Does the recent climate accord between US and China mean that many countries will now forge ahead with renewables and other green solutions? I think that there are more pitfalls than many realize.
Pitfall 1. Green solutions tend to push us from one set of resources that are a problem today (fossil fuels) to other resources that are likely to be problems in the longer term.
The name of the game is “kicking the can down the road a little.” In a finite world, we are reaching many limits besides fossil fuels:
- Soil quality–erosion of topsoil, depleted minerals, added salt
- Fresh water–depletion of aquifers that only replenish over thousands of years
- Deforestation–cutting down trees faster than they regrow
- Ore quality–depletion of high quality ores, leaving us with low quality ores
- Extinction of other species–as we build more structures and disturb more land, we remove habitat that other species use, or pollute it
- Pollution–many types: CO2, heavy metals, noise, smog, fine particles, radiation, etc.
- Arable land per person, as population continues to rise
The danger in almost every “solution” is that we simply transfer our problems from one area to another. Growing corn for ethanol can be a problem for soil quality (erosion of topsoil), fresh water (using water from aquifers in Nebraska, Colorado). If farmers switch to no-till farming to prevent the erosion issue, then great amounts of Round Up are often used, leading to loss of lives of other species.
Encouraging use of forest products because they are renewable can lead to loss of forest cover, as more trees are made into wood chips. There can even be a roundabout reason for loss of forest cover: if high-cost renewables indirectly make citizens poorer, citizens may save money on fuel by illegally cutting down trees.
High tech goods tend to use considerable quantities of rare minerals, many of which are quite polluting if they are released into the environment where we work or live. This is a problem both for extraction and for long-term disposal.
Pitfall 2. Green solutions that use rare minerals are likely not very scalable because of quantity limits and low recycling rates.
Computers, which are the heart of many high-tech goods, use almost the entire periodic table of elements.
Figure 1. Slide from presentation by Alicia Valero at UNED energy conference showing that almost the entire periodic table of elements is used for computers.
When minerals are used in small quantities, especially when they are used in conjunction with many other minerals, they become virtually impossible to recycle. Experience indicates that less than 1% of specialty metals are recycled.
Figure 2. Slide from presentation by Alicia Valero at UNED energy conference showing recycling rates of elements.
Green technologies, including solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries, have pushed resource use toward minerals that were little exploited in the past. If we try to ramp up usage, current mines are likely to deplete rapidly. We will eventually need to add new mines in areas where resource quality is lower and concern about pollution is higher. Costs will be much higher in such mines, making devices using such minerals less affordable, rather than more affordable, in the long run.
Of course, a second issue in the scalability of these resources has to do with limits on oil supply. As ores of scarce minerals deplete, more rather than less oil will be needed for extraction. If oil is in short supply, obtaining this oil is also likely to be a problem, also inhibiting scalability of the scarce mineral extraction. The issue with respect to oil supply may not be high price; it may be low price, for reasons I will explain later in this post.
Pitfall 3. High-cost energy sources are the opposite of the “gift that keeps on giving.” Instead, they often represent the “subsidy that keeps on taking.”
Oil that was cheap to extract (say $20 barrel) was the true “gift that keeps on giving.” It made workers more efficient in their jobs, thereby contributing to efficiency gains. It made countries using the oil more able to create goods and services cheaply, thus helping them compete better against other countries. Wages tended to rise, as long at the price of oil stayed below $40 or $50 per barrel (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Average wages in 2012$ compared to Brent oil price, also in 2012$. Average wages are total wages based on BEA data adjusted by the CPI-Urban, divided total population. Thus, they reflect changes in the proportion of population employed as well as wage levels.
More workers joined the work force, as well. This was possible in part because fossil fuels made contraceptives available, reducing family size. Fossil fuels also made tools such as dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers available, reducing the hours needed in housework. Once oil became high-priced (that is, over $40 or $50 per barrel), its favorable impact on wage growth disappeared.
When we attempt to add new higher-cost sources of energy, whether they are high-cost oil or high-cost renewables, they present a drag on the economy for three reasons:
- Consumers tend to cut back on discretionary expenditures, because energy products (including food, which is made using oil and other energy products) are a necessity. These cutbacks feed back through the economy and lead to layoffs in discretionary sectors. If they are severe enough, they can lead to debt defaults as well, because laid-off workers have difficulty paying their bills.
- An economy with high-priced sources of energy becomes less competitive in the world economy, competing with countries using less expensive sources of fuel. This tends to lead to lower employment in countries whose mix of energy is weighted toward high-priced fuels.
- With (1) and (2) happening, economic growth slows. There are fewer jobs and debt becomes harder to repay.
In some sense, the cost producing of an energy product is a measure of diminishing returns–that is, cost is a measure of the amount of resources that directly and indirectly or indirectly go into making that device or energy product, with higher cost reflecting increasing effort required to make an energy product. If more resources are used in producing high-cost energy products, fewer resources are available for the rest of the economy. Even if a country tries to hide this situation behind a subsidy, the problem comes back to bite the country. This issue underlies the reason that subsidies tend to “keeping on taking.”
The dollar amount of subsidies is also concerning. Currently, subsidies for renewables (before the multiplier effect) average at least $48 per barrel equivalent of oil.1 With the multiplier effect, the dollar amount of subsidies is likely more than the current cost of oil (about $80), and possibly even more than the peak cost of oil in 2008 (about $147). The subsidy (before multiplier effect) per metric ton of oil equivalent amounts to $351. This is far more than the charge for any carbon tax.
Pitfall 4. Green technology (including renewables) can only be add-ons to the fossil fuel system.
A major reason why green technology can only be add-ons to the fossil fuel system relates to Pitfalls 1 through 3. New devices, such as wind turbines, solar PV, and electric cars aren’t very scalable because of high required subsidies, depletion issues, pollution issues, and other limits that we don’t often think about.
A related reason is the fact that even if an energy product is “renewable,” it needs long-term maintenance. For example, a wind turbine needs replacement parts from around the world. These are not available without fossil fuels. Any electrical transmission system transporting wind or solar energy will need frequent repairs, also requiring fossil fuels, usually oil (for building roads and for operating repair trucks and helicopters).
Given the problems with scalability, there is no way that all current uses of fossil fuels can all be converted to run on renewables. According to BP data, in 2013 renewable energy (including biofuels and hydroelectric) amounted to only 9.4% of total energy use. Wind amounted to 1.1% of world energy use; solar amounted to 0.2% of world energy use.
Pitfall 5. We can’t expect oil prices to keep rising because of affordability issues.
Economists tell us that if there are inadequate oil supplies there should be few problems: higher prices will reduce demand, encourage more oil production, and encourage production of alternatives. Unfortunately, there is also a roundabout way that demand is reduced: wages tend to be affected by high oil prices, because high-priced oil tends to lead to less employment (Figure 3). With wages not rising much, the rate of growth of debt also tends to slow. The result is that products that use oil (such as cars) are less affordable, leading to less demand for oil. This seems to be the issue we are now encountering, with many young people unable to find good-paying jobs.
If oil prices decline, rather than rise, this creates a problem for renewables and other green alternatives, because needed subsidies are likely to rise rather than disappear.
The other issue with falling oil prices is that oil prices quickly become too low for producers. Producers cut back on new development, leading to a decrease in oil supply in a year or two. Renewables and the electric grid need oil for maintenance, so are likely to be affected as well. Related posts include Low Oil Prices: Sign of a Debt Bubble Collapse, Leading to the End of Oil Supply? and Oil Price Slide – No Good Way Out.
Pitfall 6. It is often difficult to get the finances for an electrical system that uses intermittent renewables to work out well.
Intermittent renewables, such as electricity from wind, solar PV, and wave energy, tend to work acceptably well, in certain specialized cases:
- When there is a lot of hydroelectricity nearby to offset shifts in intermittent renewable supply;
- When the amount added is sufficient small that it has only a small impact on the grid;
- When the cost of electricity from otherwise available sources, such as burning oil, is very high. This often happens on tropical islands. In such cases, the economy has already adjusted to very high-priced electricity.
Intermittent renewables can also work well supporting tasks that can be intermittent. For example, solar panels can work well for pumping water and for desalination, especially if the alternative is using diesel for fuel.
Where intermittent renewables tend not to work well is when
- Consumers and businesses expect to get a big credit for using electricity from intermittent renewables, but
- Electricity added to the grid by intermittent renewables leads to little cost savings for electricity providers.
For example, people with solar panels often expect “net metering,” a credit equal to the retail price of electricity for electricity sold to the electric grid. The benefit to electric grid is generally a lot less than the credit for net metering, because the utility still needs to maintain the transmission lines and do many of the functions that it did in the past, such as send out bills. In theory, the utility still should get paid for all of these functions, but doesn’t. Net metering gives way too much credit to those with solar panels, relative to the savings to the electric companies. This approach runs the risk of starving fossil fuel, nuclear, and grid portion of the system of needed revenue.
A similar problem can occur if an electric grid buys wind or solar energy on a preferential basis from commercial providers at wholesale rates in effect for that time of day. This practice tends to lead to a loss of profitability for fossil fuel-based providers of electricity. This is especially the case for natural gas “peaking plants” that normally operate for only a few hours a year, when electricity rates are very high.
Germany has been adding wind and solar, in an attempt to offset reductions in nuclear power production. Germany is now running into difficulty with its pricing approach for renewables. Some of its natural gas providers of electricity have threatened to shut down because they are not making adequate profits with the current pricing plan. Germany also finds itself using more cheap (but polluting) lignite coal, in an attempt to keep total electrical costs within a range customers can afford.
Pitfall 7. Adding intermittent renewables to the electric grid makes the operation of the grid more complex and more difficult to manage. We run the risk of more blackouts and eventual failure of the grid.
In theory, we can change the electric grid in many ways at once. We can add intermittent renewables, “smart grids,” and “smart appliances” that turn on and off, depending on the needs of the electric grid. We can add the charging of electric automobiles as well. All of these changes add to the complexity of the system. They also increase the vulnerability of the system to hackers.
The usual assumption is that we can step up to the challenge–we can handle this increased complexity. A recent report by The Institution of Engineering and Technology in the UK on the Resilience of the Electricity Infrastructure questions whether this is the case. It says such changes, ” . . . vastly increase complexity and require a level of engineering coordination and integration that the current industry structure and market regime does not provide.” Perhaps the system can be changed so that more attention is focused on resilience, but incentives need to be changed to make resilience (and not profit) a top priority. It is doubtful this will happen.
The electric grid has been called the worlds ‘s largest and most complex machine. We “mess with it” at our own risk. Nafeez Ahmed recently published an article called The Coming Blackout Epidemic, discussing challenges grids are now facing. I have written about electric grid problems in the past myself: The US Electric Grid: Will it be Our Undoing?
Pitfall 8. A person needs to be very careful in looking at studies that claim to show favorable performance for intermittent renewables.
Analysts often overestimate the benefits of wind and solar. Just this week a new report was published saying that the largest solar plant in the world is so far producing only half of the electricity originally anticipated since it opened in February 2014.
In my view, “standard” Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) calculations tend to overstate the benefits of intermittent renewables, because they do not include a “time variable,” and because they do not consider the effect of intermittency. More specialized studies that do include these variables show very concerning results. For example, Graham Palmer looks at the dynamic EROEI of solar PV, using batteries (replaced at eight year intervals) to mitigate intermittency.2 He did not include inverters–something that would be needed and would reduce the return further.
Figure 4. Graham Palmer’s chart of Dynamic Energy Returned on Energy Invested from “Energy in Australia.” (Power point words are my explanation.)
Palmer’s work indicates that because of the big energy investment initially required, the system is left in a deficit energy position for a very long time. The energy that is put into the system is not paid back until 25 years after the system is set up. After the full 30-year lifetime of the solar panel, the system returns 1.3 times the initial direct energy investment.
One further catch is that the energy used in the EROEI calculations includes only a list of direct energy inputs. The total energy required is much higher; it includes indirect inputs that are not directly measured as well as energy needed to provide necessary infrastructure, such as roads and schools. When these are considered, the minimum EROEI needs to be something like 10. Thus, the solar panel plus battery system modeled is really a net energy sink, rather than a net energy producer.
Another study by Weissbach et al. looks at the impact of adjusting for intermittency. (This study, unlike Palmer’s, doesn’t attempt to adjust for timing differences.) It concludes, “The results show that nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems . . . are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power.”
Conclusion
It would be nice to have a way around limits in a finite world. Unfortunately, this is not possible in the long run. At best, green solutions can help us avoid limits for a little while longer.
The problem we have is that statements about green energy are often overly optimistic. Cost comparisons are often just plain wrong–for example, the supposed near grid parity of solar panels is an “apples to oranges” comparison. An electric utility cannot possibility credit a user with the full retail cost of electricity for the intermittent period it is available, without going broke. Similarly, it is easy to overpay for wind energy, if payments are made based on time-of-day wholesale electricity costs. We will continue to need our fossil-fueled balancing system for the electric grid indefinitely, so we need to continue to financially support this system.
There clearly are some green solutions that will work, at least until the resources needed to produce these solutions are exhausted or other limits are reached. For example, geothermal may be solutions in some locations. Hydroelectric, including “run of the stream” hydro, may be a solution in some locations. In all cases, a clear look at trade-offs needs to be done in advance. New devices, such as gravity powered lamps and solar thermal water heaters, may be helpful especially if they do not use resources in short supply and are not likely to cause pollution problems in the long run.
Expectations for wind and solar PV need to be reduced. Solar PV and offshore wind are both likely net energy sinks because of storage and balancing needs, if they are added to the electric grid in more than very small amounts. Onshore wind is less bad, but it needs to be evaluated closely in each particular location. The need for large subsidies should be a red flag that costs are likely to be high, both short and long term. Another consideration is that wind is likely to have a short lifespan if oil supplies are interrupted, because of its frequent need for replacement parts from around the world.
Some citizens who are concerned about the long-term viability of the electric grid will no doubt want to purchase their own solar systems with inverters and back-up batteries. I see no reason to discourage people who want to do this–the systems may prove to be of assistance to these citizens. But I see no reason to subsidize these purchases, except perhaps in areas (such as tropical islands) where this is the most cost-effective way of producing electric power.
Notes:
[1] In 2013, the total amount of subsidies for renewables was $121 billion according to the IEA. If we compare this to the amount of renewables (biofuels + other renewables) reported by BP, we find that the subsidy per barrel of oil equivalent in was $48 per barrel of oil equivalent. These amounts are likely understated, because BP biofuels include fuel that doesn’t require subsidies, such as waste sawdust burned for electricity.
[2] Palmer’s work is published in Energy in Australia: Peak Oil, Solar Power, and Asia’s Economic Growth, published by Springer in 2014. This book is part of Prof. Charles Hall’s “Briefs in Energy” series.
Paul, do you mean the 2011 article, by Anthony Watts? He is unfortunately a global warming denier to the hilt, little credibility. Hopefully there is another source about that item. And i do hope no one thinks that i’m a renewables advocate, i would think my use of “hopium” would make that obvious, but you never can tell.
Jeff – not sure which comment this was referencing (as I post about 10,876 comments per day…) … can you re-post my comment (never heard of Anthony Watts)
Perhaps you mean this? Gail’s post…
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive – which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably). This in turn means that everyone would become miserably poor and economic growth would cease (the more honest hardline greens admit this openly). That, however, means that such expensive luxuries as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic), reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programmes (watch out for the meteor!) etc etc would all have to go – none of those things are sustainable without economic growth.
More http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
I didn’t mean this, but thanks for it, it’s a much better source than what i found via searching (on Google:-)) for the topic re Google giving up on renewables, it brought up a 2011 article by Anthony Watts. That says a lot about Google’s search engine.
Unfortunately, the writer of the Register article goes on in part 2 to promote nuclear power as humanity’s salvation. This is of course his idea, not that of the two Google scientists, but i’m sure many “green energy” boosters will use this to dismiss the entire piece.
The golden rule when writing about this topic —- always always always no matter what — end the story with a ray of hope…
Only a fool would believe that nuclear energy is the answer… if anything, it is what is going to end life on the planet… and we don’t even have to build a single new plant for that to happen
Ugo Bardi has jumped into the debate with this article, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-11-23/renewable-energy-does-it-need-critically-rare-materials
presenting a study by the Wuppertal Institute which claims that the rare materials are NOT critical to renewable energy. Of course, the study’s conclusion ends with the caveat that the assumptions and date used are “highly uncertain.” This brought a stream of comments proclaiming their support for the conclusion that all is OK, renewables can be done without using critical raw materials. Hopium is very attractive.
If anyone wants to rain on a parade they could post the article about Google abandoning renewables because they ‘simply don’t work’
Wood works just fine for some. Nothing will support 7B people or an exponentially growing population. Question is how much life and where. Scale is everything. Google is an example of exponential growth. No one is going to figure out how to keep BAU going and certainly not Google.
