Models Hide the Shortcomings of Wind and Solar

A major reason for the growth in the use of renewable energy is the fact that if a person looks at them narrowly enough–such as by using a model–wind and solar look to be useful. They don’t burn fossil fuels, so it appears that they might be helpful to the environment.

As I analyze the situation, I have reached the conclusion that energy modeling misses important points. I believe that profitability signals are much more important. In this post, I discuss some associated issues.

Overview of this Post

In Sections [1] through [4], I look at some issues that energy modelers in general, including economists, tend to miss when evaluating both fossil fuel energy and renewables, including wind and solar. The major issue in these sections is the connection between high energy prices and the need to increase government debt. To prevent the continued upward spiral of government debt, any replacement for fossil fuels must also be very inexpensive–perhaps as inexpensive as oil was prior to 1970. In fact, the real limit to fossil fuel extraction and to the building of new wind turbines and solar panels may be government debt that becomes unmanageable in an inflationary period.

In Section [5], I try to explain one reason why published Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI) indications give an overly favorable impression of the value of adding a huge amount of renewable energy to the electric grid. The basic issue is that the calculations were not set up for this purpose. These models were set up to evaluate the efficiency of generating a small amount of wind or solar energy, without consideration of broader issues. If these broader issues were included, EROEI indications would be much lower (less favorable).

One of the broader issues omitted is the fact that the electrical output of wind turbines and solar panels does not match up well with the timing needs of society, leading to the need for a great deal of energy storage. Another omitted issue is the huge quantity of energy products and other materials required to make a transition to a mostly electrical economy. It is easy to see that both omitted issues would add a huge amount of energy costs and other costs, if a major transition is made. Furthermore, wind and solar have gotten along so far using hidden subsidies from the fossil fuel energy system, including the subsidy of being allowed to go first on the electricity grid. EROEI calculations cannot evaluate the amount of this hidden subsidy.

In Section [6], I point out the true indicator of the feasibility of renewables. If electricity generation using wind and solar energy are truly helpful to the economy, they will generate a great deal of taxable income. They will not require the subsidy of going first, or any other subsidy. This does not describe today’s wind or solar.

In Section [7] and [8], I explain some of the reasons why EROEI calculations for wind and solar tend to be misleadingly favorable, even apart from broader issues.

Economic Issues that Energy Modelers Tend to Miss

[1] The economy is very short of oil that is inexpensive-to-extract. The economy seems to require a great deal more government debt when energy prices are high. Models for renewable energy production need to consider this issue, even if any substitution for oil is very indirect.

I think of the problem of rising energy prices for an economy as being like a citizen faced with an increase in food costs. The citizen will attempt to balance his budget by adding more debt, at least until his credit cards get maxed out. This is why we should expect to see an increase in government debt when oil prices are high; oil and other fossil fuels are as essential to the economy as food is to humans.

Figure 1. Year by year comparison of US government receipts with US government expenditures, based on data of the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, together with boxes showing when oil prices were in the range of about $20 per barrel or less, after adjusting for inflation. Series shown is from 1929 to 2022.

Figure 1 shows that most US government funding shortfalls occurred when oil prices were above $20 per barrel, in inflation-adjusted prices. For the 15-year period 2008 through 2022, US government expenditures were 26% higher than its receipts.

Figure 2 shows a reference chart of average annual oil prices, adjusted for inflation.

Figure 2. Average annual inflation-adjusted Brent oil prices based on data from BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy.

The reason why oil prices tend to be high now is because the inexpensive-to-extract oil has mostly been extracted. What is left is oil that is expensive to extract. The low prices in the years surrounding 1998 reflected a supply-demand mismatch after the Asian Economic Crisis of 1997. The crisis held down demand at the same time as production was ramping up in Iraq, Venezuela, Canada, and Mexico.

[2] Economists tend to assume that shortages of oil will lead to much higher fossil fuel prices, thereby making renewables inexpensive in comparison. One reason this doesn’t happen is related to the buildup of debt, noted in Figure 1, when oil prices are high.

Section [1] shows that high oil prices seem to be associated with government deficits. A high-priced substitute for oil would almost certainly have a similar problem. This governmental debt tends to build up, and at some point becomes almost unmanageable.

A major problem occurs when there is a round of inflation. Central banks find a need to increase interest rates, partly to keep lenders interested in lending in an inflationary economy and partly to try to slow the inflation rate. In fact, the US is currently being tested by such a debt buildup and increase in interest rates, beginning about January 2022 (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Chart by the Federal Reserve of St. Louis showing US 30-year mortgage rates, interest rates of 10-year Treasuries, and interest rates of 3-month Treasury Bills from 1935 through May 2023.

Higher interest rates tend to have the effect of slowing the economy. In part, the economy slows because the cost of borrowing money rises. As a result, businesses are less likely to expand, and would-be auto owners are likely to put off new purchases because of the higher monthly payments. Commercial real estate can also be adversely affected by rising interest rates if owners of buildings find it impossible to raise rents fast enough to keep up with higher interest rates on mortgages and higher costs of other kinds.

[3] It is uncertain in exactly which ways the economy might contract, in response to higher interest rates. Some ways the economy could contract would bring an early end to both the extraction of fossil fuels and the manufacturing of renewables. This is not reflected in models.

If the economy contracts, one possible result is a recession with lower oil prices. This clearly doesn’t fix the problem of the cost of wind and solar electricity being unacceptably high, especially when the cost of all the batteries and additional transmission lines is included. In some sense, the price needs to be equivalent to a $20 per barrel oil price, or lower, to stop the huge upward debt spiral.

Another possibility, rather than the US economy as a whole contracting, is that the US government will disproportionately contract; perhaps it will send many programs back to the states. In such a scenario, there is likely to be less, rather than more, funding for renewables. I understand that Republicans in Texas are already unhappy with the high level of wind and solar generation being used there.

A third possibility is hyperinflation, as the government tries to add more money to keep the overall system, especially banks and pension plans, from failing. Even with hyperinflation, there is no particular benefit to renewables.

A fourth possibility is disruption of trade relationships between the US and other countries. This could even be related to a new world war. Renewables depend upon worldwide supply lines, just as today’s fossil fuels do. Building and maintaining the electrical grid also requires worldwide supply lines. As these supply lines break, all parts of the system will be difficult to maintain; replacement infrastructure after storms will become problematic. Renewables may not last any longer than fossil fuels.

[4] Economists tend to miss the fact that oil prices, and energy prices in general, need to be both high enough for the producer to make a profit and low enough for consumers to afford finished goods made with the energy products. This two-way tug-of-war tends to keep oil prices lower than most economists would expect, and indirectly caps the total amount of oil that can be extracted.

Figure [2] shows that, on an annual average basis, inflation-adjusted Brent oil prices have only exceeded $120 per barrel during the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. On an annual basis, oil prices have not exceeded that level since then. For a while, forecasts of oil prices as high as $300 per barrel in 2014 US dollars were being shown as an outside possibility (Figure 4).

Figure 4. IEA’s Figure 1.4 from its World Energy Outlook 2015, showing how much oil can be produced at various price levels.

With close to another decade of experience, it has become clear that high oil prices don’t “stick” very well. The economy then slides into recession, or some other adverse event takes place, bringing oil prices back down again. The relatively low maximum to fossil fuel prices tends to lead to a much earlier end to fossil fuel extraction than most analyses of available resource amounts would suggest.

OPEC+ tends to reduce supply because they find prices too low. US drillers of oil from shale formations (tight oil in Figure 4) have been reducing the number of drilling rigs because oil prices are not high enough to justify more investment. Politicians know that voters dislike inflation, so they take actions to hold down fossil fuel prices. All these approaches tend to keep oil prices low, and indirectly put a cap on output.

Why Indications from EROEI Analyses Don’t Work for Electrification of the Economy

[5] Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) analyses were not designed to analyze the situation of a massive scaling up of wind and solar, as some people are now considering. If utilized for this purpose, they provide a far too optimistic an outlook for renewables.

The EROEI calculation compares the energy output of a system to the energy input of the system. A high ratio is good; a low ratio tends to be a problem. As I noted in the introduction, published EROEIs of wind and solar are prepared as if they are to be only a very small part of electricity generation. It is assumed that other types of generation can essentially provide free balancing services for wind and solar, even though doing so will adversely affect their own profitability.

A recent review paper by Murphy et al. seems to indicate that wind and solar have favorable EROEIs compared to those of coal and natural gas, at point of use. I don’t think that these favorable EROEIs really mean very much when it comes to the feasibility of scaling up renewables, for several reasons:

[a] The pricing scheme generally used for wind and solar electricity tends to drive out other forms of electrical generation. In most places where wind and solar are utilized, the output of wind and solar is given priority on the grid, distorting the wholesale prices paid to other providers. When high amounts of wind or solar are available, wind and solar generation are paid the normal wholesale electricity price for electricity, while other electricity providers are given very low or negative wholesale prices. These low prices force other providers to reduce production, making it difficult for them to earn an adequate return on their investments.

