Please post all non petroleum comments here. Thanks
110 thoughts to “Open Thread Non Petroleum- Oct. 10, 2016”
TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH LIVESTOCK
“With emissions estimated at 7.1 gigatonnes CO2-eq per annum, representing 14.5 percent
of human-induced GHG emissions, the livestock sector plays an important role in
climate change.
Beef and cattle milk production account for the majority of emissions, respectively
contributing 41 and 20 percent of the sector’s emissions. While pig meat and poultry
meat and eggs contribute respectively 9 percent and 8 percent to the sector’s emissions.
The strong projected growth of this production will result in higher emission shares and
volumes over time.
Feed production and processing, and enteric fermentation from ruminants are the two
main sources of emissions, representing 45 and 39 percent of sector emissions, respectively.
Manure storage and processing represent 10 percent. The remainder is attributable
to the processing and transportation of animal products.
Included in feed production, the expansion of pasture and feed crops into forests accounts
for about 9 percent of the sector’s emissions.
Cutting across categories, the consumption of fossil fuel along the sector supply
chains accounts for about 20 percent of sector emissions.”
One way to cut emissions from livestock is to get protein from insects instead. They are much more efficient converters of plants to protein with a lower ecological footprint as well.
As demand for meat rises, so too does the need for grain and protein feeds. This is because far more plant protein is needed for an equivalent amount of animal protein.
Pimentel and Pimentel (2003) calculated that for 1 kg of high-quality animal protein, livestock are fed about 6 kg of plant protein. Feed-to-meat conversion rates (how much feed is needed to produce a 1 kg increase in weight) vary widely depending on the class of the animal and the production practices used. Typically, 1 kg of live animal weight in a typical United States production system requires the following amount of feed: 2.5 kg
for chicken, 5 kg for pork and 10 kg for beef (Smil, 2002). Insects require far less feed. For example, the production of 1 kg of live animal weight of crickets requires as little as 1.7 kg of feed (Collavo et al., 2005). When these figures are adjusted for edible weight (usually the entire animal cannot be eaten), the advantage of eating insects becomes even greater (van Huis, 2013). Nakagaki and DeFoliart (1991) estimated that up to 80 percent of a cricket is edible and digestible compared with 55 percent for chicken and pigs and
40 percent for cattle. <STRONG<This means that crickets are twice as efficient in converting feed to meat as chicken, at least four times more efficient than pigs, and 12 times more efficient than cattle (see Figure 5.1). This is likely because insects are cold-blooded and do not require feed to maintain body temperature.
Fred, sounds buggy to me. I would let the chickens eat the bugs. Who ever heard anyone say, “Pass me those cricket legs please.”.
Now as far as cattle go, I think that everything in a cow is used. The list is far too long, from ice cream to medicines, to explosives. Footballs, tires, cosmetics, adhesives, buttons, combs, toothbrushes, photographic film. Of course we can’t forget leather. Read on:
So maybe a small sensor and igniter to burn off those cow farts. Keeps the cattle moving and have less fat in the meat. 🙂
Maybe it’s just the modern way not to, but the older people ate a lot of the organ meat too. Waste not want not.
Of course they can always feed the dogs the parts they don’t like.
Fred’s numbers on feed conversion and edible percentage of domestic animals are somewhat out of date.
It’s been a while since I looked up these numbers, but later tonight I will post the figures achieved by modern feeders.
There is actually very little of any domestic animal such as a pig or cow that cannot be eaten, if cultural taboos are overlooked, excepting hair and heavy bones. I am not opposed in principle to eating insects, since I know I eat quite a few already anyway, lol, as does every body else, mostly without realizing it. I have had grasshoppers, and they are actually pretty good.
My guess is that it won’t be any harder to convince people to eat every last edible speck of a pig or cow than it will to convince them to eat insects. Anybody that eats any of numerous popular canned meat products, hotdogs, etc, is already eating visceral organs, tongues, brains, ligaments, cartilage, and just about everything else except the hair and the squeal or moo.
The only things that escape modern meat packers are some nutrients in processing water, which cannot be economically recovered. Waste water regulations are gradually forcing the packers to clean this water up a little better from one year to the next, at considerable expense.
Having said this much, it is true that insects are amazingly efficient at feed conversion, and thus may well eventually be consumed as staple foods on the grand scale.
A lot of what we hear, both pro and con, about all sorts of environmental issues is cherry picked and presented in the worst possible light in order to make the opposite camp look bad, or the home camp look better.
For example:
When you hear that it takes so many hundreds or thousands of gallons of water to produce a bushel of grain or a pound of meat, the people saying so are telling the truth, but they virtually always conveniently fail to mention that nearly all the water is RAIN water, which will fall and either sink in or run off , and back to the sea, no matter if a tract of land is in grain or forest.
None of this is to say our current business as usual methods of producing meat on the grand scale are sustainable, or that we will be able to continue using these methods over the longer run.
On the other hand, it is possible to produce a hell of a lot of meat in a more or less sustainable fashion on land that is not well suited to producing crops for direct human consumption.
<i.Anybody that eats any of numerous popular canned meat products, hotdogs, etc, is already eating …brains
Wow. What about transmitting mad cow??
First you need a mad cow. Usually happens after you tip one over.
Hey, even worse than a mad cow is a really mad bull… 😉
I have always liked this film. A small farm and some unique answers.
“Wildlife film maker Rebecca Hosking investigates how to transform her family’s farm in Devon into a low energy farm for the future, and discovers that nature holds the key.
With her father close to retirement, Rebecca returns to her family’s wildlife-friendly farm in Devon, to become the next generation to farm the land. But last year’s high fuel prices were a wake-up call for Rebecca. Realising that all food production in the UK is completely dependent on abundant cheap fossil fuel, particularly oil, she sets out to discover just how secure this oil supply is.
Alarmed by the answers, she explores ways of farming without using fossil fuel. With the help of pioneering farmers and growers, Rebecca learns that it is actually nature that holds the key to farming in a low-energy future”
Growing insects takes advantage of their high feed conversion efficiency. For example, crickets require only 2 kilograms of feed for every 1 kilogram of bodyweight gain. In addition, as the FAO report noted, insects can be “reared on organic side-streams, including human and animal waste,” and thus can help reduce environmental contamination. Not only that, but insects production releases fewer greenhouse gases and less ammonia than cattle or pigs and requires significantly less land and water.
I’ll await your numbers with bated breath.
Cheers!
Have company, will be back later.
Feed efficiency for beef and pork has improved over the last decade, but not dramatically. Results depend largely on the type of feeding operation.
For chickens grown commercially here in the USA, two to one is commonly cited these days.
Fish may actually out perform insects, we can’t be sure about this yet, but farm raised fish can convert feed in the same range as indicated for insects.
And when the time comes we really need the food, other than the portion of animal carcasses fed as pet food, or supplements to livestock food, we WILL eat everything but the hair, more and more as time passes. The rich will always have their pets, and feed them well.
Nobody who is the least bit squeamish should ever look into the making of sausage, even the way country folks do it at home. We throw out intestines and hides, for the dogs or raccoons, or bury them. You betcha that stuff winds up in supermarkets when animals are slaughtered commercially.
Bottom line, we are going to have to give up eating meat on the grand scale, sooner rather than later, due to there being so many naked apes these days. The environment won’t stand it a whole lot longer, and you are hearing this from a disinterested retired professional in the field.
( Full disclosure, I will soon have a few cows again, on pasture, more or less sustainably managed. But these few cows will be more about having something to do rather than making money. You would be better off working a few hours as a Walmart greeter than you are running a dozen or two dozen cows, money wise. )
Domesticated livestock can have a net loss or gain effect on our environment. It all depends on whether we manage them according to nature or against it. Currently there are millions of acres across the globe being influenced by the principles of Holistic Management in partnership with the Savory Institute. Many of these land managers are using livestock to regenerate and build their soil plants and biology.
Quite a number of them now have the data to show that they have been sequestering carbon in their soils on a massive scale that more than makes up for the methane emissions from their ruminants. http://soilcarboncoalition.org/
I’m also proud of my home state’s (Michigan) land grant university, which has applied to become a Savory Hub at the Lake City Research Center where they have a grassfed beef (from birth through finishing) Program. They have been doing some monitoring and studies on livestock methane emmisions. They are managing the cattle herd to increase forage production and sequester carbon to offset the methane emmisions.
My guess is that eventually the science will show that healthy grasslands are loaded with enough methanotrophs that offset all the methane emmited by the ruminants the same way as it has been shown that the air around termite mounds is lower in methane than the ave in the atmosphere due to the methanotrophs that live in the mounds as well.
GoneFishing,
Yes, ruminants such as cows and sheep produce methane, in the rumen I believe. The methane is exhaled, if memory serves; ask FredM.
Farming is probably a bigger problem than fossil fuels.
What really needs to happen is that farmers need to be squeezed a bit harder to contain the pollution they create. It’s difficult however, because farmers punch far above their weight politically.
In the end my guess is that lab grown meat or artificial meat-like substances will gradually replace the real stuff.
My daughter is vegan and an excellent cook, so I have been discovering that this is more feasible than I expected.
The younger generation prefers chicken nuggets to chicken legs anyway. I was raised on greasy bony meat, and I think it tastes better that way. I like pot roast better than expensive beef filet. My kids want low-fat boneless skinless (and flavorless) chicken breast.
FredM,
How about iguana farming? Iguanas are cold blooded and they’re vegetarian.
Monitors and crocodilians would be good too but they are meat eaters. Oh! Here’s an idea: feed them politicians…well no, then I wouldn’t want to eat the meat.
Iguanas it is, then.
Yummy!
.
You would probably risk contracting Mad Politician Disease too.
Drought in the northeastern US.
Droughts occurring across different parts of the US, very bad in California, but the typically wet northeast has portions that have been in long term drought for a year now ranging to extreme drought. Wells are going dry in New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts.
I live in a moderate drought area, but two artesian wells near me are drying up. One which pumps water to the surface year round has not run in two months, though the well is still providing water. The other which usually stops surface flow sometime during summer is only intermittently providing water from the well hole and no surface flow for a long time.
This has not happened in memory of the original owners, around 75 years, which is probably when the well was drilled.
Let’s put it this way, the springs around here flow every spring, sometimes much of the year. One year they flowed all year. I have two on my property and several nearby. They have not flowed all year, at all.
So even moderate drought, if it’s long enough, will cause loss of the aquifer.
MEGADROUGHT RISKS IN SOUTHWEST U.S. SOAR AS ATMOSPHERE WARMS
“As a consequence of a warming Earth, the risk of a megadrought — one that lasts more than 35 years — in the American Southwest likely will rise from a low chance over the past thousand years to a 20- to 50-percent chance in this century. However, by slashing greenhouse gas emissions, these risks are nearly cut in half, according to a new study.”
Since ,barring catastrophic occurrences, I don’t think there is any way to stop the temperature rise below 2C, I will move on to a slightly earlier paper indicating a much drier Southwest and major problems due to already depleting the aquifers needed to mitigate a long term drought.
“Our results point to a remarkably drier future that falls far outside the contemporary experience of natural and human systems in Western North America, conditions that may present a substantial challenge to adaptation. Human populations in this region, and their associated water resources demands, have been increasing rapidly in recent decades, and these trends are expected to continue for years to come (29). Future droughts will occur in a significantly warmer world with higher temperatures than recent historical events, conditions that are likely to be a major added stress on both natural ecosystems (30) and agriculture (31). And, perhaps most importantly for adaptation, recent years have witnessed the widespread depletion of nonrenewable groundwater reservoirs (32, 33), resources that have allowed people to mitigate the impacts of naturally occurring droughts. In some cases, these losses have even exceeded the capacity of Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the two major surface reservoirs in the region (34, 35). Combined with the likelihood of a much drier future and increased demand, the loss of groundwater and higher temperatures will likely exacerbate the impacts of future droughts, presenting a major adaptation challenge for managing ecological and anthropogenic water needs in the region.”
I don’t know anything in particular about your neighborhood, but it is fairly common for wells and springs to run dry during moderate droughts these days whereas in former years they held up ok right thru a moderate drought. This happens mostly in places where lots of new houses are being built, putting more demand on ground water withdrawn from individual or community wells and even from local streams and rivers. Development often means the loss of woodlands and wetlands, and lots of new pavement, not to mention new roofs, etc.
All this adds up to lots of runoff, and lots of water being removed that does not find it’s way back into the local water table. The tens of thousands of gallons that are dumped into a typical septic system over the course of a year are partially absorbed by grass roots, etc, and a lot more tends move UP into dryer soil where it evaporates, rather than sinking deeper.
Most people have never given a thought to the fact water can move uphill in soil, but it does, depending on the soil, just as water moves uphill in a wad of paper towel put on a wet table top.
I am pretty sure you know all this already, but there are others reading this forum who most likely don’t know much about this topic.
Combine a moderate drought and a lot of development near your suburban or rural home, and if you use a well or spring, you may find yourself in a tight spot for water, whereas a neighbor on similar land a couple of miles away always has plenty, unless the drought lasts a long time.
Well drilling contractors have been in tall cotton for the last twenty or thirty years, because if the demand for new wells falls off, there are still countless well owners who need to go down another hundred, two hundred or even five or six hundred feet to get enough water, or ANY water.
Talk about a race to the bottom, PUN INTENDED!!!!
I live in a rural area, mostly farms and woods, very little new development in the last couple of decades. Nearest area with any real development is eight miles away.
Interesting article about methane
“A new study by federal scientists finds that increased methane emissions are due to agriculture, raising questions about the Obama administration’s plans to increase regulations on methane emissions from fossil fuel production.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a study Wednesday stating the amount of methane released during fossil fuel production is higher than previously estimated. However, that process isn’t as responsible for the uptick in methane emissions as the agriculture sector is, the study said.”
The other global factor, air density. As the atmosphere warms it expands, lowering it’s density. Also it holds more water vapor, making it even less dense.
“Changes in air pressure could have a big effect on climate. Air pressure controls the atmosphere’s circulation, and therefore influences how moisture moves. Changes in circulation can alter rainfall, temperature, winds and storminess.
For instance, changes in an air-circulation pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation have been implicated in recent increases in rainfall over Scotland, reduced rain in Spain, and a drop in the number of cold snaps in France.
These trends, and their impact on climate, could be stronger than we thought. Computer simulations of climate have underestimated the size of the change in air pressure, the researchers found. ”
Decreased density of the thermosphere a result of global warming.
“The increase in global surface air temperature during the 20th century has been attributed mainly to the increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. In the upper atmosphere, the radiative effects of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, become more pronounced and produce a cooling rather than a warming effect (2, 3). This effect is demonstrated by the CO2-dominated atmosphere of Venus, where the troposphere is more than twice as warm as Earth’s and the thermosphere is 4 to 5 times as cold (4). The cooling should cause the upper atmosphere to contract; we may thus expect a substantial decline in thermospheric density, as well as a downward displacement of ionospheric layers ”
“…is a community of people who are exploring and developing various technologies that would allow citizens to be directly involved in the discussions and decisions that affect them most…”
“…is a political philosophy which advocates the application of the philosophies of the open-source and open-content movements to democratic principles to enable any interested citizen to add to the creation of policy, as with a wiki document. Legislation is democratically opened to the general citizenry, employing their collective wisdom to benefit the decision-making process and improve democracy.”
“Open research is research conducted in the spirit of free and open source software. Much like open source schemes that are built around a source code that is made public, the central theme of open research is to make clear accounts of the methodology freely available via the internet, along with any data or results extracted or derived from them. This permits a massively distributed collaboration, and one in which anyone may participate at any level of the project.
Especially if the research is scientific in nature, it is frequently referred to as open science. Open research can also include social sciences, the humanities, mathematics, engineering and medicine.” ~ Wikipedia
If any of you were able to make it to through Sunday’s nights debate. One of the last questions was about energy:
QUESTION: What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?
TRUMP: Absolutely. I think it’s such a great question, because energy is under siege by the Obama administration. Under absolutely siege. The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, is killing these energy companies. And foreign companies are now coming in buying our — buying so many of our different plants and then re-jiggering the plant so that they can take care of their oil.
We are killing — absolutely killing our energy business in this country. Now, I’m all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, et cetera. But we need much more than wind and solar.
And you look at our miners. Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business. There is a thing called clean coal. Coal will last for 1,000 years in this country. Now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology. We have unbelievable — we have found over the last seven years, we have found tremendous wealth right under our feet. So good. Especially when you have $20 trillion in debt.
I will bring our energy companies back. They’ll be able to compete. They’ll make money. They’ll pay off our national debt. They’ll pay off our tremendous budget deficits, which are tremendous. But we are putting our energy companies out of business. We have to bring back our workers.
You take a look at what’s happening to steel and the cost of steel and China dumping vast amounts of steel all over the United States, which essentially is killing our steelworkers and our steel companies. We have to guard our energy companies. We have to make it possible.
The EPA is so restrictive that they are putting our energy companies out of business. And all you have to do is go to a great place like West Virginia or places like Ohio, which is phenomenal, or places like Pennsylvania and you see what they’re doing to the people, miners and others in the energy business. It’s a disgrace.
CLINTON: And actually — well, that was very interesting. First of all, China is illegally dumping steel in the United States and Donald Trump is buying it to build his buildings, putting steelworkers and American steel plants out of business. That’s something that I fought against as a senator and that I would have a trade prosecutor to make sure that we don’t get taken advantage of by China on steel or anything else.
You know, because it sounds like you’re in the business or you’re aware of people in the business — you know that we are now for the first time ever energy-independent. We are not dependent upon the Middle East. But the Middle East still controls a lot of the prices. So the price of oil has been way down. And that has had a damaging effect on a lot of the oil companies, right? We are, however, producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels. And I think that’s an important transition.
