quick down and dirty search indicates that the Aussie mining industries pay maybe five hundred bucks or so in tax money , per person, for the entire country.

    That’s not much, considering how much the industry takes in.

    1. LOL Meanwhile, closer to home, the United States has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in recent years than it has on defense spending (this according to a new report from the International Monetary Fund).

    1. Survivalist, from your post:

      “To try and avoid a global calamity, abrupt reduction in carbon emissions is essential, but since the high level of CO₂-equivalent is activating amplifying feedbacks from land and ocean, global attempts to down-draw about of 50 to 100 ppm of CO₂ from the atmosphere, using every effective negative emissions, is essential. Such efforts would include streaming air through basalt and serpentine, biochar cultivation, sea weed sequestration, reforestation, sodium hydroxide pipe systems and other methods. But while $trillions continue to be poured into preparation of future wars, currently no government is involved in any serious attempt at the defense of life on Earth.”

      1. And (from NY Times),

        HOW SCIENTISTS GOT CLIMATE CHANGE SO WRONG

        “For decades, most scientists saw climate change as a distant prospect. We now know that thinking was wrong. This summer, for instance, a heat wave in Europe penetrated the Arctic, pushing temperatures into the 80s across much of the Far North and, according to the Belgian climate scientist Xavier Fettweis, melting some 40 billion tons of Greenland’s ice sheet.

        Had a scientist in the early 1990s suggested that within 25 years a single heat wave would measurably raise sea levels, at an estimated two one-hundredths of an inch, bake the Arctic and produce Sahara-like temperatures in Paris and Berlin, the prediction would have been dismissed as alarmist. But many worst-case scenarios from that time are now realities.

        The climate change panel seems finally to have caught up with the gravity of the climate crisis. Last year, the organization detailed the extraordinary difficulty of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, over the next 80 years, and the grim consequences that will result even if that goal is met.

        More likely, a separate United Nations report concluded, we are headed for warming of at least 5.4 F. That will come with almost unimaginable damage to economies and ecosystems. Unfortunately, this dose of reality arrives more than 30 years after human-caused climate change became a mainstream issue.”

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/sunday/science-climate-change.html

      2. We can’t cure the climate. We could only lessen the causes that exacerbate it, but even if we could afford to completely eliminate the net CO2 generation attributable to human activity, climate change would continue in perpetuity anyway.

        1. Hey Robert. Do you think like that in your personal life?
          Like- ‘I’m going to die anyway, so why in the hell would I ever go to a doctor or a dentist?’
          Or- ‘why should I save any money, I’m going to spend it anyway?’

          1. There is an old Chinese story about a lazy guy walking down a muddy road. He falls down in the mud. He stays there a while, then sighs and gets up again. He walks a little farther, but in a few minutes he trips and falls again. He says, “If I had known I was just going to fall down again, I wouldn’t have gotten up the first time”.

    2. How can the measurements be so accurate even down to single years from a time when there wasn’t even humans on the planet to make observations/guesses?

  11. islandboy, an article written with you in mind, perhaps? ?

    AUSTRALIA’S CLIMATE RESPONSE AMONG THE WORST IN THE G20

    Australia’s response to climate change is one of the worst in the G20 with a lack of policy, reliance on fossil fuels and rising emissions leaving the country exposed “economically, politically and environmentally.” Australia’s progress meeting its already “unambitious” Paris climate targets was third worst, fossil fuel energy was on the rise and policies to tackle high transport emissions and deforestation were also among the worst across the G20 countries.

    The chief executive of Climate Analytics, Bill Hare, an Australian co-author of the report, told Guardian Australia: “Australia is behind [on] climate action in nearly every dimension. Australia’s emissions are increasing and there’s virtually no policy in place to reduce them.”

    BTW This report also said: “Only South Korea and Canada were further away than Australia from meeting the pledges that formed their Paris climate commitments. “Australia has one of the best solar energy potential and wind potential in general of any of the G20 countries,” he said. “Australia is not transforming its energy system and is focused on building coal and gas, and has not paid any attention to the need to transition to a zero-carbon economy.””