This approach is unfair to other electricity providers. It is especially unfair to nuclear because most of its costs are fixed. Furthermore, most plants cannot easily ramp electricity production up and down. A recently opened nuclear plant in Finland (which was 14 years behind plan in opening) is already experiencing problems with negative wholesale electricity rates, and because of this, is reducing its electricity production.

Historical data shows that the combined contribution of wind, solar, and nuclear doesn’t necessarily increase the way that a person might expect if wind and solar are truly adding to electricity production. In Europe, especially, the availability of wind and solar seems to be being used as an excuse to close nuclear power plants. With the pricing scheme utilized, plants generating nuclear energy tend to lose money, encouraging the owners of plants to close them.

Figure 5. Combined wind, solar and nuclear generation, as a percentage of total energy consumption, based on data from BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy. The IEA and BP differ on the approach to counting the benefit of wind and solar; this figure uses the IEA approach. The denominator includes all energy, not just electricity.

The US has been providing subsidies to its nuclear plants to prevent their closing. When one form of electricity gets a subsidy, even the subsidy of going first, other forms of electricity seem to need a subsidy to compete.

[b] Small share of energy supply. Based on Figure 5, the total of wind, solar, and nuclear electricity only provides about 6.1% of the world’s total energy supply. An IEA graph of world energy consumption (Figure 6) doesn’t even show wind and solar electricity separately. Instead, they are part of the thin orange “Other” line at the top of the chart; nuclear is the dark green line above Natural Gas.

Figure 6. Chart prepared by the International Energy Association showing energy consumption by fuel through 2019. Chart is available through a Creative Commons license.

Given the tiny share of wind and solar today, ramping them up, or those fuels plus a few others, to replace all other energy supplies seems like it would be an amazingly large stretch. If the economy is, in fact, much like a human in that it cannot substantially reduce energy consumption without collapsing, drastically reducing the quantity of energy consumed by the world economy is not an option if we expect to have an economy remotely like today’s economy.

[c] Farming today requires the use of oil. Transforming farming to an electrical operation would be a huge undertaking. Today’s farm machinery is mostly powered by diesel. Food is transported to market in oil-powered trucks, boats, and airplanes. Herbicides and pesticides used in farming are oil-based products. There is no easy way of converting the energy system used for food production and distribution from oil to electricity.

At a minimum, the entire food production system would need to be modeled. What inventions would be needed to make such a change possible? What materials would be required for the transformation? Where would all these materials come from? How much debt would be required to fund this transformation?

The only thing that the EROEI calculation could claim is that if such a system could be put in place, the amount of fossil fuels used to operate the system might be low. The overwhelming complexity of the necessary transformation has not been modeled, so its energy cost is omitted from the EROEI calculation. This is one way that calculated EROEIs are misleadingly optimistic.

[d] EROEI calculations do not include any energy usage related to the storage of electricity until it is needed. Solar energy is most available during the summer. Thus, the most closely matched use of solar electricity is to power air conditioners during summer. Even in this application, several hours’ worth of battery storage are needed to make the system work properly because air conditioners continue to operate after the sun sets. Also, people who come home from work need to cook dinner for their families, and this takes electricity. Energy costs related to electricity storage are not reflected in the EROEIs shown in published summaries such as those of the Murphy analysis.

A much more important need than air conditioning is the need for heat energy in winter to heat homes and offices. Neither wind nor solar can be counted upon to provide electricity when it is cold outside. One workaround would be to greatly overbuild the system, so that there would be a better chance of the renewable source producing enough electricity when it is needed. Adding several days of storage through batteries would be helpful too. An alternate approach would be to store excess electricity indirectly, by using it to produce a liquid such as hydrogen or methanol. Again, all of this becomes complex. It needs to be tried on small scale, and the real cost of the full system determined.

Both the need to overbuild the system and the need to provide storage are excluded from EROEI calculations. These are yet other ways that EROEI calculations provide an overly optimistic view of the value of wind and solar.

[e] Long distance travel. We use oil products for long distance transport by ship, air, truck, and train. If changes are to be made to use electricity or some sort of “green fuels,” this is another area where the entire change would need to be mapped out for feasibility, including the inventions needed, the materials required, and the debt this change would entail. What timeframe would be required? Would there be any possibility of achieving the transformation by 2050? I doubt it.

The conversion of all transportation to green energy is very much like the needed conversion of the food system from oil to electricity, discussed in [5c], above. Huge complexity is involved, but the energy cost of this added complexity has been excluded from EROEI calculations. This further adds to the misleading nature of EROEI indications for renewables.

[f] A dual system is probably needed. Even if it makes sense to ramp up wind and solar, there still will be a need for many products that are today made with fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are used in paving roads and for making lubrication for machines. Herbicides, insecticides, and pharmaceutical products are often made from fossil fuels. Natural gas is often used to make ammonia fertilizer. Fabrics and building materials are often made using fossil fuels.

Thus, it is almost certain that a dual system would be needed, encompassing both fossil fuels and electricity. There are likely to be inefficiencies in such a dual system. If intermittent renewables such as wind and solar are to be a major part of the economy, this inefficiency needs to be part of any model and needs to be reflected in EROEI calculations.

[g] “Renewable” devices are not themselves recyclable. Instead, they present a waste disposal problem. Solar panels especially present a toxic waste problem. Without much recycling, there is a long term need for minerals of many types to be extracted and transported around the world. These issues are not considered in modeling.

Profitability of Unsubsidized Renewables Is the Best Measure

[6] If renewables are to be truly useful to the system, they need to be so profitable that their profits can be taxed at a high rate. Furthermore, sufficient funds should be left over for reinvestment. The fact that this is not happening is a sign that renewables are not truly helpful to the economy.

Some people talk about the need for “surplus energy” from energy sources to power an economy. I connect this surplus energy with the ability of any energy source to generate income that can be taxed at a fairly high rate. In fact, I gave a talk to the International Society for Biophysical Economics on September 7, 2021, called, To Be Sustainable, Green Energy Must Generate Adequate Taxable Revenue.

The need for surplus energy that can be transferred to the government is closely connected with the debt problem that occurs when oil prices are higher than about $20 per barrel that I noted in Section [1] of this post. Renewable energy must be truly inexpensive, with all storage included, to be helpful to the economy. It must be affordable to citizens, without subsidies. The cost structure must be such that the renewable energy generates so much profit that it can pay high taxes. It is unfortunately clear that today’s renewables are too expensive for the US economy.

EROEI Models Can’t Tell Us as Much as We Would Like

[7] In the real economy, the economy builds up in small pieces, as new approaches prove to be profitable and as all the necessary components prove to be available. EROEI models shortcut this process, but they can easily be misleading.

The concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested has been used for many years in the field of biology. For example, we can compare the energy a fish gets from the food it eats to the energy the fish expends swimming to procure that food. The fish needs to get sufficient energy value from the food it eats to be able to cover the energy expended on the swim, plus a margin for other bodily functions, including reproduction.

Professor Charles Hall (and perhaps others) adapted this concept for use in comparing different energy “extraction” (broadly defined) techniques. More recent researchers have tried to extend the calculation to include energy costs of delivery to the user.

The adaptation of the biological concept of EROEI to the various processes associated with energy extraction works in some respects but not in others. The adaptation clearly works as a tool for teaching diminishing returns. It gives reasonable information for comparing oil wells to each other, or solar panels to other solar panels. But I don’t think that EROEI comparisons across energy types works well at all.

One issue is that there are huge differences in the selling prices of different types of energy. These are ignored in EROEI calculations, making it look feasible to use a high-priced type of energy (such as oil) to produce a low-valued type of output (intermittent electricity from wind turbines or solar panels). If profitability calculations were made instead, without mandates or subsidies (including the subsidy of going first), the extent to which there is a favorable return would become clear.

Another issue is that intermittency of wind and solar adds huge costs to the system, but these are ignored in EROEI calculations. (The situation is somewhat like having workers drop in and leave according to their own schedules, rather than working during the schedule the employer prefers.) In EROEI calculations, the assumption usually made is that the fossil fuel system will provide free balancing services by operating their electricity generation systems in an inefficient manner. In fact, this is the assumption made in the Murphy paper cited previously.

An analysis by Graham Palmer gives some insight regarding the high energy cost of adding battery backup (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Slide based on information in the book, “Energy in Australia,” by Graham Palmer. His chart shows “Dynamic Energy Returned on Energy Invested.”

In Figure 7, Palmer shows the pattern of energy investment and energy payback for a particular off-grid home in Australia which uses solar panels and battery backup. His zig-zag chart reflects two offsetting impacts:

(a) Energy investment was required at the beginning, both for the solar panels and for the first set of batteries. The solar panels in this analysis last for 30 years, but the batteries only last for 7.5 years. As a result, it is necessary to invest in new batteries, three additional times over the period.

(b) Solar panels only gradually make their payback.

