188 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, September 16, 2021”

  1. A link to ‘Plentiful Energy which tells the story of the Integral Fast Reactor programme. You can download the book for free and for anyone that is looking for a solution to FF depletion, that doesn’t involve third world living standards, it is well worth reading.
    http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf

    Before it’s cancellation by the Clinton Administration, this reactor programme demonstrated an electro-refining method for reprocessing metallic fuel and removing fission products, whilst keeping all actinides in the recast metallic fuel pellets. This technology allowed the fuel cycle to be closed using a compact and low cost process.

    The metallic fuelled and sodium cooled reactors were passively safe and not vulnerable to loss of heat sink accidents, due to the enormous heat capacity of the sodium within the reactor.

    The Green Lobby within the Clinton Administration made it their first priority to destroy this programme upon reaching power. If you have a compact, inherently safe nuclear reactor with a closed fuel cycle, then you don’t need to power your country with wind turbines or solar panels, which cost 1-2 orders of magnitude more in terms of resources. Sinking this programme was the only way that these people could remain relevant. And sink it they did. But the research that the programme generated still exists. Reviving their efforts remains an option for future governments. Aside from the unexpected development of high power density nuclear fusion, this concept is our best hope of developing an energy system that is both ecologically sustainable and plentiful at low cost.

    1. Reality test-
      If this technology was so compelling, the Bush administration was in for 8 years They could have pushed it. So could have the Obama administration with pro-nuclear Stephen Chu as the energy secretary. So could have Trump.
      If this reactor program was so compelling other countries would have developed it.
      If this reactor program was so compelling private funding would have found a home with it.

      You are talking about 25 years ago.
      Plenty of time for other administrations or other countries to initiate a program.

      You are having a big trouble separating your preconceived economic, environmental, political beliefs from reality.

      The USA is going forward with a new small modular reactor (see below)- but it is a very long process to get testing/approval/permit/construction done. And then there is the little issue of cost, and storage of waste.
      The US has not developed a high-level radiation waste repository. It has a huge pile in a hundred temporary sites. This despite 76 years since waste accumulation had begun.
      We need to take care of that problem before any more nuclear facilities are built, IMO.

      NuScale is the only company to gain approval for design of a new nuclear reactor in recent decades in the USA, and they started the effort officially 14 years ago. It remains to be seen when their first project will be built and commissioned. But it is an interesting engineering story.
      https://www.nuscalepower.com/projects

      1. No worries–
        With a half life of 24,000 years, it will be over in no time.

    2. The Green Lobby…

      Nuclear fans are a lot like Shi’ite Moslems mourning the Assassination of Ali ibn Abi Talib in 661 AD.

      It’s over. But maybe we could create a sort of Atomic Ashura holiday so ex-Lobbyists and a few confused engineers could shave their heads and indulge in autoflagellation.

      1. In “A turn in the South” Nobel Prize winner V.S. Naipaul compares Confederate revivalists with Shi’ites, but as a native East Tennessean I beg to differ. There really isn’t much passion in neo-confederates, they are really just whiners looking for a hook to hang their hats on.

        But nuclear fanboys are plain spooky.

        1. As opposed to renewable and fossil fuel fanboys? Nuclear seemed to do well in France. Funny that it’s now upending stable, cheap electricity for what the UK is doing: high gas prices and unreliable wind and solar at the same time as the likes of Germany also decide to do that. And hey, if China thinks it’s good…

          The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

          1. France is an outlier. They did what they did, but the fact they did it doesn’t prove it was a good idea. Anyway its industry is 40 years old. Construction was massively subsidized at the time as part of the nuclear weapons program, and since then the price of solar has fallen more than 99%.

            When France was building nukes, we also used rotary dial phones, eight track tape, typewriters and cathode ray tube TVs. Those brilliant technologies are dead and gone. Power plants have a longer shelf life, but the fact that they were built then in no way suggests they should be built now.

            About reliability, consider this: In the 60s, we had wonderfully reliable phones. Just pick up the receiver, and you nearly always got a dial tone. Now I spend most of my day in video conferences, and nearly every call has technical problems. We cope somehow. Does anyone want to go back? No.

            The whole reliability argument is particularly ludicrous in America, where burying power lines has been delayed a century, and is by far the main cause of problems. But that is where you get your arguments from.

            As to whether current Chinese investments are a good idea, it clear that there is a vast over-investment in coal fired plants there. In fact wind has a high capacity factor. How nuclear with its high operating costs is supposed to survive in a market flooded with underperforming coal plants and zero marginal cost renewables remains to be seen. The crunch will come when China’s demand levels out.

            1. I’m not quite sure what the reliability point is about. We need effective base load power of some sort, whether it’s FF, nukes, or a truly massive amount of storage on tap from hydro or CAES or compressed air etc. So far, Europe is getting around intermittency with natural gas. And it shows how terribly unprepared governments are for what is coming down the pipe. You only have to look at the literal weeks where there was basically no wind and very little solar output in the UK of late, which also affected Europe. Why do I care how cheap solar and wind is if it literally produces no power regardless?

              Right now, I’m getting 51% of my energy from CCGT and 2 and 10%, respectively, from wind and solar as I sit on my computer. And the UK is hailed as some sort of Green New Deal success story? We have a long way to go.

              I also don’t get this obsession with quoting how cheap solar is etc. Did you know that costs rise as more and more cheap RE is added to the grid? Did you know that my bills are going up as I get greener? Who cares what the price the utility paid for production capacity is if the costs of transmission and servicing and back-up are passed on to the consumer, as they already are? Just look at California: one of the largest NG users in the US, huge amounts of solar and wind, and also the highest power prices to go with it. What a win for the consumer. Funny how the nuclear places have the cheapest electricity. Look at South Korea too for another interesting contender.

              Also, nuclear was subsidised by the nuke arms race, yes (ignoring South Korea, I guess). But there are plenty of subsidies going into RE, so I’m not quite sure what your point was. Is it that RE can stand on its own feet without handouts? Because that’s seemingly not the case given here.

              Yes, yes, they need to overbuild, gas is transitional, batteries etc. etc. I know all that. Now go tell the millions of people in the UK in fuel poverty, about to get hit with more double digit fuel bills, how amazingly cheap and green the future is for them.

              Right here, right now, people are less and less able to afford this transition regardless of what it costs to make a kW of PV or wind output. We are nowhere near even touching replacing FF production for primary energy. Not even close. Exponential increases in tiny numbers are tiny numbers. Asia is voraciously eating up all the coal and building nukes despite all the RE tech they have. People are being sold the dream of the same life, but with no impact on the environment with REs. Regardless of all this, REs don’t address environmental collapse and declining economic prosperity.

              Did I miss anything?

            2. Kleiber
              The reason I talk about the price of solar so much is that I expect solar to bankrupt the energy industry. What happens then?

              Baseload is a business model based on the assumption that the cheapest form of energy is the energy produced most steadily, typically from a coal plant. This assumption simply no longer holds. The cheapest form of energy moving forward will be intermittent.

              Because baseload is cheap, utilities have been selling the world on the idea that always-on electricity is an absolute must. But is it really? Or is it just what we are used to? What percentage of essential services are really essential?

              Another point: Since energy has traditionally been very profitable, there has always been a push to solve energy problems by increasing energy output. If backup supplies like gas have a hard time operating at a profit, then emphasis may switch to energy conservation and storage, as well as redesigning industry to cope with sporadic power shortages. That may sound impossible, but is it really? What percentage of variance is possible?

            3. Okay, I get you now. In that case, my response would have to be: the world, and mainly the First World, needs to appreciate where we are in terms of our energy usage.

              Now what do I mean by that? I think I mentioned this in the active oil thread, but in a nutshell, people have such little grasp of just how much energy is expended on keeping the lap of luxury (yes, even for those in fuel poverty) that we take for granted, that they genuinely can’t comprehend the sort of situations unfolding now. You’re right, the base load of power, hell, the total amount of energy used overall, is unsustainable and, even if replaced with RE or all nuclear etc., doesn’t address that we waste so much resource on trinkets from China and other energy wasting practises. Just look at the best selling cars, even EVs, in the US now. Notice how they’re all massive SUVs and pick-ups, almost negating a lot of benefits EVs offer.

              Vaclav Smil had a book out last year, that shows how energy utilisation efficiency has declined precipitiously over the last several decades because of mis-use of FFs or investment in REs not effective in their intended role, or overuse of larger vehicles and more flying miles.

              Then you have people heating homes in winter to 25ºC, rather than wear more clothing and use a blanket. If people are so disconnected as to think that wearing beachside wear at home in winter and cranking the thermostat up is a good thing, instead of dressing for the season, well maybe we need an energy shock again. The ’70s made a lot of things get more grounded, such as making sure cars were getting better mileage or reducing economic output for more frivolous enterprises.

              I’m thinking now that the supply shortages of stuff out of China and the natural gas and RE power deficits may wake people up to how hard reality can be without cheap, abundant energy. It’s been taken for granted because it’s all most people have ever known, to the point that people lose their shit over not having access to literally anything they want 24/7. This holiday season will be fascinating when it dawns that many things won’t be available and rolling blackouts could be on the cards even.

              So in answer, I’d say a good (VAST) chunk of the modern global economy is pointless. It’s economic growth for the sake of it to keep the managerial class relevant (David Graeber would not appreciate this state). We need to simplify if we are to transition to an even halfway viable non-FF based economy, and give up the constant growth in GDP religion. This is where I fear the politicians will never be straight with the populace, because going from “we need to save the climate and stop using FFs” to “Also, that means holidays abroad, big cars and homes, always available heat and light and water, and endless consumption also have to end” is a bitter pill to swallow.

            4. “So in answer, I’d say a good (VAST) chunk of the modern global economy is pointless. ”

              Yep. Nothing changes without a massive disruption. BAU cannot continue to exist and we arrive at a sustainable situation long term. Decades of pain (and likely many dead and poor) will be required to correct our profligacy.

      2. “Nuclear fans are a lot like Shi’ite Moslems” – Alim
        Synopsis- ‘these people I don’t like are a lot like these other people I don’t like’

        Wow, what a nuanced and astute observation!
        Please share more of your worldly wisdom and seductive arguments.

        Nothing of value to contribute, as usual, Typical Biden Bro

  2. We have a crisis in CO2: a lack of it, if you can believe. The UK is seeing meat production being impacted, among other factors, because CO2 production has been reduced due to issues at plants and the stellar growth in natural gas prices in just the last few months. This is not too dissimilar to when the likes of acetonitrile and other solvents were in short supply after car manufacturing got hit in 2008.

    Impacts we don’t take into account. Knock on effects that can have large impacts on the economy.

  3. You don’t have to like them to understand that there are some conservatives out there with working brains who are perfectly willing to tell the truth about trump and company.
    This quote is from a piece by an editor at the National Review.

    “As my colleague at National Review, David Bahnsen writes, the stolen-election narrative is going to be an albatross “anywhere independents and moderates are needed to win an election—the backward-looking focus on the unprovable claims of a 2020 stolen election are toxic, self-defeating, and counter-productive.”

    I’m hoping the likes of the remains of trump’s team and some prominent or at least notorious Republican politicians keep up the stolen election propaganda. The R’s own the vote that believes it anyway, but the more independents and Democrats have to lisent to i it, the more motivated they will be to get out and vote….. either FOR Democrats or AGAINST Republicans, lol. Same net difference.

      1. Someone left the pen gate open at Watt’s Up With That open again.

    2. I’m no expert, but I learned about this in 1974 in my Earth Science class in high school. I wanted to be a geologist but changed my major during my third year of college because of the difficulty I had with math and chemistry.

      When Reagan was re-elected in 1984, I thought it meant we had taken the wrong path and it was too goddamn late to do anything for planet Earth.

      So none of this surprises me, not a bit. I’m just surprised we managed to carry on as long as we have.

      1. The science has progressed significantly since those days. Quite frankly, the UN is mostly reliant on suckers these days with enough faith to think that what the UN says is meaningful in any way. Because it was widely reported in the news last month that the sun is the biggest reason for climate change.

        1. This old chestnut. Well congrats, turns out you solved the case as to how Earth gets heat: it’s that overly large fusing ball of hydrogen 150 million klicks away. I’m sure there are some toddlers still waiting on this revelatory finding, quick, hurry and tell them.

          Now as to the reason why the incoming energy isn’t readily dissipated as easily as it was until, coincidentally, the time we started belching fossil carbon into the atmosphere, I guess we still need to connect the dots.

          I hope you’re getting paid well for this retarded hot take. I’d be embarrassed to do it pro bono in public.

          1. Just a polite note, I’m seeing some instances of ignorance from you that could be used as a lesson for individual growth. For instance, the “R-word” is now commonly seen as incredibly offensive and hurtful. It should not be part of an modern educated person’s vocabulary. The other thing is, “people that go apeshit over Twitter going offline for an hour.” Maybe you aren’t aware, but Black people are over represented on Twitter compared to their percentage of the overall public. Sociologists refer to this phenomenon as Black Twitter. Optically speaking, that statement could therefore be provocative.

            1. Oh geez.

              I guess I meant to call the guy “mentally deficient in his understanding of science”. Or just an “idiot”, but then I looked up what that word means: https://www.wordnik.com/words/idiot

              And now I feel like I’m being horribly ableist. How do I insult someone without being too insulting? Genuine question.

              As for the Twitter comment, I presume you mean “apeshit”. Well, since it’s not even a connection I would have made until you pointed it out, it seems more of a reflection on you conflating black people with apes, not something I have ever done.