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/11/australia-climate-response-among-worst-g20

    1. Have I not pointed out that there is a disconnect between Australian Federal Government policies on climate and and energy, when compared to what the general Australian seems to want? When the amount of homes that have installed solar PV on their rooftops in Australia increases by just one in six, Australia will have more than 50% of households with their own PV system. Based on current installation rates and the apparent appetite that Australians have for household PV systems, I suspect that this is just a couple of years away (that exponential growth thingy). One reason for the continued strong growth of renewables in Australia is that state government policies are at odds with the federal government. If you’ve never been over to reneweconomy.com.au , you should pop over there some time to better understand where I get some of my crazy ideas from! 😉

      What I am curious about is the buyers of Australian (and US) coal and natural gas. How long before they start to question their investments in FF burning technology, having noticed that the people who supply the said FF are cutting back on their consumption big time? Their questions will be even more pertinent considering that Australia and the US are free market economies and the costs of renewables have fallen to the point where they essentially no longer require subsidies to be competitive with coal and gas.

      In just under 50 days (49) it will be the end of 2019 and we will be entering the third decade of the twenty first century. In the most recent ten year period, the contribution to electricity generation in the US from solar (PV) energy grew by a factor of 80 (from 0.02% in 2008 to 1.59% in 2018). Over the same period electricity from wind grew roughly five times (from 1.34% in 2008 to 6.58% in 2018). What do you think the contributions from wind and solar will look like in 2030? Bear in mid that wind and solar are the lowest cost sources of electricity from this point forward.

      My gut tells me that FF are going to get slaughtered by sometime around the middle of the next decade.

      1. “My gut tells me that FF are going to get slaughtered by sometime around the middle of the next decade.”

        Seems a bit quick.
        It’s taken more than a decade for Tesla to get where it is. It’s influence, along with the Chinese EV market, may be increasingly more serious, but the numbers are still puny.

        I could see EV’s impacting fossil fuel demand in the ten to twenty year range. Of course, one big oil shock like in the 70’s, and all bets are off. Nothing will promote EV adoption quite like waiting in line for petrol.

        I could also see Tesla introducing EV to home backup power features due to the grid reliability problems of PG&E, and this could also drive adoption, and not just in that market.

        P.S. IslandBoy, I enjoy your posts.

        1. Thanks. Maybe I should have said, “My gut tells me that FF are going to get slaughtered by starting sometime around the middle of the next decade.” That and I was specifically addressing electricity generation. I wasn’t thinking about transportation fuels. That’s a whole other debate!

      2. “My gut tells me that FF are going to get slaughtered by sometime around the middle of the next decade.”

        Your gut may be right; let’s hope so — for everyone’s sake!

        1. Right on cue!

          Falinski’s litany of lies on climate and energy shows Coalition denial runs deep

          The depth of denial within Australia’s Coalition government now runs so deep they are in a state of denial about the act of denying. Apparently, there is not a climate denier amongst them, if you believe Jason Falinski, the Liberal member for Mackellar on Sydney’s northern beaches.

          But this most brazen of lies, delivered by Falinski on Monday nights ABC’s Q&A program, shouldn’t disguise the fact that he delivered false claims repeatedly during the program about climate and energy.

          And it highlights just how deep the denial of science and technology runs in the federal Coalition government.

          Q&A usually invites viewers to let them know if they have heard some dubious claims. This is too long for an email or text message, so here goes:

          The most brazen lie of course was to claim that ex-prime minister Tony Abbott, the former MP for Falinski’s neighbouring electorate of Warringah, had not denied climate change:

      3. You can tell when a market is changing when niches start falling. In the car business, it’s performance luxury cars that are getting killed. For example BMW and Audi are getting hammered by Tesla.

  12. If there is any veterans in the crowd here. Happy Veterans Day. For it is because of your service that we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. ???️

    1. “land of the free”…
      Yes, especially those who fought to end slavery.

        1. Yeah, and you’ve got to be really brave to invade Grenada, especially if all you’ve got is the biggest military on the planet! /sarc.

          1. Yeah, Reagan thought he could do what he wanted in Lebanon too. But the Navy pissed off the Druze by randomly shelling Druze villages with the offshore fleet, until someone was pissed off enough to blow up a Marine barracks on shore. So Reagan cut ‘n’ run.

            2. Yea, and invaded Grenada.
              The US had an opponent it could conquer.
              Took the media away from Lebanon.