You are right about nuclear waste. It will go up when the lights go out unless we deal with it before the lights go out. We have booby trapped the world. I would just as soon eat well while I wait to see how that one works out.
Don Stewart is talking about how small scale perennial ag might work. That is worth considering because it is intrinsically interesting (unlike modern economic theory and snarky pseudo anthropology.)
Ellen, I wonder what you consider pseudo anthropology, and vastly agree with you upon other matters.
Reg criticality, it’s possibility is universally recognized, though its probabilities and magnitude under dry conditions are not assessed, and will probably never will be. IMHO, unloading, redistribution and multiplication in the spent fuel ponds field seems to be a fairly good idea.
I think also keeping believing the authorities doesn’t act upon this or whatever matter because they know something we don’t is a sheep argument, waiting to be sacrificed in the altar of BAU
And to change somewhat the topic, I would be fairly thankful if somebody can bring some details upon the state’s role during GFC. I understand there was a short nationalization of some bank in the US, and that governments helped sustain internationl commerce (don’t know which ones nor how)
Paul, why don’t you go post your “absolutely sure there is nothing we can do” story chez guymcpherson? Why do you bother repeating the same things all of the time? Why don’t you start your backpacking tour and have some fun instead? Perhaps you’re just a troll, paid to say PTB know everything and are superior to us…
Ellen
In case you are interested, I based most of my analysis in sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s work, the main french sociologist of the last thirty or fourty years. He was so important that he obtained the creation of a university (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales), which he headed until his death. He enlarged the notion of capital in the direction I’ve shown and a couple of phrases I used are exact quotes of him. I personally translated some of his work relating to the french elites into spanish, as I did with some of his disciples work on the Council of Foreign Relations and the social history of the science of economics in the US.
I also used other authors, among which I recommend Joseph Tainter, whose view on the intrinsic inability of the elites to solve the fundamental threats posed by diminishing returns to their societies is very deep.
Your ideas are perhaps just dreams, but as far as I see they are not totally impossible from a physical point of view. The question is rather how much of this is possible from a sociological perspective.
Paul, from wikipedia
According to nuclear plant safety specialists, the chances of criticality in a spent fuel pool are very small, usually avoided by the dispersal of the fuel assemblies, inclusion of a neutron absorber in the storage racks and overall by the fact that the spent fuel has too low an enrichment level to self-sustain a fission reaction. They also state that if the water covering the spent fuel evaporates, there is no element to enable a chain reaction by moderating neutrons.[8][9][10]
8 Criticality Safety in the Waste Management of Spent Fuel from NPPs, Robert Kilger
9 Nondestructive assay of nuclear low-enriched uranium spent fuels for burnup credit application
10 Radioactive Waste Management/Spent Nuclear Fuel
(having problem copying link see wikipedia for links)
Well it’s good to see that you now recognize that these wicked beasts are capable of exterminating life on the planet…
Of course the risk of one of these blowing us to pieces is small — WHILE BAU IS FUNCTIONING.
Because we have pumps and backup systems and electricity and spare parts and all the other things that are required to keep these ponds from destroying the planet.
In case you hadn’t noticed… BAU is about to end… electricity will no longer be available… the high tech systems that are used to cool these fuel ponds will no longer function.
Of course few can envision a world without a functioning BAU — that is not part of the model they used…. because in their minds this can never happen.
Like I said — epic hubris.
If .gov buys all of the bonds and gets into equities soon they will own everything and have control over major corporations. Next crisis instead of allowing the banks to sell houses to Blackwater, they need to take derelict houses from the banks, tear them down, give them to municipalities, land trusts or some decentralized entities whose mission is to help folks instead of torture and steal from them. Then help build gardens. Probably pick the areas where they paved over Class I and II farm soils and keep the houses in areas of poor soils. Reward families for staying home and for increasing household size to where it should be whether they take in relatives or strangers it doesn’ matter. No more 2.5 persons per house. No more building houses until average household size is reasonable.
Focus on potatoes and beans and root crops for staples instead of wheat for bread. Use goats for milk and meat instead of cattle. Also small flocks of chickens. I could go on. There is plenty to be done but no one dares to talk about it. Abolish central banking, punish usury, use oil from strategic reserve to support radical de-centralization and re-mineralization of soils. Make the household or the small collection of households the center of economic activity.
sounds to me like you’re gonna need a dictator for all that
any volunteers?
Koombay my lord… Koombaya….
Is that Blackwater or Blackstone? Blackstone is one of the Rothschield’s investment banks.
Yes, Blackstone.
Ellen,
And then you woke up from your dream and realized you were back in the real world!
There are about 270,000 tonnes of used fuel in storage, much of it at reactor sites. About 90% of this is in storage ponds….
http://world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/
Well — the good news is —- I guess we don’t to worry about starving to death — because if we are unable to cool these beasts … we are going to get us a raging atomic inferno that will engulf the entire planet….
I think the info I have posted reveals why the PTB are doing absolutely nothing to prepare for post collapse… they would of course be aware of all of this and far more…
These revelations kinda make all other discussions on this blog moot no? — well other than the ones about how to keep BAU going for as long as possible — which is what the PTB are 100% focused on ….
Might I add that I am thoroughly disgusted with our species after reading this… the PTB would have known that spent fuel represented an extinction event — yet they went ahead with this madness anyways …
It would be the understatement of all time to say their hubris is astonishing….
Paul and deep appreciation for your posts on this topic. It confirms my worst fears.
the TeeVee program 60 minutes had a segment on Chernobyl and what is being done today. Still a mess and now it even has become a tourist destination. The world governments are funding a project to build a giant dome to cover the hastily built structure that was erected at the time of the “failed experiment”. The commentator indicated that the area will be dangerous for thousands of years!
I believe this will be one of the black swan events to happen.
Radiological Terrorism: Sabotage of Spent Fuel Pool
The Consequence of Cesium-137 Release
A 400 t PWR pool holds about 10 times more long-lived radioactivity than a reactor core. A radioactive release from such a pool would cause catastrophic consequences.
One major concern is the fission product cesium-137 (Cs-137), which made a major contribution (about three quarters) to the long-term radiological impact of the 1986 Chernobyl accident. A spent fuel pool would contain tens of million curies of Cs-137. Cs-137 has a 30 year half-life; it is relatively volatile and a potent land contaminant. In comparison, the April 1986 Chernobyl accident released about 2 Mega Curies (MCi) Cs-137 into the atmosphere from the core of the 1,000 MWe unit 4. It is estimated that over 100,000 residents were permanently evacuated because of contamination by Cs-137.The total area of the radiation-control zone is about 10,000 km², in which the contamination level is greater than 15 Ci/km² of Cs-137. [6]
A typical 1 GWe PWR core contains about 80 t fuels. Each year about one third of the core fuel is discharged into the pool. A pool with 15 year storage capacity will hold about 400 t spent fuel. To estimate the Cs-137 inventory in the pool, for example, we assume the Cs137 inventory at shutdown is about 0.1 MCi/tU with a burn-up of 50,000 MWt-day/tU, thus the pool with 400 t of ten year old SNF would hold about 33 MCi Cs-137. [7]
Assuming a 50-100% Cs137 release during a spent fuel fire, [8] the consequence of the Cs-137 exceed those of the Chernobyl accident 8-17 times (2MCi release from Chernobyl). Based on the wedge model, the contaminated land areas can be estimated. [9] For example, for a scenario of a 50% Cs-137 release from a 400 t SNF pool, about 95,000 km² (as far as 1,350 km) would be contaminated above 15 Ci/km² (as compared to 10,000 km² contaminated area above 15 Ci/km² at Chernobyl).
Thus, it is necessary to take security measures to prevent such an event from happening.
http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/364/radiological_terrorism.html
Leslie — this is the person who wrote the above paper:
Hui Zhang is a Senior Research Associate at the Project on Managing the Atom in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Hui Zhang is leading a research initiative on China’s nuclear policies for the Project on Managing the Atom in the Kennedy School of Government. His researches include verification techniques of nuclear arms control, the control of fissile material, nuclear terrorism, China’s nuclear policy, nuclear safeguards and non-proliferation, policy of nuclear fuel cycle and reprocessing.
Before coming to the Kennedy School in September 1999, he was a post-doctoral fellow at the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton University from 1997-1999, and in 1998-1999, he received a post-doctoral fellowship from the Social Science Research Council, a MacArthur Foundation program on International Peace and Security. From 2002-2003, he received a grant for Research and Writing from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Hui Zhang received his Ph.D. in nuclear physics in Beijing in 1996.
Dr. Zhang is the author of several technical reports and book chapters, and dozens of articles in academic journals and the print media including Science and Global Security, Arms Control Today, Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, Disarmament Diplomacy, Disarmament Forum, the Non-proliferation Review, Washington Quarterly, Journal of Nuclear Materials Management , INESAP, and China Security. Dr. Zhang gives many oral presentations and talks in international conferences and organizations.
Feel free to contact him to share your theories on atomic energy — maybe you could forward him your incredible research and demonstrate to him how he is completely wrong… I would suggest offering share options should he abandon his theories and give you a testimonial regarding the health benefits of ‘Fukushima Energy Drink’
Contact:
Telephone: 617-495-5710
Fax: 617-496-0606
Email: Hui_Zhang@harvard.edu
http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/experts/13/hui_zhang.html?back_url=%2Fpublication%2F364%2Fradiological_terrorism.html&back_text=Back%20to%20publication
Spent fuel rod fires could pour enough radioactive waste into the atmosphere to cause what nuclear engineers are now calling “Chernobyl on steroids.”
Here lies the potential for a catastrophe larger than Chernobyl unless the Japanese and US governments use their air force and military power to entomb the reactors in concrete, sand and boric acid as soon as possible, just at the Russians did in 1986.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-how-to-avoid-a-potential-chernobyl-2011-3#ixzz3JzvEpUXR
Fukushima Vs Chernobyl — How Do They Really Compare?
“The Japanese nuclear crisis has the potential to be larger than Chernobyl because there are several tons of nuclear waste stored in the reactor cores that could be lofted into the environment in the event of explosion. Cracks are already there in the containment vessels of reactors one, two and three. If those cracks grow, or if there is an explosion, this could be something beyond Chernobyl, because of the various fission products being released into the environment.”
Where most attention has centred on reactors #1, #2 and #3, there is also concern amongst nuclear scientists about the separate spent fuel pond in reactor building #4. In the week following the tsunami, it became clear that the spent fuel rod cooling pond was running dry, meaning that fuel rods would soon over-heat.
This meant the likely degradation, fire or disinegration of their zirconium alloy cladding. Zirconium at those temperatures separates water into oxygen and hydrogen, which as we have seen is highly explosive. By Tepco’s own admission, there is a risk that then a nuclear chain reaction could begin spontaneously, the dreaded “inadvertent criticality”. This would mean that the potential for a very large atmospheric release of as much as 250 tons of radioactive fuel material sitting in that pond could then not be discounted. If that should happen, the drinking water, green leaf vegetables, and some of the food chain of the northern hemisphere could be potentially affected.
If there were to be an energetic event, there would be a very large radioactive release indeed.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/level-7-fukushima-vs-chernobyl-how-do-they-really-compare-2011-4#ixzz3JzuUNSZR
Dear Gail and All
I recently posted a link to the movie Back To Our Roots, made by an MD whose principle concern is health. So far as I know, he has never spoken about the imminent failure of the financial system or running out of oil.
When I post something about gardening or farming or soil health, the first response is either that the soil is overwhelmingly dead and that by the time we can actually grow anything, we will all have starved. The second response is that society after the crash is going to be so dysfunctional that growing food will be impossible.
In response to the first claim, I just post stuff by soil scientists which shows that, yes, we need to start right now, but, also, that change happens rapidly and there is no need for three years with no food production. Regarding the second claim, I have usually just kept quiet, or indicated that it’s hard to tell what will happen.
But I think this section of the Doctor’s material is a better response:
‘SCOTT MURRAY Sustainable Development Consultant and Founder of the Edge of Urban Farm
Getting Reconnected to the Food You Eat: How to Become a Home Gardener in Only One Week – and with Nothing More than 4 Quart-Sized Jars!’
The fact is that, from a medical standpoint, growing some of your own food is good for you right now. Even sprouting some broccoli seeds in Mason jars is good for you.
Another of the featured speakers in the Doctor’s series urges us to get out in the sunshine and get some Vitamin D. That is entirely consistent with growing food.
So…growing some of your own food is good for you in the Here and Now. And, as I stated recently, my money is on the Walter Haugens of the world in terms of survival expectancy.
Don Stewart
PS Growing food with biology uses the greenest energy there is, and has the most life enhancing effects of any energy use.
Given nobody argued when I talked about an imminent banking crash in Clarin, I’m thinking I’ll go further and propose something. Taking account of the end of growth, commodity deflation and widening social gap, I will propose banks nationalization. Besides the BCRA, the central argentinean bank, the national state owns two other banks. Provinces and a couple of cities have or had privatised their banks in the 90s. Private banks make no more sense. I find it better for everybody accounts being directly held by the state
At this moment in history it’s surely more relaxing for depositants to know their money is in somewhat stronger hands that those of the market. I have just one account, and it is serviced by a kinda joint venture between the province and some figurehead, but I’d found it better if the bank come back to the province. Of course politicians will get their share anyway. Taking wIthout any payment. Doesn’t matter if it goes against the Constitution, the masses will not oppose, or we change it, he easy eh? Any news about G20? Such a kind of news could help many people to get the picture, including business people
For those who think that there is a difference between the two political parties in the US .. that there is no Deep State running the show… and that the president is a puppet who dances to their tune…
This is for you:
If you’re already reading this site, you don’t need me to tell you how much of a fraud Barack Obama is. His love affair with cronyism and devotion to lack of transparency has been documented in countless venues for many years now.
Nevertheless, his actions continue to do irreparable harm to this nation, and as much as it has become a tedious affair at times, highlighting his hatred for justice remains an important job.
His latest intervention on behalf of the forces of opacity, revolves around the release of a report on CI.A. torture put together by The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is 6,000 pages long and has been five years in the making.
Naturally, the Obama Administration is taking painstaking efforts to block its release.
The New York Times reports that:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-23/least-transparent-ever-obama-fighting-prevent-release-cia-torture-report
So much for ghost cities…
China building South China Sea island big enough for airstrip: report
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/21/us-china-southchinasea-airstrip-idUSKCN0J526B20141121
“China building South China Sea island big enough for airstrip: report”
To get oil. Big difference between building a ghost city and securing vast amounts of fish and off-shore oil.
This is not an oil platform — it is a war base.
If you want to get oil from the bottom of the sea you generally use one of these:
http://neftegaz.ru/images/Neft%20Perey/03_DEEPWATER.jpg
In any event, it is another massive project that will keep the hamster running so I am all for it.
‘Mumbai is on the verge of imploding’
Residents of this overburdened and polluted megacity are held hostage by a politician-builder nexus that allows rampant ‘development’ to fuel its descent into urban hell
http://hongkong.asiaxpat.com/forums/eds-must-reads/threads/51db6a06-9d13-4103-8e59-9135878a3632/%27mumbai+on+the+verge+of+imploding%27+/
I believe this topic is relevant to the general discussion because it is an indication of just how the human species is capable of the most vile actions.
Keep in mind the men involved in this are meant to be the best amongst us — community leaders chosen by the people.
The acts were committed and unpunished under a civil society that has rule of law…
Now imagine what post collapse society looks like… when there are no police… no rule of law…
What sort of demons will be unleashed when that happens?
For those hoping they can hunker down and grow some food and live out their days as gentleman farmers (I am one of them) what does on do when wicked cruel barbarians show up at the gate?
One might wish one were dead – when confronted by these sorts of people.