              I did have to edit this post because I went on one long winded rant about things relating to Marxist critique and class war and manufactured outrage of social media being to the net detriment of society. In the end, it seemed a tad much, so I’ve cut that out.

            2. “Just an idiot” with a Fox News “R”epublican “R”acist education

  7. I am reading that House Democrats have proposed a bill which requires banks to stop financing coal, oil and natural gas, or they will be “broken up.”

    When I read these proposals, I don’t see any reference to using fossil fuels as back up generation.

    I have read some here claim we don’t need any FF backup. Is that really true?

    Seriously, I am worried about not having heat during a cold snap. I am not confident the political people know what they are talking about. Are the political people being advised by experts on these proposals?

    I am not looking for political answers here. I am very tired of that. I am looking for accurate answers, whether or not that fits in any political party’s platform.

    There were four coal fired power plants within 40 miles of me ten years ago. The two small ones shut down and are completely gone, returned to farmland/wooded land. The two large, more modern ones (both built in the late 1970s-early 1980’s) are slated for closure by 2025.

    So, living in the Midwest USA, what will be the source of my electricity going forward?

    Also, I have natural gas heat and a generator which is fueled by natural gas. Do I need to buy a furnace powered by electricity? Put solar panels on my roof?

    I appreciate advice and hope my questions aren’t too simplistic or offend anyone.

    1. I am reading that House Democrats have proposed a bill which requires banks to stop financing coal, oil and natural gas, or they will be “broken up.”

      Shallow Sand, I would really like to know exactly where you read this. I suspect it was on Facebook.

    2. Hi Shallow.
      If you were going to retire your nat gas at some future date- the best option will be a heat pump (does heating and cooling), and where you live it is sunny, so yes solar on the roof in addition. Its a great combo system.
      Nat Gas electrical generation seems like an easy choice for OK, as a backstop for solar and wind.
      Are you familiar with the term ‘peaker plants’- they are common in the electric utility sector-
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant

      I think it is foolish/naive to retire baseload electrical production capacity before there is commensurate replacement capacity, although the quicker coal is replaced with other forms the better, IMO.

      “So, living in the Midwest USA, what will be the source of my electricity going forward? ”
      Over the next 20-30 years it is going to nat gas, solar and wind. You live in an area which is very well endowed with energy. It will be a relatively easy job for your region to become big electricity exporters to cities like Chicago, if that was a goal. It will require upgrades to transmission infrastructure, and management.

      Most other regions and countries do not have such good/relatively easy options regarding energy. Seriously, the vast majority of energy developers in the world drool when they look at the wind and solar resource in your state.
      Have you looked at your region on the atlas’s?
      https://globalsolaratlas.info/map
      https://globalwindatlas.info/

    3. Shallow Sand —
      You need to insulate your house better and quote your sources. “I heard that” followed by an easily checked falsehood isn’t a great calling card.

      You can track all bills at the link below, though I admit it is a lot of work.

      https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/BILLS/

      1. Falsehood?

        See Ron’s post below. Google it yourself or hit Ron’s link.

        We did a major remodel of our home in 2010, which included new, high efficiency doors and windows, as well as much more efficient insulation. Also a new furnace and air conditioner. But the furnace is gas, so wondering about that.

        I try very hard to be factually correct with my posts. I think Dennis would vouch for me.

        1. Shallow sand is a straight shooter. I imagine you will be fine with natural gas for a while. Ground source heat pump might be an option (bit a pricey one) or airsource heat pumps work pretty well.

          I imagine in the future your electricity supply will be wind and solar with natural gas backup.

          Some information for Renewables at link below, old report from 2012 (focus is wind power)

          https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re-futures.html

          More up to date study focusing on solar power (2021)

          https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/Solar%20Futures%20Study.pdf

    4. Shallow Sand, it is difficult to give you a straight answer without knowing a bit more about where you live, I.e how much space you have around you. This is essential to any intelligent answer. So far as heating goes, the first thing I would recommend is to put a greenhouse on the south facing side of your house. When temperature in the greenhouse gets up to 20°C, open the back doors and let the heat in. You could use a fan assisted solution for better efficiency. This will cut the amount of space heating you need and also add value to your property by providing extra habitable space. The French have built trombe walls, that are specifically designed to catch heat in this way. But a greenhouse covering as much of the south facing side as possible is a more aesthetic way to go.

      You could try buying a wind turbine or even building your own. A heat pump is more difficult than many people assume. Ground source is OK, if you have plenty of space and the water table isn’t too high. But activating an inductive load can be problematic for grid stability, especially if you are generating your own power. Air source is no good, because you need it most when the air outside is coldest and it therefore gives a poor COP. You also need big fans to try enough air through the heat exchanger coils and they eat a lot of power. A technically easier solution would be storage heaters that activate when there is excess power in the system. This is what I looked into for my rural farmhouse in the UK. My house uses 20,000kWh of heat and 5,000kWh of electricity each year. So the plan was to buy a 10kW wind turbine and use most of the power for heating and use a portable DG to charge a battery for those few occasions when the wind is too low to meet base electrical needs. Batteries can store up to a day of power, but for more occasional longer term lulls, the DG is needed. The problem is that a 10kW wind turbine costs around $100,000 in US money. So realistically, that means paying $10,000 a year for my heat and power. A workable solution, but an expensive one. If no one in authority is prepared to crack the whip and build the nuclear reactors we need, this solution scaled up is going to have to be applied across society.

      If you live in a dense urban area with not much space around you, your options are really limited. A greenhouse could still work, as could solar heating panels on the roof. A wood burning stove would allow you to produce extra heat using whatever you can scavenge: wood, paper, cardboard, etc.

      1. Interesting. In the household paintings of European artists earlier in the 19th century and earlier, there are woodcutters carrying bundles of dry branches. Previously, it was the main type of fuel for heating and cooking. While studying the pictures of the Wehrmacht of the territory of the USSR during the Second World War, I noticed that where today there was a thicket of vegetation there was a field , of course, this is also related to the use of fuel.

    5. Hi Shallow Sand,
      I share your concerns, but worry less about them probably because I’ve spent more time studying politics to the detriment of my economic status whereas you have most likely spent your time actually working, lol.

      OK…… The EVENTUAL goal of the environmental camp is to do away with coal fired electricity, and then, sometime after that, get rid of all or nearly all the gas fired electricity.

      Now the way the public relations and or propaganda game is played, both sides preach to the choir, in order to get into power and gain the long term loyalty of the hard core base, and then at election time, they run to the middle to get elected.

      I can’t find it, but paraphrased, Nixon said you run as hard as you can to the right to get nominated, and then as hard as you can to the middle to get elected. Ditto for Democrats, but they have to run hard to the left to get nominated.

      The gas and coal fired plants will be phased out, gradually, and at some point the phasing out will happen to fast, and the shit will hit the fan for a day or even a week or two, assuming there aren’t yet enough long distance high voltage transmission lines in place to cover regional shortages of wind and solar power.

      The result of that shit storm will be that no more coal fired plants or gas fired plants will be decommissioned for quite some time after that, and some might even be reopened or a few new ones built.

      This is INVARIABLY the way the political long game is played. Half of what AOC says publicly is for the consumption of her hard core followers who will ( hopefully ) as the years go by be movers and shakers in the D Party, and move her into the Senate, or governor of NY office, maybe even the WH.

      The hard core R’s are doing the same thing… the primary difference being R’s like the current governors of Florida and Texas are idiots willing to see people die by the tens of thousands to further their own career ambitions.

      Your power won’t likely go off more than once for more than a day or a few days because too much coal and gas capacity has been retired.

      If the auto makers can’t make enough progress in improving fuel economy, the rules will be relaxed due to public pressure so that they can build cars that don’t get the specified miles per gallon.

  8. No Ron, I am not on FB. I read it on the hill.com. Many other news organizations have stories regarding it.

    Google Fossil Free Finance Act sponsored by US House Reps Jones, Presley and Tlaib.

    Read about it an let me know what you think.

    1. I try to ignore the output from the most extreme views from either party, or media source.
      That includes proposed legislation that has zero chance of becoming law.
      The vast majority of the time, these things fizzle when confronted with reality by mainstream of either party.

      1. Hickory.

        Not so sure it is safe to ignore extremes on either side on any issue.

        Thanks for the response above.

        1. True, I admit/agree.
          We all must try hard to keep them from gaining traction in the party we happen to vote for.
          It often does feel like a lost cause.

    2. I found it. Democratic bill would force Fed to defund fossil fuels

      Three progressive House Democrats introduced a bill Wednesday that would force the Federal Reserve to break up banks if they do not reduce the carbon emissions they finance in line with the Paris climate accord.

      The bill, called the Fossil Free Finance Act, orders the Fed to take unprecedented steps meant to steer financial support away from oil, gas, coal and companies by unraveling banks who refuse to comply. The measure also covers financing the destruction of natural forests.

      The bill will go nowhere of course. But I am all for stopping the destruction of natural forests. But nothing will ever be done that will make one bit of difference. You just cannot cut off the energy supply and expect it to work. I am really shocked that people think they can just stop fossil fuel production and that will fix everything. That is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

      1. Ron, this is something I’ve read several comments today on Reddit on the UK sub-reddit relating to the natural gas and, by extension, CO2 shortages. People were literally saying the elites needs to pull their finger out and get real about climate change and stop relying on gas because the UK has loads of wind.

        I agree, we should definitely not rely on foreign gas imports and a dying North Sea. But they have zero idea as to how far we are from anything like that and how incredibly different life will be during that transition.

        The people that go apeshit over Twitter going offline for an hour are going to cope with intermittent power and increased expenses on everything as consequence of moving off the opiate of FFs? Seems doubtful.

      2. Ron, thanks for finding it.

        I do not have a Facebook account or any social media account. I post here, slightly on Seeking Alpha, and on one sports website.

        I am not a fan of Facebook.

      3. These people are literally destroying the energetic foundations of western civilisation. And they are technically clueless, woke, politicos who really don’t know how the economy works. They are monkeying around with things they don’t understand, too arrogant to take advice from anyone. Dangerous people.

        Climate change is a convenient tool that these people are using to force their idealistic naturalist energy fantasies onto the world. If global warming didn’t exist, they would latch onto some other bandwagon if it served their purpose and suddenly the whole world would be talking about that as an end of days catastrophe instead.

        I presented a link to the US quaternary energy review earlier, showing the physical resource requirements for wind and solar power systems per TWh of energy produced. They dwarf those of competing fossil and nuclear power systems by 1-2 orders of magnitude. And much of these invested raw materials are not going to be recyclable. Remove the hidden subsidies and the fossil fuels needed to make this infrastructure and you will find that their capital cost will be unaffordable. And these systems need to be country sized in order to provide serious quantities of power. One MW of solar capacity requires about 8 acres of land. That is land that cannot be used for any other purpose.

        We are being led into a dead end, by foolish idealists who are more interested in pursuing an idealist goal than they are in keeping people alive and well fed. One can only hope that the turmoil of the approaching energy crisis will end all credibility of the New Left, Green idealists. They just aren’t in any way a useful part of the solution to fossil fuel depletion. The only energy solutions with sufficient power density to rival fossil fuels are atomic in nature. We need a transition from a fossil chemical energy base, to a nuclear energy base, not a descent back to pre industrial ambient energy sources. Ambient energy simply cannot provide sufficient surplus energy to run an industrial civilisation. And our population is simply too large to sustain using pre industrial per capita energy levels.

        We need a leadership with enough technical acumen to understand what is happening to the economy in terms of declining net energy. That leadership needs to have the courage and drive to begin our transition from the fossil to the new nuclear age. It definitely isn’t Biden and I doubt that Trump can do what is necessary either.

        1. Says “errogent” Einstein who wants to ship freight by pipeline.

          1. I raised a new idea for discussion. It may work, it might not. Either way, its more than I’ve seen you do on this board. Aside from throwing insults at people. You do that quite a lot.

          2. “Says Einstein who wants to ship freight by pipeline”

            lol to the tenth power!

        2. Climate change is NOT a “convenient tool” for anyone. Along with environmental destruction it is an increasing threat to humans and other species that inhabit Earth. Wake up (or grow up) Tony.

          1. My point is that the Far Left in the US and elsewhere, don’t care about climate change. It just a convenient cause that they use to push through their new energy agenda. That is their interest in it. And that is all. I do not doubt that it is going to be a problem for human society in future. Though in truth global FF reserves are unlikely to be sufficient to reach the high warming scenarios.

            But the people using it to push the New Left agenda of RE and mass migration, are not interested in helping real people. They are interested in ideology. Their mindset basically boils down to ‘individual lives don’t matter, in pursuing the sacred cause’.
            This is how they butcher millions. And they will latch on to whatever convenient cause happens to be useful to their goals and use the media to inflate whatever fear is needed to rally public support. It is the way these people work. They are threatened by what they cannot control in the world, so they latch on to comforting idealism and pursue it with all their heart.

            The Political Right have responded badly to this. They have fallen under the illusion that because the Left are using the crisis to peddle false solutions, the crisis itself must be fake. They have therefore fallen into the trap of trying to provide a counter argument against the science of global warming. But the fact is that the issue doesn’t need to be fake for the enemies of freedom to jump on the bandwagon and use it for their ends. A sensible solution to both GW and FF depletion can be found in expanding the use of nuclear energy. Instead of pursuing that solution, the Right has chosen to try and provide a counter argument for the whole scientific basis of global warming. And they end up looking like idiots.