  13. Headline-
    “Bolivia’s Morales Granted Asylum in Mexico, Minister Says ”

    Which begs the question- where will Trump get asylum?
    No not Ukraine, more likely with his man crush Vladimir P. in
    Russia.

    1. “Which begs the question- where will Trump get asylum?”
      Russia will buy Trump Tower for $1, and make it their embassy. Trump will live in his own apartment.

  14. About rural people and their pickup trucks…..

    Lots of older rural people who don’t really need them anymore still buy them as a matter of habit and preference. I prefer to drive one myself, because I like the way you get in and out and the higher seat and better view and ample room in a full size pickup.

    But there’s a LOT of wisdom in the saying ” Never a borrower or lender be”, lol.

    I used to borrow some tools worth a thousand, and then the owners of those tools, tools of the sort that simply do not wear out quickly or easily, started feeling entitled to borrow things that cost twenty times as much, such as my backhoe. ONE tire for it costs a thousand bucks, lol, and even a very minor breakdown runs into the hundreds as a rule.

    If you need a pickup only a half a day once a month, it’s probably just as cheap to own it as a car with similar features in the way of creature comfort, etc. as it would be to rent one that one day per month, and maybe cheaper.

    And people who are short of money, meaning most of us these days, out in the boonies, haul stuff more than once a month, stuff ranging from trash to building materials to used appliances and furniture and firewood, for ourselves or friends and family.

    Add to the cash expense of renting a truck by the day the time and expense of getting to the rental store to pick it up, and take it back, and you can actually OWN an old truck in the boonies for what it costs to rent one just one Saturday a month and one week year, ONCE it’s paid for.

    AND having that truck sitting there the twenty eight days you don’t need to haul something means you have transportation in the event your OLD car lets you down. It’s WAY cheaper, all the way around, to own a truck and a car, than to own two cars, if you need two cars only a day a week or a day or two a month. The truck will serve as the second vehicle just fine, so long as you don’t put a LOT of miles on it commuting in it, and even then… gasoline is not often the biggest single expense involved in commuting.

    If you are knowledgeable, or have a friend who IS, you can own two older vehicles for MUCH less than the depreciation, taxes, and interest costs of owning one new one, and then there’s the OPPORTUNITY COSTS of that money just sitting there, twenty two or twenty three hours a day, melting away like snow in the rain, until it’s mostly GONE, lol.

    The days when a rural couple has three or four kids is history. One or two kids can be properly belted in if you own a full size pickup.

    1. Here in Germany farmers have normal cars with a towing hitch. And their traktor and other big machines ( specialized ones are most time loan services like huge harvesters ).

      When driving to town, they use the car. When transporint normal stuff a trailer after the car – and otherwise they tow a cheap big simple wagon with the tractor when they have to transports things in the ton-class.

      That’s the tradition here. In the 70s the car was “always” a Mercedes Diesel they could drive with their discounted Diesel.

      The last years pickup trucks have arrived, too. It’s more kind of fashion, because I have never seen someone transporting stuff with it. But most times smaller ones, only a few F150 or bigger.

  15. About rural people and their pickup trucks…..

    Lots of older rural people who don’t really need them anymore still buy them as a matter of habit and preference. I prefer to drive one myself, because I like the way you get in and out and the higher seat and better view and ample room in a full size pickup.

    But there’s a LOT of wisdom in the saying ” Never a borrower or lender be”, lol.

    I used to borrow some tools worth a thousand, and then the owners of those tools, tools of the sort that simply do not wear out quickly or easily, started feeling entitled to borrow things that cost twenty times as much, such as my backhoe. ONE tire for it costs a thousand bucks, lol, and even a very minor breakdown runs into the hundreds as a rule.

    If you need a pickup only a half a day once a month, it’s probably just as cheap to own it as a car with similar features in the way of creature comfort, etc. as it would be to rent one that one day per month, and maybe cheaper.

    And people who are short of money, meaning most of us these days, out in the boonies, haul stuff more than once a month, stuff ranging from trash to building materials to used appliances and furniture and firewood, for ourselves or friends and family.

    Add to the cash expense of renting a truck by the day the time and expense of getting to the rental store to pick it up, and take it back, and you can actually OWN an old truck in the boonies for what it costs to rent one just one Saturday a month and one week year, ONCE it’s paid for.