We’ve got to remain energy-independent. It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the Middle East. We have enough worries over there without having to worry about that.
So I have a comprehensive energy policy, but it really does include fighting climate change, because I think that is a serious problem. And I support moving toward more clean, renewable energy as quickly as we can, because I think we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses.
But I also want to be sure that we don’t leave people behind. That’s why I’m the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country, because those coal miners and their fathers and their grandfathers, they dug that coal out. A lot of them lost their lives. They were injured, but they turned the lights on and they powered their factories. I don’t want to walk away from them. So we’ve got to do something for them.
Ah! And that, whatever the hell, THAT, was, confirms my thoughts about the leadership or lack thereof in this country. Baah, baah, black sheep, have you any wool, yes sir, yes sir, three bags full! Of course those three bags are full of sheep shit!
Fred, Hillary Clinton is right when she says we do not need the Middle East for energy. We could easily run our country without them with a few adjustments. Energy wise we are oil independent of the Middle East if we want to be.
Our Non OPEC imports total 6.7 million bpd, OPEC imports are 3.8 million barrels per day. Persian Gulf imports are only 1.8 million bpd of that total.
Net imports total 4.7 million bpd. We export about 5.4 million bpd of crude oil and products.
In sum total we do not need the Persian Gulf oil, I think it is more a matter of cost and convenience at this point. We are energy independent of the Gulf and the Middle East anytime we want to be. That doesn’t mean we will not buy their cheap oil.
So basically, the US takes in 19.4 mmbpd and exports 5.4 mmbpd for a total of 14 mmbpd US usage. We produce 8.7 mmbpd and import 6.7 mmbpd from non-OPEC sources for a total of 15.5 mbpd.
So without OPEC, we have more than enough.
GF,
I agree that we certainly could be energy independent and that even now we do not depend all that much on the Middle East and OPEC oil for our energy needs. However that is not quite the same as being completely energy independent, since we still import those 6.7 mmbpd.
Bottom line, her comments about energy notwithstanding, I still feel an inordinate amount of queasiness when contemplating Hillary as our future commander in chief. I would much prefer there were some other viable alternative.
May Thor and the Serpent Goddess of Fertility save us.
Cheers!
Forget Thor, he’s not much interested in your inane politics.
I seldom disagree with Fred Maygar, and when I do, it’s a matter of degree rather than an outright difference of opinion or facts.
I really wish just about any well known D were the candidate, other than Clinton. But at least I can take some comfort in the fact that Trump is so bad it seems a safe bet that even Clinton can beat him.
The problem with Clinton is that you can never be sure what she will do, when it comes to changing her mind to keep the political winds in her sails. She was all in favor of a big fence on the southern border a few years back, she talks tough about banksters while taking millions from them in speaking fees, etc. She may actually be more belligerent as CinC than most R candidates.
And as far as misrepresenting the truth, well, there’s that six million barrels of oil per day, etc.
But I don’t think she will flip flop on environmental issues, at least, although I don’t have any doubt that any big contributor to the Clinton Foundation, or her campaign coffers will find smooth sailing in the event permits are needed to build a pipeline, or emit some CO2, or dump a little waste water without spending a LOT of money cleaning it up first. .
This is only to say that Clinton will insist on a much larger donation than a R prez would, lol.
And considering Trump’s record, he would for sure charge every dime the traffic could bear. But then he is not really R presidential material. The party hates his guts, with a passion hardly to be comprehended.
The environmental issue trumps all the other issues combined, in my estimation.
If we don’t get our environmental ducks in a row, we may not HAVE any ducks left to worry about a generation or two down the road.
The SINGLE fact of fossil fuel depletion is more than sufficient to trigger hot resource wars between many smaller countries for sure, and almost for sure among some larger countries.
When the American Civil war started, the armies and navies of the day were using techniques and equipment basically familiar to soldiers and sailors from the sixteenth and seventeenth century, even from the fifteenth century in some respects.
When it was over, war was a whole new ballgame, played by a thoroughly rewritten rule book.
When todays dominant countries go to war, if they do, a few decades down the road, it will be a whole new ballgame again. Sky Daddy alone knows what sort of weapons may be in use.
Today’s run of the mill terrorists know how to build car bombs and write nasty code to muck up computers. The next generation of run of the mill terrorists may be able to create a super flu, or a bug that will wipe out a staple food crop.
That’s right latch onto the wrong number. Net imports are 4.7 mmbpd. Canada sends us 3.4 mmbpd. Mexico sends us 0.733 mmbpd. Etcetera. Non-OPEC imports are bigger than our net imports by nearly 2 mmbpd. So we don’t need OPEC at all.
I think you guys misinterpreted what she said. She was referring to not being dependent upon the Middle East, which we are not. We are in a relationship of convenience with them, which makes our involvement over there a political one, not so much an energy one. Most of the Saudi oil goes elsewhere.
We get 1 million barrels a day from the Saudis. We export 5.4 mbpd. Doesn’t look dependent to me.
Hi GF,
Here is what FactChecking.org said:
“Clinton exaggerated when she said the U.S. was now “energy independent.” The country imported 11 percent of total energy consumed in 2015.”
I really don’t think this is what’s important here. She had 2 minutes to answer the question and to keep it simple for millions of clueless Americans to understand. Most of us who post here understand today the U.S. is not in the position it was just a decade ago. I’m guessing most all of that 11 percent comes from Canada and Mexico.
I was hoping someone here could explain how the “EPA is killing these energy companies”.
Please also, explain:
“because energy is under siege by the Obama administration. Under absolutely siege”. But, “we have found over the last seven years, we have found tremendous wealth right under our feet”
“There is a thing called clean coal”
Mac- “The problem with Clinton is that you can never be sure what she will do”
As apposed to you Mac, who we can depend on to shoot yourself in the foot over your hatred for Hillary. Than to accept her commitment to combating climate change.
Today Hillary and Al Gore are campaigning in Florida together to show her commitment to climate change.
Hillary Clinton announced two bold national goals that she will set as president to combat climate change, create jobs, protect the health of American families and communities, and make the United States the world’s clean energy superpower:
The United States will have more than half a billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of Hillary Clinton’s first term.
The United States will generate enough clean renewable energy to power every home in America within ten years of Hillary Clinton taking office.
I get my facts from the EIA, don’t need a fact checking site.
That site made the same dumb mistake many people will make in interpreting the message. Take sound bites and give them life of their own. Very adolescent.
Clinton has an admirable renewable energy plan, I just hope it’s not blockaded by the fractured Republican party that seems to have lost control of itself and it’s members.
The old fossil dragon isn’t broken yet, not by a long shot, and it will be long fight. Who knows, even the Democrats might fracture under the pressure.
Maybe that is how new parties are formed. Spin-offs from the old ones. Hydras with no unifying objective just lashing out in different directions. In the middle of all the cross-fire will be a world of amazing creatures and plants, probably reduced to road kill in the global energy-money-power wars.
Just wish there was a candidate that actually could see the real problems. Of course they would never make to an election.
We have met the real problem and it’s tomorrow mornings withdrawal from today’s fix
Spoken like a true D cynical partisan, or else perhaps someone who is a true believer and thus naive beyond hope when it comes to Clinton’s flipflopping and ethical shortcomings.
I don’t hate her, I just see her for what she is. I have even less use for Trump , by a country mile, but I don’ t hate him either.
Hate is a waste of time, unless you have a gun in your hands, headed into a firefight. THEN it’s priceless, as pointed out by many a general who has told his troops God wants them to kill them worthless sons of bitches ———– , fill in the blank with whoever the enemy is.
If we were talking about a few minor lapses in dealing with facts, that would be one thing. I threw out one very minor example, but I could put up a hundred, and you would pooh pooh them all, in the same fashion that religious true believers overlook the inconsistencies in religious dogmas, etc.
You sir, refuse to face up to the facts. If anybody except Trump were running for the R party, Clinton would be toast, due to the fact that hardly any educated young people believe in her the way you do. She’s your heroine, but she’s a joke to anybody who isn’t a long term true believer, or who isn’t a partisan. I know many hard core D types personally who are supporting her in public the way you are now, but in private they are quick to admit they are holding their noses given the ethical stinks running all the way back to CattleGate.
NOW FOR THE RECORD—- TRUMP IS WORSE.
All you need to know, in order to determine if a person is a partisan, is to ask them which parts of the overall party platform or philosophy they do not agree with. Dyed in the wool partisans seldom disagree with ANY major part of their party philosophy or any major part of their candidates platform.
So – Tell us what it is that you do not agree with about the D party’s general positions, and Clinton’s platform in particular, and prove you are not a partisan.
I quite often point out the many things wrong to my way of thinking with the R party’s overall positions, and Trump’s platform, to wit:
The D’s are infinitely superior on environmental issues, much better on personal privacy, but still not good.
The D’s are coming around on the stupidity of the war on drugs.
They are right about the incredible mess that is our health care system, and I often point out that I expect and hope that we will have a health care system similar to the current day Western European model within the fore see able future, etc.
There are a few important issues where the R party imo holds the high ground, but I won’t go into them right now.
In conservative circles and forums, I am known as a tree hugging, whale loving socialist, or worse, lol.
I try hard to look at actual facts, and to decide for myself what those actual facts ARE, after looking at what the partisans on both sides have to say.
It’s still a somewhat free country , and you are entitled to your opinion of Clinton, and I am entitled to mine.
I think it is safe to say we hold similar opinions concerning Trump, lol.
I also know a large number of dyed in the wool R partisans and or true believers, and the true believers in the Trump camp simply refuse to consider the evidence that Trump is a scumbag———
Just as a number of my D acquaintances tell me in person, privately, that they are holding their nose but supporting Clinton publicly, a good many R types are telling me the same thing, privately, that they are holding their noses but supporting Trump publicly, so as to hopefully keep Clinton out of the WH.
But barring some outright nuclear bombs landing square in her lap between now and the election, she is going to win, and win BIG. There will be some more embarrassing stuff coming out, but the odds are very high nothing nuclear will come to light, unless it is about Trump, lol. Time grows very short.
Ya see, I am a realist.
You, well , you’re a partisan, whether naive or cynical I cannot say. Maybe a little of both, lol.
I posted a LOT of comments in favor of Sanders’s candidacy here in this forum, and hundreds in other forums, and went to local Sanders events, etc.
This is why I know personally that educated young people see Clinton as ethically corrupt. I met them by the score at these events, where almost of the people were college students and young professionals, all of them liberals. ALL of them.
Sanders would imo have won the nomination if he had gotten started a little earlier, except maybe for the fact that Clinton owns the D party establishment lock, stock, and barrel.
The various minority voting blocks never had time and opportunity enough to get acquainted with him, whereas they know Clinton from way back, but his record on civil rights, etc , is sterling.
I AM NOT saying the nominating process was rigged, but anybody who is reasonably knowledgeable about the D party machinery, and who controls it, knows that the odds were heavily stacked in Clinton’s favor.
Of course Clinton PARTISANS will deny this obvious fact, lol.
If Trump weren’t an egotistical fool, a clown, he could have run back to the center right after winning the nomination , and kept his cavernous mouth shut, etc, and he would have had a good shot at winning.
The Gods of fortune have smiled on Clinton and the D party and Clinton is going to win.
The D’s are going to pick up seats in the House, and in the Senate. Maybe enough to take control. Maybe not.
I wouldn’t make a serious bet either way just yet about the party control of Congress.There is the growing smell of a D party landslide in the making, but time is very short now, and incumbents have enormous advantages, with incumbency being on the R party’s side in House and Senate races.
The R camp is smelling more and more like last weeks fish bait, which is about as bad as smell can get, lol.
The more realistic R leaders are moving to cut the losses, like a general retreating from a losing fight, doing what he can to preserve his army to fight another day. They have a good to excellent shot at retaining control imo because of the incumbency factor.
Otherwise it would be a D landslide almost across the board.
Old Farmer,
You are tilting at windmills with this ethical horse you are riding, lance down to pierce the political tower of babble.
The fact there are only two parties in such a diverse country as America and that the system allows a party to take control of government is not only incongruous but appalling.
What ever happened to representing the citizens?
When someone is placed in office, they are supposed to represent all the people in their districts or state or country, not just some partisan view. They are not supposed to be controlled by political bosses or corporate owners but are contracted by the people to represent them and uphold the Constitution.
This whole party system and the results of it are a travesty of what American government was supposed to represent. Represent people not parties or corporations.
Hasn’t anyone noticed this by now?
911 was gasoline poured on the politics of fear in a world of 24/7 disinformation and short attention spans.
We are our own worst enemy
What ever happened to representing the citizens?
Citizens?! we are now all referred to as ‘consumers’…
“Hate is a waste of time, unless you have a gun in your hands, headed into a firefight”
Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines hate as a “deep, enduring, intense emotion expressing animosity, anger, and hostility towards a person, group, or object.” Because hatred is believed to be long-lasting, many psychologists consider it to be more of an attitude or disposition than a temporary emotional state.
Both the Old and the New Testaments deal with hatred. Ecclesiastes 3:8 teaches that there is a “time to love, and a time to hate”
Mac, thank you for your example of why the 2nd Amendment should be repealed
Back atcha HB,
Decisions reached after considering the available data are also long lasting, especially when more data is constantly emerging to support the validity of the original decision.
Yes, hatreds do usually fade away over time, once the objects of them are no longer immediately and presently impacting the lives of the people doing the hating. Hate and love are no more and no less that evolved “tools” in Mother Nature’s evolutionary tool box.
Behaviors that are not contributing to survival and reproduction tend to fade away, just like the eyes of fish that live in caves.
I repeat, I don’t have time and energy to waste hating either Clinton or Trump, but I consider both of them to be personally contemptible on ethical grounds, and I wouldn’t trust either of them when it comes to cutting deals with various special interests such as the too big to fail banks, etc.
I am going fishing in a few minutes, the water has cooled off enough the bass are biting. Not as much fun as dancing, maybe , but still very pleasurable.
After that, I will maybe get in some firewood, or maybe polish up my deer rifle, because deer season opens soon. I ‘m an omnivore, and I EAT Bambi, lol.
That’s a fair trade, in my eyes, since Bambi eats my fruit trees, and my green peas, and sweet potatoes, and green beans, and lots of other stuff. It’s a Darwinian world, lol. I manage my farm to support the maximum amount of wildlife, but Bambi is in overshoot, locally.
There are no deer predators here to amount to anything, excepting rednecks such as yours truly, and they are so numerous that it seems certain one or another contagious disease will wipe them out, if we don’t keep the population down by hunting.
Chronic Wasting Disease is moving this way twenty or thirty miles annually.
Incidentally my once upon a time better half was a Jewish artist and climate refugee from the Big Apple. A winter visit down this way resulted in her moving south, after enduring a couple of winters in Buffalo as a student. She lost all her known European relatives in the Holocaust.
( I was a card carrying long hair pot smoking true blue liberal back when we met and fell in love and got married, but then I was young in those days, and I have learned a few things since, lol. )
Wanna debate trusting government a LITTLE TOO MUCH?
It’s true that even if every Jew in Germany had had a pistol or rifle, Hitler would probably still managed to do away with them, but it sure as hell would have cost him dearly, and the resulting public exposure and outrage might have resulted in things turning out differently.
My own reading of history indicates that power does indeed reside in weapons, and that the safest long term solution is for the people themselves to be armed.
YMMV may vary.You can have my guns when you pry them out of my cold dead hands,lol.
IF a Republican candidate for Prez, any one of them, other than Trump, who is so bad I hate to even think about his faults, had won the nomination, after having collected millions of dollars for short secret speeches , and taken huge donations from foreign countries for a family controlled foundation, and run a secret email server, etc, …….
Well, you would be foaming at the mouth, and screaming yourself hoarse about the ethical shortcomings of that candidate.
But hey, it’s OK when HRC does it, because well, she’s your girl ( woman ) and she can do no wrong in your eyes, given that you are in my opinion today a Clinton true believer.
Barring an unlikely nuclear level surprise, she is going to be our next president, and she will be better than Trump would have been. Depending on how the House and Senate races play out, she may or may not be able to make a lot of changes.
Some of the changes will no doubt be for the better.
As one of my old D buddies said back in Reagan’s day, the country will survive, it has survived worse.
When you figure out a way put an end to wars, let me know.
Yak Yak works some of the time, so long as the folks you are yakking at still believe you have the will and the wherewithal to fight.
Once you yak yak a little too long, they usually just go ahead and take whatever they want, assuming you either can’t or won’t fight.
My personal opinion and that of a lot of well informed people is that Clinton is more apt to get us involved in shooting disputes than a number of R ‘s who tried for the nomination.
The Second Amendment is safe for the time being. Even if Clinton puts two hard core leftists on the SC, it will probably stand, because the one thing the Justices of the SC hate worse than just about anything else is reversing past decisions on such substantive matters.
I am not able to dance very well these days, but I can still shuffle around a little bit if the occasion arises, and I figured out fifty years ago that while people who hate and hold grudges are miserable, the people they hate are apt to be dancing and having a good time.
We can debate scriptures someday if you like, so long as the debate touches on the big picture this blog is about.
You will be surprised how much I know about the KJB and Jesus, etc, even though I am a scientifically literate Darwinist thru and thru.
For what it is worth, there is more wisdom in the KJB than any other book I have ever read, although it is all wrong about physics, geology, astronomy, etc.
It makes up for the science by having been originally written and composed or collected and edited over historical time by some of the smartest people who have ever lived, in terms of understanding how people think and behave.
It’s true that even if every Jew in Germany had had a pistol or rifle, Hitler would probably still managed to do away with them, but it sure as hell would have cost him dearly
If only that were true.