            1. First pipeline shipments…

              “Their interest is… their mindset is… they don’t care…”

              and now you fancy yourself a psychoanalyst. Get lost.

            2. My point is that the Far Left in the US and elsewhere, don’t care about climate change. It just a convenient cause that they use to push through their new energy agenda.

              That’s almost as dumb as your “freight by pipeline” scheme. Just who are the “Far Left”? And how do they differ from the “Ordinary Left”? What percentage of the “Total Left” is the “Far Left”? But most importantly, just how do you know that they don’t care about climate change? Do you think Al Gore wrote “An Inconvenient Truth” just so he could push through his new energy agenda?

              But now I have a serious problem. I consider myself just a plain liberal. But I have no idea whether I am “Far Left”, “Middle Left”, or “Near Left. 😫

            3. Tony —

              You stated: “Though in truth global FF reserves are unlikely to be sufficient to reach the high warming scenarios.”

              In fact, climate change is primarily a problem of too much carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere — mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This is based on well-established evidence, on the science. What qualifies you to disagree?

            4. ‘Do you think Al Gore wrote “An Inconvenient Truth” just so he could push through his new energy agenda?’

              That’s right. These people look for causes that they can latch onto and use to advance their personal agenda. That doesn’t mean that the idea of global warming is fake, just because political con artists are using it. That is the mistake that politicians on the Right have fallen into. To assume that the crisis is fake, because of all the fake people that are riding it.

              ‘But now I have a serious problem. I consider myself just a plain liberal. But I have no idea whether I am “Far Left”, “Middle Left”, or “Near Left. 😫’

              I guess that is your own little personal identity crisis. The further Left a person is, the more they care about political ideals and the less they care about real people. So you are asking me to tell you just how screwed in the head you are? I don’t know. I don’t know you. The fact that you spend your time warning people about FF depletion suggests that you must care to some extent about real people. If you were Far Left, you be trying to use it to push other political agendas. That is just the way those people think.

              PS. You don’t like the capsule pipeline idea, you have made that abundantly clear. Like I said before, it was raised for discussion. Do you actually have any solid analytical critiques of the idea beyond ‘it’s stupid’ and ‘thanks for giving me a laugh’? I’m asking, because you you clearly have enough technical background to write intelligently about the the world’s oil supply problems. Are there two Ron Pattersons that post on this board?

            5. ‘Tony —
              You stated: “Though in truth global FF reserves are unlikely to be sufficient to reach the high warming scenarios.”

              In fact, climate change is primarily a problem of too much carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere — mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This is based on well-established evidence, on the science. What qualifies you to disagree?’

              I don’t disagree that accumulating CO2 causes radiative forcing. My point is that the trend EROI of oil, coal and gas is now declining to an extent that very soon they will produce insufficient surplus energy to sustain the operation of the economy and the maintenance of infrastructure that is needed to keep it working. This the real reason why interest rates have been lower than inflation for the past dozen years. The system is close to some sort of catastrophic collapse. Most of the FF that would be needed to reach high warming scenarios will never leave the ground because its EROI is too low.

              However the future plays out, rates of fossil carbon combustion are going to be lower in the future because their energetic viability is declining. IPCC models do not recognise this. They assume that FF combustion is something that will keep on growing. We know from everything posted on this board that that assumption cannot be true and that we are probably past peak liquids. Data suggests that peak coal is behind us as well.

            6. TonyH, I get my information on the world’s oil supply from the public statistics as well as the experts who have been in the business for decades as well as those who have studied the problem for decades. I would hope that is what most everyone else does, on any subject. Then, of course, to use their own reason to analyze all the evidence. I never just pull stupid ideas right out of my ass like pushing freight through a pipeline with flowing water.

              About politicians ulterior motives. Of course, some do this. That is, they know Trump is an idiot and that he really lost the election. That is an affliction that affects politicians on the far right. But, you will notice that the vast majority of politicians, even on the far right, remain silent on the subject. They would rather remain silent than deliberately lie. But the ignorant rabble who crap about the “stolen election” every day, really believes that shit, even though they are a majority of the Republican party. Why do you think Trump said: “I love the undereducated”? They are not lying, they are just ignorant.

              My point is, the vast majority of people really believe what they say. To believe that those on the left, right, or center are all lying because they have another agenda is just pure poppycock. A few are lying of course. But the outright liars are a tiny minority of the whole.

              You should realize by now that this blog does not suffer fools gladly. 🤣

            8. ‘I never just pull stupid ideas right out of my ass like pushing freight through a pipeline with flowing water.’

              So basically, you have nothing intelligent to say about this, just that ‘It’s a stupid idea, pulled out my arse’. Because you say so. Not exactly high calibre engineering analysis. I can only hope that you do better than that in your assessment of future oil production. What I am seeing here gives me cause for doubt.

              As for the whole Trump thing, I haven’t been interested enough to examine the whole stollen election debacle in any detail. I am not an American and frankly I have too little time to do the digging needed to really understand what took place. But I would say that just because you don’t want to believe it, doesn’t mean that the election wasn’t fiddled, any more than the reverse. I suspect that a lot of what happened was the result of the Dem team canvassing postal votes on the ground. It isn’t strictly illegal. There has always been the problem for the Left, that most of their supporters are rif raf that aren’t particularly reliable and wouldn’t vote if it meant making an effort to get to poling booth. Postal voting makes it easier for these people to vote and easier for canvassers to nudge them in the right direction. At least that has been the direction of travel here in the UK.

              ‘You should realize by now that this blog does not suffer fools gladly. 🤣’

              Well we can’t all be blessed with engineering genius like you 🙂 From these discussions, I begin to suspect that you have a good amount of knowledge when it comes to the oil sector, but you don’t come across as being an engineer, at least not trained up to degree level. Is that a correct assessment? From some of stuff you are saying, I begin to wonder if your teenage son hasn’t hacked your username?

            9. So basically, you have nothing intelligent to say about this, just that ‘It’s a stupid idea, pulled out my arse’.

              I also have nothing intelligent to say about the flat earth theory either because it is such a stupid idea that nothing intelligent can possibly be said about it. Ditto for the idea about pumping freight through a pipeline.

              No, I am not an engineer and I have never claimed to be. Though for much of my career my title was “Computer Field Service Engineer”, that was merely the title of my job and was not a reference to any degree I might hold.

              But you simply fail to understand that any man or woman can study any subject and be able to make intelligent comments on that subject. Everyone does it because even though they may hold even a doctorate in some discipline, they still, very often, make comments on subjects outside their discipline. Everyone does it! It would be a dull world one was only allowed to comment on subjects of which they held a degree.

              That being said, anyone can occasionally come up with stupid ideas. I have been guilty of that myself. But then I say to myself, “Damn, that was a stupid idea.” But some people publish their stupid idea without ever realizing just how stupid it was. 🤪

            10. ‘That being said, anyone can occasionally come up with stupid ideas. I have been guilty of that myself. But then I say to myself, “Damn, that was a stupid idea.” But some people publish their stupid idea without ever realizing just how stupid it was’

              It isn’t a stupid idea. It could be built and it would work. It’s just not an optimal use of resources compared to rail, because a pipeline carrying containers at a few metres per second will not deliver anywhere near as many tonne-miles per year as a railway track of comparable size, which carries freight at greater speed. So I know it probably isn’t something we will use in the future. It probably isn’t a good idea. That is what I concluded after I analysed it.

              I just wanted to see if you could tell me WHY it wasn’t a good idea. If you had the sort of engineering judgement that could stretch to unfamiliar concepts. You couldn’t. No shame in that really. But then you threw mud and made fun, rather than try and provide an assessment or admit that you couldn’t. That showed a real lack of humility. And frankly that’s where you fell down.

            11. Tony, I’m ignoring you, hitting the X button by your name. You seem intelligent and also pro-nuke and anti-renewables. Without considering the relative costs of each. Nukes are increasingly expensive and renewables + storage are increasingly cheap. You’ve come out of nowhere to swamp this site with your beliefs. Adios amigo.

        3. My kindergarten teacher would put kids in “time out” when they called other kids names. What goes on today as conversations would keep a lot of kindergarten teachers amply employed. I find labeling people counterproductive to the overall discussions that need to take place and to increase understanding of issues.

          Whether we have “climate change” or depletion of FF, the bottom line is the same. We have to find a way off FF and transition to alternative energy. Exxon has a graph showing the peaking of liquid supply around 2040. A BP VP says natural gas will peak around 2070 at current usage. That prediction was made in 2009.

          Solar and wind are alternatives that can be adopted. I have a set on my roof. I’m grid tied. In January, I produce about an 1/8th to 1/4 of my usage. In summer, on average, I’m a very very very slight exporter. This tells me a lot.

          Perovskite solar cells are about twice as efficient as the older silicon based cells and are thought that they can be produced for about a tenth of their silicon brethern. I think we will see them come into commercialization. It opens up a lot of questions as to how we will heat our homes in the winter and what will we do with the excess power in the summer. If I replace my array with a Perovskite array, that array could provide 1/4 to 1/2 of my January usage. FF will likely be there to make up the electrical generation deficit. However, in summer, I could double my generation to where I would be putting 700kwh out onto the mains. What happens with that scenario?

          Will the electrical energy companies have legislative control over my array’s excess generation? I think so. Their responsibility will be grid stabilization and it means that they will have to have control over my generation as a grid tied array owner. This opens up a lot of questions about any economic incentives to update or even purchase an array. It may come down to the point they pay me for the space or provide me with a rate discount to place an array on my roof. They manage the array and any battery storage arrays.

          As you can tell I have a lot of unanswered questions about our not too distant and distant future energy picture and utilization. Calling each other names does not help.

          1. Hi Peterev,

            What is most likely to happen is that we will eventually build enough wind and solar capacity, plus maybe some wave and tidal power capacity, etc, to get the job done during the production off peak seasons, which vary from place to place. Solar is always weak in the winter, but wind may be at its best at that time, etc.

            There will be substantial long distance transmission capacity built, and there will be a lot of storage capacity built.

            AND…. as you point out… there will be HUGE amounts of excess or surplus production at times when it’s not all needed for heating and cooling.

            It won’t go to waste. It can be used productively in lots of ways.

            We can use it to desalinate sea water, and pump the water into reservoirs for later use.
            We can use it to manufacture hydrogen and store the hydrogen for use as generating fuel in salt caverns, etc. We can use it to manufacture ammonia, which is a truly critical industrial chemical needed by the millions of tons.

            We can over cool our houses by a few degrees in the afternoon when the solar farms are cranking at max, and then need less ac in the evening and at night.
            We can put in oversize double insulated water heaters….. and go a week without running out of hot water even if rains the whole week. If necessary, we can and will fire up some gas plants, or gas plants built or modified to run on hydrogen.

            We can build thermal mass into our houses, which need be no more than gravel in a pit, and heat or cool that gravel, and use that to heat or cool our houses for the next week, or maybe even two weeks.

            And lots of industry that now runs twenty four seven due to heat management issues, such as smelting metals, or rolling steel into pipes and beams, etc, will find ways to use that intermittent excess electricity at a substantial profit.

            I’m a farmer. We’ve been making hay when the sun shines forever, and so far, we’ve never run out of hay due to a lack of sunshine……. not in my community. At worst, we lose maybe a quarter of our production because it rots in the field.It’s a problem, but we’ve learned to live with it.

            1. Hi OFM,

              Glad to hear from you and all the possibilities some of which I had not thought about. It is refreshing to read them.

              No One likes to be cold in the winter and some of our ice storms here in central NC had knocked out power for a week or so. I thought I could heat some water on a camp stove and take a sponge bath. I found I needed one more pot of hot water to do the rinse off which I didn’t have…

              Your idea of a gravel pit sounds intriguing. Do you have any source material on it? I’ve been thinking of buying a copy of Transys (~$5K license but a free trial copy) to simulate such a system to see if I could add something to the place and if it would be effective in January.

              I found that my solar hot water heater cut my electric bill by 15% in November.

              Thank you for responding.

  9. I am still working on my video about the fine-tuned universe. I am soliciting inputs from those who do not think the very obvious fine-tuning of the universe doesn’t mean anything. Or whatever your opinion on the subject might be, and why. Please reply if you have any opinions whatsoever on the subject. And consider the opinion of astrophysicists Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes quoted below.

    Note: Geraint Lewis is an atheist, Luke Barnes is a Christian. They wrote the book, “A Fortunate Universe” together but their only point in the book is to show how the universe is so exquisitely fine-tuned, not why. Obviously, no one knows why, any purpose is only implied.

    The below is a snipping tool copy and paste from the book “Cosmological Fine-Tuning Arguments” by Dr. Jason Waller. Sorry for the bold type but that is just how it came out. I have a PDF copy of the book.

    1. Hi Ron,

      So far as I can see, worrying about the universe being fine tuned is like thinking you’re special, that maybe GOD sent you the winning ticket, when you hit the lottery.

      There’s nothing special about the individual who hits the lottery. Divine Providence has nothing to do with it.

      We just happen to be lucky enough to be here in a universe that allows us to be here.

      It pisses me off that the physics establishment can’t define universe as everything that exists, which is the definition that makes the most sense. But lots of physicists talk about THE universe, which is visible to us, and ALTERNATE universes which we cannot detect, at least not using present day theory and instruments.

      There may be thousands, maybe even millions, of these so called alternate universes out there…… or in here, or someplace, lol. There may be thousands or millions of them where altogether alien to us forms of life exist…. possibly intelligent. The laws of our known universe may apply only in part or not at all.