    AND having that truck sitting there the twenty eight days you don’t need to haul something means you have transportation in the event your OLD car lets you down. It’s WAY cheaper, all the way around, to own a truck and a car, than to own two cars, if you need two cars only a day a week or a day or two a month. The truck will serve as the second vehicle just fine, so long as you don’t put a LOT of miles on it commuting in it, and even then… gasoline is not often the biggest single expense involved in commuting.

    If you are knowledgeable, or have a friend who IS, you can own two older vehicles for MUCH less than the depreciation, taxes, and interest costs of owning one new one, and then there’s the OPPORTUNITY COSTS of that money just sitting there, twenty two or twenty three hours a day, melting away like snow in the rain, until it’s mostly GONE, lol.

    The day when a rural couple had three or four,or seven, kids is history. One or two kids can be properly belted in if you own a full size pickup.

    1. OFM,

      The other poster gave the impression he would only drive an F350, seems a waste to me, if I need a pickup I borrow one, just fill it up before I return it. I agree on holding onto a vehicle for a while, I typically keep my cars for 10 years at least. Would probably save some cash by buying used, but the trouble free early miles and knowing the maintenance history for the life of the car is worth it to me.

    2. Back in the 70s Americans drove decently sized Toyota pickup trucks. The things they drive now a joke.

      1. Hey, I had a new 1974 Toyota HiLux pick up and also a base model 2005 GMC Canyon. Just simple night and day, hands down GMC. “Decently sized”, hardly. Comfort zero.

        Or are you referring to the size of today’s half ton pickups? Because in general, their not that over sized consititoring the utility. The mileage much improved with today’s half ton getting as good or better than a 74 HiLux. They just need to be made EV carbon free.

  16. The big cold snap is going to bring out the trolls in droves, lol.

    Somebody please post some links showing that it’s undoubtedly record warm in some other places, lol.
    My internet is coming and going, due to the storm, and I might be off line until the wind lets up and my utility gets some trees off the power lines. The lights are blinking every hard puff.

    Incidentally, although he is right about ninety nine percent of the time, Ron is wrong about there being a lot of real trolls out there.

    Anybody who hangs out on news and nature websites or liberal political websites, knows that there are LOTS of trolls….. dozens, hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of them.

    Most of them are aligned with the right wing establishment in American political terms.

    2. OFM,

      Go to the site climatereanalyzer.org when you can. Along the upper left side of the globe are 2m temp and 2m temp anomaly.

      You can rotate the globe with the cursor.

  17. What more proof do you need that the gods are not only malign, but have a dark sense of humour than the image below.

    Cold anomalies correlate directly with climate change denier populations.

    😉

    2. Cold spell in Trumpistan. Prepare for ‘it’s cold in Kansas’ Shitposting.

      1. I thought there would be no more cold spells, or records.
        I want a refund.
        Anyone want to buy some Al Gore cuff-links, cheap?

  18. In the meantime, Australia is on fire-
    Officials have confirmed that 2018 and 2017 were Australia’s third and fourth-hottest years on record respectively, and last year the nation experienced its warmest summer on record.

  19. Negative pricing events hit record levels as solar takes big bite out of coal

    Negative pricing events hit record levels in Queensland and South Australia in the September quarter, leading to a big drop in overall prices in those states and as rooftop solar continued to take a big bite out of the share of coal fired generation.

    In its latest Quarterly Energy Dynamics report, the Australian Energy Market Operator says that South Australia experienced negative prices for a record 8.4 per cent of the time in the three months to the end of September. Queensland experienced negative prices 4.5 per cent of the time, compared to 0.1 per cent in the same period a year earlier.

    The negative pricing events mark the changing shape of the Australian grid, which saw a number of new benchmarks during the quarter, including record outputs of wind and solar, and record low outputs of brown and black coal generation.

    The negative spot prices lowered the average wholeasle prices of electricity in South Australia by $8.22/MWh, and by $2.74 in Queensland. The negative pricing events have continued into October and November, and South Australia has recorded the lowest prices in the main grid in that time.

    Negative spot prices are not new – they used to happen regularly when in the past because coal generators could not switch off at night – but the number has increased dramatically with the growing share of wind and solar and the number of “network constraints”.