Gail,
Your attention to a typo:
“When we attempt to add new higher-cost sources of energy, whether they are high-cost oil or high-cost renewables, they present a drag on the economy for three reasons:
Consumers tend to cut back on discretionary expenditures, because energy products (including food, which is made oil and other energy products) are a necessity. ”
I believe you intended to write something like “…(including food, which is made WITH oil…”
You’re a wonderful analyst and I thank you for providing the necessary detail to understand your analyses. You also attract highly intelligent, coherent, and instructive commenters. I would add my own observation:
I promise you that you are seriously missing the boat in your insistence that AGW is ONLY a red herring presented by the finance/energy/political sectors to divert attention from the falling consumption of fossil fuels. Maybe you are right that they intend it to be, but this remains only a speculation on motive, which is always untestable until long after the alleged fact (if ever). The sector that has presented AGW as a happening/ongoing/potentially disastrous occurrence is not the finance/energy/political sector, but the climate science sector. And the amount of hard data they have accumulated and the rigorousness of the models they use, and the commitment they have demonstrated to evaluating and adjusting/replacing those models to remain congruent with empirical observation are absolutely independent in every respect of the finance/energy/political sector. And you know that. And I know that you know that. Some elements in the finance/energy/political sector attack the climate scientists because the information they make available, and the recommendations they present regarding the limits to CO2 generation that will be necessary to prevent environmental disaster, affect their profits and/or their freedom of operation and/or their value biases. Other elements in the finance/energy/political sector appear to accept the information & recommendations of the climate scientists and they propose various products, plans, and programs claiming to address those recommendations; some of this group (perhaps including the IEA and BP, among others) do so cynically, in order to advance their own policy agenda under a smoke screen of Climate Progressiveness. None of that matters, however, if you’re conducting an analysis of the physical and financial thermodynamics of energy production/consumption, which is what you are doing – and you do it very well. Except that you leave out all of the climate change information that’s available, and you deflect requests asking you to account for that information, as if it were completely irrelevant to a study of the process of global fossil fuel use going forward. And when pressed, you further deflect by alleging it’s all just a red herring presented by the IEA to take our eye off the ball of fossil fuel deflation. Come on, Gail, are you a climate change skeptic? Do you seriously believe that the IEA is where the information and recommendations on AGW originate? Is the information (especially the large number of variables) involved in global climate change too complex for you to factor into your analyses of global fossil fuel extraction/consumption? You’re already dealing with a multibody problem with your future predictions of global fossil fuel extraction/production, maybe it would overload you to account for global climate change as well. But, please, if you’re going to exclude it from your analyses, give us a more honest reason than the politics of the IEA.
Can someone explain to me how we are supposed to slow GW without collapsing BAU which would result in the death of billions— and complete chaos?
Growth is predicated on burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels — if you slow that you end growth.
Paul, does it never has gone through your mind to join some kind of group or community?
Yes — my ambition is to embed myself in a farming community that has no major cities nearby. As mentioned I am looking at the south island of NZ.
As for contrived communities where people gather in an attempt to survive the collapse… I think those are worthwhile efforts… but is it not better to surround oneself with people who already have all the necessary skills — rather than some city people who have fled to the countryside and attempted to re-invent themselves….
Really glad to know it. Best wishes. I’m rather impeded to move, but I’d be there in case one was found in the surroundings. Many hippies around anyway
I fixed the typo.
We are dealing with a near-term problem. The AGW issue may very well be real, but it doesn’t have much effect on our near-term problem. The modelers put together the model as if climate change were the only limit, until recently. Even the recent attempt at adding carbon limits is inadequate in my view (although it is a step in the right direction). I can’t see anything we can do about climate change, apart from the collapse that is around the corner. Proposed energy options don’t really work, except perhaps by bringing collapse sooner.
I’ve put this out there earlier but there are no takers… so I will put it out there again:
For those concerned about global warming — what do you suggest the PTB do about it?
Let’s have some specifics…
Any other ideas out there to help TEPCO with the TOXIC Radiated water?
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/11/22/national/tepco-fails-to-halt-toxic-water-inflow-at-fukushima-no-1-trenches/#.VHKghcmOrcw
There are fears that this toxic buildup, which is being caused by the jury-rigged cooling system and groundwater seepage in the reactor basements, could pour into the Pacific, which is already being polluted by other radioactive leaks. Groundwater is entering the complex at 400 tons a day.
Extracting the toxic water is a critical step in Tepco’s plan to build a huge underground ice wall around the four destroyed reactors to keep groundwater out.
Initially, Tepco sought to freeze the water in a section of tunnel connected to the No. 2 reactor building. This was intended to stop the inflow and allow the accumulated water to be pumped out. The utility said it took additional measures that also failed.
On Friday, Tepco proposed a new technique for the tunnels: injection of a cement filler especially developed for the task while pumping out as much of the accumulated water as possible.
Under the new method, however, it would be difficult to drain all of this water and some of it would be left behind, endangering plant workers, Tepco acknowledged.\
Robert, come on now you claim all is good…let us know what you advise,
Thank you
Dear All
There have been a lot of loose statements about soil posted here. I suggest that those who have soil, or are interested in soil, listen to Elaine Ingham talking about soil health and the resulting plant health:
http://www.permaculturevoices.com/podcast/building-soil-health-by-dr-elaine-ingham-pvp096/
I want to add my own 2 cents worth. At the very end of the talk, Elaine gets into the issue of perennial ground covers into which annual plants can be plugged. This is consistent with the work done in Australia by Colin Seis, which I have talked about previously. The contrasting image is growing a very tall cover crop and ‘turning it in’ with tillage. In my neighborhood, turning in tall crops has simply not increased carbon in the soil, permanently. None of my neighbors, to my knowledge, have figured out exactly how to do it with perennial cover crops. I have some ideas, and will be pursing them. I can’t think of a better research project. If you have land, pursue it.
Don Stewart
Steve Solomon’s The Intelligent Gardener is a good one. He takes some issue with Ingham and there is always an interesting discussion on his Soil and Health Yahoo User Group. He has also maintained a library of books on soils that are in the public domain and out of print.
Also check out Badgersett.com for woody perennial agriculture.
Also Herrick Kimball, The Deliberate Agrarian.
I have had some luck planting into comfrey. Also into clover.
But I live in a forgiving climate.
So, Hills Group did had foresee oil tumbling price of this year?
Another: any clue if G20 summit did agreed upon deposit reductions à la Cyprus as it was rumored?
gail – thanks for your fact-based articles!
please excuse my non-native english!
i appreciate your approach as oil is so basic for our culture that we should check the validity of our paradigms.
imagined the price of water will be 4 times higher than now. will it lead to a sudden investment into the development of alternatives? are there serious technologies that could easily be made market-ready? would the transition create shocks and disbalances and economic recession?
the land area of our earth is 149.430.000 km2, with 7.200.000.000 people running on the globus leading to 0,02075km2 or 2.7 ha each. the currently used area for agriculture is specified with 49.000.000km2 (plus 40.000.000km2 forests) which adds up to 0,0068km2 or 0.68ha or 1.68 acres or 6800m2 per person. is it theoretically possible to feed a person with 0.68ha without petrochemical fertilizers? for germany we find some data: 1 ha feeds 1 horse, 10 sheep, 320 hens, 1 cattle – under the condition of best soil quality. in bad areas 10 times the area could be necessary.
there are experiences from the old democratic german republic how to feed a person with gardening products: 1 m2 shall bring 1000 kcal/year so if you calculate 2300kcal/day around 840m2/person would be needed that is only 1/8th of the arithmetical available area per person. we could feed world population 8 times by biological gardening! as the above list has shown, milk products, meat and sugar are not included in this calculation…
if we assume that there is no fuel to transport food and run the gardening machines people would have to live close to the gardens that feed them. they would work minimum 2 hours a day in those gardens. like it or not – it does not really make survival impossible!
some consequences: firstly the agricultural area must be distributed in a fair way, e.g. we cannot afford to hand out land according to money, race, nation, language or social class. secondly management and security would be needed to organize and secure this structure – especially when single persons or groups would like to take a larger share.
the challenges of gail’s logical deductions are in the mind. it’s not for wimps! 🙂
6000 pounds of food per year from 1/10th acre (4356 square feet or 405 square meters):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM
Now that is in southern California, but most of humanity lives between 30 degrees north and 30 degrees south. That is with 4 people working an unknown amount of hours. Further North you need more land per person, but population density tends to be much lower anyways. Typical North American Suburbia is 1/8 acre lots.
880 pounds of food per year needed to support an adult male:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/mars-for-a-year.htm
So 4 full-time urban farmers could feed themselves and two additional people. Whether they have the time and energy to do other productive work, or whether that takes society down to subsistence living, I don’t know.
During WW2, American cities produced about half of their own food through Victory Gardens, while still running an industrial society and waging war on two fronts, with maybe one-tenth as much oil production and one-third the population.
See, Paul, nothing to worry about, all will be provided at our home and we will after all live the life of “Little House on the Prairie”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKVvZhTQl0k
One question: what about those that don’t want to “grow it” and rather ‘take it’?
Where does the water come from?
Allegedly, methods such as Garden Pool and Aquaculture use 10% of the water used in open field petro-agriculture, particularly in systems enclosed in a building or under a sheet of plastic.
Currently, America uses 355 Billion Gallons per day (2010):
http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wuto.html
Only about a third of which is for food production. So 120 Billion times 365 = ~44 Trillion gallons. Continental USA receives average 30 inches of water per year:
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-precipitation.php
So average 8 square inches of land surface per gallon. 6,272,640 square inches per acre divided by 8 gives ~784,000 gallons per acre per year. Rainfall on 56 million acres to meet food production for all of USA using current farming techniques.
USA total area ~2.4 Billion acres minus 400 million for Alaska + Hawaii gives about 2 Billion acres, so only 3% of all the rainfall on the continental United States is needed to supply all the water using current farming techniques. If greenhouses / garden pools / aquaponics was used, and are actually 10 times more efficient on water use, only 0.3% of USA land area rain capture is needed.
Where will plastic sheeting come from?
Matthew,
“USA total area ~2.4 Billion acres minus 400 million for Alaska + Hawaii gives about 2 Billion acres, so only 3% of all the rainfall on the continental United States is needed to supply all the water using current farming techniques.”
Why are you leaving out Alaska and Hawaii?
“Why are you leaving out Alaska and Hawaii?”
The rainfall average of 30 inches was for continental United States, so I needed that area. Alaska and Hawaii have far more water available per acre, so if there is enough water in the average mainland, there is certainly enough water for Alaska and Hawaii.
Matthew,
Got it. Thanks. We do have a lot of water here. Frozen in glaciers, laying as snow, flowing as rivers, standing in lakes and ponds, permafrost layers. What we could use is some decent soil, though.
Mad Dogs have to be put down.
Throughout history the maddest dog generally ended up as the king of the hill… just like the most powerful lion, ape, wolf etc ends up king….
The Koobaya types generally end up dead or as slaves…
Try that on land that has been farmed using petro chemical inputs… which is 98% of all arable land on the planet.
You might as well try growing food on a rock. (maybe you can try a chia pet?)
You need to stay alive for the first ~3 years until the soil is rebuilt, a la Cuba. Or use soil-less food production such as hydroponics, aquaponics, etc. Or clear cut virgin forest and turn that into new farm land. Or give up and die since surviving is too hard. Or opt out now before things get bad.
Gail has previously posted information on what happened in Cuba when the USSR collapsed… perhaps this could be re-posted…
98% of the arable land on the earth is farmed industrially i.e. with petrochemical inputs
this land is dead without the inputs
it takes minimum 3 years of intensive organic inputs to repair such land – then months to grow a crop
7.2 billion will need food immediately once BAU ends and petro chemicals are unavailable to grow food
And the conclusion is…..
I would not expect 7.2 Billion people to survive. Some areas are going to have drastic population reductions; the Middle East, maybe Europe, a fair bit of Central America, they just don’t have the water and soil to feed as many people as they have, since they spent the last ~100 years increasing their populations ~10 fold.
Lots of people will die pretty quick without their prescription meds. Lots of people will probably die of exposure pretty quick. I would not recommend being in a major urban area if there really is a sudden, global SHTF moment.
98% of the agricultural land is dead with oil and gas inputs.
And ‘some’ of the people are going to die?
Shouldn’t that be more like MOST of the people are going to die?
Keep in mind the most places with the most intensive industrial farming are the bread baskets of the world…
I did not say some people are going to die. I said some regions are going to have mass die-offs. Like >90%. Other areas may have very little depopulation. I believe that the collapse will not be the same everywhere, and that the effects will not be the same everywhere. I would suggest not being in Los Angeles when the SHTF.
98% of all agricultural land is farmed using oil and gas inputs. 98% of the land will growth nothing.
Because of this, most of the 7.2B will starve to death — and the rest will likely be killed as the hordes rip anything from the ground and kill anything that moves — in their desperation to feed.
I think the only places where anyone is likely to survive would be extremely remote villages that are already living subsistence lifestyles e.g. remote mountain tribes in Irian Jaya…
In any even this is all moot — because as I have posted — spent nuclear fuel ponds are going to put an end to all life on the planet.
We can barely keep Fukushima under control even with BAU functioning… I fail to see how we keep thousands of similar ponds under control post BAU.
In the event the whole system, oil, electricity, social order all goes down the drain, yes the only people who might survive in the long run will be people in remote areas in the southern hemisphere. It seems likely the entire northern hemisphere will be a write-off. That does not mean everyone dies right away, but their children and grandchildren would have severe mutations, if they survive at all.
Babushkas of Chernobyl: http://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com/ shows that adults can live in a fallout zone and live out their lives. However, take a look at any animals that have been reproducing in the fallout and you see how badly mutated they are, it seems likely they will stop reproducing within a few generations.
That is why the only real hope is that a total collapse is avoided.
Matthew – you can choose to ignore this — in which case I will ignore you going forward…
A radioactive release from such a pool would cause catastrophic consequences.
One major concern is the fission product cesium-137 (Cs-137), which made a major contribution (about three quarters) to the long-term radiological impact of the 1986 Chernobyl accident.
A spent fuel pool would contain tens of million curies of Cs-137. Cs-137 has a 30 year half-life; it is relatively volatile and a potent land contaminant.
In comparison, the April 1986 Chernobyl accident released about 2 Mega Curies (MCi) Cs-137 into the atmosphere from the core of the 1,000 MWe unit 4.
It is estimated that over 100,000 residents were permanently evacuated because of contamination by Cs-137.The total area of the radiation-control zone is about 10,000 km², in which the contamination level is greater than 15 Ci/km² of Cs-137. [6]
A typical 1 GWe PWR core contains about 80 t fuels.
Each year about one third of the core fuel is discharged into the pool. A pool with 15 year storage capacity will hold about 400 t spent fuel. To estimate the Cs-137 inventory in the pool, for example, we assume the Cs137 inventory at shutdown is about 0.1 MCi/tU with a burn-up of 50,000 MWt-day/tU, thus the pool with 400 t of ten year old SNF would hold about 33 MCi Cs-137. [7] Assuming a 50-100% Cs137 release during a spent fuel fire, [8] the consequence of the Cs-137 exceed those of the Chernobyl accident 8-17 times (2MCi release from Chernobyl).
Based on the wedge model, the contaminated land areas can be estimated. [9] For example, for a scenario of a 50% Cs-137 release from a 400 t SNF pool, about 95,000 km² (as far as 1,350 km) would be contaminated above 15 Ci/km² (as compared to 10,000 km² contaminated area above 15 Ci/km² at Chernobyl).
Thus, it is necessary to take security measures to prevent such an event from happening.
More http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/364/radiological_terrorism.html
This is what ONE POND exploding will do — there are thousands of them — and as the other article I posted indicated HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of tonnes of fuel sit in these ponds…
If these ponds are left without cooling this will be thousands upon thousands of times worse than Chernobyl….
And keep in mind Chernobyl was entombed in cement dumped on it by helicopters…. so it stopped spewing lethal particles…
If it were not entombed then it would still be spewing these deadly particles….
When BAU goes, there will be no helicopters… there will be no cement… when these things blow they WILL NOT STOP pumping out death toxins for many decades….
If these ponds cannot be managed — and I do not see how they can be — then if you believe in god — you best start making peace with him.
As I said, the only hope would be for people in southern hemisphere that the prevailing winds and ocean currents keep them safe.
That is why I do not see any point in planning for a total collapse. I thought about trying to go be an ex-pay in Uruguay, but I couldn’t. The only hope is that some level of government and power systems continue and maintain the reactors and spent fuel ponds for at least centuries. For political reasons, we may never get permanent storage in North America.
On the other hand, we may get giant LASERs that may be able to rapidly breakdown nuclear waste, if BAU can keep going for a while longer:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-25/world-s-most-powerful-laser-beams-to-zap-nuclear-waste
From that article:
Zamfir said companies from the computer industry have shown interest in the project, but none from the nuclear sector.
The laser technology might also be used to reduce the time it take for atomic waste to lose its radioactivity from thousands of years to a few seconds. That could remove the need to build underground stores to keep waste secure for centuries.
“It’s going to take almost 20 years until we would be able to do it, but right now many countries don’t see any solution in the near future,” Zamfir said.
When I see ‘might’ — ‘in 20 years’ — in an article… I dismiss it as total BS…
Given the sheer volumes of toxins that would be released year after year after year .. I don’t see how the southern hemisphere would be at all safe…. this stuff will circulate globally in the air and in the oceans… killing by poisoning every living thing… the cancer rates would be off the charts…
I really don’t see much point in planing for anything… and I can understand why the PTB appear to be making no post collapse plans….
I see no benefit in despair, and no use preparing for doomsday. Best hope is BAU continues and technological advancement saves us. Next best is totalitarian regimes after the collapse keep the reactors and spent fuel ponds from wiping us all out at any cost.
As for the southern hemisphere, as far as I understand thermohaline circulation, nuclear waste that spews into the north Atlantic will be carried by current to Greenland and the Arctic, then sink to the bottom and come up in the southern hemisphere thousands of years later.