      An intelligent species living in one of these hypothetical universes would probably think its own universe is likewise especially “tuned” so it can exist.

      I can be a cynic sometimes, but I also believe there are very likely LOTS of other intelligent life forms out there………. SOMEWHERE…. probably hundreds to millions of light years away, even billions of light years away. Space is a BIG place, lol, and such species are not likely to be common enough to be found more than a few places at any one time in any given galaxy.

      XDF (2012) view: Each light speck is a galaxy, some of which are as old as 13.2 billion years – the observable universe is estimated to contain 200 billion to two trillion galaxies.

      Galaxy – Wikipedia
      https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Galaxy

      1. I’ve gotcha Mac. But you have obviously not been keeping up with the latest cosmological news. The multiverse astrophysicist who professes to believe in the multiverse theory does not claim, as you suggested:
        “There may be thousands, maybe even millions, of these so-called alternate universes out there……” No Mac, they claim an infinite number of universes may exist. And it would take that many because of all the different constants, laws, and initial conditions to get to one lucky universe that has them all correct.

        The number of constants, laws, and initial conditions that had to just right boggles the imagination. Even if there were a trillion, trillion, trillion universes that would not even be close enough a number for all of them to fall into place by chance.

        But thanks Mac, I do appreciate your input. Please let me know if you think of a better explanation.

        1. I recommend you read David Deutsch. A very qualified man from Oxford.

          You can address his arguments in your video.

          He thinks the universe is a quantum computer.

        2. Back atcha Ron,

          “No Mac, they claim an infinite number of universes may exist”

          I suggest that you think about the odds of anything that is POSSIBLE happening, given an INFINITY of trials.

          We don’t have to dispute whether life can happen, that’s a given, lol.

          As best I can remember, discussing probability and infinity once upon a time with a math professor, he said that anything that CAN HAPPEN, WILL HAPPEN, given an infinity of trials. This is abc math to math professors, as I understand it.

          We don’t have a FUCKING CLUE as to what physical laws would hold in alternative universes. A physicist who says we do doesn’t have a fucking clue as to what the VERY CONCEPT means…….. a universe inaccessible to us, with properties entirely unknown to us. He would be guessing out his ass, based on what he knows about THIS universe, lol.

          Something tells me that you’ve not read enough science fiction, lol.

          1. I suggest that you think about the odds of anything that is POSSIBLE happening, given an INFINITY of trials.

            Mac, you are not talking to a sixth-grader. I have been thrashing this fine-tuning straw for about three years now. Do you actually believe I have not contemplated infinity about a thousand times? Infinity is the multiverse believer’s total argument.

            Infinity: If there were a sphere 200 billion light-years in diameter, filled with sand, there would still not be an infinite number of grains of sand in that sphere. If you had a trillion, trillion, trillion such spheres, all filled with sand, you would still not be anywhere close to infinity. There cannot possibly be an infinite number of anything, be it grains of sand or universes. Infinity is simply a mathematical concept. If one is talking about a physical number of anything actually existing, they are talking bullshit.

            As best I can remember, discussing probability and infinity once upon a time with a math professor, he said that anything that CAN HAPPEN, WILL HAPPEN, given an infinity of trials.

            Mathematically that may be true, but there can never be an infinite number of actual trials.

            Something tells me that you’ve not read enough science fiction, lol.

            True, I never read science fiction. However, I have read hundreds of books and essays on science facts. Something tells me you have read way too much science fiction and not nearly enough science fact. 😢

            1. Ron, there is infinity in real physics. But only on the strange corners, not in real life.

              One example I imagine first ist time dilation when approaching light speed. Time will come to absolute zero – so the perceived speed while traveling will go to infinity. You’ll travel from one “end” to the other “end” of the universe in less than a bling of an eye when even approaching light speed. Not that this is technical possible.
              Photons have no internal time, they arrive at their target the instant they’re created from their own coordinate system. So they have infinite speed – from their own coordinate system.

              Gravity in black holes goes to infinity, as far as the current physic knows. There is the event horizon, after this you can’t analyze things anymore so this part isn’t verifiable. But it’s the most efficient to get energy from something – throw it into a black hole. The radiation for friction while approaching the horizon will get more energy than nuclear fusion. Dropping a nuke into a black hole gives a bigger bang than exploding it…

              Just fun stuff, and no science fiction.

            2. One example I imagine first ist time dilation when approaching light speed. Time will come to absolute zero – so the perceived speed while traveling will go to infinity. You’ll travel from one “end” to the other “end” of the universe in less than a bling of an eye when even approaching light speed. Not that this is technical possible.

              You are talking about the speed of light. If you were riding a photon, then time would stop. You could travel through the universe in no time at all. I agree. At least that’s what astrophysics tell me and I have no reason to doubt them.

              But if one astrophysicist tells me an infinite number of universes exist, then I, as well as a lot of other astrophysicists, have reason to doubt.

              I made a mistake yesterday when I stated that all astrophysicists, except the theists, opt for the multiverse theory. I was just trying to be too brief and was not thinking. There are actually several astrophysicists who think the multiverse theory is total bullshit. Among them are Paul Davies, Roger Penrose, Gerant Lewis, and Sabine Hossenfelder. I am sure there are others. But the majority of them do opt for the multiverse rather than some kind of conscious entity. But all of them agree that the Universe is definitely fine-tuned.

              I have not examined all of them as to exactly how the fine-tuning came to be. But so far, Sabine Hossenfelder, and possibly Sean Carroll, are the only ones who believe it is simply a brute fact. Though Carrol leaves the possibility of a multiverse open while Hossenfelder does not. She says the multiverse theory, as well as string theory, are both religion and not science.

            3. What is science about assuming a “conscious entity” created a fine-tuned universe?

              Seems like a huge assumption

              What is more probable?

              1) A fine tuned universe appeared from nothing

              2) A “conscious entity” with the ability and desire to create a fine tuned universe appeared from nothing.

              I would put my money on #1

            4. Captain Crunch, who said this conscious entity had to pop out of nothing. It could have evolved. A tiny speck of consciousness could have appeared sometime in the vastness of time. Nothing spectacular, just something almost conscious. Then trillions of years later, or whatever it was before time, that something almost conscious evolved into something extremely conscious. Or hell, it could have even multiplied. We could have a committee of conscious entities. 😁

              Seriously, it depends on what the evidence supports. Obviously, you have not looked at the evidence, and I would guess you have no intention of ever doing so. After all, if one already knows what is truth, why waste one’s time looking at evidence to the contrary.

            5. Are you projecting?

              If it evolved, it had to come from something “finely tuned” for that evolution to occur. So that had to come from nothing.

              Sorry Ron, your explantions sound speculative. Seems like you’re biased to that explanation. Not based on evidence.

              What evidence are you looking at for this “conscious entity”?

              You are assuming that because you can’t think of a way a finely tuned universe could appear, therefore it has to be a “conscioius entity”

              As Richard Dawkins says, it is easier to explain something simple than something complex like a “conscious entity”

              Obviously I’m paraphrasing, but that is certainly the thinking he espouses.

            6. Captain Crunch, I have read every book I can get my hands on denying the fine-tuned argument. There are only a few of them. I have read every book I could find defending the fine-tuned argument. There are a lot more of them. There is a reason there are a lot more books proclaiming that the universe is fine-tuned. That is because almost every astrophysicist agrees that it is. Here are just a few of them but by no means all.

              Leonard Mlodinow, Luke Barnes, Geraint Lewis, Leonard Susskind, Robin Collins, Paul Davies, Martin Reese, John Barrow, John Leslie, Alan Guth, Brian Green, Roger Penrose, the late Stephen Hawking, and many others.

              There are three, and only three explanations for the fine-tuning:
              1. Brute Fact
              2. Multiverse
              3. Conscious entity.

              I know of only one astrophysicist who opts for the “Brute Fact”, Sabine Hossenfelder. All the others opt for one of the other two options. I have studied the multiverse from every angle. There is absolutely no evidence that the multiverse actually exists. That is pure speculation and even those who support that explanation agree. And even if trillions of universes exist, there is just no way that any one of them would be lucky to have ALL the constants, laws, and initial conditions just right. That leaves the latter.

              One more point. I have read dozens of books on the subject, read many papers on the internet, and watched well over one hundred hours of Youtube videos on the subject. I know what the fuck I am talking about. Obviously, you haven’t a fucking clue because you have not examined one whit of evidence for either position.

              I listed a Youtube video that made the best case for a fine-tuned universe:
              Is the Universe Fine-Tuned Of course you would never look at this video because you are so goddamn sure of yourself that if every astrophysicist on earth tried to tell you something different you would cover your ears and close your eyes because you already know the truth. I get all my information on the subject from astrophysicists. Where do you get yours?

            7. David Deutsch says Quantum Computers are evidence for the multiverse.

              However, I am not partial to any of the explanations.

              You are giving evidence that the universe appears fine tuned. Then making a “leap of faith” that a “conscious entity” did it.

              I see absolutely no evidence that a “conscious entity” did it.

            8. David Deutsch says Quantum Computers are evidence for the multiverse.

              Damn! Talk about a leap of faith. But you need to send me that quote from Deutsch. I spent 40 years as a computer hardware man. I don’t see any possible way a piece of hardware could possibly be evidence of the multiverse.

              Then making a “leap of faith” that a “conscious entity” did it.

              No, I am not saying that a conscious entity definitely did it. I am only saying that is what the evidence supports. Or rather that is what the total absence of any other evidence or even any other explanation says.

              I see absolutely no evidence that a “conscious entity” did it.

              Okay, since we are talking evidence, what is your evidence for the multiverse, or for brute fact? Or whatever it is that you believe.

            9. Captain Crunch, I have just posted a reply to your hero, David Deutsch below on a new thread. This one was just getting too long.

            10. I don’t know the answers. But some of your reasoning seems oddly religious in a way.

              Now goddammit you have pissed me off. If I am anything I am anti-religious. Christopher Hitchens was right, religion poisons everything. Religion has even poisoned science because everyone in science wants to equate any kind of non-material suggestion with religion.

              I try to hide it but religion makes my blood boil. I did my best to use the term “conscious entity” just to keep as far away from religion as possible.

              Goddammit, I am pissed right now and just don’t feel like conversing with you anymore. Oh, I watched hero, David Deutsch, in his video “The Multiverse” and have commented on it below because this thread was getting too long. But you have got under my skin to suggest that I am religious. Piss off!

          2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deutsch

            “In his 1997 book The Fabric of Reality, Deutsch details his “Theory of Everything”. It aims not at the reduction of everything to particle physics, but rather mutual support among multiversal, computational, epistemological, and evolutionary principles. His theory of everything is somewhat emergentist rather than reductive. There are four strands to his theory:

            Hugh Everett’s many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics, “the first and most important of the four strands.”

            Karl Popper’s epistemology, especially its anti-inductivism and requiring a realist (non-instrumental) interpretation of scientific theories, as well as its emphasis on taking seriously those bold conjectures that resist falsification.

            Alan Turing’s theory of computation, especially as developed in Deutsch’s Turing principle, in which the Universal Turing machine is replaced by Deutsch’s universal quantum computer. (“The theory of computation is now the quantum theory of computation.”)

            Richard Dawkins’ refinement of Darwinian evolutionary theory and the modern evolutionary synthesis, especially the ideas of replicator and meme as they integrate with Popperian problem-solving (the epistemological strand).”

            You are obviously a really smart guy Ron. But I doubt you worked on Quantum Computers.

            I don’t know the answers. But some of your reasoning seems oddly religious in a way.

            There is not a drop of evidence that a “cosmic entity” fine tuned the universe. But you have a made a good argument that the universe looks to our minds like it has been “fine-tuned”.

            I look forward to your video

    2. Hi Ron, I’m looking forward to your ‘production’ as an education since I know nothing about this subject. Could you explain in a brief manner the meaning of a ‘fine tuned universe’? It seems counterintuitive to conceive that the universe is fine tuned for life, rather than the reverse case, but it likely that I just don’t understand the terminology or concept correctly.

      ‘Life is an incidental occurrence, rather than a preconceived goal’?
      What is a poorly tuned universe? Would it not have life?

      1. Hickory, the fine-tuned universe is something that cannot adequately be explained in a short few paragraphs of a blog post. However, if you are really interested, I would suggest:

        Is the Universe Fine-Tuned?

        This is a rather long video but you only have to watch the first few minutes to get the gist. If you do you will watch the rest of the video. But if your mind is already made up and do not wish to listen to any evidence that contradicts your worldview, like perhaps 99% of everyone else, you will not. However, this is not a religious video, it does nothing more than quote the scientific facts. And I might add, the very best description of the fine-tuned argument ever presented anywhere.

        But I suspect that at least 9 out of 10 who click on the link will not get through the first five minutes. Hell, they already know the truth, so why waste their time listening to an argument that they already know is bullshit? But what the vast majority believe is already bullshit. Your worldview blocks your common sense and makes you believe bullshit.

        Ron Patterson, atheist, just like Fred Hoyle was, and like Fred Hoyle, believes that some kind of “conscious entity” started it all. I just don’t like the word, God. Especially if your god has a name like Yahweh, Allah, Thor, Jupiter, or whatever. All religion is bullshit. It poisons everything, including the inquiry into the origins of the universe.

        1. Its even more improbable to believe a “conscious entity” with the ability to create a fine tuned universe just appeared out of nothing.

          Over an infinite time span lots of weird things can happen. And it only has to happen once!