    Renewables growth will need to double to meet 2°C climate goal

    The global renewable energy industry has overcome the growing pains faced by emerging industries, and has emerged, de-risked sector that will achieve steady growth in coming decades, an assessment by analysts S&P Global Ratings has found.

    In a new analyst report published by S&P Global on emerging trends and risks within the global energy transition, the global market analysis firm has predicted a positive future for the renewables sector, driven by falling costs and enabled by emerging energy storage technologies, and that investment of more than $10 trillion will be needed through to 2040 in clean energy, to meet a 2 degrees warming limit.

    According to S&P Global Ratings, over the last two decades, the renewable energy sector has successfully achieved successful de-risking of large-scale solar and wind projects and is expected to grow at an average annualised rate of 7 per cent each year through to 2040.

  20. Some people might find the following video interesting, comparing thermal images of an EV versus an ICE powered vehicle:

    EV vs ICE vehicles: how much energy is wasted? FLIR T1K thermal camera at FC Live | Fully Charged

    Sort of reinforces the fact that ICE are less than 30% efficient. A lot of waste heat generated!

    There’s also a new Tony Seba video up. The latest half hour “Clean Disruption” presentation given at an event in NYC on October 29, 2019.

    Tony Seba #CleanDisruption @ Robin Hood Investors Conference 2019 #RHIC2019

    Nothing particularly new but, at about the 22 minute mark he goes into some of the implications of the adoption of Transport as a Service in the US. Things like car sales plunging but, a $2 trillion a year boost to the US economy from savings on transportation costs and improved productivity from not having to drive.

    1. its been interesting to watch US and Global hybrid+plug in sales miss YOY for the past few months. its certainly a proxy for the global market slowdown and nothing to do with drop in true demand. but this is the way of peak oil – dwindling options and functionality as net energy to the society dwindles. and the ultra rich are more interested in whatever crap this is:

      https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/03/consumers-cant-get-enough-bentley-lamborghini-and-rolls-royce-suvs.html

  21. islandboy, I know you prefer to think via “gut instinct” but there are alternative views out there.

    WORLD THIRST FOR OIL KEEPS GROWING, WITH SUVS A KEY CULPRIT

    “The world’s thirst for oil will continue to grow until the 2030s, with climate-damaging emissions climbing until at least 2040 — and consumers’ insatiable appetite for SUVs is a big reason why. Mounting demand for plastic is another factor. So is increasing plane travel. And, the upcoming population boom in cities across Africa and Asia. All this is according to an important global industry forecast released Wednesday by the IEA that is used as guidance by oil companies and governments.

    Growing demand for SUVs in the U.S, China, Europe and elsewhere could negate all the environmental benefits of the increased use of electric cars. Because of their size, SUVs are harder to electrify than smaller vehicles. SUVs “were the second biggest reason for global emissions growth in last 10 years, after the power sector and more than all the industrial sectors put together.”

    The IEA also said that, “almost 20% of the growth in last year’s global energy use was “due to hotter summers pushing up demand for cooling and cold snaps leading to higher heating needs.”

    https://phys.org/news/2019-11-world-thirst-oil-suvs-key.html

    1. In a strange stroke of serendipity, here’s a very recent (less than a day old) twitter thread about your source of “alternative views”:

      https://twitter.com/AdamScottEnv/status/1194645893598924803

      Most of the posts in the thread that I’m looking at are by Auke Hoekstra, the guy who put together the graphic below and has it as a pinned tweet at the top of his twitter page. Here is the post that is showing as the top post of the linked thread for me:

      AukeHoekstra
      @AukeHoekstra

      For 42 years, the @IEA scenarios have been used as predictions. Seen from that perspective they have been phenomenally succesful in underplaying the role of renewables and bolstering investments in fossil fuels.

      That’s bad!
      /start rant

      For some of us, the IEA scenarios ain’t worth a bucket of warm piss! (spit if you’re in polite company). One could tie a paintbrush to a very frisky puppy and let it loose on a canvas to produce equally useful graphs.