Prevailing winds go from west to east at the extreme north and south, and east to west near the equator, so winds from America would carry radioisotopes to Europe. The concern would be Indian and South African reactors contaminating South America.
Would it also be helpful for governments to allow siting of a long term storage facility?
Perhaps. Most governments do; I do not know of any besides America that has no long term plan. Even then, WIPP seems to have catastrophes fairly often.
America most definitely has a long term plan … and I do not think it involves handing out baked beans to starving people:
The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
We had a hard time in the past maintaining the fertility of our soil. This is likely to be a problem in the future as well. Unless there are very many animals for manure, the soil tends to lose nutrients. Adequate water without fossil fuels is likely to be a problem as well.
Certainly, there is something that can be done, but without a plan and training on what to do, there are likely to be very many wrong turns. It is not an easy project, especially if we are focused on maintaining our current system. How do we make a transition? How are farmers paid for their existing land? Where do people live so that they can be near the soil? How can changes be made so that people can gat 100% of their calories from the system? Leaving out milk products, meat, and sugar likely leaves people with far too few calories (unless a plan is made for a vegan diet, perhaps with a larger area for crops).
It would appear that there is nothing in a way of a post-collapse plan to grow food. It would be difficult to keep secret a plan to convert large tracts of industrial farmland back to sustainable farmland.
Given that the PTB would have examined this from every angle … and given that the PTB have no desire to die (they have kids and grandkids too…) …
Does that not indicate that they have concluded that the end of BAU is an extinction event — that the only option is to frack, burn lignite, roar along with atomic energy — go to war … basically do absolutely anything to keep BAU going another day… or month… because after BAU there is nothing?
I find it difficult not to reach that conclusion. I see not a single signal that indicates otherwise
“We had a hard time in the past maintaining the fertility of our soil. This is likely to be a problem in the future as well. Unless there are very many animals for manure, the soil tends to lose nutrients. Adequate water without fossil fuels is likely to be a problem as well.”
We currently have about 7,300,000,000 “animals” whose “manure” is grossly under-utilized.
Soil fertility is not a problem when you put it back where it belongs when you’re done with it.
Very true, recycling human manure is probably a good solution. Alternatively, you can let it go into the ocean, along with the agricultural runoff, and then simply make sea soil from the kelp and other seaweeds that thrive on all that rich nutrients. Before Haber-Bosch, California harvested something like 40,000 tons of sea weed per year, for fertilizer and gun powder.
Only 60 years of farming left if soil degradation continues
Read more at http://newsdaily.com/2014/12/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/#C309ijxbCbB1PJTU.99
That’s quite the claim that it takes 1000 years to create 3 centimeters of topsoil. Sea weed can be processed into soil, leaves from trees that contain nutrients from deep down, etc.
Is there scientific proof that synthetic fertilizers cause accelerated leeching? Seems to me that soil erosion from water, wind, and disturbance would be a bigger factor, followed by flushing all the nutrients down the drain and off into the ocean.
Dear Matthew Krajcik
It takes a very, very long time to turn bedrock into topsoil. It doesn’t take very long to turn sub-soil into topsoil. You can search on many articles and you tubes with Christine Jones, the Australian soil scientist for the details.
In brief, Christine calls the deep roots of perennial grasses ‘the liquid carbon pathway’ which takes carbon out of the air and puts it deep in the soil in a stable form. With plenty of carbon and enough nitrogen (as, for example, from legumes), the microbes flourish in the soil. The microbes are eaten by larger critters. The result is the creation of rich, deep soil with plenty of plant nutrients.
Another result is that the soil develops a good structure which allows air and water to penetrate deeply and rapidly into the soil. So that, for example, an 8 inch rainstorm can be absorbed by the soil with negligible erosion.
The problem with synthetic fertilizers is that, if the plants have access to easy, cheap fertilizers, they don’t invest in the feeding of the soil critters. Therefore, the soil structure never improves. If the farmer plows, the soil will steadily get worse. Since the soil structure is not improving, the infiltration rate gets worse. So rains cause soil erosion. Therefore, the application of lots of synthetic fertilizers cause soil erosion by damaging the soil food web.
A complication is that the best demonstrated methods for growing topsoil involve perennial grasses with heavy herbivores, such as cattle. Furthermore, the cattle must be grazed so that they move in pulses across the land. Leaving the cattle in one place does not work very well. Pulsed grazing is also called rotational grazing and holistic grazing. You can get into the fine details of various grazing practices and how the grazing practices can be integrated with the production of grain crops with a little research.
Don Stewart
That is disturbing, but also part of our problem as we try to avoid one limit by overusing other resources. Soil looks like an easy resource to make use of, but it is very easy to create huge problems for it.
I didn’t notice a link to the actual article itself–it may be something in an academic journal.
“Look again – there were two articles. Paul I am curious. What experience and academic qualifications do you have in nuclear technology and radiation biology, other than one sided trolling of the internet for antinuclear activists?”
I have looked and I have posted the credentials of the various experts who are saying that if left uncooled spent nuclear fuel rods will explode with the impact being thousands of times that of the bombs dropped on Japan.
I have no qualifications whatsoever — but the people I have referenced most definitely do.
Feel free to post something from a nuclear expert that contradict what has been stated by the experts in those articles.
>>>> https://www.google.es/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=kh1yVN_INM-p8weg7ICgBA&gws_rd=ssl
I have. You called him an extremist.
Some posters may find this to be of interest. 60 minutes is going to Chernobyl tonight. The preview suggests that the emphasis may be on genetic dangers. http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/umass-amherst-researcher-points-suppression-evidence-radiation-effects-1946-nobel-laureate
You’re pulling our legs. We’ve researched together and with Ed and somebody else upon the subject and we reached the conclusion while there is such amount of power in the ponds it is very unlikely they go big bang. And your link doesn’t works. Stop talking BS or you’ll never receive again an answer from me. You’ll become a phantom
Without constant circulation, the water in spent fuel ponds will boil off first. Once the rods are sticking out of the water, they can get so hot they melt the zirconium casings, and the spent fuel melts together into a slag pile, where it can achieve criticality and operate as an unmoderated nuclear reactor. Whether it can go bang or just throw heat, radiation and streams of cesium, iodine, strontium into the air, I don’t know and hope not to find out.
If the original amounts of spent fuel were stored as designed, constant active cooling would not be required. It is cheaper to just stack more and more fuel in the existing ponds than to make new ones, and the regulators decided it was safe enough.
Matthew (btw, you are not a hidden Mattieu, right? Just a joke)
“If the original amounts of spent fuel were stored as designed, constant active cooling would not be required”. Where did you got that info?
The point is Paul’s “best story” is almost 4 years old. Fukushima didn’t go bang since and it got an eartquake plus a tsunami plus it is (it was at that time, don’t know now) belived the ponds were gone dry. And with all this smashing it didn’t mega exploded. So it is a very unlikely situation, almost impossible. And it was reracked.
“If there is a prolonged interruption of cooling due to emergency situations, the water in the spent fuel pools may boil off, possibly resulting in radioactive elements being released into the atmosphere.[5]
In the magnitude 9 earthquake which struck the Fukushima nuclear plants in March 2011, three of the spent fuel pools were in buildings that lost the roof and were seen to be emitting water vapor. The US NRC wrongly stated that the pool at reactor 4 had boiled dry[6] — this was denied at the time by the Japanese and found to be incorrect in subsequent inspection and data examination.[7]” -from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool
Sorry, I can’t find the links about how much the storage density has increased and the increased need for circulation pumps.
“Current regulations permit re-racking of the spent fuel pool grid and fuel assembly consolidation, subject to NRC review and approval, to increase the amount of spent fuel that can be stored in the pool. Both of these methods are constrained by the size of the pool.” – From the NRC
http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/pools.html
As I understand, the pools at Fukushima constantly have water with boric acid added to keep them under control, so they have never run completely dry.
“Both of these methods are constrained by the size of the pool”. Good to see they acknowledge the pools are finite…
Thanks Mat
The Fukushima ponds have never boiled dry.
AND Areva’s fuel used in Daichi was high in plutonium
PLUTONIUM you know. Stop waiting for God’s coming to the rescue. And it’s not just the Fed
He indeed protects us
And Santa Claus is a jolly fat man who lives at the North Pole. If you are well-behaved during the year he will fly to your house on s sled pulled by Reindeer and leave wonderful presents for you…
I have absolutely no evidence for this — but I expect you to believe it… because I do.
Perhaps you could provide some sort of reference for the comments you have made? That would actually be very useful.
Since the articles you link to already say the same thing, I’ll just use them:
http://www.businessinsider.com/level-7-fukushima-vs-chernobyl-how-do-they-really-compare-2011-4#ixzz3JzuUNSZR
Feel free to post links to the research that indicates they don’t go bang.
You will note that I brought this topic up a number of times in the past and stated ‘it would be very useful to have some expert commentary on this topic because it is so important’
And nobody posted anything.
So I went looking and I found what I found — experts who are saying that uncooled fuel rods will explode with disastrous consequences.
If you disagree then let’s have a look at what you are basing this on.
And then we have…
Standing ovations greet defiant Bill Cosby on stage as more women accuse him of rape
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/23/bill-cosby-defiant-rape-claims-17-women-accusing
Reinforcing my belief that most humans are stupid and that the world will be so much better off without us…(provided we don’t destroy it when we take our leave)
I can imagine the animals of the planet watching what is happening and cheering wildly for us to bring about our own extinction … wasn’t there a Star Trek episode where the evil force was only defeated by it’s own hand — without even realizing it…
That is us.
I used to like Fitts but I think she’s losing it.
It takes a very strong constitution to be able to stare this problem (the collapse of industrial civilization) in the face and not go mad.
I think that Gail is one of the very few (only?) serious commentators on this subject who has any integrity.
Many of he big names (Heinberg, Martenson, Kuntsler etc…) are putting lipstick on this pig because they know that if they tell the truth they will lose their most of their audience — and because they make livings off of the hopium narrative then always present happy endings.
I read something recently about a presentation where someone was giving cold hard facts about what is to come and mentioned to what seemed to be an open minded audience that most kids would likely perish when the collapse hits…. apparently the crowd reacted very negatively to that with boos and insults…
Nobody wants the truth. Most cannot handle it.
They will go into denial or make up some absurd rationalizations (e.g. solar will save us) in an effort to cope when presented with an ending that is not happy.
Sadly — there will be no happy ending.
The ones who are depending on financial funding are no doubt aware that people would like a happy ending. I don’t know whether that changes their story or not.
Sellers of solar power are on the boards of Post Carbon Institute, ASPO-USA, and Germany’s Energy Watch Group. This tends to push stories in the direction of “renewables will save us,” even apart from direct funding.
Edit: Actually, after checking, the Post Carbon Institute doesn’t have anyone on their board representing solar. They do have people who are anxious to have solutions. In fact, all of these organizations tend to be funded by people who are anxious to have solutions. “Post Carbon Institute” suggests that there is a good life to be had after carbon, and I know that the big book they put together a couple of years ago spoke favorably about solar. It would probably be difficult to get funding, if a group couldn’t point to solutions.
Agreed, at least we have that going for us, a strong constitution.
You’re still talking about collapse in the abstract theoretical realm. Before congratulating yourself, consider that things might be different if/when it really happens. I agree with Orlov – the people on the streets living in ghettos are more prepared for the harsh world to come than the pampered folks on the internet.
Agreed – anyone raised in a violent environment will be better prepared for this… because when rule of law goes … nobody will be saying please and thank you … they will be taking … with force.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
The great famines occurred when populations were less than half of today’s.
Then in the sixties great bounties were found in The Middle East, Mexico, North Africa, Russia, Indonesia, Alaska and The North Sea.
The so called “green revolution” and then globalisation to support it, enabled populations to grow exponentially but offset by a means to feed them. Famines “are now a thing of the past”
Now the great majority of the human race is walking a tightrope stretched over a very deep canyon. India, China, Africa, The Middle East, Russia, Indonesia and other emerging economies are dependent on Globalization for survival. To keep from falling from the tightrope they carry a long ballancing pole. The pole is moved left and right, it can never be allowed to be out of balance.
We can let our imaginations wander to consider what could unbalance the pole. Could it be the collapse of Globalization, oil (food and the means to produce it), war, climate change or what occurred in the past, populations too large to be supported by the resource base. An abundance of cheap fossil fuels (and a liberal dose of cognitive dissonance) of which was considered there was no end, has maintained the balance necessary to carry on into the horrific overshoot now hanging over our future.
As described in the list above, famines were a persistent theme in human development. We have set ourselves up for a fall of monumental proportions.
“Now the great majority of the human race is walking a tightrope stretched over a very deep canyon. India, China, Africa, The Middle East, Russia, Indonesia and other emerging economies are dependent on Globalization”
I think the list is too short — add the Americas, Australia, Europe etc… almost all food production is 100% dependent on oil and gas…
Not a finite world issue.
Sure it is, the political establishment in the UK is collapsing concurrent with the oil collapse. See the posts on page 1 about how electoral systems are malfunctioning across Europe. You can think of it as the superstructure giving way as the base deteriorates.
To give another example of how the UK establishment is on noticeably shaky ground, the Lib Lab Con took nearly 90% in 2005, just as conventional oil peaked, and also in 2010. They are now down to 70%, which is unprecedented. They lost a national election, at the Euros in May, for the first time since 1906.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-european-elections-political-earthquake
In Scotland they are down to just 45% between them and the separatist SNP equals that. Most Scots now support independence and three quarters want another referendum. My guess is that the UK will break up and Scotland will go independent within five or ten years. Certainly the SNP will call another referendum in 2017 if the UK leaves the EU, which is a real possibility because the EU has said that they will not give in to Tory demands over uncontrolled migration.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/new-poll-gives-snp-record-leads-in-westminster-and-holyrood-voting-intent.1416307498
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/new-poll-scotland-would-back-indy-if-fresh-vote-was-held-now.1414830607
http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/poll-should-another-independence-referendum-4643675
Of course these are still early days of the Great Oil Collapse and it is possible to over-egg the pudding of this argument about a tottering political superstructure, except that similar trends appear more or less across the continent of Europe, which implies that there are deeper factors in play. We have seen recessions before and people tended to just switch between the mainstream choices of Red and Blue. Electoral systems no longer do what they were designed to do, to deliver strong centrist governments and to exclude the ‘extremes’.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/europes-centre-cannot-hold
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/across-europe-disillusioned-voters-turn-to-outsiders
There is a real possibility that the euro sceptic Le Pen will win the next presidential election in France in 2017, which is totally unprecedented and which would endanger the EU as a whole. The situation is going from bad to worse for the mainstream PS and UMP with France just avoiding recession due to high spending (Germany just avoided it, with Italy already in recession), high unemployment and scandal after scandal. Euro sceptic parties are rising across Northern and Western Europe. It is conceivable that the EU organisation that has politically dominated Europe for decades could be gone within five years.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/08/le-pen-tops-presidential-poll-for-first-time-ever
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ecbb6c4-34d5-11e4-aa47-00144feabdc0.html
http://www.thelocal.fr/20141110/le-pen-revels-in-new-french-political-scandal
The UK MP abuse/ murder/ cover up story is remarkable because they have covered it up for thirty years and the damn is now leaking badly. It could burst any time, although the TV news channels completely ignored the story this weekend. The establishment is terrified that the story will somehow endanger national security if the public finds out that dozens (?) of Westminster Lib Lab Con MPs and ministers raped and murdered kids with impunity from the law.
Of course concurrence is not causation and it would be difficult to substantiate the role of oil, and finance, in the trend of political deterioration and only time will tell how far this goes. All that I can say is that the facts seem to fit the theory, which of course is no proof of the theory.
Good try, but I’m not convinced you can make a distinction between current political dysfunction caused by Peak Oil and pre-Industrial Revolution political dysfunction.
I agree.
I find Catherine Austin Fitts and the “Breakaway economy” intriguing. She is no wide-eyed Godlikeproductions junkie and yet. in effect, says the X-Files weren’t all fiction. Apparently US$40 trillion has vanished into the Black Budget. What tech could they have developed? Not that they would share it with us. They could have stocked up underground cities to last decades.
I find it interesting that many think that the PTB are simultaneously incompetent and capable of carrying on huge conspiracies.
interguru,
I agree. The cognitive dissonance of those who so wish to believe in both is interesting indeed.
I am not seeing that.
What I am seeing are people who believe the PTB are buffoons — who have no idea what they are doing — who do not think through their actions … who believe George Bush is the type of person that would represent the typical PTB.