I grew up with guns: rifles, shot guns, etc. But, my family had very little use for hand guns. The people who are fascinated by hand guns and military gear are the same people who are first in line to support people like Hitler, and solutions like persecuting minorities like Muslims and Jews.
Don’t forget: the Holocaust killed 12 million, not 6 million. The other 6 million included political prisoners (as Trump recently threatened to turn H Clinton into), gays, gypsies, etc. These are exactly the people most hated by people who are most excited about the 2nd amendment.
No, the 2nd amendment doesn’t protect minorities. Exactly the opposite.
Really Mac, you “don’t have time and energy to waste” ?
Ignoring the headline for a minute, here’s what I found more interesting;
The share of fossil fuel as a primary energy source will fall from 81% in 2014 to 50% by 2060 according to the most positive scenario laid out in the report. Coal use is set to peak before 2020 in two of the three scenarios, with oil set to peak in 2030 at 103 mb/d under these same scenarios.
One wonders when they figure the use of oil and coal will peak under their least positive scenario? AFAIK most Peak Oilers believe coal use will peak after oil use has peaked and our host is betting that oil peaked last year. Does anybody here think oil production will ever get to 103 mb/d?
It’s nice they think renewables will play a large part in the energy system. However, percentages mean nothing unless tied to an actual amount. Is the total energy use in 2060 twice what we use now or half of current use? If it’s twice, then 50% renewables will mean that fossil power use is still the same as now.
The report says world electric energy demand will double by 2060.
The scenarios show 1.2 to 1.5 Gt CO2 for 2015 to 2060.
Looks like a 10 percent drop in energy intensity versus a population rise of 40%, meaning at least a 30 percent rise in energy needs (taking up much of the renewable increase). Essentially a 35% drop in the rate of carbon output.
So peak resources aside, this is a growth based report with a shift in energy resources toward renewable energy.
Hi Islandboy,
It depends what one counts as oil. The IEA has current “oil” output (C+C+NGL+liquid biofuels) at 96 Mb/d. So if we are talking about that kind of oil (which is not discounted for the lower energy content of NGL and biofuels), then 103 Mb/d might be possible. If we deflate the inflated barrels of NGL and biofuels, currently output is about 86 Mboe/d and possibly we might see 90 Mboe/d in 2020 to 2025, but 88 Mboe/d seems a more reasonable guess to me. Note boe=barrel of oil equivalent, and 1 b of NGL is about 0.7 boe.
Short answer, no 103 Mb/d of all liquids (C+C+NGL+biofuels) is not very likely (less than 10% probability in my opinion).
Hi Islandboy,
I took a quick look at the WEC report, the 103 Mb/d of oil is actually Mboe, I think because they say in 2014 oil consumption was 86 Mb/d which is roughly in line with energy consumption in barrels of oil equivalent.
In that case the peak of 103 Mboe/d is not realistic at all in my view, in general they seem to believe that the availability of fossil fuel resources are quite large. By 2035 energy output from fossil fuel output will have peaked. For my “high” fossil fuel scenarios, oil peaks in 2035 at 96 Mboe/d, coal peaks in 2044 at 98.5 Mboe/d, and natural gas peaks in 2049 at 96.5 Mboe/d. Carbon emissions in the high scenario are 1436 Pg of Carbon from 1800 to 2200 when land use change and cement production emissions are included, this is nearly identical to total carbon emissions from the RCP4.5 emissions scenario from 1800-2200.
My more realistic “medium” scenario there are about 1220 Pg of total carbon emissions from all sources from 1800 to 2200. This is with no attempt at reducing fossil fuel consumption (except demand destruction due to high fossil fuel prices) before 2100. From 2100 to 2150 it is assumed coal, oil, and natural gas consumption fall linearly to zero.
From Google news, this leader,
Have Soda Company Donations Influenced Health Groups?
NBCNews.com – 13 hours ago
Do bears shit in the woods, lol?
When it comes to nutrition, you had best stick to the websites of major hospitals for advice. Just about everybody else, and just about every organization from the Heart Association to the USDA has failed to do a good job of preventing the food industries from influencing what they recommend, or outright dictating what is recommended.
Most regulars here have little use for Beck, but it’s worth a minute or two to read what he has to say about Trump, his candidacy, his nit wit campaign that might actually be designed to lose, and what he may be planning on doing after the election.
Read it, you will be pleasantly surprised by Beck’s analysis, in terms of your opinion of Beck.
But you won’t like what Trump may be up to, after the election. I think maybe Beck has nailed it as well as anybody.
It’s time for all righteous naked apes to be making sacrifices to the Sky Daddies and Mommies of their choice, the future looks stormy as hell.
Hi Caelan, [Moved here from OIL THREAD]
“Anyway, how’s your pulsar reading going, incidentally? Anything significant to report in that regard? I just found out about ‘magnetars’.”
I suppose one should say NEUTRON STAR (pulsars and magnetars being special cases). And yes, there’s always something going on. Currently I’m struggling with the math as relating to possible phase changes in neutron stars (specifically, Equation of State of cold quark matter needed in description of neutron star mergers and core collapse processes.) With my wife no longer here to tutor me it becomes a REAL struggle. Anyway, you might be interested in a sanitized version:
If you run across anything about the statistical probability of a star similar to our own sun experiencing extremely powerful solar storms, please post it here.
I am very poorly informed about the physics involved in making astronomical observations, meaning the actual workings of telescopes. I know that even very faint incoming radiation is enough to indicate the kinds of atoms present, by way of parsing the light spectrum and that sort of thing.
But are today’s telescopes good enough to detect solar storms on stars many many light years away?
So far as I know, there aren’t very many stars similar to our own in what might be called the immediate cosmic neighborhood, meaning maybe fifty to a hundred light years, so observing only close neighboring stars would not tell us a WHOLE lot about how likely such storms are, on an annual or decadal or millennial basis.
And maybe the telescopes aren’t good enough to catch solar storms even on our closest stellar neighbors?
You can guess that by extremely powerful I mean powerful enough to wipe out our electrical civilization, or at least severely damage it.
Sure, I’ll keep you in mind but stellar weather isn’t really my bag. Meanwhile you may be interested in:
BTW: My Daughter has put aside her copy of NONLINEAR PHYSICS FOR BEGINNERS (or whatever its proper title is) and assured me it will become firmly attached to me the next time I visit. Be warned, I may not see her until Christmas.
Thanks,
I will read the link tonight. Hopefully the book won’t be too far over my head. It’s been half a century since I last took a math class, and then I got only the first full year the math and engineers get, plus one course in probability theory.
And there is no doubt in my mind I have forgotten nearly all math above basic algebra and geometry I ever knew.
Hi Doug,
What are you trying to do or find with your calculations? It seems pretty esoteric, at least to me, but maybe less so with your background and wife’s?
In any case, I’d like to check out the link in greater detail later, as it looks interesting (deconfined quark matter?). Best with the calcs in the mean time and let us know if you come up with something.
“What are you trying to do or find with your calculations?” I just follow the math in order to follow the physics. The math suggests solutions and new understandings that interest me. For example, a phase change (layering) in the interior of a neutron star would go a long way toward explaining their magnetic fields which potentially leads to a sort of ‘unified theory’ model of these fascinating stars.
They are just a step away from being black holes, yes? So I guess they are the densest things out there that can be directly studied, unlike a black hole apparently. I’ve heard about some crazy densities, like the sun, compressed into something the size of a city. I am curious myself, now, about what’s inside…
To summarize, neutron stars are the collapsed cores of large stars and the densest objects known to exist. A quark star is a HYPOTHETICAL exotic star composed of quark matter (as ultra-dense phases of degenerate matter THEORIZED to exist inside particularly massive stars). The equation of state of quark matter is uncertain as is the transition point between neutron-degenerate matter and quark matter (a subject that interests me).
Standard physics says that beyond about ten solar masses a stellar remnant will overcome neutron degeneracy pressure then gravitational collapse will (usually) occur to produce a black hole. The smallest “OBSERVED” mass of a stellar black hole is about five solar masses.
Very intriguing… So I guess compression can reduce the gaps in matter, such as between the atoms and electrons and so forth… But you know, there’s just way too much space between those kinds of things, anyway. ‘u^
But, if you somehow scooped a bit of material from a neutron star and took it to Earth, what would it be like, aside from the possible insane weight? And/Or would it even remain compressed?
Management at GE, or maybe the dominant owners, certainly seems to have plenty of faith in the future of wind power- or if not that, then plenty of faith in the ability of politicians to keep the subsidies flowing indefinitely, lol.
I don’t have any opportunity to talk with top management at giant corporations, but in my opinion most such managers do understand that fossil fuels do deplete, and the environmental consequences of using them on the grand scale.
Anybody doing strategic planning for a big company in the energy biz just about has to realize that we are compelled by the hard facts of depletion, if nothing else, to go renewable at some point in time- and that point is now within view.
Wind power is very much in line with GE’s capabilities. They have been producing electric motors and generators for a long time. They build diesel locomotives which all have large gensets.
They have been selling improved efficiency services to wind farms for a while now.
This will add one more aspect to their renewable power ventures. https://www.gerenewableenergy.com/innovative-solutions/solar-energy.html
Tesla has really done a great job showing how an electric car can be better than an ICE based car – in every way. Better speed, handling, roominess, and even an autopilot. Next year, the Model 3 will begin shipping at a more affordable price – but still a better car than anything based on an ICE. If you haven’t kept up to date they now have superchargers all over the country making long distance travel possible.
The Chevy Bolt and the Nissan Leaf will also have over 200 miles of range next year. The Bolt will have 238 miles of range, and starts shipping in just a couple of months.
If it follows a normal tech adoption curve, then yes it’s possible that the last new ICE based car would be sold in just 12 years….
I thought the “peak demand” argument was a joke, but I guess maybe not. People using the most fuel have the biggest incentive to switch, so even when just 10% of the cars are electric that might be 25%less fuel needed.
The peak demand argument is not to be dismissed out of hand, but we shouldn’t allow ourselves to get all giddy about it yet, like a freshman cheerleader when the captain of the football team lowers himself to say hi to her, lol.
It’s going to be a rather long time before electric cars and light trucks are cheaper than similar ICE powered models, and lots of things could go wrong along the way. Lithium supplies could be a problem, the political power of existing entrenched manufacturers, workers in existing plants can be a factor, etc.
And then there is the existing infrastructure purpose built to build ICE engines and the transmissions associated with them. It’s hard to say just how cheap such engines and transmissions might be if the manufacturers quit upgrading and maintaining those plants for the last few years they operate them.
The humongous existing fleet of conventional cars and trucks will mostly still be on the road ten years from now, and ten years from now half to three quarters or so of all new cars and trucks will probably still be conventional ICE .The last ones built will last till pretty close to 2050.
It will take at least a tripling of battery performance before the electric motor can seriously start displacing ICE’s in construction and farm equipment and larger trucks.
But I am a little giddy myself, lol.
A favorite day dream is to have a ten kW solar “farm ” of my own, and a cheap used electric car. I’m too “tight” to buy a new car, since there are so many BETTER ways to enjoy the difference in the price of new versus used.
The prices of solar panels and associated components are coming down so fast I am delaying the purchase of a solar system from year to year, because that’s the best way to manage my own money. But probably next year, or maybe the year after…….
I don’t think our hands on oil guys have anything to worry about, other than finding places to drill. Depletion is in my opinion almost dead sure to outrun the rise of the electric car, so the price of oil will almost for sure go up and stay up, long term.
“The humongous existing fleet of conventional cars and trucks will mostly still be on the road ten years from now, ”
Average age of cars on US roads is 11.5 years, so in 10 years that fleet will have an average age of 21.5 years. Doubt if more than 10% will be left by then.
There will be few ICE’s left in ten to fifteen years if the price of fuel stays high. Only way ICE’s can stay in any numbers is if fuel is low cost and there is no carbon tax.
In addition to banning sales of ICE based cars more and more cities are banning ICE cars in some urban districts. Once people have decent options, the politics may change fast. For example, right now the easiest way to loose an election is to propose a gas tax – but anyone owning an electric car will likely not care, or even want it.
Of course, it depends on how much you drive and the price of gas but if you compare the total cost of ownership then these new electric cars are already a good value. Electrics benefit from both low fuel costs and lower maintenance costs.
Cities and dense towns can replace cars with trolley systems. Could even have a battery or fuel cell on board for short runs between electrified sections.
Or electric buses, which are far easier, faster and cheaper to implement.
I’m observing people use Uber and Lyft’s car pooling options – they’re finding that it’s cheaper and more convenient than buses. Add in EVs, and you have the best of all worlds.
.
So all those things come out of one bald guy’s head?
That’s the kind of response one would expect from a member of a species that’s trashing the planet by welding a cage of techno-detachment between itself and reality.
James Howard Kunstler calls stuff like that, techno-narcissism, and I’m inclined to agree.
Well since it is a gramophone all ya gotta do is change the record! 🙂
.
The hypocrite is Caelan MacIntyre. Everyday you post your non-sense and trash others for the use of technology. Just shows how detached you are. Please, lay down your computer and back up your bullshit. Your trashing the internet.
BTW, you might want to try working on your sense of humor also. GF’s post showed more than you have in 6 months.
Agreed, Fred. Nice pic, and a change we could all use more of.
“Road traffic injuries are a major but neglected public health challenge that requires concerted efforts for effective and sustainable prevention. Of all the systems with which people have to deal every day, road traffic systems are the most complex and the most dangerous. Worldwide, an estimated 1.2 million people are killed in road crashes each year and as many as 50 million are injured.” ~ World Health Organization
“The global economic cost of MVCs [motor vehicle collisions] was estimated at $518 billion per year in 2003 with $100 billion of that occurring in developing countries. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimated the U.S. cost in 2000 at $230 billion.” ~ Wikipedia
“The Geography of Nowhere traces America’s evolution from a nation of Main Streets and coherent communities to a land where every place is like no place in particular, where the cities are dead zones and the countryside is a wasteland of cartoon architecture and parking lots… Kunstler depicts our nation’s evolution from the Pilgrim settlements to the modern auto suburb in all its ghastliness. The Geography of Nowhere tallies up the huge economic, social, and spiritual costs that America is paying for its car-crazed lifestyle. It is also a wake-up call for citizens to reinvent the places where we live and work, to build communities that are once again worthy of our affection. Kunstler proposes that by reviving civic art and civic life, we will rediscover public virtue and a new vision of the common good.” ~ Book description for The Geography of Nowhere, by James Howard Kunstler
Don’t let me get in the way of your riotous sense of humor there, ‘Beach. We’re all in stitches. I’m perfectly happy to use one form of technology to smash another. ^u^
Worldwide, an estimated 1.2 million people are killed in road crashes each year and as many as 50 million are injured.” ~ World Health Organization
Which is why showing a crashed Tesla comes across as a really poor example of something to rail against being that it is one of the safest cars ever built.
Do you know what happens when someone tries to make something idiot proof? Someone always comes along and invents a better idiot. But I digress!
As for the car culture and the waste that is suburbia that Kunstler talks about, well technologies such as EVs, AI for self driving vehicles and a paradigm shift to ride sharing and not individually owning vehicles for personal transportation and all the societal and ecological benefits that come with all of the above would be things that you of all people should be in favor of.
None of us knows what the future has in store for us the only thing we know for sure is that our current system is not sustainable so the future will be very different.
Personally I think we will learn to waste less and find ways to build a circular economy and I fully expect to use electricity and technology and benefit from science and medicine and education for as long as I live and hopefully my kids and grand children will too.
Maybe one day you will find a way to apply permaculture techniques to grow GMO crops to feed CRISPR-cas9 genetically enhanced insects to produce feed for fish farms or some other productive way to help feed the world while helping preserve biodiversity and wildlife habitat.
Knowledge, science, technology and engineering are not intrinsically bad or good it’s how we use them that matters. Not all businesses, corporations or governments are all bad or part of some global conspiracy to enslave the masses either. The only thing that any of us can do is make choices to do the best we can as individuals.
‘Safe’ or ‘smart’, and ‘car’ are practically oxymorons, so let’s not split hairs.
And, once again for your review; circular economy appears to be a generic term for an industrial economy.
If so, without real equability and the like– without real ‘democratic’ control, such that current industrial so-called economies obviously lack, it won’t work properly, despite the oddly-appropriate word, ‘circular’, as in ‘circular reasoning economy‘.
(You might do well to investigate what industrialism actually means from a sociohistorical standpoint, if, for example, you think that, like technology, it’s somehow neutral– neither good nor bad. That’s a questionable assumption.)
The further and deeper along the lines and levels of complexity of the technology we go, the less control we have over it. Just take a glance at the definition for the Iron Law of Oligarchy for an idea.
In other words perhaps, we don’t own, or at least control to a meaningful degree, ‘Tesla Inc.’.
So let’s not pretend we do.
Lastly, permaculture, as an ethical system, is at apparent odds with GMO’s and ‘CRISPR’, etc., except maybe where they could be somehow used in their own subversion.
It’s going to be a rather long time before electric cars and light trucks are cheaper than similar ICE powered models
As Preston said, EVs are the cheapest thing on the road, right now.
The Nissan Versa has the lowest MSRP on US roads. The Nissan Leaf has the same Total Cost of Ownership (per Edmunds), with very low oil prices – when gas prices rise, the Leaf will be clearly cheaper. The Leaf has lower range, but has much better performance and is a higher end car all around.
The Tesla is clearly better than ICEs with comparable price, let alone TCO.
There’s a million ways to cherry pick your arguments , when playing the advocate.
I do often advocate certain practices and policies on an outright basis, but I try to admit that I am a partisan in that situation, assuming I remember to do so.