          1. Over an infinite time span lots of weird things can happen. And it only has to happen once!

            Okay, I agree, it only has to happen once. But about a hundred things have to happen in one hundred millionths of a second, all at the exact same time, but just once. Every atomic particle, the up quark, the down quark, the gluon, the neutrino, the electron, dark matter, dark energy, and every sub-atomic particle, and the recipe for something that would not happen for over 300 million years, the formation of stars and galaxies. All these had to pop into existence, all at the same time, from nothing. And these stars had to have certain characteristics that would create every element in the periodic table. And these stars would have to explode, spreading these elements throughout their galaxy. And…. oh hell, I could go on for pages but surely you get the idea. But congratulations, you are correct. This only had to happen once.

            1. Agreed.

              Try Victor Stenger for your video. One of his books addresses fine tuning.

              It will help bolster the defense of your argument.

            2. Captain Crunch, I have Dr. Stinger’s book and have read every page of it. I wrote a script for my video but decided to change it. However, here is my original script:

              “But what about Dr. Stenger, who wrote the book “The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning”. This book of Dr. Stenger’s is just filled with long and complicated mathematical equations. He has a chapter on The Schrodinger Equation, The Quantum Theory of Atoms, Quantum Tunnel Tunneling, and many other theories of physics that can possibly be expressed in a mathematical equation.
              During my career as a computer hardware man, we had a saying, referring to our approach to our clients: “If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit”. Now Dr. Stenger, in this book is not trying to baffle us with bullshit, but he is definitely trying to dazzle us with his brilliance. All these mathematical equations are only marginally related to the fine-tuning argument, if at all.
              In one place Dr. Stenger does deal with one of the fine-tuning parameters in the argument. That is the Fred Hoyle carbon resonance problem.
              A little history here. All elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are produced in stars via stellar nucleosynthesis. Then, if it is a giant star, it will eventually go supernova and spread these heavier elements throughout the galaxy.
              But physicists who studied the subject could not figure out how carbon could be produced. Three helium 4 atoms had to fuse to form carbon 12. First two helium 4 atoms would fuse to form beryllium 8 then another would hit it to carbon 12. But the beryllium 8 atom is extremely unstable and would decay before it had a chance to become carbon 12. But Hoyle figured out that if the carbon atom had a resonance of 7.6 MeV, then, and only then could enough carbon form. And when the test was finally finished, the carbon atom turned out to have a resonance of 7.656 MeV.
              Note: Carbon and Oxygen are produced by the same process. If a helium atom hits the carbon 12 atom, it becomes oxygen 16. This means that oxygen is produced at the expense of carbon and vice versa. There are about 3.3 times as many oxygen atoms in the universe as carbon. They are the 3rd and 4th most common atoms in the universe after hydrogen and helium.
              Stenger explained that in 1989 physicist Mario Livio and collaborators determined that a .06 MeV increase in the location level to 7.716 MeV would not significantly alter the carbon production in stellar environments. A decrease by the same amount to 7.596 MeV was needed before the carbon production increased significantly above the value in our universe.
              Dr. Stenger’s conclusion: The resonance of the carbon atom is not THAT fine-tuned. What he actually shows with this carbon 12 argument is that the amount of carbon in the universe is fine-tuned, just not as fine-tuned as one might think.
              However, on page 227 of his book Dr. Stinger says this:
              “Modern cosmology strongly suggests, although it does not prove, the existence of multiple universes in a greater system called the multiverse. If they exist, multiple universes provide a no-brainer solution to the fine-tuning problem by way of the weak anthropic principle. There are many universes out there with different parameters, and we just happen to be in the one with those parameters that allowed our kind of life to evolve.”
              So, there you have it. Every damn one of them, even the few deniers, except for the theists, opts for the multiverse.”

            3. A side note: Every astrophysicist out there, dozens of them, agree that the universe is fine-tuned except for three fence-sitters, Sean Carrol, Lawrence Krauss, and Victor Stinger. Carrol and Krauss somewhat agree that it definitely looks like the universe is fine-tuned but if there are an infinite number of universes, one of them would likely have all the parameters just right. The only outright denier was Dr. Stinger, who strangely also opted for the multiverse.

              Dr. Stinger died in 2012 and now realizes his mistake. 🤣

            4. How does Victor Stinger’s death prove anything?

              I couldn’t care less if Multi-verse theory is true or not.

              Just want to know what is true

            5. Hey Ron. Thanks for the link. Fascinating topic.
              I am in complete acceptance of the idea that earths life can only exist in the exact physical and chemical parameters of the/this universe. And that this particular set of parameters is not necessarily a probable outcome, and in fact seems very improbable, as we understand it.

              But nonetheless, it [the universe with its specific physical and chemical parameters] simply is exactly what it is. Whether or not it is what we consider the most probable or the least probable outcome- it simply is. It happened as it did.
              And life in the universe can only exist in the conditions of the exact parameters present.
              There is no other choice. The conditions were present, and eventually life developed to exist in those exact conditions.

              And I ask you- what makes this discussion any more complicated than that, other than perhaps describing the specific physical, chemical, or biologic details?
              Why do people seem to need to invoke guidance, ” Ron…believes that some kind of “conscious entity” started it all”

              To invoke anything more than the amazing unique physical, chemical and temporal nature of the universe as being a natural occurrence is an incredible display of overreaching/fabrication, in my opinion. But then again, humans have a great propensity for this. It seems irresistible.

              note that my educational training and interest in science is not oriented to physics, rather it is grounded in biology and biochemistry. Evolutionary chemistry and biology is where my fascination is is often targeted. Perhaps that focus ‘taints’ my understanding [or lack of understanding] of this universe issue. Perhaps not at all, and in fact it may be an advantage to have a non-physics background when considering the base issue.

              In any case, thanks for the thought provoking issue to ponder and study.

            6. George Jetson wrote: How does Victor Stinger’s death prove anything?

              What the hell are you talking about? Did I say his death proved something? And do you not understand what a smiling emoji means? It means I am joking!

              I couldn’t care less if Multi-verse theory is true or not.

              Just want to know what is true

              Do you not realize you just contradicted yourself? Now that is funny. 😂

          2. Why do people seem to need to invoke guidance, ” Ron…believes that some kind of “conscious entity” started it all”

            Dammit Hickory, science has nothing to do with what people need. Do people need to know about the Big Bang? Do people need to understand how every element in the periodic table except hydrogen and helium came into existence through stellar nucleosynthesis? Hickory, it has not one fucking thing to do with what I, or others, need. Goddammit Hickory, I just want to know.

            I have spent a lifetime reading non-fiction science books. I have read almost every science essay Issac Asimov ever wrote. I have read about six or seven books by Richard Dawkins. I have even read Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”. I did it simply because I wanted to know, not because I needed to know. It hasn’t a fucking thing to do with what I need.

            1. Understood and same goes for me. I very much admire your path of discovery.

              I find the idea that life arose more improbable (much more by a thousand magnitudes) than the improbability of the particular set of physical and chemical parameters of the this universe.

              But it did, spontaneously and without any plan or guidance or goal.
              Astounding.
              Hard to believe that we are here and get to catch a glimpse of it all.

            2. I find the idea that life arose more improbable (much more by a thousand magnitudes) than the improbability of the particular set of physical and chemical parameters of this universe.

              Hickory, I don’t even talk about “fine-tuned for life”. That is skipping right over all the very difficult and very fine-tuned stuff. The Anthropic Principle is silly and totally nonsensical. The really fine-tuned stuff gets you to rocky planets with liquid water. Life will take care of itself from that point on.

    3. Not exactly on subject but you might want to look into Stephen Wolfram and his book A New Kind Of Science. He postulates that only a very few simple rules could give rise to our universe or any number of other universes. He also plays around with Conway’s Game of Life to show how simple rules can give rise to very complex systems. The rules are deterministic but not predictable, the only way to see what will happen is to wait around and see! It’s fascinating and I thought you might find it interesting too.

  10. Up above Kleiber wrote
    ” People are being sold the dream of the same life, but with no impact on the environment with REs. Regardless of all this, REs don’t address environmental collapse and declining economic prosperity.”

    Thats not how I see it,
    I am not being sold or selling any such view.
    As I see it, solar and wind are just another piece of the energy toolkit, with various attributes and limitations just as do the other sources of energy.
    As fossil fuels deplete, some places/countries will be lucky to have abundant wind and solar energy, and other will not.
    Part of that fortune/misfortune will be based simply on geography of the resource, and some will based on intangible factors of foresight, policy making, rapid industrial action.

    Its not complicated people.
    Put yourself in the year 2030. Most places in the world are going to paying a hell of lot more for Nat Gas and Oil. The harsh reality of energy poverty will start to be seen as the early days of this phenomena. Every bit of energy that your area gets from other sources will be a degree of offset to this fossil depletion. For some places this will amount to very little. For other places it will be a majority of the energy needed [or available] to accomplish the basics of life.

    In the USA as of 2021 wind energy production is now equivalent to the output of 40 [1000MW] nuclear power plants. For year 2020 the equivalent of almost 6 new nuclear reactors [1000 MW] was added to the wind generation capacity of the USA. Over the remainder of this decade, the USA will add a very large amount of additional wind, and solar, energy production capacity to compliment the other sources of energy that it has access to, and every bit will be something people will be thankful for. At the current rate of capacity addition [without any acceleration] the number of nuc equivalent megawatts added by wind and solar over the rest of the decade will surprise the hell out of you.

    And no, this is no promise of some dream life.
    I offer lamentation to those of you who live in places with poor resource, or poor level of adaptive thinking.

    note- the defeatist attitude of blaming the ‘greens’ or Al Gore for energy policy failure and fossil fuel poverty in the future is going to look just stupid, like the notion of a flat earth, or the failure to recognize the depletion of fossil fuels.

    1. Hickory: You and I are both cognisant of the situation as it stands. I don’t think we can say the same for a lot, if not the majority, of people on the street. Anyone who takes time to post on blogs such as this or read books or papers on the topic should have a good grasp of how energetically expensive modern society is, with much of that waste going to economic production not necessary in the least. So when I see people online, or even in meat space, assume that all nations will simply unplug their coal and gas plants, and plug in wind and solar in their place with little disruption, I have to ask how they arrived at such a viewpoint.

      I would say that people running the countries need to be focusing on what it will really mean for those changes to take place. So far, it has been like pulling teeth to get just the concept of runaway climate change acknowledged by the masses and the leaders of the world for the threat it is. But they put in for cookie cutter policies like banning plastic straws and bags, or implementing congestion charges in cities. What they have recently started doing, like the 2030 ban on ICE vehicles in the UK and gas boiler installations, is seen as a massive move (although to my mind, still too little, too late). And the media and the people I’ve talked to about that see it as being a rush job with little planning, even if they agree that the cause demands it. It’s like some people appreciate that such a drastic move is not something to be taken lightly, and in other instances forget those logistical challenges and assume things will be a piece of cake. I have a cousin who has a Nissan Leaf and doesn’t know why everyone doesn’t just get one right now. The same cousin also laments having more wind farms in his county and having spent a fortune on a new boiler not long before the heat pump ideas were floated, so now he feels… cheated? I don’t even know. It’s a weird emotional mix, and he’s not alone.

      I think we can all say that climate change is on the radars of everyone, especially after the past year. What’s needed now, is a better understanding of the challenges to the system that come about as consequence of addressing this literally existential problem. Those that want an end to late stage capitalism through accelerationism are probably going to get their wish. I just don’t know if they’ll be particularly enthralled with the outcome they get.

      Where I would blame the greens would be in the black and white way of looking at things in the past, which killed their chances of enacting change. And now, the co-opting of their platform by big business to perpetuate the BAU approach with a new lick of green paint to hide otherwise terrible machinations in play. As I mentioned elsewhere, it’s not too dissimilar to corporations or gov’ts promoting Pride month or supporting BLM, but still being despicable entities riding the coattails of otherwise progressive movements to benefit their bottom line.

      EDIT: As an aside, just came across this segment on Channel 4 News. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN_Hr4E7hdQ

      It’s funny when you have people pontificate over how important energy is for the economy. No shit. That’s not exactly an incredible insight, and yet it apparently is something that needs spelling out as much as the fact that Solow’s idea that farming, being a tiny part of the economy, means it’s less relevant than, say, the tech sector. It’s hilarious.

      1. Klieber- “Where I would blame the greens would be in the black and white way of looking at things in the past,”
        Sure, and that same characterization goes for just about everyone.

        1. I agree. In fact, the rise of even more partisan thinking, especially in this age of virtual echo chambers, is where we get such impasses worse than ever. If we can’t even communicate across political and ideological lines, then we are truly done for as a species. The book How To Have Impossible Conversations is a great read on this.

          The 9/11 anniversary really hit home with how the US went from a totally united nation to completely at loggerheads with one another in such short order.

  11. ‘note- the defeatist attitude of blaming the ‘greens’ or Al Gore for energy policy failure and fossil fuel poverty in the future is going to look just stupid, like the notion of a flat earth, or the failure to recognize the depletion of fossil fuels.’

    The point is that wind and solar power aren’t the only things that we can use to mitigate FF depletion. Nor are they a good use of scarce resources. We are in a temporary nadir of very low interest rates and huge amounts of money creation by central banks. And Chinese coal is providing a lot of the cheap energy needed to produce RE infrastructure and needed materials. These factors, along with subsidies, some hidden and some direct, make RE look more sustainable than it really is. But these trends are already reversing. Chinese coal production is hitting limits. High inflation raises the potential for rising interest rates, if the value of currencies is threatened. The problem is that RE is very energy and material intensive to build. So long as fossil fuels remain cheap where the manufacturing is done and interest rates remain low, then imported RE infrastructure will be affordable. But this is already starting to unravel.
    https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/The-US-Is-Set-To-Break-Another-Solar-Record-Despite-Rising-Costs.html

    1. Tony- I am saying goodbye to you [ignore]
      Your 40 year old arguments have been proven obsolete by the reality on the ground, and you are unwilling to look at current factual information presented to you.
      Secondly I have no interest in your right wing ideology.
      Adios.