      Incidentally, if you aren’t aware of all the electric pick ups and SUVs that are coming down the pike, despite the fact that “because of their size, SUVs are harder to electrify than smaller vehicle.”, I invite you to take a look at some of the stories on the following web page:

      https://insideevs.com/

      Telsa is unveiling their pick-up truck in eight days (next wee Thursday, Nov. 21).

      Then there’s this story that was brought up by someone here just above:

      Lordstown Motors buys idled GM plant for electric pickup truck

      There’s also this:

      IRENA predicts LCOE of solar will drop to $0.01-0.05 by mid century

      So, maybe I’m reading too much at sites like insideevs, pv-magazine and reneweconomy.com.au but, the folks at the EIA seem to be living on a different planet than the one many of us are seeing!

      1. islandboy,

        The EIA hasn’t been any better. There’s an editorial by Nick Cunningham on that today at Oil Price. It’s under More Editorials.

    2. Hi Doug,

      I’m sure you have forgotten more about the oil industry than I will ever know, in respect to geology and the scientific and technical end of the oil biz, but it’s possible that I spend more time studying the political end of the oil biz than you do.

      My gut feeling is that there’s going to be hell to pay within the next couple of decades, in terms of the supply of oil available on the international market, due to the many ominous political factors in play these days.

      Are you willing to venture an opinion as to how much longer the industry will be able to keep on increasing production, without the price of crude going thru the roof?

      And do you have an opinion you are willing to share in respect to the possibility that oil will be sold, or withheld from the market, for political ends, by countries such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, and maybe even the USA, within the next decade or so?

      1. OFM –

        Yes, I worked as a professional geologist-geophysicist-engineer for about forty years but have been retired for about 15 years now and even when I worked, I stayed as far from the politics of oil as I could. The reasons for this are twofold: 1) I’m a scientist at heart, 2) too often I was asked to hand out bribes and sticking to technical stuff allowed me to avoid this (apparently inevitable) reality of the big bad business world.

        When I have a specific oil question I normally consult with my Norwegian niece (a reservoir engineer who works, mainly, in the Norwegian North Sea. I don’t even look at the oily side of this Blog anymore and I really miss George Kaplan – a kindred spirit! I’m not evading your question(s) just trying to be realistic because almost anything I said would simply be another opinion and we all know what these are worth.

        BTW: My last big job involved assessing reservoirs in China and Siberia for a Texas company. For awhile Russia was the big player here (all the quality reports are in Russian, which I can sort or read). Then, for a long time, the Chinese hated the Russians and wouldn’t have anything to do with them. Now days Russia and China are doing serious oil and gas joint ventures as US/Russian-Chinese relations cool. There’s a bit of politics for you. 😉

        1. Doug, Great that you are here and willing to discuss geophysics.
          There’s another blog called “And Then There’s Physics” which I TRY to comment on, but suffers from overzealous moderation. They tend to marginalize the reality of Peak Oil if mentioned. It’s gotten to the point that the moderators would rather allow comments written by fossil fuel cornucupians than to allow some realism be discussed. They also can’t take any discussion of geophysics, which is strange since an astrophysicist named Ken Rice @theresphysics runs it.

          As an example this comment was deleted

  22. Political Commentary-
    I have come to understand more about the ‘Republican Voter’ by watching their behavior, and have been very surprised.

    For example, they have made it clear by the cast of their vote,
    that it is just fine if a man grabs their womenfolk by their privates,
    as long as he promises them economic favors/benefits.

    And it doesn’t have to be much money.
    I guess that how things go in the red areas.

    1. “favor/benefits” – not hardly. the common-man right has mostly one desire – to see his opponents on the left enraged. cultural signifiers is mostly what they get from trump. a world class troll. but it hasn’t gotten them the cultural respect perhaps they thought might be coming their way. they will never win the cultural war – though they will most likely control everything else.

    1. Very good indeed, yet the same article says-
      “Despite the optimistic-sounding headline finding of today’s study, however, the IEA says the volume of anticipated renewable generation capacity, rather than displacing fossil fuel power, will do little more than keep up with rising demand for electricity.”
      Ouch.

      Other similar news on the wind front-
      Offshore Wind will be a $1T Industry by 2040….
      https://www.utilitydive.com/news/offshore-wind-will-be-a-1t-industry-by-2040-but-our-oceans-and-economy-ne/567157/

      1. I should have added a /sarc tag at the end of my post to indicate sarcasm or incredulity or both, like “yeah, sure, right”. Written communication cannot convey the sort of nuances that can be gleaned from the spoken word.