It’s not quite intellectually honest , to my way of thinking, to say that a vehicle that gets the purchaser a tax credit costs the same thing as one that does not get the credit, when one actually SELLS for thousands more, if the purchaser cannot collect the welfare. The dealer and the manufacturer get PAID the true and actual price.
A substantial part of the true and actual cost of such a vehicle is merely and simply SHIFTED from the lucky subsidized purchaser to the rest of us who pay taxes.
Furthermore, quite a lot of people aren’t ABLE to collect the tax credit, because they don’t drive, or can’t afford a new vehicle, and don’t want to lease, or cannot lease. You have to have a certain amount of income and a minimum credit rating to lease a new car at reasonable cost. A lot of people who can afford a lease don’t drive enough to justify having a new car, since they can get by just fine with an older car.
Then there is this little thing we refer to as OPPORTUNITY COST. I could buy a new car tomorrow morning, no problem. But I will continue to drive my ancient old Buick, inherited, since my ancient Escort passed away a couple of weeks back. Damned old Ford had a heart attack with only 225 k miles on the odometer. It was just BARELY old enough to vote, lol.
I will have to spend a few bucks here and there on the old Buick, but probably less than the combined property tax and full coverage insurance premium associated with a new car- and a new car with all the features ( plus some that weren’t available formerly ) of comparable size and performance would set me back almost forty thousand bucks.
I have PLENTY of ways to profitably invest forty thousand dollars, and barring the economy going entirely to hell, by the time I could wear out a new car, that forty ought to grow to eighty, at least, and hopefully a hundred or more. The investment will be made in such a way that I probably won’t have to pay much if anything at all on my profit, depending on current tax law remaining in effect. You can for instance buy a house and live in it a while and sell and pay little or no income tax on your profit, if any.
Having said all this, I AM in favor of subsidies for new electric vehicles, because speeding up the transition to electrified vehicles will in my opinion, be an enormous plus across the board for just about every body.
I do wish however that somebody could figure out a more equitable way of arranging the subsidies, so they would be fair to poor folks and old Scots Irish hillbillies like me who are too “tight” to buy new cars. 😉
But hey, if it weren’t for folks who think the status associated with owning a new car is worth more than a nicer house, or college for their kids, or a nice retirement portfolio, etc, I wouldn’t be able to buy old cars for peanuts- cars that with reasonable care can be expected to run a LONG time.
A while back I pulled into a restaurant for lunch, and an old coworker pulled in beside me, driving a brand new tricked out truck, and started ribbing me about my elderly old work truck, and telling me he hoped I would be able to afford one like his one day. We went in and sat down to talk over old times.
Ordinarily I would have had the lunch special, but I ordered the most expensive steak on the menu. He ordered close to the cheapest thing on the menu, and he kept glancing at my steak like a hopeful hound, lol. Poor guy hasn’t got a CLUE.
I suppose the payment on that truck is at least six hundred a month, probably more.
I’m not rich, no way, but as we say in this neck of the woods, I could “buy and sell” this guy without any trouble.
He’s spent enough on new cars and trucks over the last forty years or so to have bought a pretty nice little farm. I bought the farm, lol, besides what I have via the old folks passing the old home place on to me.
At least he’s not renting. Rent’s forever.
Hopefully I will live long enough that I can buy myself a cheap used electric car, , and a ten KW solar mini farm as well, because gasoline is going to cost like hell someday.
My money says depletion will outrun the electrification of the auto and light truck industries, never mind all the heavier vehicles and other equipment that will still be around for another generation or two, at least. It might be possible to electrify a two hundred horsepower tractor or a four hundred horsepower eighteen wheeler some time down the road. It might not.
I don’t get your logic Old Farmer. You say depletion will outrun electrification of autos and light trucks. Do you really think an industry that produces 600 million new cars every year will not notice something as obvious as oil depletion or any other depletion that affects their businesses? Tesla and others have shown how easy it is to produce a good electric vehicle. By the time depletion is becoming obvious, most of the manufacturers will already be in the business of hybrids and EV’s. So why would they not shift to EV’s? If liquid fuel is hard to get and expensive, the demand for electrics and hybrids will be mounting fast. Businesses move with the product demand.
As far as the heavier vehicles, I am sure that hybridization will bring their use of fuel downward. The trucking industry has to worry about the rail industry (which can electrify if it has to), so they will demand and producers will adapt.
Unless you think that civilization is going to collapse very quickly.
A railroad is proposing expansion of a nearby rail yard due to the huge number of containers coming into eastern ports. A result of the expanded Panama canal. 600 extra containers on every ship. Railroads do not spend money lightly, so they expect this to continue. Probably looking into expanding other transfer yards.
Hi GF,
Many industries have been overtaken by new technologies and changing circumstances that have resulted in business conditions changing sooner and faster than expected.
I failed to make it clear that I was thinking about the next decade or maybe two decades in my comment.
It is just my personal opinion that due to corporate culture , etc, that the car industry WON’T build enough new electric cars and maybe light trucks SOON ENOUGH to out run oil depletion.
My seat of the pants feeling is that oil will go up and stay up, most of the time, due to the supply declining faster than the world’s legacy supply of oil burners of all sorts over the next decade or maybe two decades. I was not thinking so much about not being able to buy oil as having to pay a high price for it.
Maybe I am too pessimistic, but I believe some super giant and giant fields are already on their last legs, and I don’t see any indication of new oil discoveries even remotely keeping up with the decline of today’s producing fields.
I am not saying it won’t happen, but for now there is very little evidence that the trucking, construction, aviation, agricultural, and ocean going shipping industries can even seriously BEGIN to be electrified, at least not within the next decade, and probably longer.
Long term, there is plenty of reason to believe we can deal successfully with peak oil. At least those of us in prosperous countries with the economic muscle to make the necessary changes will be able to do so.
Don’t get caught in Egypt.
I hope Dennis C is right, and that oil production will decline slowly and gradually,because if the cards fall that way, electrification CAN outrun depletion.
But speaking and thinking as a generalist and total systems thinker, a specialist in being a non specialist, I can see the oil industry itself being wrong about future production. A shark fin oil supply crash could happen due to depletion, lack of investment, and lack of new discoveries, etc.
The ever changing GREAT GAME, as the English used to call it, of international power politics could result in a major part of the world oil supply being withheld from the market.
Eventually if the economy doesn’t crash and die, electric auto production will scale up.
Hopefully there will still be enough oil to keep other industries humming until we can find and implement ways to run them with little or no oil. That’s going to take a while.
I think you’re right that plug-in passenger vehicles aren’t going to expand dramatically quickly over the next 7-8 years.
Further out than that? Well, if oil prices go anywhere above $80 and stay there for more than 5 years…things would change. Anywhere above $125 for several years, and things will change fast: new cars will hybridize and go full EV. Old cars will be hybridized (it’s not that hard).
Oil above $150? Carpooling and sharing would take off.
Passenger cars are about 50% of oil consumption – they give a big cushion against depletion. And, in the meantime, commercial/industrial users would be shifting: Fedex has multiple pilot programs for alt-fuel vehicles, just waiting for point they’re needed. Commercial truckers would convert faster than you might think, in a long-term high price environment. Asphalt would lose market share, etc.
Mac,
I’m not including tax credits. EVs like the Leaf and Tesla are cheaper than comparable ICEs WITHOUT the tax credit.
Of course, the tax credit affects pricing: without the tax credit these vehicles would be a bit cheaper, and therefore even more competitive.
And, of course, the tax credit very very roughly evens the playing field, because the cost of ICE pollution is very real, even if it doesn’t come out of your pocket. That’s realistic, and absolutely an honest and appropriate thing to include.
But, again…the TCO comparison doesn’t include the tax credit. Without the tax credit, EVs are as cheap or cheaper than any comparable ICE.
With the tax credit, EVs are screamingly cheap.
People should not look on it as welfare or subsidy, look on it as a very small carbon tax. The real carbon taxes will be much higher than subsidizing a few cars or wind turbines.
Hi Old Farmer Mac,
The solution is simple, buy a used leaf, they are not very expensive. The 2011 with 58k in Richmond VA for $6900.
Them there redneck Texas ‘ publicans know a thing or two about wind power, and don’t give a crap about all the OTHER ‘publicans calling them socialists and tree huggers and whale lovers and commies when it comes to managing their own business inside the great nation of Texas.
They are not as mean hearted as the D’s paint them, either. They’re building wind farms right and left, and saving their oil and gas for people up north so they won’t freeze in the dark later on, lol.
This link can honestly be described as cheerleading, but it’s still full of relevant facts, and well worth reading.
One point made is that Texas is now routinely getting as much as fifty percent of the state’s electricity from wind, which absolutely blows the ten or twenty percent limit due to grid stability out of the water.
Other places can and will build back up peaker plants and more transmission lines as well, once depletion and rising prices work their magic on the decision making process.
Energy in roads.
With the advent of the EV, the energy used in road building and maintenance will be approaching the energy used by vehicles.
“To put these numbers in context, the energy needed to construct one lane of road one kilometer in length is the equivalent of burning 23,000 gallons of conventional gasoline. ”
When considering a road will have to be patched and resurfaced numerous times in it’s life, as well as bridges rebuilt, the energy that goes into roads is quite significant and will play an important part in future roads and building methods.
Although they speak of just adding another layer of asphalt for road rebuilding, on large highways I notice they often remove and replace original concrete which is much more energy intensive.
Why have roads at all? Or at least ones that don’t go to your local grass takeoff strip. Just fly in and out of your backyard.
Also what would be useful: distribution of VMT by age.
I don’t have that graph but the cost of tire purchases falls off after 10 years of age to 3/4 at 11 to 15 years, 1/2 at 16 to 20 years and 1/3 at 21 to 25 years old. So one can assume that the number of miles travelled per year falls off after 11 years old.
The data after 25 years old will start to be skewed as a lot of classic car buffs start to get involved.
VMT drops off fast with age.
Cars less than one year old account for about 15% of VMT. Cars less than 6 years old do 50% of VMT.
I don’t drive a classic personally, but I am into old cars and have friends who do drive classics, and I read up occasionally on the subject.
Most classic cars owners only take their collectible cars out only for an occasional pleasure drive on a day when traffic is light and the weather is nice. The total miles put on all of them in a year is trivial by comparison to other cars, but GF is no doubt right about them skewing the statistics for really old cars.
Just about every really old car I see on the road IS a classic or collectible.
I saw a Leaf, and then another, then one more, then another, then even one more. No noise, no gas, new Leafs can go 200 miles, 440 volt charging in 30 minutes, 120 will work.
Looks like EVs are making a dent.
Cold weather might be a factor for battery life.
There should be more internal combustion engines mounted on frames to transport people and things. The number of cars is clearly not enough, there are too many parking spaces and more cars are needed to fill those empty spaces.
I was watching the movement of a car, the driver drove through a stop sign, thought I was in the wrong, had no idea a stop sign was at the intersection, living on Mars, oblivious to the immediate surroundings, just plain ignorant of what you have to do while driving.
Had to avoid an accident because some numbskull refuses to pay attention.
Wear your seatbelt, always look both ways, obey all traffic laws and rules of the road.
Most of all, pay attention.
While it all lasts, anyhow.
From Electrek
“Nissan published its US sales report for the month of May and confirmed that it delivered only 979 LEAFs – down 53.5% from the same period in 2015.
LEAF sales are now down 39% in 2016 versus the same period last year despite the availability of the upgraded battery pack and as previously mentioned, we need to take into account that last year’s performance was extremely disappointing and should have been easy to surpass.”
Interesting! Though I wouldn’t count them down and out just quite yet.
As of July 2016, the Nissan Leaf is the world’s all-time best selling highway-capable all-electric car with more than 230,000 units sold worldwide since 2010. As of July 2016, the top markets for Leaf sales were the United States with about 97,000 units, followed by Japan with 68,000 units, and Europe with 61,000 Leafs. As of September 2016, the European market is led by Norway with about 18,600 new units registered, and the U.K. with 15,000 units.
Source Wikipedia
Nissan has the muscle and talent to put the Leaf back on the sales map in a big way.
I think they just made a mistake in trying to be the first mass market full electric by coming out with a battery pack too small for the broader public to be comfortable with it.
They might repackage the electrical components in a new body style, with a new name, but it would be a mistake to think Nissan is out of the game.
Nobody in the market for a new car wants this years model when next year’s model will be a MUCH better car, lol.
I read occasionally about a Leaf being used for a city delivery vehicle by specialty stores and having no problem at all going from opening to closing on one charge. Even the old model will go well over a hundred miles in good weather on city streets with low speed limits.
Last time I was in Norway my niece picked me up at the airport with her sparkling new red Mitsubishi Outlander. I accused her of being a traitor while she said I remained a dinosaur (both joking of course). There’s some symbolism though with a young Petroleum Engineer trading (my wife’s) an old gas guzzling Volvo in for an (mostly) EV.
Yeah, IIRC US sales of plug-ins are pretty much flat, due to low gas prices.
OTOH, Chinese plug-in sales are exploding, and Europe is working hard to catch up.
And thank Sky Daddy for those of us who are so well off that they can afford a new TESLA S. 😉
Every Tesla on the road means gasoline for my old clunkers will be infinitesimally less expensive. That way I get back part of the tax subsidy in the form of cheaper gasoline, as well as in cleaner air, and less likelihood of my country being involved in yet another hot energy war.
The Tesla naysayers are going to be eating a lot of crow in my opinion.
Tesla’s impact on luxury cars is quite remarkable.
“Tesla has now captured nearly a third of all sales in the category, the automaker said.”
…BMW Chief Executive Harald Krueger announced plans this week that many took as a challenge to Tesla, announcing that the German producer “will systematically electrify all brands and model series,” according to MarketWatch. Krueger told Bloomberg that he could see plug-in hybrids and all-electric cars across the BMW and Mini brands accounting for somewhere between 15% and 25% of sales in approximately the next 10 years.”
US Plug-in monthly sales hit an all-time high last month, despite low oil prices. Almost 17,000 sold. It looks like 2016 will finish with a record yearly total of 130K-140K vehicles sold.
Also, the 238-mile-range $37.5K MSRP Chevy Bolt EV is now officially “for sale”. CA and OR dealers received their allocation numbers and their MSRP/invoice price books and are now placing orders for for-retail-sale Bolts. Deliveries promised to buyers before the end of the year.
Finally, California is rapidly filling in the DC fast-charging holes for long-range EV’s. In February, the California Energy Commission awarded contracts to several 3rd party charger companies (Like Chargepoint, EVgo, etc.) for chargers along the major N-S routes (I-5, 101, 99). Just a few days ago, they announced tentative selections for grants to install another 45 chargers along various east-west routes (I-15 to Las Vegas, I-80 to Truckee, and various state highways). All of these include Chademo and CCS chargers, good for Leafs, i3’s, and Bolts.
One issue with Nissan is they have a large number of used Leafs coming off lease. Many of these cars have batteries that are starting to show their age and have reduced range, but these cars are selling for very low prices.
Plus, they have the new version due next year with over 200 miles of range and an updated design.
“Cold weather might be a factor for battery life.”
Both the Tesla and the Leaf have heating systems for the battery, cold temps are not an issue.
The Tesla also has cooling, which is important in hot climates and especially during supercharging. The Leaf’s lack of cooling is a pretty big issue for long distance travel. The rapid chargers heat up the batteries to the limit, and they don’t cool off fast. People report they really can only do 1 rapid charge per day due to heating with the Leaf. With the Tesla, the fans turn on and make a lot of noise, but there is no problem with heat. I’m not sure about the Volt, hopefully they have both heating and cooling for the battery.
The Tesla also has a special mode to pre-heat the battery a little higher than normal to get more power out. They use that trick to go 0-60 mph in just 2.5 seconds….
I’m not sure about the Volt, hopefully they have both heating and cooling for the battery.
The Volt has very sophisticated temperature management, as well as Depth of Discharge management. I haven’t heard of any battery problems with the Volt.
I checked and the Bolt also has a liquid cooling system for the battery.
And I believe it has a heating system, which is handy for very cold climates.
Maduro is surely doing everything he can to make his former holier than thou supporters look like idiots.
Wonder who Pres Clinton will choose for Energy Secretary, and if there will be much in the way of an energy policy. I would like to see some sort of national 5 yr plan, including some carefully chosen infrastructure projects- like improving the grid.
I’m not expecting too much, since the budget for discretionary items is getting smaller and smaller as the entitlement pie portion continues to escalate.
This will be of interest to anybody interested in electrified cars.
Scroll down and you will find a notice about California holding hearings on the rules that will govern the use of self driving cars, etc.
TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH LIVESTOCK
“With emissions estimated at 7.1 gigatonnes CO2-eq per annum, representing 14.5 percent
of human-induced GHG emissions, the livestock sector plays an important role in
climate change.
Beef and cattle milk production account for the majority of emissions, respectively
contributing 41 and 20 percent of the sector’s emissions. While pig meat and poultry
meat and eggs contribute respectively 9 percent and 8 percent to the sector’s emissions.
The strong projected growth of this production will result in higher emission shares and
volumes over time.
Feed production and processing, and enteric fermentation from ruminants are the two
main sources of emissions, representing 45 and 39 percent of sector emissions, respectively.
Manure storage and processing represent 10 percent. The remainder is attributable
to the processing and transportation of animal products.
Included in feed production, the expansion of pasture and feed crops into forests accounts
for about 9 percent of the sector’s emissions.
Cutting across categories, the consumption of fossil fuel along the sector supply
chains accounts for about 20 percent of sector emissions.”
http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e.pdf
One way to cut emissions from livestock is to get protein from insects instead. They are much more efficient converters of plants to protein with a lower ecological footprint as well.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e05.pdf
5.1 Feed conversion
As demand for meat rises, so too does the need for grain and protein feeds. This is because far more plant protein is needed for an equivalent amount of animal protein.