    2. Tonyh makes good points that align with Nate Hagens well-reasoned limits to renewable energy. Y’all are giving him too much shit for his pipeline idea. We should be in brainstorm mode to solve the crisis we are in, not shoot down ideas to prop up our own fragile egos:

      https://youtu.be/cQOnfPBSd8g

      1. The pipeline idea may well not be a good idea. As I said earlier, it would be limited to a speed of a few m/s to keep frictional losses low. Among other things, that limits the number of tonne-miles it can deliver per year and renders it useless for perishable cargo.

        As I said earlier, it was an idea that I wanted to explore, not something that I automatically advocate. I was just hoping for a more in depth and technical dissection of the idea than I received here. I thought initially that this was a board with engineers that would understand fluid dynamics, transportation economics and such like. My bad.

        1. The water pipeline transport idea is a good one, in terms of open minded problem solving.

          Unfortunately it won’t work as well as other options such as just building the pipeline and shooting cargo pots thru using air pressure or electric motors, etc.

          My personal guess is that in places that can afford the investment, we will be building tunnels, which aren’t all that different from pipelines, lol, being holes thru which we can move goods and or people in isolation from the outside environment.

          The Boring Company tunnels as designed for now have to be super safe because they’re for human transportation. If we were to cut back substantially on the features incorporated in such tunnels, they would be considerably cheaper, and once built, would provide super cheap transportation of almost any kind of good that would fit in a transport pod.

          I can easily envision such tunnel systems eventually being far more extensive than even the largest existing subway systems.Given time, they might even be practical for inter city transportation.

          A study of this water based pipeline idea was done some years back here in my local area, the intent being to transport coal from the nearby mines to the coast to ship it overseas.

          It turned out that trains are considerably cheaper.

    3. Ha ha Hickory! Well that’s your prerogative. Since you don’t have the IQ level to factually counter my arguments, maybe blocking me will protect your fragile feelings. But you are the loser here.

    1. 1992, that was post Golden Bear. Love songs and flower power.

      Now it’s post George Floyd. What do you think ?

      1. 7.8 million people in a collapsing ecosystem.
        We can ignore the elephant in the room, but————-

        1. HT, not sure what can be done for the 7.8 Billion people, collapsing ecosystem or the missing elephants on the safari plains. Most here seem to think there is nothing that can be done, but maybe add a few years before the inevitable.

          Do you have a WAG timeline on the future ? Can humanity sleepwalk another 20, 30, 50 years with continued population growth ? What has to happen to wake up the masses ? Or is it a concept humans can’t get past their own selfishness ?

          1. It is not in our evolutionary makeup.
            Even knowing the data, one has trouble grasping it.

          2. Pearl Harbor woke up the USA to the realities of the nineteen thirties.

            It’s going to take something like Pearl Harbor SQUARED OR CUBED, on a recurring basis, to wake up the people of the world to near to midterm future economic and environmental realities.

            The PEOPLE as such are basically INCAPABLE of understanding what’s going to happen, not because they’re stupid, but because they’re IGNORANT, and unwilling to even think about such things. When they do encounter discussions of such matters, there are countless respected authority figures ( respected on THEIR PART) telling them it’s all bullshit, nothing to worry about except maybe some dimrat socialist commie pinko’s trying to run their lives for them, and vote for trump, etc etc etc.

            Fortunately, Levianthan, the nation state, is capable of taking action, and typically does take action, once it comes to understand that its OWN existence is threatened.

            Unfortunately such an awakening of a Leviathan requires Pearl Harbor Wake Up type events…… lots of them.

            Right now maybe the very best thing that could happen, for humanity as a whole, which might ACTUALLY HAPPEN, would possibly be a nice hot but short war that temporarily shuts down blue water shipping of oil, coal, and gas.

            THAT would be a wake up event sufficient to get people’s attention in importing countries as to the necessity of going and staying pedal to the metal on renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.

            Or maybe somebody will create an engineered virus that renders a women unable to have more than one child, or that renders men sterile by the time they’re say twenty five or so, or even twenty.

            Speaking as a professionally trained farmer, I have a good grasp of the ABC’s of the overshoot issue. A substantial portion of our species is very likely to die hard before this century is out.

            Depending on how the cards fall, that will lead to something as bad as a flat out CNBC WWIII, or maybe just a billion or two of us dying of thirst, starvation, disease, and exposure.

            A billion dead means the survivors in places where they die have a better shot at having enough food and water in the following years.

            In either case, Mother Nature doesn’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut. She’s not sentient, she’s not keeping score, except by way of the fossil record.

            Life will continue on this planet until the sun expands to the point the oceans boil away into space….. and even then there will probably be microbes for some time after that deep underground in the polar areas…….. but not much longer, as the heat from the core plus the heat from the sun lifts the temperature past the point even the toughest microbe can live .

            1. “In either case, Mother Nature doesn’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut. She’s not sentient, she’s not keeping score, except by way of the fossil record. ”

              Perfectly stated.

            2. Imagine: for hundreds of thousands of years, humans lived, hunted, bred as they always had. Not much changed from generation to generation.

              These are the conditions under which the human brain evolved. One day is like the next, and the next, and there are no Great Transitions in human existence. Even the so-called Neolithic Revolution took thousands of years.

              Now shit hits the fan regularly. One minute you’re haying with horses, the next scrolling through your phone looking at porn.

              We’re screwed.

            3. True Mike.
              Its like facing a rapid succession of a thousand important family conversations, and you haven’t even digested the first one yet.
              Humanity is overwhelmed by the events of the last 20,000 years.
              The part about turning weapons on each other still has me feeling very alienated and unloved. Among other issues.

    2. HT , sure we can . but ” Only in a world of infinite resources can men live as brothers ” . Be well .

  13. Lucid catalyst report on the technologies needed to replace 100 million barrels of oil production with hydrogen derived synthetic fuels (primarily ammonia) at a cost no greater than $40/barrel, beyond which most economies are tipped into recession. We’ll worth a read.
    https://www.lucidcatalyst.com/hydrogen-report

    The authors conclude that producing synthetic fuel in this price range is extremely challenging. It requires electricity at a price of around $0.01/kWh. That is a tough call, with any energy source. It is difficult to produce synthetic fuels cheaply using renewable energy. This is due to the cost of electricity and due to the under utilisation of assets like the electrolysis stack, when running on intermittent energy. Basically, if you are using an electrolysis plant to absorb excess electricity, which is available only for a small amount of time, then the capacity factor of the electrolysis plant will be poor, as it only operates on a windy or sunny day. This leads to expensive hydrogen, because the plant is poorly utilised and it has high capital cost. This demolishes one popular idea from the utopian Green idealists, that excess renewable energy can be used to carry out electrolysis to produce hydrogen. Unfortunately, that ignores reality that electrolysis plants are capital intensive pieces of kit and they are not an efficient means of absorbing power on a part time basis. (In my humble opinion, heating elements are better suited to that task. They are simple, low cost pieces of equipment that are resistive loads. Heat can be stored in low cost media like water.)

    The authors recommend the series production of small, modular high temperature nuclear reactors to produce both heat and electric power to drive high temperature electrolysis and direct heat to support ammonia production. They discuss using shipyard production techniques to build nuclear powered rigs containing ammonia synthesis plants, which can be positioned offshore.

    1. SURVIVALIST

      In fairness, I think Fred is (much) more of an environmental realist than a cornucopian shill.

      1. Doug,

        I agree. I miss Fred, Your decription was apt, Survivalist’s not at all.

        1. Likewise,

          Fred, if you are out there lurking, please just post a one liner so we know you are ok.

  15. On and on it goes; thank God Earth’s forests, and all the critters that live in them, are expendable. Guess we can trade them all for hamburgers (and palm oil).

    AMAZON FIRES SURGE ANEW IN BRAZIL AS CLEARED FOREST BURNS

    “Fires ramped up in the Brazilian rainforest in August, according to government data released this week, with fires for the month well above the historic average for the third consecutive year under right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro. Newly cleared areas are being turned into cow pastures.”

    https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/amazon-fires-surge-anew-brazil-cleared-forest-burns-2021-09-03/

  16. don’t think I saw this posted here:

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092021/global-warming-james-hansen-aerosols/

    “In Hansen’s latest warning, he said scientists are dangerously underestimating the climate impact of reducing sulfate aerosol pollution.

    “Something is going on in addition to greenhouse warming,” Hansen wrote, noting that July’s average global temperature soared to its second-highest reading on record even though the Pacific Ocean is in a cooling La Niña phase that temporarily dampens signs of warming. Between now and 2040, he wrote that he expects the climate’s rate of warming to double in an “acceleration that can be traced to aerosols.”

    That acceleration could lead to total warming of 2 degrees Celsius by 2040, the upper limit of the temperature range that countries in the Paris accord agreed was needed to prevent disastrous impacts from climate change. What’s more, Hansen and other researchers said the processes leading to the acceleration are not adequately measured, and some of the tools needed to gauge them aren’t even in place.”

    1. Well if James Hansen is flapping his gums again, you can bet the news is ideologically pure. Maybe someone should ask why he’s not calling for geoengineering to fix this latest dilemma.

      1. “ideologically pure” Outside of the Trump bubble that would be pronounced “scientifically sound”

          1. Confidence in the Biden administration has dropped precipitously since the spring when that survey was taken. He really needs to get his act together or the world is going to be in even worse trouble than it is now.

            I’m not really sure how that relates to the string above, tho

            1. Not a Dim or Repug—-
              Just a view from the rest of the “First World”.
              Hansen sure gets flack from our wingnuts.

  17. Okay, I just watched Captain Crunch’s hero, David Deutsch, in his Youtube video “The Multiverse” This video is unbelievable. There is more absolutely nutty stuff in this video than in a bag of peanuts. This is what passes for science these days. No wonder Sabine Hossenfelder called it “religion not science”. And Roger Penrose called it “reductio ad absurdum”. In case you don’t speak Latin, reductio ad absurdum is Latin for “total absolute bullshit”. Well, that’s not an exact translation but close enough.

    But thanks Captain Crunch, you have made my day.

    1. The idea that the nature of the universe was guided, or designed, or had intentional specifications is one of the most absolutely bizarre concepts I have heard of.
      Brute Fact, which I assume to mean ‘it is what it is’ rings true to me.
      I have a huge advantage over the astrophysicists on this topic.

      1. The idea that the nature of the universe was guided, or designed, or had intentional specifications is one of the most absolutely bizarre concepts I have heard of.

        But of course. Everything just popped into existence in a tiny fraction of a second, all the laws, all the constants, and all the fundamental elements and the recipe for stars, galaxies, and every element in the periodic table that would not happen for half a billion years later. All that just popped into existence in a million millionth of a second at the instant of the Big Bang. Hell, nothing bizarre about that.

        Brute Fact, which I assume to mean ‘it is what it is’ rings true to me.
        I have a huge advantage over the astrophysicists on this topic.

        Oh absolutely. After all, what “rings true” is by far the most important principle in the search for scientific truth. Goddamn, stupid astrophysicists seem to have never thought of that. 😆

        1. Ron, do you think that the idea of a fine tuned of the universe can ever be proven?
          Or will the discussion remain one based on ‘what “rings true” ‘.

          I also ask, does the human mind strong propensity to find order or explanation in the world around us, rather than being comfortable with the idea of chaos and randomness, result in a inherently skewed perspective of this issue?

          Feel free to use my statements as an example of one who just doesn’t get it.
          By the way, are you among those who believe that the universe is in a perpetual state of cycling with expansion (starting with big bang) and collapse. Rinse repeat ….

          On language, ‘Big Bang’ is one of funniest terms. I think its great.

          1. Hickory, it has been proven. Why do you think virtually all cosmologists are now confirming that? Take just one constant, the cosmological constant. That constant is 138 x 10 to the -120. that is a (.) then 120 zeros, then a 138. That is the amount of dark energy in the universe. If it were only 119 zeros, ten times as strong, then the universe would be blown apart before galaxies could form. If it were 121 zeros, 10 times weaker, then the universe would have collapsed upon itself a short time after the Big Bang.

            That was the constant that convinced Alan Guth.
            Alan Guth – What Does A Fine-Tuned Universe Mean?

            Of course he, like about 90% of all other astrophysicists, opts for the multiverse.

            My passion right now is to show that the multiverse would not solve the problem. That is because there are about 50 or so other constants that all have to be just as exact as the cosmological constant. Then there are other things, like the elementary particles, the quarks, the gluons, the neutrinos, the electrons, and a few more. Thay ALL have to be present at the instant of the Big Bang. They all have to pop out of nothing, all exquisitely fine-tuned. (They all have to be present in the exact same Big Bang. Scattering them out over a multiverse of different big bangs would not do it.)

            So, Hickory, the fine-tuned universe is a hard fact, at least as far as almost every astrophysicist on the planet is concerned. A few internet atheists still dispute it but that is because they do not understand exactly what it is all about. What I mean is they haven’t a clue as to what the hell they are talking about.

          2. Oh, I forgot to add. While the fine-tuned universe has been proven by an overwhelming mountain of evidence, the multiverse hypothesis has not been proven. There is not one iota of evidence to support it.