And then there are people like me and B9 — who are fully aware that the PTB are in the position they are in because they are very smart, very thorough, who employ experts across many disciplines to make sure they get a range of information and perspectives on all important issues before they make decisions… they are absolutely cunning and ruthless… they attempt to manipulate anything and everything …
This does not mean they do not make mistakes — but they are absolutely not bungling buffoons that some people believe them to be.
if they were such idiots then how is they can continue to run the world? If so then what does that say for the rest of us…
That would surely mean we are here (we are close … but not to the point where a group of morons could lord over the world)
Looks like a real good movie, Paul, THANKS
Fitts doesn’t say they are incompetent she says they are acting in ways that make sense to them IOW they know stuff we don’t
Good point.
Take fracking for instance.. at one point I was vehemently opposed to this — for all the obvious reasons…
But then I realized that without shale oil the global economy would have collapsed already — and I am likely a dead man.
I still find fracking distasteful — but it had to be done.
The PTB be knew that — and they made the right decision.
Likewise with QE — I used to think it was total madness… until I realized what the purpose of QE was i.e. to keep the global economy from collapsing resulting in a massive die-off
Whatever decisions they make are made based on information that none of us has — the decisions might seem ludicrous to us — but like fracking — I suspect they are making their calls based on what is practical — and what is necessary to fend off collapse for as long as possible.
Even the most curious amongst us are seeing only the tip of the ice berg… we are not privy to the in depth research that is provided to the lever pullers.
One can only wonder what they did with the US$40 trillion.
PTB, PTB, PTB… Remember that, when he was a president, G.W.Bush was making gift of copies of Malthu’s book to many people (including for instance our president). What did he meant by this? Here it was interpreted he was promoting the idea of fundamental scarcity in order to boost neoliberalism as an economical view related to struggle for scarce goods. This would be an oppositionn from him to the leftist latinoamerican governments rising here at that time, wich immersed in the commodities boom were living anything but scarcity. It was interpreted according to the classic left-right paradigm and dismissed not only because of ideological reasons but also because there was a lot of money around.
But perhaps his message was more profound. Because he may have known PO was near. Or no. We could perhaps get the answer if we know exactly to whom he delivered the books; if he just sent them to LatAm, so it was only a move to promote neoliberalism. If his expected audience was larger, perhaps he meant something else.
In the end, I don’t think PTB are superhumans, they are not godlike. They are subject to all the laws we are, physical and sociological. They have their limits just as we do, but these express with specific traits. There is a lot of anthropological and sociological litterature on ruling classes, and the world ruling class doesn’t escape, even if it has the particularity of hiding more some of its features and actions. For instance, I don’t take for granted they know things we don’t. Whay should it be so? By definition, they are not scientists even if they produce the larger parameters ruling actual science. As they are not military even if they do the same with wars.
Who they are? As far as I know, it’s a set of families leaded by Rothschild, comprising the european branch (Kuhn, Loeb, Lehman, Warburg…) and the american one (Rockefeller, Harriman, Carnegie, Morgan, Walker, Mellon, DuPont…). These are the PTB, the real capitalists ruling the world. Bushs are a second line, not the core, and that is perhaps why G.W. allowed himself to distribute the books (in case it was a warning on PO). We know pretty well their power will evaporate the day banking is over. So they are stucked in their limitations and according to all the litterature (including Tainter) there are things they can’t represent, they can’t imagine, they can’t think. They can’t plan absolutely nothing beyond capitalism, because the day their signatures doesn’t have any consequence in the real world they don’t exist at all. So I think they do nothing upon the rods just because they can’t imagine living beyond capitalism. They know they will be absolutely screwed up when TSHF, and they don’t care about the rest. All their actions on science and military will be directed to prolonge BAU, no to go beyond. That’s all. That’s the limit of their finite word.
in a few words, social position determines worldview. So the ability to imagine onself in a different social structure is inversly proportional to the rank one has in the actual structure. I see it everytime here: rich people have the hardest time imagining living postcapitalism, while hippies and rather poor people would accomodate far easier (ideologically, while they wont succeed if some material conditions are not present).
Paul, you are somewhat rich, you are possibly the wealthier among us and so you represent PTBs view of absolutely no future after banking.
I have a moderate amount of wealth (it may seem as if it is more because I am blowing it on bucket list trips…) so I am probably not representative of the class of person to whom you refer…
I come from a relatively impoverished background being raised in a single parent family in what most in Canada would consider rough circumstances. I have cousins who have done jail time — when I visited in the summer a cousin was on her last legs in hospital due to extreme heroin addiction…
I think the lifestyle that I lead (and that I have lead when I had nothing) prepares me far better than a hippy or pretty much anyone else. I played a decent amount of hockey and a bit of football and rugby — and with that comes a certain amount of toughness… and I continue to get up every morning and get on the shovel and/or the bike and head up the mountain.
At the end of the day I don’t think you can generalize — I know plenty of very successful people who are tough as nails — both physically and mentally… those tend to be characteristics that correlate with success…
On the contrary I think quitting would be something more associated with hippies…
But again … one cannot generalize… there are loads of pampered wealthy people who would take a bottle of pills before they’d lift a shovel… and there are plenty of hippie -types would step up when the going got tough.
Of course the PTB are on a completely different level — if knocked from their pedestals I don’t see things working out very well for the majority of them… I picture them as mostly older, flabby men..
Henry Kissinger comes to mind…
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/obama-kissinger.jpg
Ha ha ha, good picture! But Kissinger is not PTB, just a high employee
I don’t say you are truly rich, in wich case you would’t be here, much less be one of the main participants. I’m just saying you are possibly the wealthier among us, and this way you represent a particular point of view given OFW actual social space. It is obvious your rather poor orignins provides you with the mental frame for doing gardening yourself. Besides, it’s interesting the contrast between you and somebody whose name I can’t recall, who lived as a homeless for some years and argued with you many times about what we shall do right now. You always advocating consumpion, he always pledging for restraint
Regarding hippies, I agree most of them would find it hard to live in a tougher world. But this doesn’t mean they are not better positioned to hold on with less stuff and stand better physical work than say their cousins actually running after the american dream
Your remarks on corporal and mental roughness are also very relevant. Money is not the only type of existing capital, while it is the most important. There are also other forms of capital, the second being cultural capital. This one rather opposes roughness (in both senses). People with no big money but high academic or burocratic standing will also be screwed up. Just as money will be worhless in a postcapitalist context and rich people can’t imagine standing without it, PhD and years of study will be equally worthless when surplusses now making possible the existence of Academy and a large burocracy will be gone. I see it here also, my friends are mostly in the Academy or in the justice system, and none of them have the slightest clue on how to live postcapitalism.
If one wants some clues as to who the PTB are, there is this lecture by Griffin;
holy cow! Is he wearing inflatable underwear!
The central banks are the markets:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/11-overflow/20141122_world.jpg
Hey you, the friendly pig (;-)
Instead of reposting graphs you can do something useful. Say become a repentant pig and as I do start posting something on the coming collapse on the papers, you can have some fun with this. A lot may be. Or whatever you want, you are imaginative I see
Best to let sleeping dogs lie – no?
Why?
Because there is absolutely nothing that can be done so why try to convince the sheeple that the world is about to collapse and they are going to die?
What purpose does that serve? It will only result in despair and depression.
And, if too many people get wind of what is imminent then that will likely accelerate the collapse schedule…
I have a hard time trying to imagine how a widespread knowledge about the situation could accelerate collapse. Rememeber Gail considered this could happen many years ago, and nothing of it resulted. Just as we do, the rest depends on BAU for living, so there will not be massive deposits withdrawal. The truth is many people have heard about the issue but prefer do not go deeper so there is nothing to fear upon this. You call them the sheep, but they are not. They are just people. And we are not superior, I am sure there are sociological and psycological reasons explaining why we are here and others are not.
And about your sentence there is aboslutely nothing that can be done, look at my PTB analysis down this page.
Dear Christian and All
In terms of survival, my money is on Walter Haugen, who posts here sometimes. He calls himself a ‘dirty hippie’. I think such labels obscure and confuse. When I read his book, I see an eminently practical man who understands the big picture and is largely self sufficient for water, food, and shelter. He has had a ton of life experiences, and seems pretty content with his lot. If Wall Street disappeared tomorrow, I don’t know if he would notice.
Don Stewart
“The truth is many people have heard about the issue but prefer do not go deeper so there is nothing to fear upon this.”
Yes of course — but they are in denial. And the MSM is keeping them in denial as it should. I think most people truly believe that we will invent our way out of this — because we have invented our way out of this many times in the past…
What do you think would happen if the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, BBC, etc etc… ran lead stories with BIG FAT HEADLINES indicating PEAK OIL MEANS THERE WILL BE NO RECOVERY – BILLIONS OF DEATHS IMMINENT
Then ran supporting stories about how the Fracking Miracle is total bs… that most major oil fields have peaked.
That our food supply is totally dependent on oil….
I suspect the grocery stores would be emptied within hours… and who knows what would happen after that…
As for sheeple of course most people are exactly that… they are as easily manipulated as the dogs in Pavlov’s experiment … they are basically going about their lives grazing and waiting to die… just as a sheep does…
This is an observation — not necessarily a judgment… as the saying goes… ignorance is bliss… and it is possible to un-see once becomes aware of the matrix that is controlling the sheeple.
I missed the comments on what can be done — the only think I think worth doing is going remote and subsistence farming … a very very difficult existence… which I would argue very few people are ready for….
I don’t say MSM must sanction with their “authority” the real situation. This will not happen, while they present some problems: a short article here and there on “Scientists say we need 4 extra planets” and such. And they host Auzanneau’s and Ahmed’s blogs. The point is people get in some place deep in their brains there is something wrong and to some extent what it is. I find this is the only way we have a chance things don’t go “The Road”.
Don of course I see Haugen’s approach as a good one. But what he’ll do about the “zombies”? Many many bullets I guess. And about radiation?
I’ve got a surprise a week ago when I made two comments to an article on oil deflation appeared in Clarin newspaper, the most important of the country. In both I talked of imminent global bankruptcy and the need for some preparation. And nobody confronted, even got a like. This happened through the usual crowd of full of hathred messages pro and anti gov. Posted something like that in a smaller national paper and didn’t got kickings neither. I think in this later it has become quite clear how things are going; some months ago a national congresswoman very akin to the line of the paper wrote some promises of improving masses wellbeing “when we’ll get the national gov”, and somebody just responded “And how are you going to do that, he?” as if it was obvious it couldn’t be done. Wonder what would happen in other countries. Wonder what could be doing Korowicz righ now, who is supposed to be working on some tactic to mitigate collapse if I recall well.
The dangers and drawbacks of Quantitative Easing
http://www.ecrresearch.com/world-economy/dangers-and-drawbacks-quantitative-easing
However, QE cannot simply generate wealth, and the drawbacks and potential risks of even more QE will become greater the more money has been created already. Thereby, QE has several drawbacks worth to consider (both for policy makers and investors):
It will only buy more time. It does not solve the underlying economic problems.
The pressure on politicians to take the necessary structural measures to create higher economic growth is largely alleviated is interest rates are being depressed, even though such measures is where the solution to the economic woes has to come from.
(Speculation of) quantitative easing has an upward effect on commodity prices. As Western countries and Japan have to import a lot of commodities, that inhibits growth.
Quantitative easing forces investors to step into ever-riskier investments. That could cause an enormous blow in a subsequent recession.
Should QE achieve to (temporarily) lift economic growth through higher credit extension, inflation (expectations) will rise immediately as the enormous amount of money created flows into the real economy. Investors in bonds will anticipate this, and will begin selling bonds – they lose more value the higher inflation expectations – so there is a high risks that interest rates rise even more than inflation. The result is that it becomes increasingly expensive for the both the government and the private sector to (re)finance debts, and risks of bankruptcy loom.
If the central bank does try to avert higher inflation and interest rates when the economy starts growing again, it has to drain the money it has pumped into the banks before. The more money was printed, the more money has to be withdrawn. To the extent that high money creation has boosted asset prices, the opposite occurs if liquidity is withdrawn from the system. The more money has been printed, the more downward pressure there will be on asset prices if the central bank reverses this process.
Japanis still struggling with the additional problem of the financial markets easily interpreting quantitative easing as monetarily financing budget deficits. As soon as that happens, interest rates will rise and the Japanese government will be bankrupt.
Time is up!
QE will never be stopped… it will continue until the toxic side effects result in a catastrophic implosion of the global economy.
The stock markets are 100% reliant on QE — the central banks are buying stocks directly… without that the stock market collapses
Paul, I’m TERRIFIED and am having nightmares!
i suggest you visit Chris Martenson’s site — you can (for a price) obtain various soothing versions of the hit song Koombaya… guaranteed to lull you to a deep nightmareless sleep
Paul, I prefer the Waltons…Goodnight:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/ we are in uncharted territory! The magnitude of the central banks monetray frenzy is unprecedented. I really believe we have passed the QE point of no return. So, greasing the wheels of the apple cart will continue until the wheels fall off the cart.
Of course it’s unprecedented, as it is since 2009, nothing new
Japan has been printing money like there is no tomorrow and their economy has contracted 9 percent in the last 6 months. Five more years at the same rate, which may or may not be likely and they will be medieval. This is the model that the world is following. Barring a collapse of capital, the world will continue to print more and more money while the real economies deflate and collapse.
Creedon,
“Japan has been printing money like there is no tomorrow…” Whether you meant the pun or not, you got it exactly right.
I think you are right. QE can’t be stopped. We are now reliant on other countries’ QE, and our own continued buying of new bonds to offset previous bonds.
Pingback: News update | Peak Oil India | Exploring the coming energy crisis and the way forward
Dear All
Please take a look at the Hills Group Q and A, page 2. You will find the answer to their discovery that ability to pay trumps cost of production. Mention of Gail Tverberg.
Don Stewart
Thanks for looking into their model Don! I will give another whirl this weekend after a wake up from my food coma nap.
Interesting!
Stef
I know I truly chilled down M.A. and his people, may be you can try to rebuild somewhat their spirit. He is known in France, he has met once a minister (Batho). Upon his later silences, J.L. is recognizing our view also. France has a lot of nukes, must do something with them. Janco should recognize he is wrong. Matthieu works with him. It’s pretty ugly for them, I can see why, but I can’t find another way
Christian,
are you asking me to protest and ask for our 50+ reactors to be dismantled asap?
No way, forget about it! They aren’t even able to close our oldest plant (Fessenheim) although it was duly promised before presidential election in May 2012… I only hope they have some efficient plan in case of, say, “big trouble”.
Maybe I’ll try to have a more precise idea of MA’s position about nuclear, however. Btw, (and I’m afraid this is a part of the answer) did you know that he’s now member of The Shift Project (Jancovici president), as Public Affairs and Forecasting Manager:
http://theshiftproject.org/this-page/team
PS: I see a Stephane has answered you (contemptuously) in OilMan’s comments; that was not me.
Hi!
No, I don’t say nukes must shut down right now (Gail and the Fed among other would oppose, he). I’m just saying dry cask must be produced and distributed, I suppose by way of a purchase, as usual. Must start emptying the pools right now, for which they are needed. It must not be expensive, especially with QE…
Reactors will shut down after banking collapse I suppose. Perhaps we’ll close one of our’s next february, we are working on that. As I wrote at Chroniques, the usefulness of electricity will drop as electric stuff degrade and is not replaced. There will be not much problem from that point of view.
I know Matthieu is on the Shift board. He said once commenting at Croniques he prefers Shift rather than Décrosisance’s standpoint not because of a deep certainty but rather because he feels Décroissance is kinda too much for him. But I don’t see no reason for them to go décroissance if pushed.
Yeah, I saw that guy, I knew it was not you (it was too short), but I didn’t got what he meant by “on rase demain”. And I understand you’re not from Bordeaux
Salut!
Edit: to not go décroissance if pushed
From my reading on this subject I understand that you can only dry cask spent fuel rods after 5 years minimum of cooling… so this is not an answer
Obviously if it was then all spent fuel rods would be stored this way. The PTB would obviously be aware of all of this…
PTB give a f…k about what can’t be a source of monetary profit. It doesn’t means it can’t be done. There is a lot of rods already cooled that can be parked away righ now
The PTB can print unlimited amounts of USD — in fact they have printing many trillions since 2008…
Dry casking fuel rods would not require that much money in the scheme of things… and as we can see — they can print as much as they want..
Common sense would seem to suggest that money is not an obstacle here — that there must be some other reason why they are not bothering to dry cask even the rods that are beyond the 5 yr minimum threshold…
Could it be that the PTB have concluded there is nothing they can do about the rods that are less than 5 yrs in storage… and that they know that if even one of these ponds blows — that is an extinction event…
Again – these men are not stupid — if they are not doing anything about the fuel ponds then assume that a) they realize there is nothing that can be done or b) they are doing something but we are not being told what that is.
“Et demain on rase gratis”, litterally “tomorrow we shave for free”, kinda ironic “free lunch” because it seems that in Bordeaux they have decided to switch off all the lights during the nights, I guess in order to save some money and look green (Bordeaux’ mayor Alain Juppé is in very good position in opinion polls about next presidential election, in 2017…).