Pimentel and Pimentel (2003) calculated that for 1 kg of high-quality animal protein, livestock are fed about 6 kg of plant protein. Feed-to-meat conversion rates (how much feed is needed to produce a 1 kg increase in weight) vary widely depending on the class of the animal and the production practices used. Typically, 1 kg of live animal weight in a typical United States production system requires the following amount of feed: 2.5 kg
for chicken, 5 kg for pork and 10 kg for beef (Smil, 2002). Insects require far less feed. For example, the production of 1 kg of live animal weight of crickets requires as little as 1.7 kg of feed (Collavo et al., 2005). When these figures are adjusted for edible weight (usually the entire animal cannot be eaten), the advantage of eating insects becomes even greater (van Huis, 2013). Nakagaki and DeFoliart (1991) estimated that up to 80 percent of a cricket is edible and digestible compared with 55 percent for chicken and pigs and
40 percent for cattle. <STRONG<This means that crickets are twice as efficient in converting feed to meat as chicken, at least four times more efficient than pigs, and 12 times more efficient than cattle (see Figure 5.1). This is likely because insects are cold-blooded and do not require feed to maintain body temperature.
Fred, sounds buggy to me. I would let the chickens eat the bugs. Who ever heard anyone say, “Pass me those cricket legs please.”.
Now as far as cattle go, I think that everything in a cow is used. The list is far too long, from ice cream to medicines, to explosives. Footballs, tires, cosmetics, adhesives, buttons, combs, toothbrushes, photographic film. Of course we can’t forget leather. Read on:
http://www.cattle-empire.net/blog/123/many-uses-cow-beef-products
So maybe a small sensor and igniter to burn off those cow farts. Keeps the cattle moving and have less fat in the meat. 🙂
Maybe it’s just the modern way not to, but the older people ate a lot of the organ meat too. Waste not want not.
Of course they can always feed the dogs the parts they don’t like.
Fred’s numbers on feed conversion and edible percentage of domestic animals are somewhat out of date.
It’s been a while since I looked up these numbers, but later tonight I will post the figures achieved by modern feeders.
There is actually very little of any domestic animal such as a pig or cow that cannot be eaten, if cultural taboos are overlooked, excepting hair and heavy bones. I am not opposed in principle to eating insects, since I know I eat quite a few already anyway, lol, as does every body else, mostly without realizing it. I have had grasshoppers, and they are actually pretty good.
My guess is that it won’t be any harder to convince people to eat every last edible speck of a pig or cow than it will to convince them to eat insects. Anybody that eats any of numerous popular canned meat products, hotdogs, etc, is already eating visceral organs, tongues, brains, ligaments, cartilage, and just about everything else except the hair and the squeal or moo.
The only things that escape modern meat packers are some nutrients in processing water, which cannot be economically recovered. Waste water regulations are gradually forcing the packers to clean this water up a little better from one year to the next, at considerable expense.
Having said this much, it is true that insects are amazingly efficient at feed conversion, and thus may well eventually be consumed as staple foods on the grand scale.
A lot of what we hear, both pro and con, about all sorts of environmental issues is cherry picked and presented in the worst possible light in order to make the opposite camp look bad, or the home camp look better.
For example:
When you hear that it takes so many hundreds or thousands of gallons of water to produce a bushel of grain or a pound of meat, the people saying so are telling the truth, but they virtually always conveniently fail to mention that nearly all the water is RAIN water, which will fall and either sink in or run off , and back to the sea, no matter if a tract of land is in grain or forest.
None of this is to say our current business as usual methods of producing meat on the grand scale are sustainable, or that we will be able to continue using these methods over the longer run.
On the other hand, it is possible to produce a hell of a lot of meat in a more or less sustainable fashion on land that is not well suited to producing crops for direct human consumption.
<i.Anybody that eats any of numerous popular canned meat products, hotdogs, etc, is already eating …brains
Wow. What about transmitting mad cow??
First you need a mad cow. Usually happens after you tip one over.
Hey, even worse than a mad cow is a really mad bull… 😉
I have always liked this film. A small farm and some unique answers.
“Wildlife film maker Rebecca Hosking investigates how to transform her family’s farm in Devon into a low energy farm for the future, and discovers that nature holds the key.
With her father close to retirement, Rebecca returns to her family’s wildlife-friendly farm in Devon, to become the next generation to farm the land. But last year’s high fuel prices were a wake-up call for Rebecca. Realising that all food production in the UK is completely dependent on abundant cheap fossil fuel, particularly oil, she sets out to discover just how secure this oil supply is.
Alarmed by the answers, she explores ways of farming without using fossil fuel. With the help of pioneering farmers and growers, Rebecca learns that it is actually nature that holds the key to farming in a low-energy future”
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/farm-for-the-future/
Fred’s numbers on feed conversion and edible percentage of domestic animals are somewhat out of date.
OFM, I might grant you the numbers on edible percentage.
However on feed conversion, not a snowball’s chance in hell!
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Commentary–Bugs-vs-beef-250973191.html
Growing insects takes advantage of their high feed conversion efficiency. For example, crickets require only 2 kilograms of feed for every 1 kilogram of bodyweight gain. In addition, as the FAO report noted, insects can be “reared on organic side-streams, including human and animal waste,” and thus can help reduce environmental contamination. Not only that, but insects production releases fewer greenhouse gases and less ammonia than cattle or pigs and requires significantly less land and water.
I’ll await your numbers with bated breath.
Cheers!
Have company, will be back later.
Feed efficiency for beef and pork has improved over the last decade, but not dramatically. Results depend largely on the type of feeding operation.
For chickens grown commercially here in the USA, two to one is commonly cited these days.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/03/post_47.html
Fish may actually out perform insects, we can’t be sure about this yet, but farm raised fish can convert feed in the same range as indicated for insects.
And when the time comes we really need the food, other than the portion of animal carcasses fed as pet food, or supplements to livestock food, we WILL eat everything but the hair, more and more as time passes. The rich will always have their pets, and feed them well.
Nobody who is the least bit squeamish should ever look into the making of sausage, even the way country folks do it at home. We throw out intestines and hides, for the dogs or raccoons, or bury them. You betcha that stuff winds up in supermarkets when animals are slaughtered commercially.
Bottom line, we are going to have to give up eating meat on the grand scale, sooner rather than later, due to there being so many naked apes these days. The environment won’t stand it a whole lot longer, and you are hearing this from a disinterested retired professional in the field.
( Full disclosure, I will soon have a few cows again, on pasture, more or less sustainably managed. But these few cows will be more about having something to do rather than making money. You would be better off working a few hours as a Walmart greeter than you are running a dozen or two dozen cows, money wise. )
Domesticated livestock can have a net loss or gain effect on our environment. It all depends on whether we manage them according to nature or against it. Currently there are millions of acres across the globe being influenced by the principles of Holistic Management in partnership with the Savory Institute. Many of these land managers are using livestock to regenerate and build their soil plants and biology.
Quite a number of them now have the data to show that they have been sequestering carbon in their soils on a massive scale that more than makes up for the methane emissions from their ruminants. http://soilcarboncoalition.org/
I’m also proud of my home state’s (Michigan) land grant university, which has applied to become a Savory Hub at the Lake City Research Center where they have a grassfed beef (from birth through finishing) Program. They have been doing some monitoring and studies on livestock methane emmisions. They are managing the cattle herd to increase forage production and sequester carbon to offset the methane emmisions.
My guess is that eventually the science will show that healthy grasslands are loaded with enough methanotrophs that offset all the methane emmited by the ruminants the same way as it has been shown that the air around termite mounds is lower in methane than the ave in the atmosphere due to the methanotrophs that live in the mounds as well.
GoneFishing,
Yes, ruminants such as cows and sheep produce methane, in the rumen I believe. The methane is exhaled, if memory serves; ask FredM.
Farming is probably a bigger problem than fossil fuels.
What really needs to happen is that farmers need to be squeezed a bit harder to contain the pollution they create. It’s difficult however, because farmers punch far above their weight politically.
In the end my guess is that lab grown meat or artificial meat-like substances will gradually replace the real stuff.
My daughter is vegan and an excellent cook, so I have been discovering that this is more feasible than I expected.
The younger generation prefers chicken nuggets to chicken legs anyway. I was raised on greasy bony meat, and I think it tastes better that way. I like pot roast better than expensive beef filet. My kids want low-fat boneless skinless (and flavorless) chicken breast.
FredM,
How about iguana farming? Iguanas are cold blooded and they’re vegetarian.
Monitors and crocodilians would be good too but they are meat eaters. Oh! Here’s an idea: feed them politicians…well no, then I wouldn’t want to eat the meat.
Iguanas it is, then.
Yummy!
.
You would probably risk contracting Mad Politician Disease too.
Drought in the northeastern US.
Droughts occurring across different parts of the US, very bad in California, but the typically wet northeast has portions that have been in long term drought for a year now ranging to extreme drought. Wells are going dry in New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts.
I live in a moderate drought area, but two artesian wells near me are drying up. One which pumps water to the surface year round has not run in two months, though the well is still providing water. The other which usually stops surface flow sometime during summer is only intermittently providing water from the well hole and no surface flow for a long time.
This has not happened in memory of the original owners, around 75 years, which is probably when the well was drilled.
Let’s put it this way, the springs around here flow every spring, sometimes much of the year. One year they flowed all year. I have two on my property and several nearby. They have not flowed all year, at all.
So even moderate drought, if it’s long enough, will cause loss of the aquifer.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/RegionalDroughtMonitor.aspx?northeast
MEGADROUGHT RISKS IN SOUTHWEST U.S. SOAR AS ATMOSPHERE WARMS
“As a consequence of a warming Earth, the risk of a megadrought — one that lasts more than 35 years — in the American Southwest likely will rise from a low chance over the past thousand years to a 20- to 50-percent chance in this century. However, by slashing greenhouse gas emissions, these risks are nearly cut in half, according to a new study.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161010120206.htm
Since ,barring catastrophic occurrences, I don’t think there is any way to stop the temperature rise below 2C, I will move on to a slightly earlier paper indicating a much drier Southwest and major problems due to already depleting the aquifers needed to mitigate a long term drought.
“Our results point to a remarkably drier future that falls far outside the contemporary experience of natural and human systems in Western North America, conditions that may present a substantial challenge to adaptation. Human populations in this region, and their associated water resources demands, have been increasing rapidly in recent decades, and these trends are expected to continue for years to come (29). Future droughts will occur in a significantly warmer world with higher temperatures than recent historical events, conditions that are likely to be a major added stress on both natural ecosystems (30) and agriculture (31). And, perhaps most importantly for adaptation, recent years have witnessed the widespread depletion of nonrenewable groundwater reservoirs (32, 33), resources that have allowed people to mitigate the impacts of naturally occurring droughts. In some cases, these losses have even exceeded the capacity of Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the two major surface reservoirs in the region (34, 35). Combined with the likelihood of a much drier future and increased demand, the loss of groundwater and higher temperatures will likely exacerbate the impacts of future droughts, presenting a major adaptation challenge for managing ecological and anthropogenic water needs in the region.”
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400082.full
Hi GF,
I don’t know anything in particular about your neighborhood, but it is fairly common for wells and springs to run dry during moderate droughts these days whereas in former years they held up ok right thru a moderate drought. This happens mostly in places where lots of new houses are being built, putting more demand on ground water withdrawn from individual or community wells and even from local streams and rivers. Development often means the loss of woodlands and wetlands, and lots of new pavement, not to mention new roofs, etc.
All this adds up to lots of runoff, and lots of water being removed that does not find it’s way back into the local water table. The tens of thousands of gallons that are dumped into a typical septic system over the course of a year are partially absorbed by grass roots, etc, and a lot more tends move UP into dryer soil where it evaporates, rather than sinking deeper.
Most people have never given a thought to the fact water can move uphill in soil, but it does, depending on the soil, just as water moves uphill in a wad of paper towel put on a wet table top.
I am pretty sure you know all this already, but there are others reading this forum who most likely don’t know much about this topic.
Combine a moderate drought and a lot of development near your suburban or rural home, and if you use a well or spring, you may find yourself in a tight spot for water, whereas a neighbor on similar land a couple of miles away always has plenty, unless the drought lasts a long time.
Well drilling contractors have been in tall cotton for the last twenty or thirty years, because if the demand for new wells falls off, there are still countless well owners who need to go down another hundred, two hundred or even five or six hundred feet to get enough water, or ANY water.
Talk about a race to the bottom, PUN INTENDED!!!!
I live in a rural area, mostly farms and woods, very little new development in the last couple of decades. Nearest area with any real development is eight miles away.
Interesting article about methane
“A new study by federal scientists finds that increased methane emissions are due to agriculture, raising questions about the Obama administration’s plans to increase regulations on methane emissions from fossil fuel production.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a study Wednesday stating the amount of methane released during fossil fuel production is higher than previously estimated. However, that process isn’t as responsible for the uptick in methane emissions as the agriculture sector is, the study said.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feds-say-agriculture-the-main-culprit-for-methane-spike/article/2603830#.V_afiFG2FdE.twitter
The other global factor, air density. As the atmosphere warms it expands, lowering it’s density. Also it holds more water vapor, making it even less dense.
“Changes in air pressure could have a big effect on climate. Air pressure controls the atmosphere’s circulation, and therefore influences how moisture moves. Changes in circulation can alter rainfall, temperature, winds and storminess.
For instance, changes in an air-circulation pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation have been implicated in recent increases in rainfall over Scotland, reduced rain in Spain, and a drop in the number of cold snaps in France.
These trends, and their impact on climate, could be stronger than we thought. Computer simulations of climate have underestimated the size of the change in air pressure, the researchers found. ”
http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030320/full/news030317-6.html
Decreased density of the thermosphere a result of global warming.
“The increase in global surface air temperature during the 20th century has been attributed mainly to the increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. In the upper atmosphere, the radiative effects of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, become more pronounced and produce a cooling rather than a warming effect (2, 3). This effect is demonstrated by the CO2-dominated atmosphere of Venus, where the troposphere is more than twice as warm as Earth’s and the thermosphere is 4 to 5 times as cold (4). The cooling should cause the upper atmosphere to contract; we may thus expect a substantial decline in thermospheric density, as well as a downward displacement of ionospheric layers ”
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiCo8fdktHPAhXCdj4KHdORCtU4ChAWCCEwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.jsd.claremont.edu%2Femorhardt%2F159%2Fpdfs%2F2007%2Flastovicke%2520et%2520al%25202006.doc&usg=AFQjCNFoQ1JZkP0WgDXi2rQGZ-w6DdLtlw&sig2=kUj0i3t9JDu8OH7rVSoUaA
I meant increased density of the thermosphere, not decreased.
Gone Fishing,
I was about to say…
Metagovernment
Open-Source Governance
See also related references below articles.
Open Research (video short)
Quote from its article:
If any of you were able to make it to through Sunday’s nights debate. One of the last questions was about energy:
QUESTION: What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?
TRUMP: Absolutely. I think it’s such a great question, because energy is under siege by the Obama administration. Under absolutely siege. The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, is killing these energy companies. And foreign companies are now coming in buying our — buying so many of our different plants and then re-jiggering the plant so that they can take care of their oil.
We are killing — absolutely killing our energy business in this country. Now, I’m all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, et cetera. But we need much more than wind and solar.
And you look at our miners. Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business. There is a thing called clean coal. Coal will last for 1,000 years in this country. Now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology. We have unbelievable — we have found over the last seven years, we have found tremendous wealth right under our feet. So good. Especially when you have $20 trillion in debt.
I will bring our energy companies back. They’ll be able to compete. They’ll make money. They’ll pay off our national debt. They’ll pay off our tremendous budget deficits, which are tremendous. But we are putting our energy companies out of business. We have to bring back our workers.
You take a look at what’s happening to steel and the cost of steel and China dumping vast amounts of steel all over the United States, which essentially is killing our steelworkers and our steel companies. We have to guard our energy companies. We have to make it possible.
The EPA is so restrictive that they are putting our energy companies out of business. And all you have to do is go to a great place like West Virginia or places like Ohio, which is phenomenal, or places like Pennsylvania and you see what they’re doing to the people, miners and others in the energy business. It’s a disgrace.
CLINTON: And actually — well, that was very interesting. First of all, China is illegally dumping steel in the United States and Donald Trump is buying it to build his buildings, putting steelworkers and American steel plants out of business. That’s something that I fought against as a senator and that I would have a trade prosecutor to make sure that we don’t get taken advantage of by China on steel or anything else.
You know, because it sounds like you’re in the business or you’re aware of people in the business — you know that we are now for the first time ever energy-independent. We are not dependent upon the Middle East. But the Middle East still controls a lot of the prices. So the price of oil has been way down. And that has had a damaging effect on a lot of the oil companies, right? We are, however, producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels. And I think that’s an important transition.
We’ve got to remain energy-independent. It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the Middle East. We have enough worries over there without having to worry about that.
So I have a comprehensive energy policy, but it really does include fighting climate change, because I think that is a serious problem. And I support moving toward more clean, renewable energy as quickly as we can, because I think we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses.
But I also want to be sure that we don’t leave people behind. That’s why I’m the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country, because those coal miners and their fathers and their grandfathers, they dug that coal out. A lot of them lost their lives. They were injured, but they turned the lights on and they powered their factories. I don’t want to walk away from them. So we’ve got to do something for them.
Ah! And that, whatever the hell, THAT, was, confirms my thoughts about the leadership or lack thereof in this country. Baah, baah, black sheep, have you any wool, yes sir, yes sir, three bags full! Of course those three bags are full of sheep shit!