Palmer finds that the system would be in a state of energy deficit (considering only energy out versus energy in) for 20 years. At the end of 30 years, the combined system would return only 1.3 times as much energy as the energy invested in the system. This is an incredibly poor payback! EROEI enthusiasts usually look for a payback of 10 or more. The solar panels in the analysis were close to this target level, at 9.4. But the energy required for the battery backup brought the EROEI down to 1.3.

Palmer’s analysis points out another difficulty with wind and solar: The energy payback is terribly slow. If we burn fossil fuels, the economy gets a payback immediately. If we manufacture wind turbines or solar panels, there is a far longer period of something that might be called, “energy indebtedness.” EROEI calculations conveniently ignore interest charges, again making the situation look better than it really is. The buildup in debt is also ignored.

Thus, even without the issue of scaling up renewables if we are to make a transition to energy system more focused on electricity, EROEI calculations are set up in a way that make intermittent renewable energy look far more feasible than it really is. “Energy Payback Period” is another similar metric, with similar biases.

The fact that these metrics are misleading is difficult to see. Very inexpensive fossil fuels pay back their cost many times over, in terms of societal gain, virtually immediately. Wind turbines and solar panels depend upon the generosity of the fossil fuel system to get any payback at all because intermittent electricity cannot support an economy like today’s economy. Even then, the payback is only available over a period of years.

I am afraid that the only real way of analyzing the feasibility of scaling up electricity using wind and solar is by looking at whether they can be extraordinarily profitable, without subsidies. If so, they can be highly taxed and end our government debt problem. The fact that wind and solar require subsidies and mandates, year after year, should make it clear that they aren’t solutions.

About Gail Tverberg

My name is Gail Tverberg. I am an actuary interested in finite world issues - oil depletion, natural gas depletion, water shortages, and climate change. Oil limits look very different from what most expect, with high prices leading to recession, and low prices leading to financial problems for oil producers and for oil exporting countries. We are really dealing with a physics problem that affects many parts of the economy at once, including wages and the financial system. I try to look at the overall problem.
This entry was posted in Alternatives to Oil, Financial Implications and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3,344 Responses to Models Hide the Shortcomings of Wind and Solar

  1. Agamemnon says:

    USA production post pandemic high:

    So the pandemic caused greater oil production.
    You see it’s counterintuitive:
    A Sick non productive country requires more energy.

    • I think you are hallucinating. US crude oil production was highest in November 2019, at 13.000 million barrels per day. It is now up to 12.696, but that is lower than it was before the pandemic.

      • Agamemnon says:

        Ahh another solution, from Britannica:
        Kongres futurologiczny (1971; The Futurological Congress), a hilarious satire on government and academic conferences. In a Kafkaesque turn, at a hotel in Costa Rica, a conference to propose solutions to overpopulation in a time of violence and terrorism soon dissolves into anarchy as the hotel’s water supply is contaminated by a hallucinogen.

        A vision of Earth’s future where the authorities dose the population with ‘psychemicals’ to make life in a desperately over-populated world worth living.”— Boston Globe

        • Dennis L. says:

          A vision of earth’s future:

          Our spaceship earth gets a spiff job, all manufacturing is solar – in space, all pollution is dropped onto the sun or the solar system’s junk collector, Jupiter.

          There is room for all, population is self limiting as children take time and demographics becomes the main issue.

          Neuralink “links” us to the fabric of the universe which is infinite and perhaps connected to infinitely more universes. Boredom is no longer a problem.


          Dennis L.

      • David says:

        Beware of the use of ‘barrels’. The barrel is a unit of volume, not energy. If what is officially called ‘oil’ production is getting slowly lighter, the energy output could be several percent lower than it was before the COVID period. N.B. I refuse to call it a ‘pandemic’.

    • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

      I don’t know how they keep doing it, but it’s fantastic!

      March 2023 is about 1 million above March 2022.

      if the increases of recent months continue for another 4 to 5 months, there could be a new high above 13 million.

      that’s more than 500 million gallons per day!

      I ❤ Oil.

  2. I think BAU can still be saved if we axe down the consumption level of the bottom 90% of the world by 90%. That is the only way with today’s elites controlling everything, denying resources for the bottom 90%.

    • The bottom 90% represent the workers of the world, unfortunately. Getting along without them would be difficult. Who would mine the minerals of the world? Who would pick up the trash? Who would pick the crops that need to be picked?

      • drb753 says:

        The minerals? The singularity. The trash? Space energy. The crops? Type I civilization. Kulm has thought it through. Also only the top 10% is allowed to violate the laws of physics.

      • They will be treated like serfs, given enough to eat while employed, and left to their lot when their employment ends

    • ivanislav says:

      While I’m not a huge fan of Ray Dalio, he’s right that societies move in cycles, even without the new global-energy-decline situation. One part of the cycle is social strife, which topples the existing power structure. That happens *because* the bottom 90% have reduced consumption per capita. What you prescribe as the solution is in fact the impetus for change in the power structure.

    • Fast Eddy says:

      And you consider yourself in the top third? Gosh.. that must be an easy team to make

    • moss says:

      Ah, the good old days, eh Kulmmie?

      Of the executive behaviour of the coterie surrounding Charles I in the years preceding the Civil War, Lord Macaulay writes:

      Guided chiefly by the violent spirit of the primate, and freed from the control of Parliament, they displayed a rapacity, a violence, a malignant energy, which had been unknown to any former age. The government was able through their instrumentality, to fine, imprison, pillory and mutilate without restraint.

      History of England 1848

      Poor Strafford. Surely the author had intended the simian rather than the ecclesiastic or it would have been capitalised

      Plus ça change
      … The greatest threat now to the Nuland clan is a lack of results, always a perilous condition in any mafia-like organisation, which is what this and the controlling Obama administration elements have turned the executive into.

  3. About thinning the herd,

    Frankly speaking, about 2/3 of the pop of the world, probably more, have no business existing.

    I have said quite a few times that if the entire population of Asia, Africa and Latin American in 1914 disappeared at once, the world would have missed … .Nothing.

    The world will do just as fine if the bottom 2/3 of the world’s poor, less educated and less intelligent disappeared.

    The Pop of USA in 2020 is estimated to be 330 million. Out of this, only about 100 million bothered to file tax returns to begin with.

    Out of these, 70% of such returns claimed an income of less than 70,000.

    And the total income taxes paid by the bottom 70% comprised a whooping 21% of the total tax revenue.


    The world will miss nothing by shedding at least 1/2 to 2/3 from its bottom ranks.

    • Foolish Fitz says:

      “The world will miss nothing by shedding at least 1/2 to 2/3 from its bottom ranks”

      Apart from growing all your food, building all your housing and cleaning all your shit up, because you’re all too inbred and all too retarted to understand all the basics.

      Keep dreaming of your imaginary singularity, whilst those lesser people keep making all the real world things happening.

      Have you ever considered that you live in a complete fantasy world, that doesn’t and never will exist?

      The real world will blow your mind kulm, if only you could see it(try it before it’s too late). You have my pitty, for spending so many decades on this planet and understanding not a single thing about the reality of it. A particularly inbred achievement, that thankfully most don’t suffer from.

      Do you have children, or can we put you with Eddy, in the genetic waste dustbin?

    • Fast Eddy says:

      I assume you are in the top third?

      And btw – if that theory was correct surely instead exterminating all 8b… they’d just delete the 3rd world… anyone a pension .. the chronically ill — the low IQ… the drug addicted… anyone who does not contribute… anyone who is a cost centre

      • Safely in top 1/3.

        Yes, the first world can be saved.

        A world we would have if Gabriel Princip didn’t feel his stupid country needed to be unified, if Leopold Lojka didn’t think the same about Czechia and if Chucky Fitzclarence didn’t f*k up (or, according to the late Dr. Robert Firth, ‘did his duty’) at Gheluvelt.

    • kulm, think of the people you know of with higher incomes. What “value”, exactly do they bring to the world? ..the Faucis and Matt Hancocks and Sam Bankman-Frieds? The college administrators? The human-resource ladies?

      Your ascription of a dollar amount to “value” is the same wrong-headedness as those who are happy about increases in GDP, which are mainly increases in waste.

      In my economic world, I compost yard leaves for free. In my MBA sister’s economic world, it is better to hire lawn people to rake the leaves to the curb, and then pay high taxes so that the city can hire union drivers with cushy pensions, and buy giant custom vehicles used one month out of the year, the whole endeavor burning a lot of diesel and needing a lot of financing, insurance, contracts, landfill space, road wear and tear, etc. Her approach is 1000 times the effort as my approach.

      The more wasteful a paid activity, the more it seems to be seen as “winning” by many people.

      Anyway, the top 1/3 is “making” money, all right, but they are skimming it from the activity of a lot of middling people (like me) whose income is under $70k. If you took away 2/3 of commercial food consumption, 2/3 of debit-card transactions, 2/3 of home and car loans and sales, 2/3 of tooth-cleanings and breast implants, 2/3 of Nike and Amazon and Wal*Mart sales, where would all of the six-figure people then get their salaries?? It all comes as a package.