Re nukes I have no competence but I understand there’s no simple solution to get rid of radiation threats, so I prefer not to discuss it further on. Would be nice to limit the dangers post-collapse, though, whatever remains on Earth after the crash.
Stef
Yeah, I got the barber metaphor later. So it was true about Bordeaux’s lights?! All the lights of the streets?! I suppose it would be just some of them. So you see nukes are not needed… Juppé wasn’t a big fish in French politics, prime minister or such? Then we got that guy also. Décroissance is on its way, his image is doing well
I had a nightmare last night also, it was a nuclear war. Sure there is no simple solution about nukes. Here we made some research and as long as I can see we got some deep and updated info. The truth seems to be that there is no study on the eventuality of an abandonment of the facilities to their own sake, wich will happen some day we can be sure of that. The more similar hypothesis we found was related to a terrorist attack consisting in drying the fuel ponds, dryness wich is to expect if the pools are not under human operation. The risks thus created is proportional to the amount of fuel parked there and its disposition, so removing all the fuel that can be removed seems to be the easiest thing to do. If the japs had did so at Fukushima an important part of the problem would have been solved in advance. This is not a complete solution, I understand this just doesn’t exists. But according to Pareto principle I think it’s the best that can be done.
No need you are in the details of all this. No need to do anything if you doesn’t want to. But it’s your nukes, they are just a few miles frome where you live. I see little meaning in carbon capture if those ponds explode because they are dry. Imagine many Tchernobyls whose leaks are never blocked. Perhaps Janco can understand all this s..t, he is an engineer. Perhaps french nuclear authorities have more info or something. Too much perhaps…
Perhaps I’ll choose something else for my next nightmare
The Japanese are moving the fuel rods from one damaged tank — to another tank that is not damaged.
The rods still must remain cooled by a high tech system for years — even after they are relocated.
I see chez Matthieu a couple of people are reacting as what I think is a better way. I prefer don’t to go there again myself. Or we can send everybody to Guy Mc Pherson’s site and that’s all. Why are we here and not at NTE?
I lived two years in Paris when I was 6-7. I remember Champs-Elysées’s lights in New Year. There were so many bulbs (incandescents). So many many many many… Now our situation is so nasty, c’est si affreux que les mots nous manquent
Now they’ve put LEDs instead; 800,000:
http://www.20minutes.fr/paris/1484615-20141120-noel-champs-elysees-omar-sy-donne-coup-envoi-illuminations-jeudi-soir
Business must go on.
I think all these lights are more for the adults than for the children: they need to believe that life could be a fairy tale, at least for a while; children don’t really care, as long as they get their gifts; my rough/brutish view, I’m not a kids’ specialist.
Sure they shine also these 800.000. Better than ghost cities
Stef
Matthieu est un bon garçon, I first heard about PO chez lui. He is honest, brave and intelligent. However, he is not doing much good right now. I will not threat him and I don’t want to hurt nobody, but he knows I can destroy his blog if I want. I could also to some extent destroy Kirchner’s power here just sending an email to some selected couple of hundreds people. But this is not the way I think. Surely not right now.
Christian,
Please don’t. OilMan is a very good blog and I think MA gets the picture, as suggests the title of his last article “Oil: the calm before the storm”; I think he deliberately does not connect the dots because, as Paul says, he must put some lipstick on the pig. The immense majority is not mind-geared to accept the “No solution” statement. Even most of us whose rational brain admits the real situation are having nightmares and feel desperate sometimes, we’re simply not “designed” for that. Moreover, it’s also very difficult to think as a whole species, let alone a whole ecosystem ; we’ve been knowing for centuries that the Earth is round and thus our world is finite, but we’ve been keeping on thinking as before, as if there would always be somewhere else to go, something else to do to fix the situation. No “else” this time, we’re trapped. End of more, end of else.
Ever notice how most Koombaya-types don’t stay with this blog for long?
We give them a look behind the curtain — they see the beast’s razor sharp teeth — they don’t like it… and no doubt they head off to platforms that tell them ‘the future is prosperous and wonderful — all you need to do is grow some organic turnips and bang on a drum’
Paul,
Many people don’t even imagine that BAU could stop one day ; for those, I guess our predicament looks like the expression of the failure of our personal own lives.
As well as they cannot live taking into account that Life in general has no (identifiable) purpose and is just a Red Queen race (although Darwin has shown it 150 years ago!), they cannot grasp there won’t be anything to “save us”, or at least save them, individually (no matter about third world and other species, nor long-term future).
For those who at least partially get the situation, I don’t think we can blame them for trying to “do something”, especially if there’s -even tiny- chance it could be useful, depending on how the collapse will look like. Among such actions, permaculture and attempts to revive depleted soils appear to me as the only wise thing to do (knowing that the only way to fight against landgrabbing and destruction of rainforests is to collapse the global economy).
I go on and off the blog even though I’m not a Kumbaya type. I simply don’t want to think about it, since I do not see any action I can take.
interguru,
I’m guessing you speak for many of us.
Stefeun,
“Many people don’t even imagine that BAU could stop one day ; for those, I guess our predicament looks like the expression of the failure of our personal own lives.”
Agreed. Given that no one’s future is ever certain, as you or Paul or I or anyone could get hit by a bus tomorrow (although unlikely in my case), how do we prepare for a future that may never come to fruition? You make choices, live by your own code (if you have one) and do what you think is right, whether its stockpiling food, restoring the soil, not having kids, having lots of kids…
OTOH, we can blame those who pretend to detain THE solution,
and those who fake working to improve the situation, and take glory, whilst they only acknowledge the inevitable (ie recent US-China agreement about CO2 emissions, see Gail’s itw at Newsmax, link top-right) ; “Haciendo de la necesidad virtud” as A.Turiel said.
MA gets the picture but can’t make a business with it, not even a rather symbolic business as the one he is running now. Blame on him, he got me to this miss but is unwilling to help me get a slightest hope for mankind, or even for life itself
Chris Martenson just posted Chapter 22 of his crash course entitled: “Energy & The Economy – Why society will be forced to become less complex”
http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/89081/energy-economy-crash-course-chapter-22
Here’s Martenson’s latest burst of utter nonsense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS5nSTkUX1A
“Standards of living will decline — but one’s quality of life can go up — so this is not a story with certain and tragic ending — it is a story of change — for those who can see the changes coming and position themselves for it I am convinced that a fulfilling and enjoyable and prosperous life awaits”
And for a small annual fee you can sign up to peak around the pay wall where I will give you more info and sell you more stuff that gets you a spot in heaven!
Do people actually believe this crap trap? Do they actually pay for this rubbish? it would appear so….
What about the billions that will starve to death because we wont be able to grow much food post oil?
And about my little self sufficient farm when the hordes arrive to rip out my crops and eat me and my family?
Nothing about how diseases will tear through the world (cholera, typhus, ebola, malaria) without any means to stop them or treat the infected….
And what about when I have to take a pair of plyers to pull out the tooth that would have been fixed by a dentist?
And what about all the spent fuel ponds that need cooling?
Martenson is one of the leaders of the doomsday whore brigade… telling us that the collapse is coming but making money off of selling bullshit hopium.
Shame on him.
Anyone exploiting collapse for material gain leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth. That includes Greer. As much as I like his blogs, it’s hard for me to swallow the latest fiction novel or the idea of him sipping bordeaux and flying around to attend conferences, using the internet and otherwise living an industrial lifestyle with a large ecofootprint when he espouses voluntary simplicity. There’s an incongruity there. I think these guys offer an emotional palliative and hope in a hopeless situation, all the while making money to finance their middle class lifestyles. At least Orlov was honest when he callied the sector collapse porn and stating there isn’t much you can do to prepare. I don’t see anything wrong with developing community, growing gardens, making compost bins and the like, but I don’t have any hope or delusions that it will save you. There are just too many variables. At the end of the day, the subject of collapse is just another form of entertainment for most people. Let the doomsday watch continue!
Well said.
“Let the doomsday watch continue!”
Yes, because the end of BAU will not be televised…
Jarle B.
Perhaps the first week or so will be on TV. You’ll see how the end of BAU starts just not the final act.
I don’t see Greer, Heinberg, and others as exploiting collapse for material gain. These are bright, hardworking individuals. If they were to put their talents to use in slightly different fields, they would likely make more money than trying to sell books to those concerned about collapse. I know that Greer doesn’t drive and doesn’t own a car. He and his wife don’t have children. I don’t know about Heinberg. His CV lists him as married, and doesn’t mention children.
It seems that anyone who is selling anything related to this topic is putting lipstick on the pig… books with horrific endings won’t sell… at least on this issue.
That is why this blog has by far the best discussions on this topic… Gail does not sugar coat anything.
I plan to force Greer, Orlov and Kunstler into 3 way gladiator fights for our entertainment come collapse.
Yeah, I for one don’t share his level of optimism with what’s headed our way when the fossil fuel party comes to a grinding halt.
I only posted the link because his explanation with the decline of cheap oil and how it will impact the planet as a whole.
Agree – the first part is actually worth watching …. which indicate that Martenson knows what is coming … yet he peddles his snake oil at the end… which is what makes this so shameful. He is preying upon the desperate….
Paul,
My only quibble about this post is that dental outcomes should actually improve post collapse, given the complete lack of availability of sugar, high fructose corn syrup and processed foods. You might accidentally rip your tooth out trying to eat your shoe leather or break it on your belt buckle, but otherwise good teeth is one of the few fringe benefits of collapse!
I’m looking forward to losing a few pounds and getting down to my high school graduation weight.
The question is, “How much less complex?”
Perhaps the end of banking doesn’t mean the end of the world. Even if in this small finite world which is OFW each one of us doesn’t limit himself to his own specialty, It’s interesting to see how much each one’s profession frames his/her point of view.
As a self assumed capitalist pig, Paul only can see complete disaster
As a risk analyst, Gail hopes for the hand of God
As a nuclear phycisist, Ed recognizes the possibility of a tremendous but improbable life threatening event and the likeliness of many localized hazards.
Gardeners and ag. people are living a fundamental challenge.
What are the other’s professions? I don’t know wich is mine, the truth is it was never clear. Just before tumbling here I was running a bio shop and involved in politics. Before that I worked in translation and even before in anthropology; And before I was a journalist and at the beginning in philosophy. I feel I still do all these things.
The end of banking doesn’t really means the end of petrodollar. We expect some things to continue on cashflow and the dollar is an obvious candidate to begin with. Green bnaknotes will continue existing and are mostly found in the US, so I suppose US military could continue to enforce somewhat their use around the world. Or it can just happen, remember the coins still being used after issuing kingdoms and empires had gone, perhaps during long periods. Other currencies can also still be used after banks go away. Perhaps. And metals. This could be expected for a while. Or not if supply chains get badly damaged and/or nukes blow up and/or nobody takes control.
Our financial system is what allows us to do the complex things we do today. In particular, we need (lots of) debt to keep prices high enough to make extraction of oil profitable. The financial system also allows the international trade system we have today. It allows someone from Greece or Haiti to buy goods internationally, whether or not the country as a whole is doing very well. It allows the extraction of raw materials around the world, needed for complex goods like computers.
I am sorry I have not been able to comment very much recently. We are celebrating our Thanksgiving holiday in the United States on Thursday, Nov. 27. This is a time for family get togethers. In fact, some schools and universities have the whole week off. I have been preparing for guests and for festivities for the rest of the week.
Gail, I am not talking of today but of tomorrow, a world where computers will not be produced anymore, OC will get no more loans and everything will be less complex. I hope you will be able to jump over this cliff some day, while I understand that given your background it’s much more difficult for you than for me. In some sense, your understanding of “how the world works” doesn’t fits your energy forecast and that’s the problem.
“Our financial system is what allows us to do the complex things we do today”. Credit = faith, we know that. Financial credit = faith in businesses growth
I am not really familiar with international trade. But as I’ve posted here, I know some commerce is not based on financing, or it’s use of financial credit is accessory: businesses don’t always get a loan to make a purchase abroad, surely not a domestic one. The people I spoke tell me they use an insurance on the payment to secure delivery of the goods; the payment consists in a bank transfer, and so there is no really interest at work but a fee upon the insurance. In some cases, Arg’s “defaulting” raised some suspicions in the supply chain and some banks stopped insuring these moves, so suppliers are now asking to get the transfer before sending the goods. That’s all, they must pay in advance; of course businesses heavily based on loans would have many problems in such a circumstance.
To better understand how does it works, its possibilities and limits, I’d need to know which was the governments intervention during GFC. I didn’t found much on the Internet, though.
Gail, have a nice week.
“businesses don’t always get a loan to make a purchase abroad”
When an importer places an order with an overseas supplier the purchasers bank extends credit and coordinates with the vendor and his bank — see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_credit
We have had problems with availability of letters of credit drying up in the past, especially for the less credit-worthy.
For Don and others interested in soils, permaculture a.s.o.,
Bio4climate conference “Restoring Ecosystems to Reverse Global Warming”
has started yesterday (sorry for the delay), program available here:
http://bio4climate.org/conference-2014/program/?cb=008619765634648502
Live streaming (next session starting… right now) available here:
http://bio4climate.org/conference-2014/live-streaming/
BTW, 2015 is supposed to be the International Year of Soils:
http://www.fao.org/soils-2015/en/
OTOH, landgrabbing is doing very well at the moment, and IMHO will keep on increasing its pressure until the SHTF.
And EIA’s no investment fits in also. Everything fits in
Gail, you believe in God and you know we can be a medium for Him
Also. These are the two next posts? Or both subjects in the same? Gail, just suggesting
ETP is you and Bardi, that’s somewhat the timing. Nukes are the harder bombs. Without dry casks and people supporting somewhat the facilites for a while, there will not even be hunter gatherers in 50 years, that’s the softer bet. After that, we are still in:
“Stalingrad was still being supplied over the Volga, so it depends on the system trying to accommodate starving people. So I think its closer to one year than one month”
And we intend to maintain the facilites and surroundings for say 15 years. Some of them, as many as possible. I would be surprised if US Forces and Russia are unable of handling the situation to some extent. Ed, about the casks, any clue about price, size, delivery timing?
And then kinda massive game of hunger, pain and strangeness
What a curious hazard that Aristotle’s Constitution of the Athenians was not published until 1879, when indirect democracy was firmly established upon the base of the Estates of the realm and not of the truly individualistic athenian method (excepting just the fact that only very rich people could get the top ranks of the armed forces). These posts were elective, though, and absolutely all the rest were distributed by lot (they builded a machine with balls on purpose). Quite different of having a political class.
I think the roman system was different and based on the tribes. Don’t know what the romans would have done in a case like ours, but classical athenians would have give it to a random device. They did gone through situations like this several times, and with some massivity one or two of them. I’d subscribe for sure, don’t know how much difference it would make
Gail, you need to do a study of the ETP model. Many of us out here are very interested. It may be that it does nothing but support what you have been saying all these years, however, they seem to back it up with a lot of math.
The ETF models seems to have some ideas in the right direction. There is so much going on in the real world with respect to debt and with respect to exhaustion of other resources that they are not modeling that the model cannot possibly be 100% right. There is a lot of documentation that I could in theory buy and read, but I doubt I would come to a much different conclusion than I have already.
Gail, other resources entropy is perhpas not a missing point in ETP since oil is anyway the main driver. Debt is another matter, though, but I still wonder if their model doesn’t fits cashflow reality, just as your’s.
Gail, I insist you could write something on nuclear. I’d do it myself but just a few would look at it. Isn’t it a finite world issue related to peak oil impacting the economy? I wouldn’t bother to mention EROI and such, the point is just taking care of the ponds. Of course facilites complete decomissioning is out of reach. I think at this moment in history producing dry casks is more useful than building ghost cities, or wathever, even tables and spoons. How many casks are needed? How much they cost? GDP will not suffer with them.
You have a very large number of readers, among wich there are surely some important people, and NSA and such (I have evidence that even my small pesudoblog is being monitored by somebody, just dont know who nor how many they are).
Guys, wich ones of you support this proposal?
Thanks for your suggestion. These are some earlier nuclear posts I wrote:
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/14/a-few-insights-regarding-todays-nuclear-situation/
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/03/24/is-loss-of-electricity-a-risk-for-spent-nuclear-fuel/
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/03/14/what-would-happen-if-we-discontinued-nuclear-electricity/
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2010/12/06/why-oil-shortages-may-make-nuclear-a-less-viable-option/
Thanks Gail, I didn’t noticed them, they were issued well before I tumbled down here. Will take a look
Matthew Krajcik
From page 2 of the Q and A. Explanation by shortonoil
The utility with which the end user consumes oil will not affect the rate of field closure. It could only do so if it affected the rate at which oil is extracted; that is, if the economy reduced its consumption of petroleum to less than what it could afford.