Fred, Hillary Clinton is right when she says we do not need the Middle East for energy. We could easily run our country without them with a few adjustments. Energy wise we are oil independent of the Middle East if we want to be.
Our Non OPEC imports total 6.7 million bpd, OPEC imports are 3.8 million barrels per day. Persian Gulf imports are only 1.8 million bpd of that total.
Net imports total 4.7 million bpd. We export about 5.4 million bpd of crude oil and products.
In sum total we do not need the Persian Gulf oil, I think it is more a matter of cost and convenience at this point. We are energy independent of the Gulf and the Middle East anytime we want to be. That doesn’t mean we will not buy their cheap oil.
So basically, the US takes in 19.4 mmbpd and exports 5.4 mmbpd for a total of 14 mmbpd US usage. We produce 8.7 mmbpd and import 6.7 mmbpd from non-OPEC sources for a total of 15.5 mbpd.
So without OPEC, we have more than enough.
GF,
I agree that we certainly could be energy independent and that even now we do not depend all that much on the Middle East and OPEC oil for our energy needs. However that is not quite the same as being completely energy independent, since we still import those 6.7 mmbpd.
Bottom line, her comments about energy notwithstanding, I still feel an inordinate amount of queasiness when contemplating Hillary as our future commander in chief. I would much prefer there were some other viable alternative.
May Thor and the Serpent Goddess of Fertility save us.
Cheers!
Forget Thor, he’s not much interested in your inane politics.
I seldom disagree with Fred Maygar, and when I do, it’s a matter of degree rather than an outright difference of opinion or facts.
I really wish just about any well known D were the candidate, other than Clinton. But at least I can take some comfort in the fact that Trump is so bad it seems a safe bet that even Clinton can beat him.
The problem with Clinton is that you can never be sure what she will do, when it comes to changing her mind to keep the political winds in her sails. She was all in favor of a big fence on the southern border a few years back, she talks tough about banksters while taking millions from them in speaking fees, etc. She may actually be more belligerent as CinC than most R candidates.
And as far as misrepresenting the truth, well, there’s that six million barrels of oil per day, etc.
But I don’t think she will flip flop on environmental issues, at least, although I don’t have any doubt that any big contributor to the Clinton Foundation, or her campaign coffers will find smooth sailing in the event permits are needed to build a pipeline, or emit some CO2, or dump a little waste water without spending a LOT of money cleaning it up first. .
This is only to say that Clinton will insist on a much larger donation than a R prez would, lol.
And considering Trump’s record, he would for sure charge every dime the traffic could bear. But then he is not really R presidential material. The party hates his guts, with a passion hardly to be comprehended.
The environmental issue trumps all the other issues combined, in my estimation.
If we don’t get our environmental ducks in a row, we may not HAVE any ducks left to worry about a generation or two down the road.
The SINGLE fact of fossil fuel depletion is more than sufficient to trigger hot resource wars between many smaller countries for sure, and almost for sure among some larger countries.
When the American Civil war started, the armies and navies of the day were using techniques and equipment basically familiar to soldiers and sailors from the sixteenth and seventeenth century, even from the fifteenth century in some respects.
When it was over, war was a whole new ballgame, played by a thoroughly rewritten rule book.
When todays dominant countries go to war, if they do, a few decades down the road, it will be a whole new ballgame again. Sky Daddy alone knows what sort of weapons may be in use.
Today’s run of the mill terrorists know how to build car bombs and write nasty code to muck up computers. The next generation of run of the mill terrorists may be able to create a super flu, or a bug that will wipe out a staple food crop.
That’s right latch onto the wrong number. Net imports are 4.7 mmbpd. Canada sends us 3.4 mmbpd. Mexico sends us 0.733 mmbpd. Etcetera. Non-OPEC imports are bigger than our net imports by nearly 2 mmbpd. So we don’t need OPEC at all.
I think you guys misinterpreted what she said. She was referring to not being dependent upon the Middle East, which we are not. We are in a relationship of convenience with them, which makes our involvement over there a political one, not so much an energy one. Most of the Saudi oil goes elsewhere.
We get 1 million barrels a day from the Saudis. We export 5.4 mbpd. Doesn’t look dependent to me.
Hi GF,
Here is what FactChecking.org said:
“Clinton exaggerated when she said the U.S. was now “energy independent.” The country imported 11 percent of total energy consumed in 2015.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/factchecking-the-second-presidential-debate/
I really don’t think this is what’s important here. She had 2 minutes to answer the question and to keep it simple for millions of clueless Americans to understand. Most of us who post here understand today the U.S. is not in the position it was just a decade ago. I’m guessing most all of that 11 percent comes from Canada and Mexico.
I was hoping someone here could explain how the “EPA is killing these energy companies”.
Please also, explain:
“because energy is under siege by the Obama administration. Under absolutely siege”. But, “we have found over the last seven years, we have found tremendous wealth right under our feet”
“There is a thing called clean coal”
Mac- “The problem with Clinton is that you can never be sure what she will do”
As apposed to you Mac, who we can depend on to shoot yourself in the foot over your hatred for Hillary. Than to accept her commitment to combating climate change.
Today Hillary and Al Gore are campaigning in Florida together to show her commitment to climate change.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/2016-race-goes-south-focus-florida-n664496
Hillary Clinton’s Vision for Renewable Power:
Hillary Clinton announced two bold national goals that she will set as president to combat climate change, create jobs, protect the health of American families and communities, and make the United States the world’s clean energy superpower:
The United States will have more than half a billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of Hillary Clinton’s first term.
The United States will generate enough clean renewable energy to power every home in America within ten years of Hillary Clinton taking office.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/26/renewable-power-vision/
I get my facts from the EIA, don’t need a fact checking site.
That site made the same dumb mistake many people will make in interpreting the message. Take sound bites and give them life of their own. Very adolescent.
Clinton has an admirable renewable energy plan, I just hope it’s not blockaded by the fractured Republican party that seems to have lost control of itself and it’s members.
The old fossil dragon isn’t broken yet, not by a long shot, and it will be long fight. Who knows, even the Democrats might fracture under the pressure.
Maybe that is how new parties are formed. Spin-offs from the old ones. Hydras with no unifying objective just lashing out in different directions. In the middle of all the cross-fire will be a world of amazing creatures and plants, probably reduced to road kill in the global energy-money-power wars.
Just wish there was a candidate that actually could see the real problems. Of course they would never make to an election.
We have met the real problem and it’s tomorrow mornings withdrawal from today’s fix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g0f3_Gke84
Hi HB,
Spoken like a true D cynical partisan, or else perhaps someone who is a true believer and thus naive beyond hope when it comes to Clinton’s flipflopping and ethical shortcomings.
I don’t hate her, I just see her for what she is. I have even less use for Trump , by a country mile, but I don’ t hate him either.
Hate is a waste of time, unless you have a gun in your hands, headed into a firefight. THEN it’s priceless, as pointed out by many a general who has told his troops God wants them to kill them worthless sons of bitches ———– , fill in the blank with whoever the enemy is.
If we were talking about a few minor lapses in dealing with facts, that would be one thing. I threw out one very minor example, but I could put up a hundred, and you would pooh pooh them all, in the same fashion that religious true believers overlook the inconsistencies in religious dogmas, etc.
You sir, refuse to face up to the facts. If anybody except Trump were running for the R party, Clinton would be toast, due to the fact that hardly any educated young people believe in her the way you do. She’s your heroine, but she’s a joke to anybody who isn’t a long term true believer, or who isn’t a partisan. I know many hard core D types personally who are supporting her in public the way you are now, but in private they are quick to admit they are holding their noses given the ethical stinks running all the way back to CattleGate.
NOW FOR THE RECORD—- TRUMP IS WORSE.
All you need to know, in order to determine if a person is a partisan, is to ask them which parts of the overall party platform or philosophy they do not agree with. Dyed in the wool partisans seldom disagree with ANY major part of their party philosophy or any major part of their candidates platform.
So – Tell us what it is that you do not agree with about the D party’s general positions, and Clinton’s platform in particular, and prove you are not a partisan.
I quite often point out the many things wrong to my way of thinking with the R party’s overall positions, and Trump’s platform, to wit:
The D’s are infinitely superior on environmental issues, much better on personal privacy, but still not good.
The D’s are coming around on the stupidity of the war on drugs.
They are right about the incredible mess that is our health care system, and I often point out that I expect and hope that we will have a health care system similar to the current day Western European model within the fore see able future, etc.
There are a few important issues where the R party imo holds the high ground, but I won’t go into them right now.
In conservative circles and forums, I am known as a tree hugging, whale loving socialist, or worse, lol.
I try hard to look at actual facts, and to decide for myself what those actual facts ARE, after looking at what the partisans on both sides have to say.
It’s still a somewhat free country , and you are entitled to your opinion of Clinton, and I am entitled to mine.
I think it is safe to say we hold similar opinions concerning Trump, lol.
I also know a large number of dyed in the wool R partisans and or true believers, and the true believers in the Trump camp simply refuse to consider the evidence that Trump is a scumbag———
Just as a number of my D acquaintances tell me in person, privately, that they are holding their nose but supporting Clinton publicly, a good many R types are telling me the same thing, privately, that they are holding their noses but supporting Trump publicly, so as to hopefully keep Clinton out of the WH.
But barring some outright nuclear bombs landing square in her lap between now and the election, she is going to win, and win BIG. There will be some more embarrassing stuff coming out, but the odds are very high nothing nuclear will come to light, unless it is about Trump, lol. Time grows very short.
Ya see, I am a realist.
You, well , you’re a partisan, whether naive or cynical I cannot say. Maybe a little of both, lol.
I posted a LOT of comments in favor of Sanders’s candidacy here in this forum, and hundreds in other forums, and went to local Sanders events, etc.
This is why I know personally that educated young people see Clinton as ethically corrupt. I met them by the score at these events, where almost of the people were college students and young professionals, all of them liberals. ALL of them.
Sanders would imo have won the nomination if he had gotten started a little earlier, except maybe for the fact that Clinton owns the D party establishment lock, stock, and barrel.
The various minority voting blocks never had time and opportunity enough to get acquainted with him, whereas they know Clinton from way back, but his record on civil rights, etc , is sterling.
I AM NOT saying the nominating process was rigged, but anybody who is reasonably knowledgeable about the D party machinery, and who controls it, knows that the odds were heavily stacked in Clinton’s favor.
Of course Clinton PARTISANS will deny this obvious fact, lol.
If Trump weren’t an egotistical fool, a clown, he could have run back to the center right after winning the nomination , and kept his cavernous mouth shut, etc, and he would have had a good shot at winning.
The Gods of fortune have smiled on Clinton and the D party and Clinton is going to win.
The D’s are going to pick up seats in the House, and in the Senate. Maybe enough to take control. Maybe not.
I wouldn’t make a serious bet either way just yet about the party control of Congress.There is the growing smell of a D party landslide in the making, but time is very short now, and incumbents have enormous advantages, with incumbency being on the R party’s side in House and Senate races.
The R camp is smelling more and more like last weeks fish bait, which is about as bad as smell can get, lol.
The more realistic R leaders are moving to cut the losses, like a general retreating from a losing fight, doing what he can to preserve his army to fight another day. They have a good to excellent shot at retaining control imo because of the incumbency factor.
Otherwise it would be a D landslide almost across the board.
Old Farmer,
You are tilting at windmills with this ethical horse you are riding, lance down to pierce the political tower of babble.
The fact there are only two parties in such a diverse country as America and that the system allows a party to take control of government is not only incongruous but appalling.
What ever happened to representing the citizens?
When someone is placed in office, they are supposed to represent all the people in their districts or state or country, not just some partisan view. They are not supposed to be controlled by political bosses or corporate owners but are contracted by the people to represent them and uphold the Constitution.
This whole party system and the results of it are a travesty of what American government was supposed to represent. Represent people not parties or corporations.
Hasn’t anyone noticed this by now?
911 was gasoline poured on the politics of fear in a world of 24/7 disinformation and short attention spans.
We are our own worst enemy
What ever happened to representing the citizens?
Citizens?! we are now all referred to as ‘consumers’…
“Hate is a waste of time, unless you have a gun in your hands, headed into a firefight”
Penguin Dictionary of Psychology defines hate as a “deep, enduring, intense emotion expressing animosity, anger, and hostility towards a person, group, or object.” Because hatred is believed to be long-lasting, many psychologists consider it to be more of an attitude or disposition than a temporary emotional state.
Both the Old and the New Testaments deal with hatred. Ecclesiastes 3:8 teaches that there is a “time to love, and a time to hate”
Mac, thank you for your example of why the 2nd Amendment should be repealed
Back atcha HB,
Decisions reached after considering the available data are also long lasting, especially when more data is constantly emerging to support the validity of the original decision.
Yes, hatreds do usually fade away over time, once the objects of them are no longer immediately and presently impacting the lives of the people doing the hating. Hate and love are no more and no less that evolved “tools” in Mother Nature’s evolutionary tool box.
Behaviors that are not contributing to survival and reproduction tend to fade away, just like the eyes of fish that live in caves.
I repeat, I don’t have time and energy to waste hating either Clinton or Trump, but I consider both of them to be personally contemptible on ethical grounds, and I wouldn’t trust either of them when it comes to cutting deals with various special interests such as the too big to fail banks, etc.
I am going fishing in a few minutes, the water has cooled off enough the bass are biting. Not as much fun as dancing, maybe , but still very pleasurable.
After that, I will maybe get in some firewood, or maybe polish up my deer rifle, because deer season opens soon. I ‘m an omnivore, and I EAT Bambi, lol.
That’s a fair trade, in my eyes, since Bambi eats my fruit trees, and my green peas, and sweet potatoes, and green beans, and lots of other stuff. It’s a Darwinian world, lol. I manage my farm to support the maximum amount of wildlife, but Bambi is in overshoot, locally.
There are no deer predators here to amount to anything, excepting rednecks such as yours truly, and they are so numerous that it seems certain one or another contagious disease will wipe them out, if we don’t keep the population down by hunting.
Chronic Wasting Disease is moving this way twenty or thirty miles annually.
Incidentally my once upon a time better half was a Jewish artist and climate refugee from the Big Apple. A winter visit down this way resulted in her moving south, after enduring a couple of winters in Buffalo as a student. She lost all her known European relatives in the Holocaust.
( I was a card carrying long hair pot smoking true blue liberal back when we met and fell in love and got married, but then I was young in those days, and I have learned a few things since, lol. )
Wanna debate trusting government a LITTLE TOO MUCH?
It’s true that even if every Jew in Germany had had a pistol or rifle, Hitler would probably still managed to do away with them, but it sure as hell would have cost him dearly, and the resulting public exposure and outrage might have resulted in things turning out differently.
My own reading of history indicates that power does indeed reside in weapons, and that the safest long term solution is for the people themselves to be armed.
YMMV may vary.You can have my guns when you pry them out of my cold dead hands,lol.
IF a Republican candidate for Prez, any one of them, other than Trump, who is so bad I hate to even think about his faults, had won the nomination, after having collected millions of dollars for short secret speeches , and taken huge donations from foreign countries for a family controlled foundation, and run a secret email server, etc, …….
Well, you would be foaming at the mouth, and screaming yourself hoarse about the ethical shortcomings of that candidate.
But hey, it’s OK when HRC does it, because well, she’s your girl ( woman ) and she can do no wrong in your eyes, given that you are in my opinion today a Clinton true believer.
Barring an unlikely nuclear level surprise, she is going to be our next president, and she will be better than Trump would have been. Depending on how the House and Senate races play out, she may or may not be able to make a lot of changes.
Some of the changes will no doubt be for the better.
As one of my old D buddies said back in Reagan’s day, the country will survive, it has survived worse.
When you figure out a way put an end to wars, let me know.
Yak Yak works some of the time, so long as the folks you are yakking at still believe you have the will and the wherewithal to fight.
Once you yak yak a little too long, they usually just go ahead and take whatever they want, assuming you either can’t or won’t fight.
My personal opinion and that of a lot of well informed people is that Clinton is more apt to get us involved in shooting disputes than a number of R ‘s who tried for the nomination.
The Second Amendment is safe for the time being. Even if Clinton puts two hard core leftists on the SC, it will probably stand, because the one thing the Justices of the SC hate worse than just about anything else is reversing past decisions on such substantive matters.
I am not able to dance very well these days, but I can still shuffle around a little bit if the occasion arises, and I figured out fifty years ago that while people who hate and hold grudges are miserable, the people they hate are apt to be dancing and having a good time.
We can debate scriptures someday if you like, so long as the debate touches on the big picture this blog is about.
You will be surprised how much I know about the KJB and Jesus, etc, even though I am a scientifically literate Darwinist thru and thru.
For what it is worth, there is more wisdom in the KJB than any other book I have ever read, although it is all wrong about physics, geology, astronomy, etc.
It makes up for the science by having been originally written and composed or collected and edited over historical time by some of the smartest people who have ever lived, in terms of understanding how people think and behave.
It’s true that even if every Jew in Germany had had a pistol or rifle, Hitler would probably still managed to do away with them, but it sure as hell would have cost him dearly
If only that were true.
I grew up with guns: rifles, shot guns, etc. But, my family had very little use for hand guns. The people who are fascinated by hand guns and military gear are the same people who are first in line to support people like Hitler, and solutions like persecuting minorities like Muslims and Jews.
Don’t forget: the Holocaust killed 12 million, not 6 million. The other 6 million included political prisoners (as Trump recently threatened to turn H Clinton into), gays, gypsies, etc. These are exactly the people most hated by people who are most excited about the 2nd amendment.