    • Cromagnon says:

      Can you name a single example of any civilizational collapse on record that ever preserved the elites of that era?

      Just one

      I await your response.

  4. Ed says:

    Where does Germany get its energy from?

    • Germany used to be an electricity exporter, when it had quite a few nuclear power plants. In the years 2000 and 2001, nuclear electricity accounted for about 29% of Germany’s electricity, but I understand that all nuclear generation has stopped. Now that Germany has taken nuclear off line, there won’t be enough electricity for Europe as a whole, unless countries elsewhere start ramping up fossil fuel generation. I imagine the uranium was imported from various countries, and processed in Russia for its electricity.

      Germany’s biggest type of fuel for electricity production is coal (according to BP). Part of this coal it produces itself. Part of it imports from elsewhere. I imagine that European reports that I don’t follow would give information on where this comes from. Russia exports coal, but some Eastern European countries also export coal.

      We know that Germany was importing natural gas by pipeline from Russia. Someone who follows European reports more than I do may have information on where it is getting its natural gas from now. There is a pipeline coming up from the south, for example. Germany did not have any LNG import facilities of its own, but perhaps by now it has made some arrangements.

      We also know that Germany was getting both crude oil and oil products from Russia, primarily. Now it seems to be getting them in a round about way from India and some of the countries over in that direction.

      Someone in Europe probably has better information on these things than I do.

  5. Fast Eddy says:

    Hahaha but if the doctor kills his baby with Rat Juice … nuthin

    • hkeithhenson says:

      CHICAGO, June 5 (Reuters) – Adding an experimental mRNA-based vaccine from Moderna Inc and Merck & Co reduced the risk that the most deadly skin cancer would spread by 65% over treatment with an immunotherapy alone


      Scientists have been chasing the dream of vaccines to treat cancer for decades with few successes. Experts say mRNA vaccines, which can be produced in as little as eight weeks, paired with drugs that rev up the immune system may lead to a new generation of cancer therapies.

      • How do these experts expect people to believe them, when the last mRNA “vaccines” didn’t work well?

        Looking for adverse results for these vaccines takes years, I am afraid. Skipping that step is asking for trouble.

        • hkeithhenson says:

          I think most people with cancer are willing to take the risk of a vaccine regardless of it being tested.

          • Fast Eddy says:

            Idea!!! Instead of testing new treatments on defenceless animals (think Hoolio)…

            Why not test them on with incurable diseases? Who gives a f789 they are already suffering and they are gonna die soon.

            Let’s monetize the f789 out of this idea!!!

            Ok – so I’ll set up a website for the dying can register —

            Big Pharma can offer $$$ to secure participants for their experiments… they put up details of the experiment — and the participants can decide if the number is acceptable … if not enough commit BP can increase their offer

            The $$$ can be used to pay for the funeral … I’ll keep 20% for my efforts

            Win Win

            keith norm .. you can sign up first

      • Fast Eddy says:

        A mate who is dying from Turbo Cancer — was telling me — there will soon be a vaccine for cancer…

        And I am thinking .. actually there already is … you took 5 shots of it

  6. Ed says:

    Ugo is not a happy camper. Or, Italian politicians are just as vacuous as U.S. politicians.

    “But no way. No mention of resources, of energy, pollution, all the rest. As I said, I am not singling out here Mr. Alfano as a bad politician. It is not his fault. Simply, the political debate has evolved in such a way that most people are living day-by-day, mainly trying to survive. The political debate has declined to a point in which there is no interest in the causes of the problems, no interest in long term solutions, no attention to anything except to the the hope that some politician will pull the rabbit out of the hat. A game of smoke and mirrors.”

  7. ivanislav says:

    Big news, sorry if it’s been posted already. Saudis cut another 1mbpd of production.

    • Fast Eddy says:

      Interpret — the Ghawar is in deep depletion … and the water cut is starting to push on a string

    • Thanks! The big problem is the oil price doesn’t stay high enough for exporters, and so exporters cut back on exports. Haven’t I mentioned that issue before? A little cutback in demand, perhaps caused by higher interest rates, pushes the balance down, and prices fall.

      • Cheese can cause nightmares says:

        “The big problem is the oil price doesn’t stay high enough for exporters”

        The Telegraph puts it succinctly:

        “Oil prices have fallen over the last year despite repeated cuts to output. Brent crude peaked at $125 a barrel a year ago but traded at just over $76 on Friday – below the level when Russia invaded Ukraine last February and below the crucial $80 price at which the Saudi government can fund its spending.”


        Saudi Arabia slashes oil production and threatens to do ‘whatever is necessary’ to boost prices

      • Sam says:

        Yes but how are they making anything on the low prices? If I need to make $50 per hour to make my bills etc and the market will only pay me $20 then I stop working and That does not seem to be the case?! Do you think that the Saudi’s don’t know what is going on? I am sure they do ….Why would the U.S keep fraking at these prices and why would Canada keep melting at these prices….?

        • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

          2023 average price is about $80, sounds like most, if not all, countries can pump profitably at that price.

          surely OPEC+ is profitable at that price, though I’m sure they want it closer to $100.

          Canada “melts” at these prices because they make big profits.

          get this: melting doesn’t require drilling and pumping, what a great gift Nature gave to Canada.

          the huge reserves are right there near the surface.

          yay Nature!

          the US is a rare exception in the world, they can frack at a loss and it’s still no big deal, about half of US oil is still conventional, and the US has MASSIVE coal and natural gas reserves also.

          it’s the massive total energy reserves that allows the US to produce a portion of their energy via fracking.

          it’s all really very nice FF supplies.

          it makes for very nice ongoing bAU.

          something like 4 BILLION gallons of oil per day.

          that’s some mighty fine human effort there.

          it’s all very nice and fine bAU tonight, baby.

    • Ravi Uppal says:

      So the SPR will never be replenished .

  8. Mirror on the wall says:

    Sanctions on Russia > higher energy prices > systemic inflation > German industry in crisis > recession/ early signs of deindustrialization > political crisis / long-term decline / similar in Britain

    Who knew?

    (I thought that wind and solar were supposed to sort this? Net zero sorts all?)

  9. Adonis says:

    Santos, an Australian energy major with a focus on gas, wants to import carbon dioxide from Asia and store it in local reservoirs.

    The idea may have sounded somewhat eccentric a few years ago but it seems that carbon capture and storage is gaining traction thanks to government support for such projects.

    • How long will the carbon dioxide say in these reservoirs? If it leaks out, it forms a layer near the ground which can suffocate people. People don’t like reservoirs nearby, for this reason. Any carbon dioxide needs to stay trapped for the ages, to make any difference.

      I am not certain any insurance would every be available for this process.

  10. Mrs S says:

    I asked Chatgpt if we’re going to starve to death here in the UK if we switch to 100% renewable energy. It wouldn’t tell me at first what percentage renewables make up of our total energy demand… tried to fob me off with the percentage of electricity.

    Here was the response,

    “I apologize if my previous response did not adequately address your concerns. You are correct that solely relying on solar and wind energy, especially at the current capacity of 7% of overall energy supply, may not be sufficient to meet the energy demands of the entire food system in all circumstances. The intermittency of these renewable sources poses challenges during periods of low generation.

    Ensuring food security in a renewable energy-based system requires a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach. Here are some additional considerations to address the potential energy gaps and maintain a reliable food system:

    1. Energy diversification: Alongside solar and wind energy, exploring other renewable energy sources can provide a more robust energy supply. This may include the integration of biomass energy, geothermal energy, or even small-scale hydroelectric systems. A diverse mix of renewable sources can help balance out intermittency and improve overall energy availability.

    2. Energy storage advancements: Continued advancements in energy storage technologies are crucial. Research and development in large-scale battery systems, advanced flywheels, pumped hydro storage, or other innovative storage solutions can help store excess energy during favorable conditions for use during periods of low generation.

    3. Demand-side management: Implementing demand-side management strategies can help match energy demand with supply. This includes using smart grid technologies, incentivizing flexible energy consumption, and promoting energy-efficient practices in food production and processing.

    4. Local and regional food systems: Promoting localized and regional food systems reduces the reliance on long-distance transportation and storage, thus minimizing the energy demands associated with these processes. Supporting local agriculture, urban farming, and community-supported agriculture can help ensure food availability within a reduced energy framework.

    5. Agricultural innovations: Implementing sustainable and resource-efficient agricultural practices can reduce the energy intensity of food production. This includes techniques such as agroecology, precision farming, vertical farming, and aquaponics, which maximize resource use efficiency and reduce energy requirements.

    It is important to acknowledge that transitioning to a renewable energy-based system requires careful planning, technological advancements, policy support, and societal changes. The aim is to achieve a balance between energy supply, demand, and food security while minimizing environmental impacts. Localized solutions, community engagement, and innovation across the food system will be essential to navigate the challenges and ensure a sustainable and resilient future.