        Looking at the IEA’s projections for solar, they expect “Just over three terawatts will be installed by 2040”, so let’s look at how one might arrive at that figure. The global cumulative capacity at the end of 2019 is expected to be in the region of 600 GW, up from about 300 GW at the end of 2016, a doubling period of three years. If we assume that the technology is maturing and each successive doubling period will be two years longer than the previous one, the next doubling would be at the end of 2024 with 1200 GW. The next one would be in 2031 with 2400 GW and the next one in 2040 with 4800 GW. I think that the scenario I just outlined is fairly conservative and yet the outcome is 1.8 terawatts above the IEA scenario.

        If they are so wrong on renewables, then IMO none of their projections on emissions can be any good.

      2. The IEA is dominated, in my opinion, by political appointees that make sure any supply and demand predictions published are favorable to the established big players in the energy biz, namely the larger oil, gas, and coal companies, etc.

        Politicians don’t like to upset status quo unnecessarily. That’s VERY bad for the collection plate, lol.

        My personal guess is that the wind and solar industries will continue to grow at a pace that makes the IEA projections look like the deliberate work of fossil fuel industry mouth pieces. This has been the case historically and I don’t see it changing.

  24. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-electric-cars-china-production/

    The idiots who wave flags and chant and scream USA ONE USA ONE simply don’t have a CLUE when it comes to reality in the twenty first century.

    We are no longer the biggest toughest fastest smartest or much of anything else superlative except in military hardware.

    My Daddy’s generation worked right alongside the immigrants, and actually set the pace. I could keep up with them when I was a young man, and MAYBE set the pace.

    I haven’t seen very many young American men in recent years who can stand the pace the immigrants set when they are self employed.

    We don’t seem to have that kind of DETERMINATION, that kind of GRIT, anymore.

    All the young people seem to have watched too much tv, and now they all expect to get rich doing something easy, and if they can’t do that, they would rather work fast food for eight or nine bucks than a beginner’s trade job for the same money that would eventually pay them double or triple what fast food pays.

    I know, this is just another old fart rant, lol.

    1. Indeed.
      A few years ago I was watching immigrants from Latin America (likely undocumented/illegal entry) working in the vegetable fields of Monterey County. Many would take their filled containers and literally run down the row back to the collection tractor to deposit their load. Absolutely motivated, and thankful for the work.
      And many of the best tradesman (masons, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc) in this region are immigrants.
      And its not just physical labor jobs-
      “Immigrants in California founded almost 45 percent of all new businesses started in the state from 2007 to 2011. Immigrant entrepreneurs have long been a critical part of California’s economic success story. Eleven California-based Fortune 500 firms — including eBay, Google, and the semiconductor firm Qualcomm — were all founded or co-founded by immigrants. And another 12 Fortune 500 firms based in the state have at least one founder who was the child of an immigrant, including major employers like The Walt Disney Company, Oracle, and DirecTV. Together these 23 companies employ almost 965,000 people today, and bring in almost $600 billion in revenue …”

    2. I’m not sure it’s true grit. The real problem is that Americans hate the working class. The hate labor unions, and can’t imagine themselves as working in a factory, even as a boss.

      I used to work for Taiwanese companies, and I met a lot of guys who dreamed of opening a factory someday. That culture is practically gone in America, and seems like some kind of weird joke when I mention it.

      Americans want to make a bundle on Wall street, so they buy in to the bullshit bankers say about the economy. You literally can’t find any discussions of American companies on line that don’t include some bullshit about how their stock performed last quarter.

      1. You don’t know America too well- “The real problem is that Americans hate the working class.”

      2. The vast majority of Americans are the working class.

        I really don’t believe they hate themselves.

        Okay, there is a problem… a serious problem. But that is not it!

        2. Ron has NAILED IT AGAIN, as he so often has in the past.

          Anybody who has spent as much time as I have, and who has lived as I have, coming from the backwoods southern religious class, plus moving into the modern, well educated, professional middle class both economically and socially, will almost certainly agree with me when I say that……

          Our current political shit storm culture war is the result of the working class people of this country coming to the conclusion that NEITHER the Democrats NOR the REPUBLICANS really give a shit about them…….