No, the 2nd amendment doesn’t protect minorities. Exactly the opposite.
Really Mac, you “don’t have time and energy to waste” ?
For some reason I find that hard to believe
Solar to meet 20% of global power generation by 2060, says World Energy Council
Ignoring the headline for a minute, here’s what I found more interesting;
The share of fossil fuel as a primary energy source will fall from 81% in 2014 to 50% by 2060 according to the most positive scenario laid out in the report. Coal use is set to peak before 2020 in two of the three scenarios, with oil set to peak in 2030 at 103 mb/d under these same scenarios.
One wonders when they figure the use of oil and coal will peak under their least positive scenario? AFAIK most Peak Oilers believe coal use will peak after oil use has peaked and our host is betting that oil peaked last year. Does anybody here think oil production will ever get to 103 mb/d?
It’s nice they think renewables will play a large part in the energy system. However, percentages mean nothing unless tied to an actual amount. Is the total energy use in 2060 twice what we use now or half of current use? If it’s twice, then 50% renewables will mean that fossil power use is still the same as now.
The report says world electric energy demand will double by 2060.
The scenarios show 1.2 to 1.5 Gt CO2 for 2015 to 2060.
Looks like a 10 percent drop in energy intensity versus a population rise of 40%, meaning at least a 30 percent rise in energy needs (taking up much of the renewable increase). Essentially a 35% drop in the rate of carbon output.
So peak resources aside, this is a growth based report with a shift in energy resources toward renewable energy.
Hi Islandboy,
It depends what one counts as oil. The IEA has current “oil” output (C+C+NGL+liquid biofuels) at 96 Mb/d. So if we are talking about that kind of oil (which is not discounted for the lower energy content of NGL and biofuels), then 103 Mb/d might be possible. If we deflate the inflated barrels of NGL and biofuels, currently output is about 86 Mboe/d and possibly we might see 90 Mboe/d in 2020 to 2025, but 88 Mboe/d seems a more reasonable guess to me. Note boe=barrel of oil equivalent, and 1 b of NGL is about 0.7 boe.
Short answer, no 103 Mb/d of all liquids (C+C+NGL+biofuels) is not very likely (less than 10% probability in my opinion).
Hi Islandboy,
I took a quick look at the WEC report, the 103 Mb/d of oil is actually Mboe, I think because they say in 2014 oil consumption was 86 Mb/d which is roughly in line with energy consumption in barrels of oil equivalent.
In that case the peak of 103 Mboe/d is not realistic at all in my view, in general they seem to believe that the availability of fossil fuel resources are quite large. By 2035 energy output from fossil fuel output will have peaked. For my “high” fossil fuel scenarios, oil peaks in 2035 at 96 Mboe/d, coal peaks in 2044 at 98.5 Mboe/d, and natural gas peaks in 2049 at 96.5 Mboe/d. Carbon emissions in the high scenario are 1436 Pg of Carbon from 1800 to 2200 when land use change and cement production emissions are included, this is nearly identical to total carbon emissions from the RCP4.5 emissions scenario from 1800-2200.
My more realistic “medium” scenario there are about 1220 Pg of total carbon emissions from all sources from 1800 to 2200. This is with no attempt at reducing fossil fuel consumption (except demand destruction due to high fossil fuel prices) before 2100. From 2100 to 2150 it is assumed coal, oil, and natural gas consumption fall linearly to zero.
From Google news, this leader,
Have Soda Company Donations Influenced Health Groups?
NBCNews.com – 13 hours ago
Do bears shit in the woods, lol?
When it comes to nutrition, you had best stick to the websites of major hospitals for advice. Just about everybody else, and just about every organization from the Heart Association to the USDA has failed to do a good job of preventing the food industries from influencing what they recommend, or outright dictating what is recommended.
Most regulars here have little use for Beck, but it’s worth a minute or two to read what he has to say about Trump, his candidacy, his nit wit campaign that might actually be designed to lose, and what he may be planning on doing after the election.
Read it, you will be pleasantly surprised by Beck’s analysis, in terms of your opinion of Beck.
But you won’t like what Trump may be up to, after the election. I think maybe Beck has nailed it as well as anybody.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/19/beck-makes-bold-detailed-prediction-about-trumps-future/
It’s time for all righteous naked apes to be making sacrifices to the Sky Daddies and Mommies of their choice, the future looks stormy as hell.
Hi Caelan, [Moved here from OIL THREAD]
“Anyway, how’s your pulsar reading going, incidentally? Anything significant to report in that regard? I just found out about ‘magnetars’.”
I suppose one should say NEUTRON STAR (pulsars and magnetars being special cases). And yes, there’s always something going on. Currently I’m struggling with the math as relating to possible phase changes in neutron stars (specifically, Equation of State of cold quark matter needed in description of neutron star mergers and core collapse processes.) With my wife no longer here to tutor me it becomes a REAL struggle. Anyway, you might be interested in a sanitized version:
MAPPING THE EXOTIC MATTER INSIDE NEUTRON STARS
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160802103539.htm
Hi Doug,
If you run across anything about the statistical probability of a star similar to our own sun experiencing extremely powerful solar storms, please post it here.
I am very poorly informed about the physics involved in making astronomical observations, meaning the actual workings of telescopes. I know that even very faint incoming radiation is enough to indicate the kinds of atoms present, by way of parsing the light spectrum and that sort of thing.
But are today’s telescopes good enough to detect solar storms on stars many many light years away?
So far as I know, there aren’t very many stars similar to our own in what might be called the immediate cosmic neighborhood, meaning maybe fifty to a hundred light years, so observing only close neighboring stars would not tell us a WHOLE lot about how likely such storms are, on an annual or decadal or millennial basis.
And maybe the telescopes aren’t good enough to catch solar storms even on our closest stellar neighbors?
You can guess that by extremely powerful I mean powerful enough to wipe out our electrical civilization, or at least severely damage it.
Sure, I’ll keep you in mind but stellar weather isn’t really my bag. Meanwhile you may be interested in:
OBSERVATIONS OF AN EXTREME STORM IN INTERPLANETARY SPACE CAUSED BY SUCCESSIVE CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4481
BTW: My Daughter has put aside her copy of NONLINEAR PHYSICS FOR BEGINNERS (or whatever its proper title is) and assured me it will become firmly attached to me the next time I visit. Be warned, I may not see her until Christmas.
Thanks,
I will read the link tonight. Hopefully the book won’t be too far over my head. It’s been half a century since I last took a math class, and then I got only the first full year the math and engineers get, plus one course in probability theory.
And there is no doubt in my mind I have forgotten nearly all math above basic algebra and geometry I ever knew.
Hi Doug,
What are you trying to do or find with your calculations? It seems pretty esoteric, at least to me, but maybe less so with your background and wife’s?
In any case, I’d like to check out the link in greater detail later, as it looks interesting (deconfined quark matter?). Best with the calcs in the mean time and let us know if you come up with something.
“What are you trying to do or find with your calculations?” I just follow the math in order to follow the physics. The math suggests solutions and new understandings that interest me. For example, a phase change (layering) in the interior of a neutron star would go a long way toward explaining their magnetic fields which potentially leads to a sort of ‘unified theory’ model of these fascinating stars.
They are just a step away from being black holes, yes? So I guess they are the densest things out there that can be directly studied, unlike a black hole apparently. I’ve heard about some crazy densities, like the sun, compressed into something the size of a city. I am curious myself, now, about what’s inside…
To summarize, neutron stars are the collapsed cores of large stars and the densest objects known to exist. A quark star is a HYPOTHETICAL exotic star composed of quark matter (as ultra-dense phases of degenerate matter THEORIZED to exist inside particularly massive stars). The equation of state of quark matter is uncertain as is the transition point between neutron-degenerate matter and quark matter (a subject that interests me).
Standard physics says that beyond about ten solar masses a stellar remnant will overcome neutron degeneracy pressure then gravitational collapse will (usually) occur to produce a black hole. The smallest “OBSERVED” mass of a stellar black hole is about five solar masses.
Very intriguing… So I guess compression can reduce the gaps in matter, such as between the atoms and electrons and so forth… But you know, there’s just way too much space between those kinds of things, anyway. ‘u^
But, if you somehow scooped a bit of material from a neutron star and took it to Earth, what would it be like, aside from the possible insane weight? And/Or would it even remain compressed?
Management at GE, or maybe the dominant owners, certainly seems to have plenty of faith in the future of wind power- or if not that, then plenty of faith in the ability of politicians to keep the subsidies flowing indefinitely, lol.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-to-buy-wind-turbine-blade-maker-for-1-65-billion-1476187689
I don’t have any opportunity to talk with top management at giant corporations, but in my opinion most such managers do understand that fossil fuels do deplete, and the environmental consequences of using them on the grand scale.
Anybody doing strategic planning for a big company in the energy biz just about has to realize that we are compelled by the hard facts of depletion, if nothing else, to go renewable at some point in time- and that point is now within view.
Wind power is very much in line with GE’s capabilities. They have been producing electric motors and generators for a long time. They build diesel locomotives which all have large gensets.
They have been selling improved efficiency services to wind farms for a while now.
This will add one more aspect to their renewable power ventures.
https://www.gerenewableenergy.com/innovative-solutions/solar-energy.html
Wow, Germany bans the ICE….
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/germanys-bundesrat-votes-to-ban-the-internal-combustion-engine-by-2030/
Norway has also announced a similar ban.
Tesla has really done a great job showing how an electric car can be better than an ICE based car – in every way. Better speed, handling, roominess, and even an autopilot. Next year, the Model 3 will begin shipping at a more affordable price – but still a better car than anything based on an ICE. If you haven’t kept up to date they now have superchargers all over the country making long distance travel possible.
The Chevy Bolt and the Nissan Leaf will also have over 200 miles of range next year. The Bolt will have 238 miles of range, and starts shipping in just a couple of months.
If it follows a normal tech adoption curve, then yes it’s possible that the last new ICE based car would be sold in just 12 years….
I thought the “peak demand” argument was a joke, but I guess maybe not. People using the most fuel have the biggest incentive to switch, so even when just 10% of the cars are electric that might be 25%less fuel needed.
The peak demand argument is not to be dismissed out of hand, but we shouldn’t allow ourselves to get all giddy about it yet, like a freshman cheerleader when the captain of the football team lowers himself to say hi to her, lol.
It’s going to be a rather long time before electric cars and light trucks are cheaper than similar ICE powered models, and lots of things could go wrong along the way. Lithium supplies could be a problem, the political power of existing entrenched manufacturers, workers in existing plants can be a factor, etc.
And then there is the existing infrastructure purpose built to build ICE engines and the transmissions associated with them. It’s hard to say just how cheap such engines and transmissions might be if the manufacturers quit upgrading and maintaining those plants for the last few years they operate them.
The humongous existing fleet of conventional cars and trucks will mostly still be on the road ten years from now, and ten years from now half to three quarters or so of all new cars and trucks will probably still be conventional ICE .The last ones built will last till pretty close to 2050.
It will take at least a tripling of battery performance before the electric motor can seriously start displacing ICE’s in construction and farm equipment and larger trucks.
But I am a little giddy myself, lol.
A favorite day dream is to have a ten kW solar “farm ” of my own, and a cheap used electric car. I’m too “tight” to buy a new car, since there are so many BETTER ways to enjoy the difference in the price of new versus used.
The prices of solar panels and associated components are coming down so fast I am delaying the purchase of a solar system from year to year, because that’s the best way to manage my own money. But probably next year, or maybe the year after…….
I don’t think our hands on oil guys have anything to worry about, other than finding places to drill. Depletion is in my opinion almost dead sure to outrun the rise of the electric car, so the price of oil will almost for sure go up and stay up, long term.
“The humongous existing fleet of conventional cars and trucks will mostly still be on the road ten years from now, ”
Average age of cars on US roads is 11.5 years, so in 10 years that fleet will have an average age of 21.5 years. Doubt if more than 10% will be left by then.
There will be few ICE’s left in ten to fifteen years if the price of fuel stays high. Only way ICE’s can stay in any numbers is if fuel is low cost and there is no carbon tax.
In addition to banning sales of ICE based cars more and more cities are banning ICE cars in some urban districts. Once people have decent options, the politics may change fast. For example, right now the easiest way to loose an election is to propose a gas tax – but anyone owning an electric car will likely not care, or even want it.
Of course, it depends on how much you drive and the price of gas but if you compare the total cost of ownership then these new electric cars are already a good value. Electrics benefit from both low fuel costs and lower maintenance costs.
Cities and dense towns can replace cars with trolley systems. Could even have a battery or fuel cell on board for short runs between electrified sections.
Or electric buses, which are far easier, faster and cheaper to implement.
I’m observing people use Uber and Lyft’s car pooling options – they’re finding that it’s cheaper and more convenient than buses. Add in EVs, and you have the best of all worlds.
.
So all those things come out of one bald guy’s head?
That’s the kind of response one would expect from a member of a species that’s trashing the planet by welding a cage of techno-detachment between itself and reality.
James Howard Kunstler calls stuff like that, techno-narcissism, and I’m inclined to agree.
Well since it is a gramophone all ya gotta do is change the record! 🙂
.
The hypocrite is Caelan MacIntyre. Everyday you post your non-sense and trash others for the use of technology. Just shows how detached you are. Please, lay down your computer and back up your bullshit. Your trashing the internet.
BTW, you might want to try working on your sense of humor also. GF’s post showed more than you have in 6 months.
Agreed, Fred. Nice pic, and a change we could all use more of.
“Road traffic injuries are a major but neglected public health challenge that requires concerted efforts for effective and sustainable prevention. Of all the systems with which people have to deal every day, road traffic systems are the most complex and the most dangerous. Worldwide, an estimated 1.2 million people are killed in road crashes each year and as many as 50 million are injured.” ~ World Health Organization
“The global economic cost of MVCs [motor vehicle collisions] was estimated at $518 billion per year in 2003 with $100 billion of that occurring in developing countries. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimated the U.S. cost in 2000 at $230 billion.” ~ Wikipedia
“The Geography of Nowhere traces America’s evolution from a nation of Main Streets and coherent communities to a land where every place is like no place in particular, where the cities are dead zones and the countryside is a wasteland of cartoon architecture and parking lots… Kunstler depicts our nation’s evolution from the Pilgrim settlements to the modern auto suburb in all its ghastliness. The Geography of Nowhere tallies up the huge economic, social, and spiritual costs that America is paying for its car-crazed lifestyle. It is also a wake-up call for citizens to reinvent the places where we live and work, to build communities that are once again worthy of our affection. Kunstler proposes that by reviving civic art and civic life, we will rediscover public virtue and a new vision of the common good.” ~ Book description for The Geography of Nowhere, by James Howard Kunstler
Don’t let me get in the way of your riotous sense of humor there, ‘Beach. We’re all in stitches. I’m perfectly happy to use one form of technology to smash another. ^u^
Is that a Tesla? I think it’s a Tesla.
How To Bring A Blush To The Snow
Worldwide, an estimated 1.2 million people are killed in road crashes each year and as many as 50 million are injured.” ~ World Health Organization
Which is why showing a crashed Tesla comes across as a really poor example of something to rail against being that it is one of the safest cars ever built.
Do you know what happens when someone tries to make something idiot proof? Someone always comes along and invents a better idiot. But I digress!
As for the car culture and the waste that is suburbia that Kunstler talks about, well technologies such as EVs, AI for self driving vehicles and a paradigm shift to ride sharing and not individually owning vehicles for personal transportation and all the societal and ecological benefits that come with all of the above would be things that you of all people should be in favor of.
None of us knows what the future has in store for us the only thing we know for sure is that our current system is not sustainable so the future will be very different.
Personally I think we will learn to waste less and find ways to build a circular economy and I fully expect to use electricity and technology and benefit from science and medicine and education for as long as I live and hopefully my kids and grand children will too.
Maybe one day you will find a way to apply permaculture techniques to grow GMO crops to feed CRISPR-cas9 genetically enhanced insects to produce feed for fish farms or some other productive way to help feed the world while helping preserve biodiversity and wildlife habitat.
Knowledge, science, technology and engineering are not intrinsically bad or good it’s how we use them that matters. Not all businesses, corporations or governments are all bad or part of some global conspiracy to enslave the masses either. The only thing that any of us can do is make choices to do the best we can as individuals.
‘Safe’ or ‘smart’, and ‘car’ are practically oxymorons, so let’s not split hairs.
And, once again for your review; circular economy appears to be a generic term for an industrial economy.
If so, without real equability and the like– without real ‘democratic’ control, such that current industrial so-called economies obviously lack, it won’t work properly, despite the oddly-appropriate word, ‘circular’, as in ‘circular reasoning economy‘.
(You might do well to investigate what industrialism actually means from a sociohistorical standpoint, if, for example, you think that, like technology, it’s somehow neutral– neither good nor bad. That’s a questionable assumption.)
The further and deeper along the lines and levels of complexity of the technology we go, the less control we have over it. Just take a glance at the definition for the Iron Law of Oligarchy for an idea.
In other words perhaps, we don’t own, or at least control to a meaningful degree, ‘Tesla Inc.’.
So let’s not pretend we do.
Lastly, permaculture, as an ethical system, is at apparent odds with GMO’s and ‘CRISPR’, etc., except maybe where they could be somehow used in their own subversion.
It’s going to be a rather long time before electric cars and light trucks are cheaper than similar ICE powered models
As Preston said, EVs are the cheapest thing on the road, right now.
The Nissan Versa has the lowest MSRP on US roads. The Nissan Leaf has the same Total Cost of Ownership (per Edmunds), with very low oil prices – when gas prices rise, the Leaf will be clearly cheaper. The Leaf has lower range, but has much better performance and is a higher end car all around.