    It is worth noting that the specific energy and food system dynamics of each region may vary, and tailored solutions and approaches should be developed based on local conditions and resources.”

    • Ed says:

      It does not offer nuclear as part of the diversification. It does not offer lower the number of humans as part of the solution. It does not even offer stop the rise in the number of humans due to immigration.

      It does not think it regurgitates what is has read. It clearly has not read OFW.

      • Tim Groves says:

        I’ve been chatting with some bots, and initially I thought they were very impressive in their ability to assemble multiple paragraphs of text on a host of subjects. But I’ve noticed they tend to give much longer answers than the questions call for, and these typically consist of qualifying paragraphs beginning with phrases such as “It is important to acknowledge that” and “It is worth noting that.”

        Also, they don’t depart from their programming and entertain ideas that are not already in the database. And for the most part you can’t argue with them by presenting them with new facts, although they will accept and thank you for correcting them on minor matters such which college so and so went to and who’s father was who.

        But basically, it is as if they have swallowed an encyclopedia and can regurgitate its contents on command. They are information retrieval systems and are very good at what they do, but they are only as good as the information they have been trained on.

        • Tim, what do you make of this case, where the chatbot invented things out of whole cloth? If it works as you say, that shouldn’t be possible.

          A Lawyer’s Filing “Is Replete with Citations to Non-Existent Cases”

          In support of his position that there was tolling of the statute of limitation under the Montreal Convention by reason of a bankruptcy stay, the plaintiff’s submission leads off with a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Varghese v China South Airlines Ltd, 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff’s counsel, in response to the Court’s Order, filed a copy of the decision, or at least an excerpt therefrom.

          The Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in response to this Court’s inquiry, has confirmed that there has been no such case before the Eleventh Circuit with a party named Vargese or Varghese at any time since 2010, i.e., the commencement of that Court’s present ECF system. He further states that the docket number appearing on the “opinion” furnished by plaintiff’s counsel, Docket No. 18-13694, is for a case captioned George Cornea v. U.S. Attorney General, et al. Neither Westlaw nor Lexis has the case, and the case found at 925 F.3d 1339 is A.D. v Azar, 925 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir 2019). The bogus “Varghese” decision contains internal citations and quotes, which, in turn, are non-existent: …

          The following five decisions submitted by plaintiff’s counsel contain similar deficiencies and appear to be fake as well ….

    • the equation of our food system has always been very somple:

      Muscle power in === food supply out

      Killing a deer or ploughing a field, workd out the same.

      But adding fossil fuels 300 years ago skewed that equation.

      We got more out than we put in—and deluded ourselves it would go on forever.

      It won’t

      • Right. And the fact that men have bigger muscles than women put them in somewhat different roles than women. Also, the fact that women were needed for child care took them away from some activities, at least some of the time.

        Now that we have physicians who are looking for new ways to make money, sex change seems to be a potential lucrative activity. If fewer babies are needed in the future, sex change operations help with that issue as well.

        • i dont know the numbers of people having a sex change, but it must be miniscule so cannot possible influence ”muscle input’

          and as far as i can judge, the trend seems to be men wanting to change into womem in order to use a difference rest room or get put in a different prison or compete in a different – sex sporting event.

          one hardly ever hears of women wanting to be men.

          • My daughter who is married to another woman occasionally shows me photos of other couples (two women) with small children. In one, I noticed a woman who was dressed in a manner that looked fairly like a man–wearing a hat I would expect on a man. But this is unusual.

            My daughter is quite feminine, and dresses that way. Her spouse wears fairly ambiguous looking clothing. She wears dark plaids, for example, and a short hairdo.

            None of these women raising small children together want to stand out as being different. I think part of the issue is a small pool of husbands with jobs that pay well. Many more women than men go to college.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              That’s all good.

              Where problems tend to arise is when mother has a beard and a dongle… and is 6 ft 4… weighing 250lbs… that can be a bit confusing for a young child

              Mummy … why do you have a dongle?

              Cuz women can have dongles hunny.

          • Fast Eddy says:

            The dongle remains a challenge

        • Fast Eddy says:

          I’m well past my prime for men’s hockey but I reckon I could be a decent contributor on the woman’s national team in NZ… I’ve mentioned a few times to the head coach that I am considering claiming to be a female… he’s amused by that and said he is surprised nobody has already done that…

          I am not keen on the hormone shots though …

  11. Adonis says:

    South Africa’s chronic 10-hours-per-day blackouts could finally have a solution that won’t sit well with energy transitioners-burning heavy fuel oil.

    South Africa’s Electricity Minister, Kgosientsho Ramokgopa, has announced that the country will start an emergency procurement program. The program will negotiate power purchase agreements, and will last for five years.

    • drb753 says:

      That will do wonders for the world’s diesel supply.

      • Adonis says:

        Heavy fuel oil is a category of fuel oils of a tar-like consistency. Also known as bunker fuel, or residual fuel oil, HFO is the result or remnant from the distillation and cracking process of petroleum. Wikipedia

        • Ocean going vessels used to burn bunker full, but because of regulations, no longer can. Now they need to burn diesel fuel, even though the supply of diesel is limited. (I think that there is also a work around, if the ships capture the fumes and dump the polluting part into the ocean, instead of the air.)

          A country can decide to burn bunker fuel to power its electricity supply. It is a relatively cheap, polluting fuel.

          • AshenLight says:

            As far as I can tell most of our container ships actually still use bunker, although certain localities (California) force us to use the fancy low sulfur fuel oils.

        • drb753 says:

          I get it. But it is getting cracked in refineries to get some extra diesel.

  12. Adonis says:

    Is Ukraine war speeding Europe’s transition to renewable energy?

    • It certainly helps lower the population of Ukraine. In that way, it helps lower the country’s dependence on fossil fuels.

      I have seen pictures showing how dark some cities are at night. If everyone is staying home in the dark, this is limiting fossil fuel use.

      Actually using wind turbines, solar panels and hydroelectric is a different question. Based on BP data, Ukraine doesn’t have very much of any of these. It has more solar than wind turbines. Nuclear is by far Ukraine’s biggest source of electricity production; coal is second.

  13. Student says:


    ”EV Makers Confront the ‘Nickel Pickle’
    Large amounts of the mineral are needed for electric car batteries, but getting it out of the ground and refining it often requires clearing rainforests and generating large amounts of carbon”

  14. CTG says:

    Revisting Calhoun’s rat utopia. I missed out the part that thinning of herd is required for healthy ecosystem. The issues we have now is weaklings are incharge of the government, thus we have all these social issues.

    I fail to see how previous generation people can tolerate the nonsensical “woke” thing.

    • Kowalainen says:

      Just find your little micro habitat on top of a mountain and become a “beautiful one”. Take no part in the sufferings and pathologies caused by the behavioral sinks.

      No culling required, it will all go extinct on its own “merits”.

      In the mean time, let’s sing along:



    • Thanks for reminding us of Calhoun’s rat utopia. We certainly have allowed population to expand. People with obvious deficiencies have been given support so that they could live to maturity and sometimes get jobs. At some point, the economic system cannot function with so many people.

  15. Fast Eddy says:

    And the winner of Best Schad is…

    THIS hahaha

  16. Jan says:

    Knowledge is traded mainly in systems: how you do things, on what to focus – not very different to the Middleage guilds. Even in science there is the lab effect, many experiments cannot be repeated. ‘Recipes’ how to do things rely on substances with a certain quality and availability at a given time and the author goes without further specification. This is also how we educated kids: to look at the clouds to forcast the weather or at the sexual attraction of the person in front.

    If oil production is to decline and any substitutes do not work, we will shift into a new system, where what we know and what we have learned will be of no value. That is why most people fear a systemic change and deny obvious problems.

    If we focus on renewables and they cannot replace fossiles, we focus on new systems that won’t help at the end. We are loosing energy and time that could be spent better.

    We still have sufficient knowledge how the anchient have led a sustainable life. But most of what we remember is only 100 years ago – that is in the coal age. To go back even further is very difficult, looking to old texts we often don’t know know, what plant or metal was meant and if the outcome is really what is practically desired and all not just a narration.

    Alternative information is often false or of no help, like the idea people could eat hazel leaves (you can but not a bowl of it) or earthworms (good luck!). We would need knowledge about which garden plants to grow in a certain area, how to combine them, how to rotate, to fertilize, to water and drain.

    A lot of relevant knowledge is lost or has never been thorougly looked after – there was no need. We are spending huge sums to keep our system going and to make our kids understand political correctness and we don’t have the money to invest into knowledge to help a system change. There are very little private initiatives, too.

    As noone has this knowledge, the masses have to trust one of the big pretenders – and plunge into desaster. There are situations where there is no second try.