The amount of energy in a unit of oil is determined by its molecular structure. It is a fixed quantity. As petroleum is extracted the amount of energy to produce it, and its products increases. That is show in The Energy Factor Part II at our site:
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_020.htm
Consequently, the energy per unit available to the end consumer declines. As the energy to the end consumer declines, the maximum price the consumer can pay for it declines:
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm
The two points: the price of petroleum, and what the economy can afford to pay for it met in 2012 at $104/b according to our graph.
Back to me. So the assumption is that the economy is consuming all of the oil it can afford to consume. But as things like the water cut increase, the cost inevitably rises, which leaves the consumer with less money. And the economic structure is assumed to be very brittle. Therefore, the consumer cannot substitute away from oil and if less oil is used, the GDP (and personal income) decline. So the steep drop in production is a result of the drop in personal income, forcing the high cost fields out of production. I guess one would have to examine the details of the equations to see exactly why they think that the legacy fields will decline more slowly and then rather abruptly cease operation 15 or 20 years from now.
In short, I think they have constructed a very brittle model with stringent assumptions. For example, I think their model implies that the fuel efficiency standards for automobiles have no effect at all (or only a negligible effect). Likewise, electric vehicles will have no effect. I’m not quarreling, just trying to understand what they have done.
Don Stewart
Dear Don
I like the diembowelment you’re doing. As for your last questions:
“fuel efficiency standards for automobiles have no effect at all (or only a negligible effect)” Remember Jevons “paradox”?
“electric vehicles will have no effect” How much is the present electric/petroleum vehicles ratio?
Hi Don,
Just let you know that I did post my question and Shortonoil graciously responded in the Q&A:
http://peakoil.com/forums/the-etp-model-q-a-t70563-20.html
The affordable price curves were added last December 2013.
Dear alturium
I saw it. well done!
Don Stewart
Matthew Krajcik
Look at the panel of Selected Graphs from Study. Then look at the ERoEI graph. What that looks like to me is the price of oil compared to the GDP of the global economy.
When oil was 60 cents a barrel, the multiplier to get to GDP was very high. When oil was 110 dollars a barrel, the multiplier was much lower. I conclude that it is a simple division of two macro numbers, not an engineering study of oil wells during the time when oil was selling for 60 cents a barrel.
When oil WAS selling for 60 cents, there were still large sectors of the economy which were barely touched by oil. Separately, they show that GDP tracks oil production very closely. So if you assume that oil production ‘enables’ the production of GDP in a very direct way, then I guess you might say that the economic return on a barrel of oil has declined, even as the volume of production and the GDP have both increased enormously.
Now consider the question: Can we unhook oil and GDP? If we cannot, and if we have pushed oil use into every nook and cranny of the economy, then any increase in oil costs (such as from increased water cut) will subtract from GDP. Substitution is not possible. We have built a very brittle system.
Nature does not build brittle systems. There is always slack and multiple ways to get things done. Global capitalism abhors slack and fuzzy methods.
Don Stewart
When the SHTF this song will playing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsWR0CTWazQ
The cosmick jester is having a load of a laugh now a days. Folks think they are getter richer!”
How Funny…what a gag.
Please let me introduce myself
Dear Hills Group Model People
I am having trouble following this logic. I see his arrows in the diagram, see the 4.9 BTUs going back up into the box, but can’t make the logical connection in the sentence:
As the energy to extract a unit of petroleum increases by 1 BTU the energy delivered to the economy declines by almost 5
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_019.htm
Can anyone give me a clue?
Thanks…Don Stewart
So, at the start, let’s say you have 10 BTU, you put it in, you get 49 BTU out, right? 1 in equals 4.9 out.
Now if cost increases to 2 in, 4.9 out, then you put 10 in, you only get ~25 out.
Dear Matthew Krajcik
Thanks. It helps explain their concern about the water cut. Globally, they say the water cut has doubled.
This is a very interesting model….Don Stewart
Those numbers seem off on that diagram and discussion.
“After petroleum is extracted about 4 out of every 10 BTU of its total energy content is used in the processing, and distribution of its finished products. The production of petroleum, and its products is a very energy intensive industry. ”
So, you put in 2 BTU, you get 10 BTU out, but then 4 BTU are lost in refining and transport of the fuel. This means 1 in, 3 out to the consumer. That is an EROEI of 3:1. If that were true, every single energy source would be better than oil, and only volume throughput results in any real gains.
Dear Matthew
Warning: I am easily confused.
The way they define EROEI is not, as I understand it, the conventional way. They seem to be taking a sort of top down approach. In 1860 oil was used by very few sectors of the economy. Drake could go out with some shovels and dig a hole and use a windlass to raise oil to the surface and distribute the product with horse and buggy and the EROEI was very high. But now oil is used in a myriad of ways in almost all the productive sectors of the economy. For example, it is used by the parent who drives their magical child to nursery school, which eventually produces a petroleum engineer. As I look at their EROEI graphs what I see is not a graph of the literal cost of drilling a well, but a graph of the cost of the society which enables the drilling of the well. So you have to factor in the cost of Wall Street and Paris fashion houses and expensive Manhattan restaurants.
(I could totally misunderstand what they have done with EROEI)
If you look at the decline curve, it looks to me like it is reflecting the adoption by all sectors of the economy of oil as an enabler. Very little is left that does not involve oil. If you assume that it is all connected and all necessary, then the EROEI will decline as the less productive sectors nevertheless adopt oil as an input.
Don Stewart
Dear Matthew
Expanding a little on the water cut and their statements that it is cumulative production rather than what is left in the ground that is most important. When a barrel of oil is lifted to the surface, then a barrel of water must replace it (in my amateur geologist mind). So every barrel of oil we lift dooms us to lift a fraction of a barrel of water as long as we continue to pump. I’d have to think about it, but it must be some non-linear function. The problem gets worse and worse, because the fraction keeps getting bigger.
Don Stewart
Figure #2 is very concerning; either they are way off, or our entire understanding of EROEI is wrong:
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_020.htm
It seems they are saying we now only get 2 units of work out of a gallon of gasoline, just enough to get one more gallon, and use one gallon. Unless ETP is completely different from EROEI somehow?
Matthew
see my note
Several days ago I looked at their EROEI graph and read the explanation. I wrote something about it here. Let me go back and look at it again.
Don Stewart
PS But think about it. If you have built a society which utilizes oil everywhere that it makes any economic sense to enlist those slaves, then you will be skating on very thin ice. You have little margin. When the water cut gets too severe, the ice cracks and you fall in.
EROEI is not the right metric–it only looks at a little piece of the problem, and it doesn’t consider time. Whether or not the ETP measure is right is a different question.
Paul, this posts for you.
How to make a nuclear explosion. Bring a critical mass of “stuff” together fast enough and hold it together long enough. Standard reactor fail on the long enough requirement. They can not go bang they can only go pop. That is slow small release of energy resulting in the reactor and fuel spread around a 1000 feet of the starting point.
Why is this?
When a neutron hit a nucleus fissionable stuff the nucleus can emit zero, one, or two neutrons. This can happen fast 1 billionth of a second or slow ten minutes. There are of course all the time values in between. In standard reactor the material is critical on the ten minute time scale. In a good design if the reactor starts going more it heats up more and expands which in turn slow down the reaction. It is self regulating on a five minute time scale. But if that fails it gets hotter and hotter on a ten minute scale. It can not go through enough doubling before the rector melts and spews itself around the site in small pieces.
On the other hand there is a reactor type called a fast reactor. Yes, it is critical on the 0.1 second time scale. It also is self regulating. It that fails well, you can get a fair number of doubling before it spews across the country side. Not like a real bomb but 5km of dirty bomb.
As to how many doubling you need for the real thing, well, I do not wish to move to Gitmo.
The problem is if the spent fuel gets too close, they will produce a fission reaction and explode with a force much larger than any fission bomb given the total amount of fuel on the site. All the fuel in all the reactors and all the storage pools at this site (1760 tons of Uranium per slide #4) would be consumed in such a mega-explosion. In comparison, Fat Man and Little Boy weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained less than a hundred pounds each of fissile material – See more at: http://www.dcbureau.org/20110314781/natural-resources-news-service/fission-criticality-in-cooling-ponds-threaten-explosion-at-fukushima.html
If this is not a problem then why bother maintaining spent fuel rod ponds at all? Just toss the used rods into the ground like cigarette buts…
The bombs used highly enriched U, the reactor intentional avoid bomb grade U it is slightly enriched. With zero enrichment there are naturally occurring U deposits that smolder for millions of years. No bang.
So you are saying these articles are lies? Can you support what you are saying with some evidence?
Containing radiation equivalent to 14,000 times the amount released in the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima 68 years ago, more than 1,300 used fuel rod assemblies packed tightly together need to be removed from a building that is vulnerable to collapse, should another large earthquake hit the area. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-japan-fukushima-insight-idUSBRE97D00M20130814
The problem is if the spent fuel gets too close, they will produce a fission reaction and explode with a force much larger than any fission bomb given the total amount of fuel on the site. All the fuel in all the reactors and all the storage pools at this site (1760 tons of Uranium per slide #4) would be consumed in such a mega-explosion. In comparison, Fat Man and Little Boy weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained less than a hundred pounds each of fissile material – See more at: http://www.dcbureau.org/20110314781/natural-resources-news-service/fission-criticality-in-cooling-ponds-threaten-explosion-at-fukushima.html
There are those who say that Gundersen is a liar. http://atomicinsights.com/arnie-gundersen-caught-on-video-lying-about-risk-of-radiation-released-during-fukushima-event/
I didn’t notice Gunderson being referenced in either of the articles I posted.
Can you provide evidence that contradicts what the articles state — namely that if spent fuel rods are for any reason left without cooling — that they will not explode with the impact of many thousands of nuclear bombs? Can you find evidence that indicates that uncooled fuel rods are not really much of a danger at all?
Look again! The journalists definitely use Gundersen as their “nuclear expert” I can not offer the “proof” that you request. I claim no experience or expertise in nuclear power technology. Nor do I consider you an expert. My long term career interest was in LNT and other low radiation models as well as radiation protection in medical practice. I do have a current interest in what I consider ignorant radiation hysteria. Here is more discussion of Gundersen. Read the replies. http://atomicinsights.com/arnie-gundersen-still-spreading-unwarranted-fear-far-and-wide/
The one article references:
David A. Lochbaum is the Director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). A nuclear engineer by training, he worked in nuclear power plants for nearly two decades. Lochbaum has written numerous articles and reports on various aspects of nuclear safety and published two books.
David Lochbaum has more than seventeen years of experience in commercial nuclear power plant start-up testing, operations, licensing, software development, training, and design engineering.
Prior to joining UCS in October 1996, Mr. Lochbaum served as a Senior Engineer for Enercon Services, Inc., System Engineer for General Technical Services, Reactor Engineer/Shift Technical Advisor for the Tennessee Valley Authority, BWR Instructor for General Electric, and Junior Engineer for Georgia Power.[1]
In the early 1990s, he and a colleague identified a safety problem in a plant where they were working, but were ignored when they raised the issue with the plant manager, the utility and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). After bringing their concerns to Congress, the problem was corrected not just at the original nuclear plant but at plants across the country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lochbaum
The Reuters article references:
No one knows how bad it can get, but independent consultants Mycle Schneider and Antony Froggatt said recently in their World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013: “Full release from the Unit-4 spent fuel pool, without any containment or control, could cause by far the most serious radiological disaster to date.”
I await the expert opinion indicating that it would not be a significant problem if we failed to keep spent fuel rod ponds cooled.
The ball is in your court…
Look again – there were two articles. Paul I am curious. What experience and academic qualifications do you have in nuclear technology and radiation biology, other than one sided trolling of the internet for antinuclear activists?
Pingback: Piekolie nieuwsupdate: week 47 | Stichting Peakoil Nederland
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-The-US-re-creating-the-by-Joseph-Clifford-Foreign-Policy-Failure-Iraq_Georgia-Russia-Conflict_Iraq-Army-Troops_Iraq-Civil-War-141121-612.html
A famous movie line of “you want the truth; you cannot handle the truth” applies here. If you have been drinking enormous quantities of government Kool-Aid over the years you will not comprehend the following, so read no farther. If you still have an open mind consider this. The plan of the US was simply to destroy all of Iraq as we know it and to reduce it to a zone of absolute anarchy, and that is exactly what has happened. Iraq is no longer a nation, but it is an area of tribal and sectarian anarchy, that resulted when the US smashed and bombed Iraq back into the Stone Age. All of its infrastructure was destroyed including water and sewage systems, bridges roads, and electrical systems. Just imagine what NYC might be like with 10 years of having no water, sewage, electricity, and no one to maintain order. NYC would be exactly like Iraq is now. Extremists would get weapons and begin to fight for turf control; this is an inevitable result of destroying a country, and the architects of US policy are not so stupid they did not realize and plan for all of this. The Iraqi army was immediately disbanded by the US, which insured there was no institution capable of maintaining a semblance of order.
Not convinced the architects of foreign policy have evil intentions? Consider another example, Libya. Once again we smashed a country with 7 months of nonstop bombing using the pretext of getting rid of another dictator. This time it was that other Hitler, Muammar Gaddafi, who formerly was our on-and-off good friend. The architects of war and destruction, once again led by corporate media, easily convinced you that it was necessary to bomb Benghazi to save its people. Huh??? Yes you bought into that argument, and off went the US on its massive bombing of Libya. Gaddafi was killed and Libya is no longer a functioning state. Media has long since moved onto to greener pastures, but those who follow the aftermath of the US destruction of Libya know that, just like Iraq, it is a failed state. It is no longer a country and mapmakers in the near future will wipe the boundaries of Libya off their maps. It no longer exists for the very same reason the boundaries of Iraq have disappeared. Anarchists, extremists, tribal chieftains, have taken over what used to be Libya, and it is a replica of Iraq. It is a block of land with no clear boundaries in a state of absolute anarchy. Death and violence have prevailed because the county was so devastated and left with no functioning government, it became the perfect breeding ground for the rise of anarchy and extremists. What happened in Iraq is exactly what happened in Libya. Was Libya an accident of stupidity, or part of an evil plan?
Could the architects of US foreign policy be so stupid they did not know what would happen when you smash a nation with massive military power? When they saw what happened in Iraq, why would they repeat the procedure in Libya? The folks who plan US foreign policy are not stupid; to the contrary, they are slick, intelligent, and possibly very evil.
I don’t know what the endgame strategy is but I’m sure there would be a plan. Just going quietly into that good night doesn’t gel with the type.
I don’t think they do this because they are evil or stupid… there is a plan … there is an end game… I am just not sure of what it is
I think we can safely conclude that “the plan” involves rather fewer bipeds!
You can get some clues by subscribing to ICH ,
It often has articles on the underground stories behind the US power elite.
And climate as well. Here’s Dmitry Orlov;
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40273.htm
We either continue to burn carbon and maintain BAU for as long as possible — because there are no feasible alternatives to carbon based energy — or we slow or stop burning carbon … and we die.
It really is as simple as that.
Paul, I think they are getting dumber and that is a bad note for all of us.
Why did Russia and China allow the US/NATO/UN to destroy Libya? No security counsel veto.
Yeah, anarchy, that was definitely “the Plan.” Nice thinking, slick.
Not referring to you, edpell. Was referring to Brunswickian’s foolish fuzzy thinking.
Dear Gail and All
From Ugo Bardi:
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com
A recent (2014) study on this subject has been performed by the Wuppertal Institute. The conclusion is that the problem of mineral availability for renewable energy technologies is not critical if we choose the right technologies and we are careful to recycle the materials used as much as possible.
Don Stewart
Burn the remaining forests down to recycle… that should work!
The big question: what are the chances we choose the right technologies and are careful?
Sounds like a non starter to me.
Thanks Don for bringing some optimism here, it was a good attempt.
Bless you!
Or we can just stick our heads in the sand and ignore the obvious…
I forgot to mention … I sense Koombaya in the background of that post…
Gail replies “I know you feel strongly about this (deflation), but we do have examples of deflationary collapses in the past.”
Gail, since you’re extremely analytical, let me present a logic tree that supports my assertion that deflation will not occur, or if/when it does, it will be the least of our worries. First, there are two conditions where deflation can occur:
– voluntarily
– involuntarily
Since the system was not allowed to correct back in 2007 with Lehman, I’m willing to entertain propositions that deflation will be allowed to occur now, when the entire edifice of leverage has been jacked up orders of magnitude greater. To everyone: go ahead, convince me. Remember though, in a deflationary environment, lenders are placed in a superior position as the value of debt increases in real terms, or to put it another way, the sovereign obligations of the US/EU will grant greater power vis-a-vis to the Chinese. Good luck!