The Tesla is clearly better than ICEs with comparable price, let alone TCO.
There’s a million ways to cherry pick your arguments , when playing the advocate.
I do often advocate certain practices and policies on an outright basis, but I try to admit that I am a partisan in that situation, assuming I remember to do so.
It’s not quite intellectually honest , to my way of thinking, to say that a vehicle that gets the purchaser a tax credit costs the same thing as one that does not get the credit, when one actually SELLS for thousands more, if the purchaser cannot collect the welfare. The dealer and the manufacturer get PAID the true and actual price.
A substantial part of the true and actual cost of such a vehicle is merely and simply SHIFTED from the lucky subsidized purchaser to the rest of us who pay taxes.
Furthermore, quite a lot of people aren’t ABLE to collect the tax credit, because they don’t drive, or can’t afford a new vehicle, and don’t want to lease, or cannot lease. You have to have a certain amount of income and a minimum credit rating to lease a new car at reasonable cost. A lot of people who can afford a lease don’t drive enough to justify having a new car, since they can get by just fine with an older car.
Then there is this little thing we refer to as OPPORTUNITY COST. I could buy a new car tomorrow morning, no problem. But I will continue to drive my ancient old Buick, inherited, since my ancient Escort passed away a couple of weeks back. Damned old Ford had a heart attack with only 225 k miles on the odometer. It was just BARELY old enough to vote, lol.
I will have to spend a few bucks here and there on the old Buick, but probably less than the combined property tax and full coverage insurance premium associated with a new car- and a new car with all the features ( plus some that weren’t available formerly ) of comparable size and performance would set me back almost forty thousand bucks.
I have PLENTY of ways to profitably invest forty thousand dollars, and barring the economy going entirely to hell, by the time I could wear out a new car, that forty ought to grow to eighty, at least, and hopefully a hundred or more. The investment will be made in such a way that I probably won’t have to pay much if anything at all on my profit, depending on current tax law remaining in effect. You can for instance buy a house and live in it a while and sell and pay little or no income tax on your profit, if any.
Having said all this, I AM in favor of subsidies for new electric vehicles, because speeding up the transition to electrified vehicles will in my opinion, be an enormous plus across the board for just about every body.
I do wish however that somebody could figure out a more equitable way of arranging the subsidies, so they would be fair to poor folks and old Scots Irish hillbillies like me who are too “tight” to buy new cars. 😉
But hey, if it weren’t for folks who think the status associated with owning a new car is worth more than a nicer house, or college for their kids, or a nice retirement portfolio, etc, I wouldn’t be able to buy old cars for peanuts- cars that with reasonable care can be expected to run a LONG time.
A while back I pulled into a restaurant for lunch, and an old coworker pulled in beside me, driving a brand new tricked out truck, and started ribbing me about my elderly old work truck, and telling me he hoped I would be able to afford one like his one day. We went in and sat down to talk over old times.
Ordinarily I would have had the lunch special, but I ordered the most expensive steak on the menu. He ordered close to the cheapest thing on the menu, and he kept glancing at my steak like a hopeful hound, lol. Poor guy hasn’t got a CLUE.
I suppose the payment on that truck is at least six hundred a month, probably more.
I’m not rich, no way, but as we say in this neck of the woods, I could “buy and sell” this guy without any trouble.
He’s spent enough on new cars and trucks over the last forty years or so to have bought a pretty nice little farm. I bought the farm, lol, besides what I have via the old folks passing the old home place on to me.
At least he’s not renting. Rent’s forever.
Hopefully I will live long enough that I can buy myself a cheap used electric car, , and a ten KW solar mini farm as well, because gasoline is going to cost like hell someday.
My money says depletion will outrun the electrification of the auto and light truck industries, never mind all the heavier vehicles and other equipment that will still be around for another generation or two, at least. It might be possible to electrify a two hundred horsepower tractor or a four hundred horsepower eighteen wheeler some time down the road. It might not.
I don’t get your logic Old Farmer. You say depletion will outrun electrification of autos and light trucks. Do you really think an industry that produces 600 million new cars every year will not notice something as obvious as oil depletion or any other depletion that affects their businesses? Tesla and others have shown how easy it is to produce a good electric vehicle. By the time depletion is becoming obvious, most of the manufacturers will already be in the business of hybrids and EV’s. So why would they not shift to EV’s? If liquid fuel is hard to get and expensive, the demand for electrics and hybrids will be mounting fast. Businesses move with the product demand.
As far as the heavier vehicles, I am sure that hybridization will bring their use of fuel downward. The trucking industry has to worry about the rail industry (which can electrify if it has to), so they will demand and producers will adapt.
Unless you think that civilization is going to collapse very quickly.
A railroad is proposing expansion of a nearby rail yard due to the huge number of containers coming into eastern ports. A result of the expanded Panama canal. 600 extra containers on every ship. Railroads do not spend money lightly, so they expect this to continue. Probably looking into expanding other transfer yards.
Hi GF,
Many industries have been overtaken by new technologies and changing circumstances that have resulted in business conditions changing sooner and faster than expected.
I failed to make it clear that I was thinking about the next decade or maybe two decades in my comment.
It is just my personal opinion that due to corporate culture , etc, that the car industry WON’T build enough new electric cars and maybe light trucks SOON ENOUGH to out run oil depletion.
My seat of the pants feeling is that oil will go up and stay up, most of the time, due to the supply declining faster than the world’s legacy supply of oil burners of all sorts over the next decade or maybe two decades. I was not thinking so much about not being able to buy oil as having to pay a high price for it.
Maybe I am too pessimistic, but I believe some super giant and giant fields are already on their last legs, and I don’t see any indication of new oil discoveries even remotely keeping up with the decline of today’s producing fields.
I am not saying it won’t happen, but for now there is very little evidence that the trucking, construction, aviation, agricultural, and ocean going shipping industries can even seriously BEGIN to be electrified, at least not within the next decade, and probably longer.
Long term, there is plenty of reason to believe we can deal successfully with peak oil. At least those of us in prosperous countries with the economic muscle to make the necessary changes will be able to do so.
Don’t get caught in Egypt.
I hope Dennis C is right, and that oil production will decline slowly and gradually,because if the cards fall that way, electrification CAN outrun depletion.
But speaking and thinking as a generalist and total systems thinker, a specialist in being a non specialist, I can see the oil industry itself being wrong about future production. A shark fin oil supply crash could happen due to depletion, lack of investment, and lack of new discoveries, etc.
The ever changing GREAT GAME, as the English used to call it, of international power politics could result in a major part of the world oil supply being withheld from the market.
Eventually if the economy doesn’t crash and die, electric auto production will scale up.
Hopefully there will still be enough oil to keep other industries humming until we can find and implement ways to run them with little or no oil. That’s going to take a while.
I think you’re right that plug-in passenger vehicles aren’t going to expand dramatically quickly over the next 7-8 years.
Further out than that? Well, if oil prices go anywhere above $80 and stay there for more than 5 years…things would change. Anywhere above $125 for several years, and things will change fast: new cars will hybridize and go full EV. Old cars will be hybridized (it’s not that hard).
Oil above $150? Carpooling and sharing would take off.
Passenger cars are about 50% of oil consumption – they give a big cushion against depletion. And, in the meantime, commercial/industrial users would be shifting: Fedex has multiple pilot programs for alt-fuel vehicles, just waiting for point they’re needed. Commercial truckers would convert faster than you might think, in a long-term high price environment. Asphalt would lose market share, etc.
Mac,
I’m not including tax credits. EVs like the Leaf and Tesla are cheaper than comparable ICEs WITHOUT the tax credit.
Of course, the tax credit affects pricing: without the tax credit these vehicles would be a bit cheaper, and therefore even more competitive.
And, of course, the tax credit very very roughly evens the playing field, because the cost of ICE pollution is very real, even if it doesn’t come out of your pocket. That’s realistic, and absolutely an honest and appropriate thing to include.
But, again…the TCO comparison doesn’t include the tax credit. Without the tax credit, EVs are as cheap or cheaper than any comparable ICE.
With the tax credit, EVs are screamingly cheap.
People should not look on it as welfare or subsidy, look on it as a very small carbon tax. The real carbon taxes will be much higher than subsidizing a few cars or wind turbines.
Hi Old Farmer Mac,
The solution is simple, buy a used leaf, they are not very expensive. The 2011 with 58k in Richmond VA for $6900.
https://www.truecar.com/used-cars-for-sale/listing/JN1AZ0CP8BT008404/2011-nissan-leaf/
Them there redneck Texas ‘ publicans know a thing or two about wind power, and don’t give a crap about all the OTHER ‘publicans calling them socialists and tree huggers and whale lovers and commies when it comes to managing their own business inside the great nation of Texas.
They are not as mean hearted as the D’s paint them, either. They’re building wind farms right and left, and saving their oil and gas for people up north so they won’t freeze in the dark later on, lol.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/10/11/the-great-texas-wind-power-boom/#130567bd192b
This link can honestly be described as cheerleading, but it’s still full of relevant facts, and well worth reading.
One point made is that Texas is now routinely getting as much as fifty percent of the state’s electricity from wind, which absolutely blows the ten or twenty percent limit due to grid stability out of the water.
Other places can and will build back up peaker plants and more transmission lines as well, once depletion and rising prices work their magic on the decision making process.
Energy in roads.
With the advent of the EV, the energy used in road building and maintenance will be approaching the energy used by vehicles.
“To put these numbers in context, the energy needed to construct one lane of road one kilometer in length is the equivalent of burning 23,000 gallons of conventional gasoline. ”
When considering a road will have to be patched and resurfaced numerous times in it’s life, as well as bridges rebuilt, the energy that goes into roads is quite significant and will play an important part in future roads and building methods.
An article on energy use in roads
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/2012/02/21/energy-and-road-construction-whats-the-mileage-of-roadway/
Although they speak of just adding another layer of asphalt for road rebuilding, on large highways I notice they often remove and replace original concrete which is much more energy intensive.
Why have roads at all? Or at least ones that don’t go to your local grass takeoff strip. Just fly in and out of your backyard.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/ab6c1af8-3fea-32be-81e9-7393050aba92/ss_vertical-takeoff-and-landing.html
Age distribution of vehicles in the USA.
Nice.
Also what would be useful: distribution of VMT by age.
I don’t have that graph but the cost of tire purchases falls off after 10 years of age to 3/4 at 11 to 15 years, 1/2 at 16 to 20 years and 1/3 at 21 to 25 years old. So one can assume that the number of miles travelled per year falls off after 11 years old.
The data after 25 years old will start to be skewed as a lot of classic car buffs start to get involved.
VMT drops off fast with age.
Cars less than one year old account for about 15% of VMT. Cars less than 6 years old do 50% of VMT.
I don’t drive a classic personally, but I am into old cars and have friends who do drive classics, and I read up occasionally on the subject.
Most classic cars owners only take their collectible cars out only for an occasional pleasure drive on a day when traffic is light and the weather is nice. The total miles put on all of them in a year is trivial by comparison to other cars, but GF is no doubt right about them skewing the statistics for really old cars.
Just about every really old car I see on the road IS a classic or collectible.
I saw a Leaf, and then another, then one more, then another, then even one more. No noise, no gas, new Leafs can go 200 miles, 440 volt charging in 30 minutes, 120 will work.
Looks like EVs are making a dent.
Cold weather might be a factor for battery life.
There should be more internal combustion engines mounted on frames to transport people and things. The number of cars is clearly not enough, there are too many parking spaces and more cars are needed to fill those empty spaces.
I was watching the movement of a car, the driver drove through a stop sign, thought I was in the wrong, had no idea a stop sign was at the intersection, living on Mars, oblivious to the immediate surroundings, just plain ignorant of what you have to do while driving.
Had to avoid an accident because some numbskull refuses to pay attention.
Wear your seatbelt, always look both ways, obey all traffic laws and rules of the road.
Most of all, pay attention.
While it all lasts, anyhow.
From Electrek
“Nissan published its US sales report for the month of May and confirmed that it delivered only 979 LEAFs – down 53.5% from the same period in 2015.
LEAF sales are now down 39% in 2016 versus the same period last year despite the availability of the upgraded battery pack and as previously mentioned, we need to take into account that last year’s performance was extremely disappointing and should have been easy to surpass.”
Interesting! Though I wouldn’t count them down and out just quite yet.
As of July 2016, the Nissan Leaf is the world’s all-time best selling highway-capable all-electric car with more than 230,000 units sold worldwide since 2010. As of July 2016, the top markets for Leaf sales were the United States with about 97,000 units, followed by Japan with 68,000 units, and Europe with 61,000 Leafs. As of September 2016, the European market is led by Norway with about 18,600 new units registered, and the U.K. with 15,000 units.
Source Wikipedia
Nissan has the muscle and talent to put the Leaf back on the sales map in a big way.
I think they just made a mistake in trying to be the first mass market full electric by coming out with a battery pack too small for the broader public to be comfortable with it.
They might repackage the electrical components in a new body style, with a new name, but it would be a mistake to think Nissan is out of the game.
Nobody in the market for a new car wants this years model when next year’s model will be a MUCH better car, lol.
I read occasionally about a Leaf being used for a city delivery vehicle by specialty stores and having no problem at all going from opening to closing on one charge. Even the old model will go well over a hundred miles in good weather on city streets with low speed limits.
Last time I was in Norway my niece picked me up at the airport with her sparkling new red Mitsubishi Outlander. I accused her of being a traitor while she said I remained a dinosaur (both joking of course). There’s some symbolism though with a young Petroleum Engineer trading (my wife’s) an old gas guzzling Volvo in for an (mostly) EV.
Yeah, IIRC US sales of plug-ins are pretty much flat, due to low gas prices.
OTOH, Chinese plug-in sales are exploding, and Europe is working hard to catch up.
And thank Sky Daddy for those of us who are so well off that they can afford a new TESLA S. 😉
Every Tesla on the road means gasoline for my old clunkers will be infinitesimally less expensive. That way I get back part of the tax subsidy in the form of cheaper gasoline, as well as in cleaner air, and less likelihood of my country being involved in yet another hot energy war.
The Tesla naysayers are going to be eating a lot of crow in my opinion.
http://fortune.com/2016/10/13/tesla-model-s-luxury-sedan-sales/
Tesla’s impact on luxury cars is quite remarkable.
“Tesla has now captured nearly a third of all sales in the category, the automaker said.”
…BMW Chief Executive Harald Krueger announced plans this week that many took as a challenge to Tesla, announcing that the German producer “will systematically electrify all brands and model series,” according to MarketWatch. Krueger told Bloomberg that he could see plug-in hybrids and all-electric cars across the BMW and Mini brands accounting for somewhere between 15% and 25% of sales in approximately the next 10 years.”
US Plug-in monthly sales hit an all-time high last month, despite low oil prices. Almost 17,000 sold. It looks like 2016 will finish with a record yearly total of 130K-140K vehicles sold.
http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/
Also, the 238-mile-range $37.5K MSRP Chevy Bolt EV is now officially “for sale”. CA and OR dealers received their allocation numbers and their MSRP/invoice price books and are now placing orders for for-retail-sale Bolts. Deliveries promised to buyers before the end of the year.
http://insideevs.com/dealers-now-accepting-orders-2017-chevrolet-bolt/
Finally, California is rapidly filling in the DC fast-charging holes for long-range EV’s. In February, the California Energy Commission awarded contracts to several 3rd party charger companies (Like Chargepoint, EVgo, etc.) for chargers along the major N-S routes (I-5, 101, 99). Just a few days ago, they announced tentative selections for grants to install another 45 chargers along various east-west routes (I-15 to Las Vegas, I-80 to Truckee, and various state highways). All of these include Chademo and CCS chargers, good for Leafs, i3’s, and Bolts.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/index.html#nopa.
See GFO-15-603
One issue with Nissan is they have a large number of used Leafs coming off lease. Many of these cars have batteries that are starting to show their age and have reduced range, but these cars are selling for very low prices.
Plus, they have the new version due next year with over 200 miles of range and an updated design.
“Cold weather might be a factor for battery life.”
Both the Tesla and the Leaf have heating systems for the battery, cold temps are not an issue.
The Tesla also has cooling, which is important in hot climates and especially during supercharging. The Leaf’s lack of cooling is a pretty big issue for long distance travel. The rapid chargers heat up the batteries to the limit, and they don’t cool off fast. People report they really can only do 1 rapid charge per day due to heating with the Leaf. With the Tesla, the fans turn on and make a lot of noise, but there is no problem with heat. I’m not sure about the Volt, hopefully they have both heating and cooling for the battery.
The Tesla also has a special mode to pre-heat the battery a little higher than normal to get more power out. They use that trick to go 0-60 mph in just 2.5 seconds….
I’m not sure about the Volt, hopefully they have both heating and cooling for the battery.
The Volt has very sophisticated temperature management, as well as Depth of Discharge management. I haven’t heard of any battery problems with the Volt.
I checked and the Bolt also has a liquid cooling system for the battery.
And I believe it has a heating system, which is handy for very cold climates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/world/americas/venezuela-nicolas-maduro.html
Maduro is surely doing everything he can to make his former holier than thou supporters look like idiots.
Wonder who Pres Clinton will choose for Energy Secretary, and if there will be much in the way of an energy policy. I would like to see some sort of national 5 yr plan, including some carefully chosen infrastructure projects- like improving the grid.
I’m not expecting too much, since the budget for discretionary items is getting smaller and smaller as the entitlement pie portion continues to escalate.
This will be of interest to anybody interested in electrified cars.
Scroll down and you will find a notice about California holding hearings on the rules that will govern the use of self driving cars, etc.
http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-newsletter-california-inc-20161017-snap-story.html