    • Bruce Steele says:

      Jan, We tend to think we can just revert to small subsistence farming but as you say we also think we can keep the iron tools that coal and fossil fuels provide. But take another step back to making tools with wood or stone and even subsistence farming gets difficult. Hunter gatherers can collect crops like acorns, chestnuts, filberts , cat tail roots, canna and these can supplement small agriculture production but still you need the knowledge about seasonality, when to harvest and how to process and store crops and forage to make it through winter. You also have to master and maintain seed for the next season , really the next two seasons ,in case of crop failure.
      Basketweaving, woodworking, stone knapping , herbal knowledge , midwives, and weapons production are all skills necessary to pull together even a very small group . I wouldn’t say these skill sets are gone but they are rarely held by a single human. This type of knowledge is also every local, where are the best quarry areas for stone, which trees can produce arrows or bows, which local herbs can be used for medicine, which local crops can be foraged, which vegetables will produce dependably, where to find fiber for clothes or find and tan pelts?
      We have looked down our nose at anything primitive for a long time as though these skill sets are easy to master. And if we are to remaster them again it will require someone living today who has already relearned them and honed their skills with lots of practice. But I see way less gardens than I saw as a child, the elders who knew how to run a one horse plow , tan leather for a harness, or carve a yolk are gone now. Even if an odd duck like me has practiced some of these things and maintains some lost knowledge who of the next generation is willing to put down their I- phones and learn to have pride in callused hands and hard work ? Nobody cares until TSHTF and the first few years will mean so much competition in a world that has gone so far past carrying capacity that nothing beyond hiding will save you. Learning new skills under those conditions or even keeping children alive will be damned difficult.

      • Ed says:

        I remember my grandfather mowing his lawn with a scythe. Do I have a barn to store my scythe in? No. Do I know how to sharpen a scythe? No. Do I know how to care for the wood of the handle? No.

        Yes, the transition will not be pretty.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          Does anyone know how to operate a spend fuel pond?

          Maybe now’s the time to search YT for a DIY video on how to do this?

          • Ed says:

            Yes. Just keep the water level topped up.

            • Cromagnon says:

              Dutch style windmills mills set beside defunct nuke plants moving water from river to ponds…….a priesthood could be built around that

              All hail the glowing pond…..

      • Mrs S says:

        This is why I took 4 years out of my academic career to qualify as a medical herbalist.

        In a SHTF situation, maybe I can trade the knowledge.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          it would be useful to know how to cure cancer with herbs cuz when those fuel ponds start smoking … that stuff will get into the food and water supply + the air

    • You raise very good points.Thanks!

  17. Fast Eddy says:


    13 min ago

    Sage hi, see below. You can ask me or Brian anything anytime. Your speculation is false. Instead of raising nonsensical hypotheses about people who are doing very hard work to reveal serious crimes, why not just contact us and ask your questions?

    Dr Naomi Wolf

    Writes Outspoken with Dr Naomi Wolf

    27 min ago

    Oh for Lord’s sake.

    If you have any questions just ask me directly.

    Sage Hana

    6 min agoAuthor

    Naomi, I will make a post and ask you the questions.

    Do you believe that the DOD funded and created the SARS-Cov2 bioweapon(s)?

    Do you believe that the DOD has been forthcoming as to how Covid came to be a thing?

    How do you think we got lockdowns and “Build Back Better” and Hospital Death Protocols in the UNITED STATES?

    Are you familiar with the DOD contracts with Pfizer and Moderna and the controls and indemnity which were enforced?

    Maybe ask her if she’s every done a BBC multiple ‘interview’

  18. Student says:

    (Al Jazeera)

    Facts and figures

    – Which governments have the most debt?
    – Debt-to-GDP ratio of various nations in the world.
    – Various steps through years of US debt ceilings

    • Student says:

      (Al Jazeera)

      Fact and figures of US money to Ukraine

      ”So far in the fiscal year 2023, which runs from October 1 last year to September 30, the US Department of Defense has provided $5bn in security assistance to Kyiv under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative in four separate tranches. In fiscal 2022, the US spent $6.3bn worth of these funds.”

      Total $11.3bn. And in addition $35bn of weapons (see below)

      ”The US has also rushed more than $35bn of weapons to Ukraine using presidential drawdown authority, which authorizes the president to transfer equipment and services from US stocks without congressional approval during an emergency.”

      (this last point is probably the one about how these weapons need to be accounted for as they were in army warehouses. But the point is also that those weapons need to be restored.
      The above is only about framing the situation from a financial point of view.
      The money and weapons Europe is giving is probably a more terrible frame than US one)

    • Are there any countries that have any chance of repaying this debt? I don’t think so.

      • Usually, ratios of Government Debt to GDP are given. Japan is clearly highest on this basis. With no fossil fuels to speak of, Japan’s government has been running up debt for a long time.

        • Student says:

          My impression is that they could not be the first to collapse because their debt it is mainly owned by Japan people and sold in small percentage to outside.
          I read it in a financial article in the past.
          I’m in hurry, I will try to collect data later on..
          Thanks for your considerations.

  19. Ravi Uppal says:

    An interesting comment from Dr Bardi’s blog . We are eating our seed corn ,
    Anonymous May 21, 2023 at 6:22 AM
    Our Western Civilisation today is an injured animal – cannot tolerate realising – it has foolishly destroyed almost all fossil fuel reserves in 150 years – for nothing…

    Today, before they drill an oil well in Iraq, they build first a massive infrastructure, shipped from all over the world, to inject liquids and gasses into the field of – yet to be drilled – oil wells….

    There is actually less and less remaining oil left in the ground…

    Shell pulled itself out – from a business partnership with the Iraqis developing new oil fields…

    Shell et al are – as if telling the Iraqis – you guys keep dealing with an EROEI of 1000 barrels burned – to get just 1 barrel extracted – producing your national oil to depletion – proudly – and we will be pricing it – at he bottom of the food chain – anyway…

    Watch here – the Control room of a recent oil field in Iraq – which looks like a cheap Chinese Car – a show off – more than anything real –

    The system that prices 23000 hours of useful work in a barrel of finite oil – at the bottom of the food chain – just to play a fake Invisible-Hand, fake Social Engineer, fake History, fake Civilisation, fake Free Internet – will sooner or later – run out of the finite stuff…

    Price it rightly at the top of the food chain – being finite – and everything comes to a grinding halt: humans cannot manufacture Energy…

    No matter how Ugo tried hard to hold the narrative from the middle – it was clear he has been under pressure to remove lines of thoughts, and even comments – that sounded just a little bit non-mainstream…

    Our Western Civilisation today is an injured, wounded and dangerous animal – that cannot tolerate listening to anybody – only escaping forward…

    Traumatised, out of the last ice age, the European mind dealt with exploiting fossil reserves – like no tomorrow – unwilling to hear a word from sunshine-latitudes on any of their ages-old Wisdom – “And neither allow thy hand to remain shackled to thy neck, nor stretch it forth to the utmost limit [of thy capacity], lest thou find thyself blamed, or even destitute” – Quran

    Treating the World as children, playing a nanny Civilisation – has been the wrong path for the West to take, since Jevons in the 1860s, at the latest – destroying all fossil reserves in a blink of eye – when it should have lasted 3000 years – plus…

    “No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores”

    Time to let people understand how harsh are the Laws of Nature – and let them having a real future – rather then imprisoning them in a vicious, theatrical, synthetic and nonsense Hollywood-style cockfight, a reality of an – Energy Musical Charis Game…

    A real future that has not been pre-decided, turned a dead history before it even born – burning finite fossil fuels to waste in – killing the future…

    One day soon, there will be no enough fossil fuels to juggle fossil fuels around – anyway….

    The Sun of a new day – dawns…

    • ivanislav says:

      “No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores”

      Maybe I don’t understand the meaning of the quote? Obviously a barrel of oil currently stores enough energy to get out another barrel of oil. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have any oil, since the mechanisms to access oil are oil-fueled.

      • Perhaps the author is saying that extracting the oil (or coal or natural gas) will use up some energy, so it is not possible to remove all of the fossil fuels that seems to be available.

        Wind and solar don’t work the same way. They cannot produce more wind turbines, solar panels or transmission lines. They are dependent on the fossil fuel system, no matter how many are built.

      • Jakob Standahl says:

        To me, it means if you could build some little magic box that somehow produced more energy than what went into it, you’d be a multi-trillionaire. You’d have broken the laws of thermodynamics with your little ape brain. These green things are simply constructs of oil, the embedded energy therewithin cannot exceed the eventual output of the device. We should simply just be judicious with our remaining FF stores instead of embedding it in these very suspect green projects.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          Check into the correlation between burning FF and growth … of course without growth there are no jobs … and before you know it we enter a deflationary death spiral to hell.

          Which culminates in 8 billion wicked beasts ripping each others faces off

      • Ravi Uppal says:

        Ivanislav , he is referring to The Fifth Law .

        • ivanislav says:

          Thanks, I will have to spend some time looking into it to understand what is meant and what the consequences entail.