            It is astonishing that, originally, astrophysics found the fine-tuned universe hard to accept. It was only after the evidence became so overwhelming, they had to reluctantly accept it. But they buy into the multiverse hypothesis without even a shred of evidence. Why? Well, I will tell you why. Astrophysicist Martin Rees hit the nail on the head when he told us why. “It gets rid of God.”

            Oh, Martin Rees definitely believes in the fine-tuned universe. He even wrote a book about it:
            Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe

            1. Ron, yes, the multiverse hypothesis (MH) gets rid of God. It also gets rid of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics where the observer influences the results. So in the MH, Schrodinger’s cat is both alive and dead in separate universes. And every quantum collapse results in YAU (yet another universe – any software people remember yacc? Yet another C compiler? I’m dating myself 🙂

              So universes everywhere, according to David Deutsch. Whose ‘Fabric of Reality’ I have read and dismissed as metaphysics. I agree with Sabine Hossenfelder, the MH is religion.

            2. Yes, I agree with Sabine Hossenfelder on that point. As for David Deutch, and every other Everettian, including Sean Carrol, and Brian Green, they are nuttier than a fruitcake. The idea that we have duplicates of ourselves that split off every time we make a decision is beyond the pale. It just blows my mind that these people, all PhD.s, can believe such utter bullshit.

              But, the last 17 years of my career were spent at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. There I met rocket scientists, I mean that literally, they were actual rocket scientists, who believed that the world was created by God just six thousand years ago. So I guess holding a docterate degree in physics does not mean you also possess common sense.

            3. Brian Green, they are nuttier than a fruitcake

              Couldn’t agree more.

              But this is a subject I have not followed closely——

            4. Well, ok it is settled.

              Consciousness evolved out of nothing. And then “fine tuned” a universe.

              Thanks for letting me know!

              Can you provide your sources?

              I need to let Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein know…..Oops 2/3 are dead…too late

              Ron, it seems you don’t like Quantum Mechanics. Why are the equations so precise?

            5. Captain Crunch, I don’t think you have a clue as to what the hell you are talking about. I have nothing against Quantum Mechanics. But obviously, you have no idea what the hell it is all about, else you would not make such a statement as: Why are the equations so precise? Quantum Mechanic equations are everything but precise. Why do you think physicists have been fighting like cats and dogs for over a century over their meaning. Einstein hated the idea of “spooky action at a distance”. Bohr loved it.

              Bohr and Heisenberg were the authors of “Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” and physicists have been fighting over it ever since. And you believe it is precise? Good God man, where the hell did you get that idea.

              But, apparently, you believe that quantum mechanics has some explanation for the Big Bang. It does not. Or can prove multiple universes. It cannot. Or that quantum mechanics can explain why the universe is so fine-tuned. It cannot. Quantum Mechanics has no explanation for any of that. In fact, Quantum Mechanics makes no attempt to answer any of those questions. So why did you bring it up?

              Science has no answer as to what caused the Big Bang. Science cannot explain why the universe is fine-tuned. Science cannot explain consciousness. These things are in the realm of philosophy, not mathematics or science.

              If you can ask some very sensible questions I will be glad to try to answer them. But so far you have not done that.

            6. Ron is spot on in positing:

              Science has no answer as to what caused the Big Bang. Science cannot explain why the universe is fine-tuned. Science cannot explain consciousness. These things are in the realm of philosophy, not mathematics or science.

              Physics even fails to explain the ridiculously precise initial conditions of the universe with regards to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (So does the mutliverse hypothesis)

              As for quantum mechanics it is arguably one of the most successful scientific theories. The equations are precise, but the interpretation of the equations are not.

              Multiverse hypothesis and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is modern day mythology.

            7. Ron, thank you for the engagement.

              I look forward to your video.

              You can win the Nobel Prize if your hypothesis that a “conscious entity” created a “fine tuned universe” is supported by evidence.

              You still haven’t explained where the “conscious entity” came from?

              Out of nothing?

              I would go for it if you have the evidence.

              Einstein said quantum physics “was spooky action at a distance”

              Richard Feynman said ““If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

              BTW, I have mispelled my name, it is “Cap’n Crunch”

            8. CAP’N CRUNCH, You don’t know enough about the subject to even argue a point. Just silly sarcasm. Oh, I appreciate really good sarcasm, but silly dumb sarcasm is just boring.

              Please just go away.

  18. Sounded like he was using accepted Quantum Physics to explain something.

    Like you are using “Fine Tuning” to explain an equally crazy idea that there is evidence of a “cosmic entity”.

    No evidence at all.

    If there is, show me.

    Sorry I pissed you off. I know you aren’t religious. But jumping to any of these conclusions, is a LEAP.

  19. So far, energy policy failure has not been a major issue during recent political campaigns in the US.
    I predict it will be in the next cycle or two.
    We see some of the ways the debate with be politicized right here on this blog (both threads).
    Based on what we see here, i am very pessimistic that it be an issue that will be debated based on fact. Depending how this shakes out, it could be a major win or loss for either party.
    If we run up against energy poverty in this country the population will go postal.

    1. In Northern Europe it is more a sense of crisis right now, with the high natural gas prices of late. I think the crisis is justified. All can not rely on the wind blowing in the North Sea in the future. There are several steps that can be done to mitigate the crisis when the wind just does not blow (thinking about the UK now). Electricity cables from Ireland (different wind pattern), Iceland (being planned) and Norway (cable operational about at this time). A France cable has some problems and needs repair it seems. There can be built in more storage solutions, but that is expensive.

      When it comes to natural gas the Nord stream 2 gas pipeline will save problems in Germany from october it seems. I don’t think the russians are especially hostile; they just want a good enough price for their natural gas. Equinor are producing natural gas at record levels, so it seems like a good price is an incentive (surprise?).

      There is no way going forward that we will not pay more for energy I think. Not sure wages in general will increase enough to support the bill a lot of places. And since most physical things derive from energy, commodities will cost more. What will in relative terms cost less? Housing, services and everything unnecessary luxurious maybe. Not food necessarily, which is too linked to energy costs. And will be passed on to consumers.

  20. Australian renewables hit record share of 59.8 per cent on main grid on Sunday

    The share of renewable energy on Australia’s main grid hit a record high of 59.8 per cent on Sunday morning, continuing the anticipated spree of records that have impacted renewables and coal this spring.

    The record of 59.6 per cent was set at 11.55am on Sunday, when the share of wind and solar alone reached a record 57 per cent, and would likely have easily been more than 80 per cent had numerous wind and solar farms not switched off or dialled down output due to negative prices.

    Indeed, total wind and solar curtailment around that time amounted to around 3.5GW, according to NEMLog, compared to total large scale wind and solar capacity producing at the time of around 5.7GW.

    Still, the new benchmark easily beats the 58.3 per cent record set just after noon on Thursday, September 9, which was interesting because that record was established on a weekday when demand is generally higher due to more industrial activity.

    Records for the share of renewables in individual states and across the main grid, as well as Western Australia’s separate grid, have been tumbling in recent weeks amid mild temperatures and sunny conditions, and thanks to the addition of nearly 5GW of wind and solar (half of its rooftop) in the last 12 months.

    And…….the record fell again on Monday!

    Records smashed as renewables break through 60pct, coal output at new low

    Records continued to tumble on Australia’s main electricity grid on Monday, with the share of renewable energy smashing through 60 per cent for the first time, just a day after it had set a new record of 59.8 per cent.

    According to Dylan McConnell, from the Climate and Energy College in Melbourne, and using data from OpenNEM, the share of wind, solar and hydro reached 60.1 per cent at 12.10pm on Monday, exactly one day and 15 minutes after it set the previous peak on a sleepy Sunday.

    The fact that this new peak occurred on a working day rather than a weekend is also significant, and highlights the increasing pace of the green energy transition in Australia, as more wind and solar – and rooftop installations – are rolled out across the country.

    Spring has been dubbed the season of records by the Australian Energy Market Operator, and new benchmarks have been set for the growing share of renewables, the shrinking output of coal, and new lows for “minimum operating” demand over the last few weeks.

    1. Islandboy, I’m curious, do you have a reason for ignoring the sad truth about Australia’s dreadful carbon imprint? Wouldn’t at least presenting the total picture be more honest? I agree that at the state level (analogous to California?), some local Australian governments seem to be playing a meaningful role moving toward clean economies and tackling climate change but obviously not the Scott Morrison government who seem reluctant to even recognize climate change.

      AUSTRALIA ON TRACK TO BECOME ONE OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR CLIMATE POLLUTERS

      “Australia’ per capita CO2 emissions are among world’s highest. On a per capita basis, Australia’s carbon footprint, including exports, is nine times higher than China’s, four times that of the US, and 37 times that of India.”

      Meanwhile: “Australia’s combined vehicle fleet of 19.2 million vehicles is one of the world’s most polluting and least efficient.”

      And: “The Australian government has ramped up its “gas-fired recovery” over a green economic recovery, refused to increase its 2030 domestic emissions target, and is not on track to meet its current target. The Climate Action Tracker’s new overall rating for Australia is “Highly Insufficient”. The government appears intent on replacing fossil fuels with fossil fuels: the 2021-22 budget allocates large sums (AUD 52.9m) to gas infrastructure projects and a gas-fired power station (AUD 30m), with no new support for renewable energy nor electric vehicles.”

      If you want something more recent:

      AUSTRALIA RANKS LAST ON CLIMATE ACTION IN U.N. REPORT

      “In a United Nations report released this week [July 2, 2021] to assess progress toward a range of international sustainable-development goals, Australia came in last on action in response to climate change, among more than 170 U.N. members analyzed.”

      The list goes on of course but why bother?

      https://climateanalytics.org/latest/australia-on-track-to-become-one-of-the-worlds-major-climate-polluters/

      https://climateanalytics.org/publications/2019/australia-climate-factsheets-vehicle-emissions/

      https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia/

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/02/australia-climate-action-un-sustainable-development/

      1. I can’t speak FOR Islandboy, but I can say something relevant about Australia, renewable energy, pollution, etc.

        The answer to your question, in essence, is that it’s all about money and politics. There are tons of people who are rich because of the Aussie coal industry, and a lot more who make a good living out of it, and they have enough political clout to mostly maintain the coal fired status quo, and fight a vicious rear guard action against it’s demise, in the face of the renewables revolution.

        If you know anything about current domestic political realities in the USA, you know we have an old line reactionary party that’s pretty much against anything new. Ditto Australia, to a similar extent, when it comes to renewable energy.

        But as I’ve said before, Texans may be right wing monsters, in political terms, but they NEVERTHELESS know how to count money, and make money, and SO…… wind and solar power are on a ROLL in Texas, regardless of the Republican Party controlling the state.

        The government in Australia, at the national level, seems to be in the vest pocket of the utility and coal industries there.
        The people themselves know how to count money.THEIR money, lol, so they’re taking advantage of their climate to go renewable faster than just about anybody else anywere.

        I’ve painted with a broad brush pretty damned fast.

        1. Mac, you can say what you like about Australia, but the fact remains: Out of 193 UN countries, Australia has been ranked LAST for climate action taken to reduce global greenhouse gases by the U.N. In their latest assessment on fossil fuel emissions, Australia received a low score of 10 out of 100. The ranking is based on four indicators: per capita emissions from fossil fuel combustion, per capita CO2 emissions embodied in imports, per capita CO2 emissions embodied in exports and carbon pricing score.

          Why do people continue to “greenwash” Australia’s (continuing) dismal record on climate action? I suppose you could argue about the U.N.’s ranking criteria but that seems like grasping at straws to me.

          AUSTRALIA RANKS LAST ON CLIMATE ACTION IN U.N. REPORT

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/02/australia-climate-action-un-sustainable-development/

    2. Island boy , for what period ? 5 minutes , 5 hrs , 5 days , 5 weeks , 5 months , 5 years in CONTINUATY . That is the key . CONTINATY .

  21. Been wondering about this. That’s a lot of pollution.

    SUMMER WILDFIRES EMIT RECORD AMOUNT OF CO2

    “Globally, forests going up in flames emitted more than 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2 — equivalent to India’s annual emissions from all sources — in July and August alone, the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service reported. More than half of CO2 emissions from wildfires in July came from North America and Siberia.”

    https://phys.org/news/2021-09-climate-summer-wildfires-emit-amount.html

  22. Can you see Sirius B?

    Way off-topic but I must share this experience. A few nights ago I was showing off my astronomical knowledge to my live-in mate Marci. We are not married but living in sin. However, at our advanced age, we are not doing a lot of sinning. ☺️ Early after dark, I pointed out there were only two stars we could see in the sky. There was Venus, now an evening star, in the West and Sirius, in the east. I pointed out to her that one was a planet and the other a star, the brightest star in the sky. Then she said, “Look, there is a baby star right next to it.” “What the hell are you talking about”, I replied. Yes, there is a baby star right next to it. I closed my weak left eye and yes, I could see it. I could see Sirius B. Just to the lower right of Sirius, I could see Sirius B. I have been looking at Sirius all my life and this was the first time I had ever seen it.

    Sorry about the off-topic post, but I just had to share this tiny bit of joy she bought into my 83-year-old life.

    1. Ron

      In the south east I see a very bright planet, Jupiter. Right next to it and much weaker is Saturn.

        1. Ovi, I have been observing Sirius for a lifetime. Sirius is a winter star. It always has been, and always will be, in our lifetimes anyway. It appears in the east in the fall, overhead in the winter, and in the west in the early spring. And is not visible in the summer because it is on the same side as the sun.