          And that they therefore voted for the SELF DESCRIBED outsider , the HIJACKER of the Republican party, because they were thoroughly pissed off at both establishments, in numbers sufficient for t rump to win the election, via the electoral college loophole.

          The people that put t rump in the WH, in Sky Daddy alone knows how many cases, weren’t voting FOR him, or AGAINST HRC…… they were voting AGAINST BOTH WINGS of the establishment.

          I have never seen any reason to quote that now mostly forgotten old racist George Wallace, except for just one line, paraphrased, that he uttered somewhere along the line.

          “There ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between them. ”

          This is a very long way from the truth, I’m not arguing about that AT ALL. I KNOW it’s a VERY LONG WAY from the truth.

          What I AM arguing is that a ONE HELL OF A LOT OF PEOPLE in this country BELIEVE it’s true.

          1. Have you read the book “Dying of Whiteness”? It’s more about health implications of the white working class voting against their own interests, but it brings up many of the same themes you often come back to in posts like this. Here’s a link to download an EPUB (you’ll need an EPUB reader, like Calibre or Adobe Digital Editions).

          2. My favorite story about voting comes from Ferguson MO. After all the troubles do-gooders from around the country descended on the city to encourage people to vote in the elections. And they succeeded in doubling the turnout for the local elections … to 29%. Poor people don’t vote in America because they don’t consider the lower classes fit to govern.

            There seems to be a sense of hopelessness in the country. Nobody seems willing to want to run the place. Voting for someone crazy every four years is about as close to self government as most people seem to be able to get.

            And yes, there is plenty of self hate in the country. America is strongly oriented towards class society, and towards hating classes that are considered inferior. Sociologists call this social dominance orientation. It’s worth reading the Wikipedia article, it says a lot about America. It is the slave mentality.

            “The Homeless” are the best example of an inferior class. “Billionaires”, on the other hand are worshiped. When someone is run over by a car, the victim is always blamed, because car owners are considered an inherently superior class. The cops don’t even ask questions, and the media reports the old lady “darted out” into traffic, a verb exclusively reserved for victims of bad driving. Christian good, Muslim bad, and so on.

            It is impossible for poor people to believe anyone is interested in helping them, because they naturally assume that they are part of a hated class. It’s just a given. That is why they don’t believe that “the establishment” be it D or R will every help them, and why being a billionaire is considered qualification for president.

            Crazy Kanye West wants to change his name to Christian Billionaire Genius Kanye West and run for president in 2024 (after Trump serves out his term). He knows what America thinks.

            Another sign of this slave mentality is Christianity, the ultimate slave ideology, as Nietzsche put it. (Islam is exactly the same in this respect. Muslim means slave, more or less.) The slave believes there is no hope of improving this life, so he dreams of a magic afterlife. There is no hope if you are born a slave.

            In “Working Class Hero” John Lennon sang, “And you think you’re so clever and classless and free, but your still fucking peasants as far as I can see”. Nailed it.

            1. the more you say on this alim… the more apparent how poorly you understand the culture here in the USA.

              “Poor people don’t vote in America because they don’t consider the lower classes fit to govern. “- Bullshit. That may be a European sentiment, but not one widely held in the USA. Clinton and Obama were not from wealth, and they both were elected with enthusiasm.
              Both raised by single moms of meager means,

              “Voting for someone crazy every four years is about as close to self government…”.- BS Obama was 8 years, and no one has considered him crazy, for example.

              ” America is strongly oriented towards class society, and towards hating classes that are considered inferior.” BS- I have known many wealthy and many poor people, and many in between. I’ve only encountered that attitude a few times. On the other hand, I have heard hatred or disdain for the super-wealthy very often.

              “It is impossible for poor people to believe anyone is interested in helping them, because they naturally assume that they are part of a hated class.” – BS. Pure and simple.

              Your class notions are European. Much less applicable to the USA. Both continents generally score in the lowest ten percent when it comes to performance as participants in democracy.

              Maybe your notions are applicable to republicans voters in the USA I can’t remember when they had a presidential candidate who wasn’t from the wealthy class. Maybe in the 1950’s?

Comments are closed.