    • Fast Eddy says:


      • Foolish Fitz says:

        TINA, the lie first commonly promoted by Margret Thatcher and repeated ever since by unimaginative dunces that can’t see past the propaganda of the screen.

        What have I missed?

        • Fast Eddy says:

          YES! I was hoping for some vitriol…

          Ok… so let’s have a cage match.

          What are the alternatives in terms of burning through all the oil coal and gas like we’ve done?

          • Cromagnon says:

            TINA,……to entering the stone age……

          • Foolish Fitz says:

            Eddy, your doing it again. Trying to set things in terms that suit your own perspective. Let’s stick to the basic.


            Yes there is and there always is(unless you’re one of the unfortunates chosen for the genetic waste disposal), so it’s clearly a false premise. I can’t understand how gullible you’d need to be to fall for that gibberish. We might not like an alternatives, but to claim there are none, is for the feeble minded.

            Do you believe everything the screen tells you?

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Yes I have heard there are alternatives to burning up all the oil … and coal…

              What are they?

            • Foolish Fitz says:

              Your doing it again Eddy. Thatchers use of the term TINA encompassed more than the single point you are so desperate to cling to(understandable I suppose).

              The idiocy of buying into the TINA doctrine, is for the spineless and weak of mind.

              Do you always believe there is no alternative to whatever the screen tells you?

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Try as I might … I cannot think of any alternative to burning the energy…

              Hoolio would not burn the energy … even though he enjoys the energy — it’s a frosty morn here and he is happily at rest on the cushion

              He is not burdened by the stooopidity of a human brain … he enjoys the warmth but he does not how to plug in the heater…

              It’s kinda like this … Charlie didn’t get much USO. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat. He had only two ways home: death, or victory.

              Humans – well we are a different breed… we can’t help ourselves… we see something to burn and we burn it… we are not smart enough to understand that once you get on that path … one thing leads to another … and before you know it… you are into the billions … and you start needing to eat the energy to survive….

              We circle back to the Rat Ship stranded on the island … filled with grain … the rats will do as we do … try telling them not to do that cuz the grain will run out… the difference is … the rats don’t know how to grow grain using oil and gas

  20. Student says:

    (Financial Times)

    ”China rebukes west on military moves near its waters after close call in Taiwan Strait
    Defence minister Li Shangfu’s warning highlights growing risk of unintended conflict in region”.

    This should be considered in the context of a mirror situation. That is: what US would think to have Chinese military ships off the coast of New York.. (please see the map doing ‘zoom in’, to visualize the issue of how would be considered the threat..).

  21. Yorchichan says:

    Four years ago a video emerged of a British schoolboy pushing a Syrian refugee boy to the ground and pouring water in his face. This was portrayed in the national news as an example of racist bullying, with the Syrian child made out to be an innocent victim.

    In a recently released documentary, Tommy Robinson reveals the truth about what really happened, including how the MSM lied about the whole episode in order to further their anti-white agenda.

    • Tsubion says:

      Remember the “babies being thrown out of incubators” lie? That helped paint the picture that Sadam was a monster and had to be dethroned? And the gas WMDs in Syria? And more recently the deadly bioweapons labs in Ukraine? Later it will Africa.
      Maybe some of these of dictators actually were monsters, but it’s the manipulation of the general public through the most powerful mind control device ever devised – the television – that gives govts the excuse to pile into foreign nations and have their way with them.
      If we don’t correct the response to these boogeymen that keep popping up like heads in the fairground whackamole game, then we’re doomed to fall for the same trick over and over again because the majority of the population never “gets it.”
      I’m hoping the reflex kneejerk response wears off before the next “big one” but I’m not seeing any evidence that anything has changed sufficiently in the minds of even supposedly intelligent people. In fact, these can be the most brainwashed and indoctrinated making it harder for them to reset their conceptual beliefs.

    • Fast Eddy says:

      norm rejects this

    • Mirror on the wall says:

      Robinson was found guilty of liable over that case, and there is an injunction on the repetition of the lies. The question now is how the courts will deal with him and whether he will be going back to prison.

      Almondbury Community School assault and legal action against Robinson

      See also: Almondbury Community School bullying incident

      After a Syrian refugee boy was assaulted in a school bullying incident in October 2018, Robinson falsely accused the victim of having previously attacked two schoolgirls. The 15-year-old refugee was dragged to the floor by his neck and told by his attacker, “I’ll drown you”, while water was forced into his mouth. The boy’s arm was in a cast after it had been broken in a separate assault.[76] His sister had also been assaulted.[77]

      A 16-year-old boy believed to be the attacker, who was interviewed by police and given a court summons, had shared numerous social media posts by Robinson.[76] On Facebook, Robinson subsequently posted a screenshot of a message from a mother saying her daughter had been bullied and he accused the refugee of being the bully. However, the mother responded on Robinson’s Facebook page informing him this was false.[78] Robinson also made a false allegation using a photo stolen from a news article on a teenage cancer patient.[79]

      These events forced the refugee’s family to relocate because “the level of abuse the children have received has become too much”.[80] The family decided to move elsewhere in West Yorkshire.[81] Robinson may have breached court orders preventing the naming of the alleged perpetrator in several videos on Facebook and Instagram, including one that was viewed more than 150,000 times. A lawyer said in doing so Robinson had “compounded” the refugee’s suffering, adding “many people on social media having viewed Mr Yaxley-Lennon’s [Robinson’s] lies believed them and expressed their outrage toward [the refugee].”[82]

      In January 2019, the refugee said returning to Almondbury Community School was still too dangerous. He described living in fear after Robinson’s postings because “there are people who hang around outside my house and video me on their phones. They call me ‘little rat’ if I go outside. One of my neighbours threatened me outside my house just yesterday.”[83] His lawyers said Robinson’s postings had made him “the focus of countless messages of hate and threats from the extreme right wing” and had led to a police safety warning.[84]

      After receiving a letter from lawyers representing the refugee boy’s family, pointing out that the videos Robinson had posted “contain a number of false and defamatory allegations”, Robinson admitted to his followers that it was fake news and said that he had been duped: “I have been completely had, how embarrassing man.”[85] Robinson deleted the videos and admitted to posting a fake photograph purporting to show violence by a Muslim gang.[86] He was warned about legal action for defamation. In response to allegations from Robinson’s supporters that this warning “blocked” free speech, the boy’s lawyer said, “Tommy Robinson thinks it is a good idea to defame this 15-year-old boy and accuse him of being the author of his own bullying. It is actually sickening.”[87] On 15 May 2019, the boy’s lawyer said that his client was suing Robinson for “defamatory comments” Robinson had made.[88]

      It was reported that Facebook protected prominent figures such as Robinson from the normal rules of moderation that would usually see a page removed after posting content that violates its rules. Solicitors representing the victim are pursuing legal action against the social media firm on the basis Facebook was responsible for Robinson’s posts as it had given him “special treatment [that] seems to be financially driven”.[83] However, on 26 February 2019, Facebook announced that it had banned Robinson from the service for violating its community standards and “posting material that uses dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims”. It also cited violations of policies concerning “organized hate”.[89]

      On 22 July 2021, Robinson was found to have libelled the boy and was ordered to pay £100,000 plus legal costs,[90] which are understood to amount to a further £500,000. An injunction was also granted to stop Robinson from repeating the libel.[91] Robinson, who represented himself during the four-day trial, said he was “gobsmacked” by the costs the victim’s lawyers were claiming, which he said included £70,000 for taking witness statements. He added: “I’ve not got any money. I’m bankrupt. I’ve struggled hugely with my own issues these last 12 months … I ain’t got it.”[90] In January 2022, an independent insolvency expert was appointed by Robinson’s creditors (who include the schoolboy and the boy’s lawyers – owed an estimated £1.5m in legal costs) to find any assets or money that Robinson could be hiding.[92]

      • Yorchichan says:

        I’ll take the word on camera of the parents, teachers and pupils over Wikipedia.

        The only thing Tommy is liable to do is tell the truth at great personal risk. He is a national hero.

        • Mirror on the wall says:

          Well, presumably he will be going back to court.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          In The World According to norm .. Tommy should be with Assange in solitary confinement .. he’s a threat to society

      • I suppose that part of the problem is that news media feels that there is a real need for news. If there isn’t much real news, they will distort the events of the day to make it look like there is news, following whatever agenda is being pushed. Climate change is a big agenda item right now.

      • Tim Groves says:

        A Normie’s History of Proving One’s Point

        1900s: It must be true, I read it in the papers.

        1920s: It must be true; I heard it on the radio.

        1960s: It must be true; I saw it on the telly.

        2020s: It must be true; I copied it from Wikipedia.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          don;t forget norm’s fave…

        • it must be true

          Tommy told eddy when he saw him on visiting day

          then he told eddy again when he got out on parole

          Eddy always tells the truth

          I have records of that going back years

  22. Fast Eddy says:

    Naomi Wolf is rather perturbed at being referred to as a fake … see her comments hahaha

    • Hideaway says:

      Just about everyone gets EROEI very wrong, because they don’t count the embedded energy in the overall system as an energy cost, yet it most certainly is because of entropy in the system.