          Sirius is known as the Dog Star. It is near the sun in the summer. The Dog days of summer is known as that because in ancient times it was felt that the heat from the Dog Star added to the heat from the sun, increasing the heat of summer. Therefore, “The Dog Days of Summer.”

          Ovi, I don’t care what your app says, if it says that Sirius is not in the eastern sky in the fall, it is just damn wrong. If you walk out tonight at dusk, look to the eastern sky, you will see Sirius, the first star to appear because it is always the brightest star in the sky.

          Oh, one more thing, you should write your app company and tell them to get their act together because if they Sirius is on the other side of the earth in the early fall, they are just damn wrong!

        2. Ovi, thanks for the link. But there is something wrong with it. Your link shows the moon just past a new moon, with just a sliver of a waxing moon. The moon is actually near full right now. Just walk out and look at it. What gives with your app?

          1. Ron

            I am southern Canada. I could see the full moon about a week to 10 days ago. We cannot see the moon anymore. About a week ago I went out and saw Venus in the western sky just after sunset just like the first picture in the link. Then as I mentioned, in the south Easter sky about 60 degrees above the horizon, was Jupiter, extremely bright, just like picture 3 in the link. I have two skywatch apps and they both show the same thing. Maybe you should try to download one to see what it shows you.

            The app confirmed I was looking at Venus and Jupiter and is consistent with the link. I would hope that Harvard knows what it’s publishing.

            Forgot to mention that living in the city makes star watching difficult.

            1. Ovi, it is now 9:15 PM, Mountain daylight saving time. I just walked outside and looked at the moon. It is still almost full. Waining slightly but still almost full.

              Full Moon Guide: September – October 2021

              The next full Moon will be on Monday evening, Sept. 20, 2021, at 7:55 p.m. EDT. The Moon will appear full for about three days around this time, from Sunday evening through Wednesday morning.

              The full moon was just two days ago Ovi.

              I would hope that Harvard knows what it’s publishing.

              Ovi, I don’t doubt that the app is correct about Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus. But if the app says that Sirius is on the sun side of the earth right now then that damn app is full of shit.

    2. One of my favorite night sky offerings is Mizar and Alcor. In the “crook” of the Big Dipper’s handle, you can see Mizar’s companion star, Alcor, if you don’t look directly at it. It’s a good lesson to show the difference between the rods and the cones in the eye. The cones, which cluster near the fovea, give us color vision. Rods, which detect black and white light, are more distributed throughout the retina. Let your eyes drift off Mizar, and the rods take over and Alcor pops into view!

      1. Yes, I have seen that Mike. I read about it years ago and that prompted me to look for it. They are two independent stars that appear close together. Sirus B is actually a small white dwarf star that is in orbit with the much larger Sirus A.

        Sirius is a binary star consisting of a main-sequence star of spectral type A0 or A1, termed Sirius A, and a faint white dwarf companion of spectral type DA2, termed Sirius B. The distance between the two varies between 8.2 and 31.5 astronomical units as they orbit every 50 years.

        Right now they are near apogee, which makes Sirus B easier to see.

    3. Hi Ron.

      I think what you saw was something else. Right now (2020) Sirius B is east of Sirius and a bit to the north.

      Too, Sirius B is a white dwarf, very hot but tiny. You’d need a telescope to see it.

      1. No, you may need a telescope to see it, but Marci saw what she called “a baby star” right next to it. I could not see it, but if I looked at it with only my good eye I could damn well see it. It was to the lower right of Sirius A. I have told my friends about it and they said they could see it. I did look at it through binoculars, and could very plainly see it.

        But right now Sirius B is a bit to the east of Sirius A but a bit to the south. Hey, just grab a pair of binoculars and look for yourself. No need to argue about it when it is plainly there for you to see.

        1. Hi Ron.

          I don’t doubt that you’re seeing something to the lower right of Sirius, just pointing out that that isn’t where Sirius B is. Sirius B is currently to the east (and a bit to the north) of Sirius and since its orbital period is about 50 years that’s where it’s going to be for quite a while.

          Its visual magnitude is 8.44 and that’s about seven times dimmer than the visual limit for seeing a star.

          1. Okay, you are correct. But what the hell was it that we saw just a few arcseconds from Sirius? Was it just another star, well beyond Sirius?

  23. Excellent study came out last year that shows global country analysis for solar PV potential.
    It allows you to see the relative potential of various locales to produce utility scale solar electricity, taking into account all of the major limitations to the local potential.

    “The data make it possible to evaluate or compare virtually any site, region, or country. Perhaps surprisingly, the difference in average practical potential between countries with the highest potential (e.g. Namibia) and the lowest (e.g. Ireland) is slightly less than a factor of two.”

    Here is a writeup on the report-
    https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/solar-photovoltaic-power-potential-by-country

    and here is the original report-
    https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/466331592817725242/pdf/Global-Photovoltaic-Power-Potential-by-Country.pdf

    You can look up the individual country reports here-
    (now embedded within the Global Solar Atlas)
    https://globalsolaratlas.info/global-pv-potential-study

    1. The power output of a PV system is not a linear function of local solar constant. Firstly, polycrystalline PV panels lose about 0.05% conversion efficiency for every °C that panel temperature rises. In hot climates, a panel can reach temperatures of 60°C. Secondly, the cells, the wiring, inverters, etc, all have internal resistance. PV cells discharge at constant voltage, but varying current, and resistance scales with I^2. One of the consequences of this is that lower insolation does not result in proportionately lower power generation. But the situation is complicated. In low insolation environments, the internal resistance of the powerplant can eat a much larger proportion of captured energy. But actual power output and proportion of power eaten by internal resistance and conversion losses, changes with time of year, ambient conditions, direct flux levels, in ways that are difficult to predict.

      Often, even the system developers cannot predict exactly how many MWh a PV system will generate over the course of an average year. They give estimates. But those estimates are based upon an average of recorded climatic data. There may be substantial variations from year to year, for the obvious reason that insolation and wind speeds are influenced by the dominance of different weather systems, which can persist for moths at a time.

      It is for this reason that solar power and wind power will always need to be accompanied by backup powerplants, with large volumes of stored fuel. One cannot build batteries with sufficient capacity to cover annual fluctuations in power output. Batteries are only useful for short term frequency management, because the economics of a battery depend upon a large number of charge discharge cycles per year. A battery that is used only once or twice a year, would have an impossibly expensive cost per kWh discharged.

      Green utopian idealism towards renewable energy, is one of two contributory factors at the heart of the present European energy crisis. Idealists are pressuring oil and gas companies to halt new investments in fossil fuels and prioritise investment in renewable energy sources. Most of them are not technically educated people and are ignorant as to how these technologies work and what their limitations are. They are obsessed with vague ideals, but lack the background knowledge to understand how such intermittent energy sources can be integrated into the grid, what their limitations are and what other systems need to be in place to ensure systematic reliability at low enough costs. We therefore find ourselves in a position where energy policy is dictated by left leaning political lobbies and is based more on the political idealism of idea of sourcing energy from the sun and wind, then any cool headed assessment of how to provide energy reliably, at the lowest cost, and with minimal environmental damage. When this sort of idealism collides with natural gas depletion, we find ourselves all of a sudden with a supply crisis, because depleting European gas is not substituted by imported LNG, which would require very large additional investments.

      It isn’t as if these decisions are abstract and have minor consequences. The economy is a thermodynamic machine. The wealth of a society depends very much on its ability to source low cost, reliable energy supplies. Doing things that imperil that function really isn’t a good idea. I think we can expect public enthusiasm for idealistic energy policies to wane as they are faced with the very real and personal consequences of energy supply crisis.

  24. While we are having interesting exchanges , all are ignoring the Liebig Law of the minimum . The recent example is the NG problem in UK . The supply is not zero but reduced and things are going haywire . Financial markets crash when there is a margin call . Our overleveraged system works on the margin . Your house is worth 2 million dollars but if a house down your line sells for a million then the value of your house is 1 million . Our living ( economic, financial etc) arrangements walks a thin line on the margin , one nudge and it will tipple . Regret to inform but we are now witnessing the unravelling ( not collapse ) of the system . Recognize . Hey , who was it on TOD whose parting line was ” Did you hug your bag of NPK today ” ?

    1. Have you hugged your bag of NPK today?

      Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

    1. Thanks for letting us know! The truth can’t stay suppressed forever.

      1. Whilst I do not doubt that CO2 induced radiative forcing is a real effect, it is one of many influential factors on Earth’s average temperature. We appear to be entering a cooling cycle resulting from reduced solar output.

        That doesn’t mean global warming is fake. It does mean that the next decade will see a collision between rising winter heating demand and natural gas supply constraints. Utopian idealism over carbon neutrality and a solar powered economy, is going to hit a brick wall with the general public, if they end up with insufficient heat in winter. People will generally go along with intellectual cliques as long as it has no real consequence to their personal comfort and prosperity. Take away those things and they will be quick to turn on you.

          1. My point is that this trend could reverse in the near future due to declining solar flux. If it does, natural gas demand for winter heating may increase, exasperating supply problems.

        2. TONY —

          You wrote: “Whilst I do not doubt that CO2 induced radiative forcing is a real effect, it is one of many influential factors on Earth’s average temperature. We appear to be entering a cooling cycle resulting from reduced solar output.”

          Climate scientists have established that warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is roughly six times greater than any conceivable decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum. So, let’s not waste time revisiting this tired old nonsense. We have a problem, a really big problem, and it has nothing to do with potential changes in energy output from the Sun.

          https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/

    4. In regard to D Archibald and those who ‘think’ as he does-

      You don’t like what the data shows-The World is Getting Hotter- ,
      and considering that I can understand the position that you just don’t give a fuck about it.
      You really just don’t care. And that would fit with your consistent stance on this.

      What does not jive with reality is to claim that the earth atmosphere is not getting hotter.
      That is just lying, or too ignorant to digest simple facts.

      1. At best David Archibald is an embarrassment to climate scientists who have the dual job of dealing with alarming data and informing (warning) the public about the Earth’s sorry state. This pathetic shit about reduced solar output is irrelevant to our current predicament.

    5. “Wattsupwith that”? Are you shitting me?

      Who do you think posts here, rubes?

  26. Will most countries experience energy shortage, times of supply disruption, and episodes of much higher prices?

    Yes!

    We have almost 8 billion people now running towards 9 Billion, and oil and coal are at peak, followed by nat gas peak in the decade after 2035.

    It means less energy/capita, and higher prices for materials, and food, and manufactured goods.
    A risk of rapid growth in poverty, and subpar performance in global economic performance.
    All of the monetary projections for debt service and income based on current expectations of a few percent earnings growth by countries, states and pension funds across the world are likely to fall far short.
    Economic and climate forced migration will likely grow from an intermittent stream to a torrent.
    Political instability will be very high, and the election of an ignorant fascist white supremacist like trump will be less surprising as things destabilize. Please remember that authoritarianism, or it flip-side of anarchy. can come from the far right or the far left. Beware the charmer, the salesman, the tough guy, the promiser.

    Some countries will do better. They have favorable oil/gas resource, and/or they go whole hog on developing the massive solar and wind reserve that many have.
    And they will learn to live with much less fossil energy. Yes that will be extremely painful for certain industries.

    Regardless it will not be pretty.

    1. HICKORY —

      Let’s be clear, we haven’t come anywhere near peak coal. There’s over one trillion tonnes of proven coal reserves remaining worldwide. The question should be: will countries struggling to find energy sources continue to boycott this fuel if/when they become desperate? Starvation, or freezing in the dark, isn’t a great way to go.

      1. Hi Doug , the question is not that coal reserves are there . The question is price and quality . If the quality is only powdered coal and not anthracite then are we going to mine it ? Then the price . You think UK will start opening up it’s old exhausted coal mines just because the mines exist ? Your last sentence is 100% correct , it isn’t a great way to go but ,but —–?
        P.S : Thanks for all your updates .

      2. Yes, good points Doug.
        Whether or not coal has already peaked is an open question.
        There certainly is enough coal in the ground to allow prior peak to be surpassed over the next decade or two.
        And yes, people will burn all the coal (and wood) they can get if energy poverty conditions present themselves. That is why countries like China and India are eagerly burning coal- they are in or on the brink of energy poverty to variable degrees. Many people in India cook with wood, coal, kerosene or dung depending on what they can get and afford.

        I have no doubt that Europe and US will pivot hard back to coal if other sources are insufficient.
        Here is a good summary on coal use in Europe-
        https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/08/coal-fossil-fuel-europe/

        Some notable countries with the highest coal consumption/capita (in declining order) 2020-
        Australia, Poland, S Africa, Germany, S Korea, Taiwan.

        Next comes China, with 50% of world total consumption.
        A little farther down the list is US.

        Electricity Production in China-
        52% coal
        16% hydro
        10% solar
        10% wind
        4% nat gas
        2% nuclear

  27. A link to Grid Watch, which tracks UK power generation from different sources, for those interested.
    https://gridwatch.co.uk/

    UK wind power generation is finally starting to pick up. I never thought I would find myself wishing for windier weather! It wouldn’t solve the gas supply problem of course, as gas consumption in power stations over the winter months will be dwarfed by that consumed in heating, when we get into heating season. But right now, every little helps. If the UK gets a hard winter and heating loads are higher than average, then by February next year, we could be living in interesting times. Three months of higher than average consumption across Europe, would be enough to draw LNG stocks down to zero.

Comments are closed.