OK, so if we’re clear on that point, that means deflation will occur only under conditions where the system is collapsing faster the PTB can control the descent. In other words, involuntarily. Involuntary itself has two components involving (a) state power, and (b) the will to exert those powers to effect certain outcomes. To keep this simple, we can summarize state power as being comprised of 5 main spheres:
1. monetary – issue/print money
2. fiscal – incur debt/direct spending
3. legal – command the people to do/not do eg ‘shelter in place’
4. police – foreign (military) & domestic – enforce 1, 2 & 3
5. media – propaganda
As stated above, for deflation to occur involuntarily, that means that either 1-5 were either (a) not efficacious **or** (b) 1-5 where not exercised to their fullest extent. As above, I’m willing to entertain propositions where states will not utilize 1-5 to their fullest extent in the face of existential security threats. To everyone: go ahead, convince me. However, do recall that the historical record is replete with states doing everything in their power – down to the last minute – to retain continuity of government, even if it means untold millions of civilian/military deaths.
Remember also that inflationary policies, especially performed without offsetting debt, screws lenders like China and savers, along with other future obligations & promises (SS, medical), like aging white Boomers.
So now we get to the conclusion: the 5 primary state powers – exercised to their FULLEST possible extent – were not effective in stymieing or reversing an uncontrollable, involuntary deflationary collapse. If this is true, is peak oil, AGW and/or a destroyed global monetary system any of our concern?
And the answer, of course, is no. So there you have it – the PTB, along with a willing population, will so utterly debase themselves in an effort to avoid a deflationary collapse, that all measures, including suspension of constitutional rights & responsibilities, will be on the table. Until I literally see tanks on street corners, I know with complete confidence that the #1 US/EU policy objective is not only inflation, but that measures to counteract deflation are still working. As such, I will continue to act accordingly.
“Remember though, in a deflationary environment, lenders are placed in a superior position as the value of debt increases in real terms,”
Deflationary environment typically means mass defaults, so sure, if you are a lender whose borrower manages to keep paying you, you are better off. In that case, better hold federal government debt rather than high-yield corporate debt.
I would not worry too much about pieces of paper. In the end, does it really matter whether you get paid back in worthless confetti or whether the debtor defaults? Peak Everything is the big deal; the imaginary future values of pieces of paper and 1s and 0s in a bunch of computers are responding to the real physical world, not creating and driving it.
In a deflationary environment which will be unlike any we have seen, the lenders may temporarily be in a superior position, but it is unlikely to work for long. There will be no point foreclosing on mortgages and the like because there will no buyers and if properties remain occupied the asset will be viable for longer. So why evict?
In any case, if Bix Weir is correct the banks have fractioned up the mortgages and sold them on, so they don’t actually own the properties anyway. Same with the insurances. The FDIC insures everything, including all the banks [this is all USA data]. The DTCC [Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation]clears financial transactions and holds all documents in storage. However with the advent of superfast trading – something in the order of 300million/day- 99% of trades around the world are not cleared. They are all in the name of Cede & Company, not the banks, he says.
All this schemozzle is just a giant booby trap against righting the economy.
David Graeber in “Debt-The first 5000 years” thinks only a debt jubilee will cut the knot.
The 0.1% won’t be able to save themselves, although they will draw it out as long as possible, which, considering the alternatives, is understandable. They will of course maximise the damage to the planet and leave a horrendous mess for the future to wear.
According to Johnathon Cahn, 2015 is the year of the Debt jubilee.
I checked to see what Jonathan Cahn is saying. http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/holy-shemitah-u-s-history-repeating-itself/
According to the above article:
Cahn summed up his message by saying, “America is progressing toward God’s judgment.” The end of the next cycle is Sept. 13, 2015.
You are right about FDIC and DTCC and others covering all of the debt. There is also the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, covering pensions. And various insurance companies issuing guarantees on municipal debt. None of this debt is backed by very much money, if there is a major problem. (The situation is not unlike the situation in Iceland, where there as an insurance fund guaranteeing the banks that defaulted, but the fund didn’t have more than a very small amount of money.) Somehow the government will need to print money, or figure out some scheme for bailing out these organizations, if it expects to cover this debt. Of course, if there is nothing to buy with this money, the money will have little value.
I don’t think that there is explicit backing for all of the derivatives outstanding, but we saw AIG get bailed out before, because of its problems in the derivative business.
I agree that evictions don’t really work. What politician would agree to such a solution?
Look at this video talk with Bix Weir. It covers the information I wrote about. Seems you too are onto it, which is encouraging to think he is not talking through his hat and that it is important to understand. Weir is also a proponent of the debt jubilee concept, as is also David Graeber in his book “Debt- The first 5000 years” but as a last resort since it’s on the last page.
But the main point that so many continue to miss is that those ephemeral 1s + 0s are backed up by men with guns. Along with the support of the people and the willingness of those in line positions to use them in service of their own ends. Now, in my book, that’s a very real, very powerful physical presence: the psychology of the mob + the infrastructure to make it happen. And mark my words, those guns, and that power, will be exercised to its fullest degree in an attempt to main continuity of government.
As to default, that’s a coarse, stupid way of reneging on future obligations. The preferred, intelligent manner is devaluation. That way, technically, the indenture is still serviced; hence, no foul, no penalty. (Except for note holders like China who will of course know exactly what it means, but will have to go pound sand for all the good complaining will do them.) Pity also about all those older savers counting on retirement after patiently investing their lives’ work in state promises. What did Otter say in Animal House: “You fucked up. You trusted us!”
Look, I’ll say it once more: a deflationary collapse spells the end for the PTB. Therefore, deflation will not occur until every available means of reflation has (a) failed; and (b) been exhausted. We really haven’t even begun to see the end of the 1st act – the curtain closes on this period when the possibilities are just beginning to be discussed.
Act II will open with proposals of massive helicopter drops, not to individuals/organizations for discretionary consumption, but to individuals/organizations to finance **mandated** expenditures. The legal framework is already in place – with ACA, the Supremes ruled that Congress has sole discretion in taxation matters. So, now all the puppets have to do is start loading on the types of things that fall under that purview. Align spending with debt on a 1:1 basis and have that sucker grow according to any rate desired.
I hope everyone is beginning to get this; I know there’s a lot of resistance to accepting that the SOBs not only won, but weren’t really ever in any peril. It will be of no use when they do finally lose, because each of us will have already lost long before.
Seems to me you are only considering governments. What army does an insurance company have to use against an investment bank? What power to devalue does a corporation have?
Sure, USA Federal government can inflate away its debts gradually, and can use military might for whatever purposes.
It may be more biflationary; deflation, default and collapse for individuals and many corporations, maybe even municipalities, inflation for federal, maybe state governments.
“Align spending with debt on a 1:1 basis and have that sucker grow according to any rate desired.”
That growth is once again just in 1s and 0s. Energy consumption will probably not grow. Maybe relative to other nations, America will have some growth, but on an absolute scale it will be a collapse. At some point, the MIC will start to fall apart due to lack of resources; a police state is obscenely expensive to operate, in money, manpower, and materials.
A big issue in the past collapses has been government collapse. This would seem to be a possible outcome.
Of course Bernanke did not literally mean drop cash from helicopters…
The helicopter drops began long ago – the central banks have printed trillions of dollars and used it to buy the stock market, fix the bond market, manipulate the property market etc etc etc..
That is a mega helicopter drop and it continues day after day after day.
In spite of this deflation is in the air … it wafts about like a fart in an aircraft…
The central banks have attempted to clear the air with literally trillions upon trillions of dollars… they are running out of ammo…
Japan is a perfect example — if the US were to match them the Fed would have to print 3 trillion dollars per year!
Yet the QE is not defeating deflation … once the initial joyous hit of heroin wears off the drum beat towards a deflationary death spiral begins to pound again… and the periods of euphoria are getting shorter… and the hits of heroin larger and more frequent…
So what is next — go for the equivalent of 200B USD per month? How about 500B? Or even 1 trillion per month.
Do you think the result will be any different?
Eventually you will get hyperinflation — and then an unstoppable deflationary death spiral and a complete collapse of the Japanese economy…
The same thing will happen to the global economy at some point.
The PTB can furiously punch numbers into their computers… but they will win nothing … they have won nothing…. when we go down… they follow.
You continue to seem to think they are omnipotent. They are not. They are men. Their power is 100% tied to BAU which is tied to cheap to extract resources. No cheap resources – no power…
Print all you like … scream all you like… the golden goose is dying… and when he’s dead no more golden eggs.
I guarantee you — they are desperate — and they are scared — because they will know far more than we know about what we are facing — and what the likely outcomes are. And based on what they are doing — the only game in town is to keep BAU going as long as possible with whatever means possible … because when it stops — we are done. And they are done.
If Japan’s economy death spirals, we won’t need to wait for any other calamity or worry about printing $$$. Japan’s demise alone will drag the rest of the world into its own domino-like collapse.
You can’t quite include Japan in with other stressed economies.
Dick Cheney remarked that “debts don’t matter”. But ONLY IF the government owns the creditor bank. Well Japan owns the post office bank and that’s it’s creditor bank. So it’s safe while that continues.
The US is trying to change it to access 3 Trillion deposited there. It concerns me they might succeed, which would beggar Japan if it did.
Debts don;t matter?
They seemed to matter a whole lot when Lehman collapsed and defaulted on what they owed — this set off a catastrophic seizure of global financial markets freezing up the global economy — and this was ONLY stopped by the central banks stepping in to back stop every financial institution on the planet.
When Japan goes down that is like Lehman on steroids… hard to imagine the central banks being able to back stop the 3rd biggest economy in the world
Debt most definitely does matter — particularly when massive institutions default on them
That was what Dick Cheney said, and I can imagine how much credit his ideas are worth! But it was based on this article by Ellen Brown;
http://ellenbrown.com/2011/04/27/cheney-was-right-about-one-thing-deficits-don%e2%80%99t-matter/
In any case you miss the point. If a government owes its own citizens the debt issue is very different from owing it externally.
Once again you sound very ill informed on all this [like nearly everybody -I’m not singling you out specifically] It would be well worth your time to bone up on it. Start here;
http://moslereconomics.com/2009/12/10/7-deadly-innocent-frauds/
John Doyle,
“You can’t quite include Japan in with other stressed economies. Dick Cheney remarked that “debts don’t matter”. But ONLY IF the government owns the creditor bank. Well Japan owns the post office bank and that’s it’s creditor bank. So it’s safe while that continues.”
All I’m saying is that if the fall of Lehman’s and near collapse of AIG almost brought the world down, just imagine what happens if one of the top 5 world economies goes under. Dominoes.
Cheney is the smartest dumbass, ever.
Gail has convinced me that our system is a networked economy. Like a computer, money serves as the electricity supplying energy where the power load requires it.
Japan has a demographic problem and a few structural problems (like, it’s not a democracy), but I swear it’s an engineering nation (like Germany) and there a few characteristics (generalized of course) that engineer types share: a compulsive need to solve problems, over and beyond what is required by “management”. I don’t think Japan is a free market enterprise, its a command economy from the top-down.
The Japanese people will keep humming along, even it it means 1000% GDP/Debt ratio.
(This is my humble opinion, and mine alone).
In other words, Japan is part of the system. The system has to fail, as a whole, for Japan to “fail”. The system will compensate for Japan, and perhaps a currency war is the result. But I’m not convinced that Japan is the first domino. IMHO 🙂
Okay, I’m way out over my skis on the 1000% debt/gdp ratio…my point is that I believe Japan is fairly resilient. A nation defaulting on its debts (of that size and importance) is really hard to accept. Perhaps it really depends on the debt servicing costs with money inflation.
alturium
Everyone is way over their skis on this question. Japan is in uncharted territory here with the debt to GDP ratio. I don’t know if it will collapse or not, but it seems like something has to give somewhere. Perhaps Japan is the Black Swan? I agree with you that Japan is a resilient society and it has thus far survived the two bookends of Nagasaki/Hiroshima and now Fukushima…and everything in between.
Bill Mitchell here discusses Japan’s position. Several interesting blogs;
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?cat=33
He one economist who really understands modern money!
In wich currency is denominated Japanese debt? If it’s mainly yens, they can go to 1000%, sure. If it is a foreign currency, it will not be so easy
@InAlaska and @Christian,
I posed the question recently on “what are the limits for when things break” and I think Christian asked a similar question. I sort-of came to the conclusion that it is Peak Debt. How high is that number or what is the ratio, I don’t know, but I think that will be the “Beyond this point there be Dragons” sign post. (David Stockman mentioned peak private debt in the U.S. in a recent article). A month ago I would not even thought of Peak Debt.
It will all depend on investor confidence. There will come a moment, an event, a trigger point where something that once seemed so solid will suddenly become shaky. Institutional investors will leave first and suddenly there will be a rush for the doors. It will all be over before most people wake up to start their day. That’s how these things happen. For whatever reason, the air goes out of the balloon. People start to feel fear. It’ll be fast.
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ttmygh/how-could-it-happen
Agreed! Amazing how brittle and fragile the modern economy is…
“Just realize the few men and women (at the world’s central banks) that run the trillions (in dollars) that have been printed already — and that will be printed in the future — remain in control as this massive coordinated effort grows larger and larger.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/11/21/stocks-friday/19331459/
The hamster needs more and more to keep spinning
Hugh Hendry’s Capitulation: A Microcosm Of The Entire Financial Community
Hedge fund manager Hugh Hendry rocked the financial world last year when the long time bear announced he was throwing in the towel and turning mega-bullish on stocks. He decided he would chase assets knowing that they were extremely overpriced in economies that were extremely fragile with the simple understanding that central banks around the world would push markets higher.
This shift has been happening to hedge funds managers, institutional investors and individual investors around the world one by one over the past 5 years. In the video below Hendry provides an honest walk through of how difficult it was for him from 2010 through 2013 to do what he felt was the right fundamental thing for his client’s money. He notes:
“I have to say when I look back in the last three years it feels as if the sun only rose each day to humiliate me after that point.”
The interview is an encapsulation of the psychological transformation that has been taking place with investors during this central bank driven stock market rally. The smartest people in the world know the house of cards will one day crumble (Hendry made over 30% for his clients during the 2008 collapse), but they cannot withstand the psychological pain of watching the market move higher day after day, month after month.
Following his bullish mantra in 2013 Hendry found that he was still layering on too much protection for his clients against down turns and selling into danger when markets began to weaken. This, he has discovered, is a mistake he will not be making in the future.
When the markets turned down in October, he stayed 100% invested and purchased more into the decline. Any decline (or rise) should be met with as much buying power as possible. This mentality has taken hold of market participants around the world, specifically in U.S. stocks.
How do we know today’s markets represent a manic euphoria completely removed from reality? Because Hendry is one of the brightest minds on the planet. Watching him cave to central bank pressure is like watching a captured soldier turn on his country after taking years of psychological abuse at the hands of his captors.
Watch http://www.ftense.com/2014/11/hugh-hendrys-capitulation-microcosm-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ftense%2FsymR+%28The+Future+Tense%29
Thanks for the dirty low down….after today’s China move to cut rates there can be no question of the desperate acts these people will resort to, no matter how futile it will be in the end.
Your article on the “Trillions at risk” and extraction costs of new production petro adds it all up, the fuse is light and just waiting to go off…the question is when?
Sooner than later I think
When the central banks are the only thing driving the stock market… you know the end is near… you can smell it…
How do you “smell” a central bank or a stock market?
Thanks for the link! A person wonders how long this approach can continue.
Typing this on a netbook powered by a deep-cycle battery, charged largely from a solar panel — I recently had to replace the deep-cycle battery, & I might get about 1 KWH/year from the solar charging system, on which I spent maybe $200, plus a lot of work — Tom Murphy, “do the math”
Re-thought this: the solar panel is rated at 15W, so I might get a few $/year worth of grid power out of it — the point is, listen to someone with a lot of non-subsidized experience with “renewable energy”, before hoping it can replace the fossil-fuel-based infrastructure.
Don Stewart (and others),
what is the best thing to do with the ashes from my wood stove? I mostly burn birch and a little spruce.
Dear Jarle B
I have forgotten where you live…acid soil or alkaline soil. That makes a difference. See this article:
http://www.growveg.com/growblogpost.aspx?id=217
You can also use ashes to make lye soap…if you are into survival skills. I hated lye soap when I was a kid.
Don Stewart
I am surprised firstly by how many elements are actually used in computer production and secondly by some of those that are not. (Ref: Figure 1 in Gail’s article.) I take it the author of the diagram is referring to direct and not indirect usage.
A very minor note: the table has its Group 3 elements (Y, La, Ac) one Period too high. They should drop down by one row. In making this adjustment, Actinium (Ac) will probably be removed from the Used list.
I have to scratch my head (aka search the net) to imagine where and how Arsenic (As) and Osmium (Os) find their way into the production chain, amongst others. Likewise how Sodium (Na), Sulphur (S) manage to keep themselves off it. Neon of course has gone out of fashion in recent years – I must fit a little on/off Neon tube to my pc!
Thank you, Gail, for another very informative posting.
I am not a chemist. I will mention the issues to the woman put together the presentation.
I imagine the analysis leaves off indirect usage.