      Gail has pointed out a simple difference that should make people pay attention about the taxes and royalties paid by fossil fuels compared to the subsidies and tax incentives given to renewables (and nuclear). This is in purely economic terms.

      If renewables and nuclear did have a much higher EROEI than fossil fuels, then they would be the ones taxed heavily and not need any subsidies at all.
      Everyone would just build renewables and nuclear by preference because they would be most profitable. Can anyone think of vast solar or wind farms that throw off huge profits like Saudi oil fields?? Didn’t think so…

      Simple logic, before we get into the numbers, tells the truth of the higher EROEIs. Those that are preferentially built because they are the most profitable have the best energy returns. We sell energy for money, so the form of energy that returns the most money over the short, medium, and long term will be what’s built given an open and free market.

      Making up rules, and giving subsidies that advantage one form of energy over others, does not make it have a higher EROEI.

    • I need to write to Ugo about my post. My post might help clarify for Ugo the government debt problem that Italy has, as well.

      In this post, Ugo shows an “energy cliff” chart. If you look back through my posts, I am fairly certain that you will never, ever find such an energy cliff. I have never had any confidence that the comparisons made any sense, especially when it came to wind and solar.

        • I don’t think it makes any sense at all to compare the EROEIs of wind and solar to those of fossil fuels. I am on Art Berman’s side.

          Those who put together the EROEI calculation were trying to reproduce something similar to the reciprocal of the reinvestment ratio (called FCAOR) in the World3 model. The reinvestment ratio gets higher and higher, as non-renewable resources of many kinds are depleted (Equivalent to EROEI’s falling). The calculation is done on a calendar period basis, such as during the year 2023. The calculation looks at what share of all investments need to go into reinvestment, rather than current consumption.

          It turns out that for fossil fuels, this calculation is pretty close of the reinvestment ratio, because most of the benefit of fossil fuels comes as they are burned, and this is instantaneous. Also, building the front end devices are not a high share of the cost for fossil fuels. Thus, fossil fuels can pay back quickly. The FCAOR ratio stays near the computed ratio.

          There are multiple problems with renewables. One of the problems is that shown in Figure 7. It is necessary to use a huge amount of resources of all kinds at the front end. They are paid back only slowly. Adding batteries, electric cars, and lots of new transmission makes a huge amount more new transmission. All of this pays back very slowly.

          Someone has to advance funds for all of this investment. The government ends up indirectly being the one. The government spends huge amounts of funds in various ways, but what little payback occurs, occurs very slowly. EROEI leaves out too much. It doesn’t get at the need to pay back quickly, or a huge amount of government debt results. It is simply not the right calculation for wind and solar. It is even iffy for nuclear.

  23. moss says:

    More detail emerges as to the BRICS proposed new currency proposal. Speculation is that it is a settlement platform for trade between BRICS members only operated by the New Development Bank (NDB), headquartered in Shanghai.
    By offering a fixed peg between the individual currencies of bank members it is thought it may reduce exchange rate variability for export financing and development project obligations.
    Not only could it offer an alternative to IMF development funding but also World Bank credit.

    hmmmm some may not savour

    • Tsubion says:

      Here is counterargument (whether right or wrong but certainly interesting) to the whole BRICS development, one belt one road, “Russia China strong” propaganda…

      • I didn’t get though very much of this video, but I agree that assuming China is able to continue in its current form going forward would take a leap of faith. Maybe I will have a chance to look at more of it later.

        We may be dealing with a situation where all parts of the world economy are disintegrating, at close to the same time. We are all dependent on each other. If one goes down, all may fail.

        Debt problems may be what bring the system down.

    • Fixed pegs between different currencies tend not to work very well, for very long. One country does better than another.

  24. Sam says:

    Gail, you say that oil can’t keep going up in price without collapsing the system. But are you sure that is true? Look how everything is manipulated these days! If you only listen to mainstream media you would think the economy is really strong and about to bust out to new heights….buy! Buy! Buy! as Jim Crammer would say…everything and anything can be and is manipulated these days. I think you might be wrong… are looking at everything from “honest” eyes and that is where you are blind. You can’t see what is going on because its all a lie…

    • Fast Eddy says:

      Sam – you do know that the purpose of the MSM is to lie to you … to control what you think … one thing they want is to make you think energy will never be a problem…

      Are you aware that we have been steaming oil out of sand … for years… ever wondered why

      • Tim Groves says:

        That’s obvious. They steam the oil out of sand in order to clean the sand, thereby creating a better environment for all the cuddly animals such as bunnies, coyotes, bears, and caribou—Making Alberta Pristine Again!

    • Jan says:

      Very good point! Published oil data may be manipulated due to several interests! We know that most production countries have exaggerated their numbers. It is also possible, that political decisions restrict production, e.g. sanctions or environmental considerations.

      But there are some facts visible to all: production along river Danube is over, the Scottish Sea, the US-Fracking problem. As it seems, regional production declines and all voncentrates on the large basins, Middle East, Arabia, Caspain Sea, perhaps Venezuela. Production gets more and more complex. That follows principles we have seen extracting coal. For example there are still huge deposits of hard coal in Germany, but they are located under what has already been produced and to extract them means to dig even deeper.

      There is a logical connection between energy production and economy, Gail focuses on that a lot. There is also a connection between energy production and systemic complexity, which might make it difficult to reduce energy consumption and keep up production.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        Consider how important it is that the MOREONS do not think we are into deep depletion on energy…

        Of course they will be lied to — they MUST be lied to

        • Sam says:

          My point is if we are melting Sand to make oil….and drilling down 3 miles fraking to get oil etc the price should already be higher. Everyone on here knows that the scarcity of cheap easy to get oil is gone then so do investors and the markets. This price of a barrel of oil should be much higher but I think it is being manipulated down. Just as the stock market is being manipulated up! In the future maybe they manipulate the price up. It seems that their intention in the future is for a massive great depression. I do not see how oil companies are making a profit at $70 a barrel today! There is no way… the price must remain low so that Russia can’t get profits from it.

    • drb753 says:

      As luck may have it, the Saudis have just announced voluntary cuts extending to the end of 2024. I see russian and chinese bases in the region soon.

      • Ed says:

        Until after the election. I see KSA election tampering. We must send the marines to take control over KSA. It would make Biden a vastly popular war president.

        • Sam says:

          Ugh you might be right…all the retards that drive giant pickup trucks to get their groceries and a 2×4 or to justify…..high gas prices will strangle Americans! Its amazing how stoopid americans are….Gas at $6 and up will cripple them….

  25. Fast Eddy says:

    I am watching this

    It takes my mind off of thinking what norm is doing right now… (he’s like OBTD)

    • Tsubion says:

      It’ll all come out in the end. There’s a long list of boogeymen that we’ve been spoonfed our whole lives without much actual evidence to prove their existence.
      All you have to do is apply the same logical breakdown that we apply to other scams such as globbly wobbly, global plandemics and killer AGI!
      The more something is pushed in the media as the “next big scary” the more likely it is just a ruse to bring in more central control of all people everywhere, more restrictions, more bureaucracy, more police state, higher taxes etc etc.

      • Tim Groves says:

        To quote Sage Hana, “It’s all the same op.”

        And to expand on that, there is always some showmanship and some shock and awe in the performance.

        Just my humble opinion, of course, but the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as well as the Trinity test) were fake, but extremely effective in shocking and awing the public.

        Miles Mathis went further and attempted to debunk the H bomb tests too. “I suspect all tests and events were and are faked. If they had any real events to show us, they wouldn’t need to show us faked events.”

        Then we have the Moon landings. Weren’t we shocked and awed by them for a while? And the airplane terror attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. And now the Mother of all Pandemics.

        in 1945, they didn’t use real nukes because they didn’t have them. In 1969, they didn’t send real men to the moon because they didn’t have the technology to do it safely. In 2001, they didn’t use real planes because there were too many imponderables, and in 2020 they didn’t use a real novel contagious and deadly virus because they couldn’t develop one, and even if they could have, they could not have controlled it.

        In all of the above projects, faking it was more feasible than doing it for real, and faking it was more manageable, more controllable, more doable than trying to do it for real.

        And faking it didn’t matter because doing it for real was not important. What was important was to create the public perception that they had done it. And that has worked incredibly well for all these decades. Look how the vast majority of the public are believers in these narratives and will react with as much hostility as religious believers will if you challenge the tenets of their faith?

        I come back again to Harry Field Senior (a favorite character of mine), who summed it up succinctly to Inspector Morse, while the paintings on the wall behind him changed over the course of his speech as if to emphasize the point he was making.

        “People want to marvel. Fake only disappoints when found out.”

        • Fast Eddy says:

          SSS fakes it when she sessions up with norm … OBTD… afterwards norm heads for the pub for another pint and tells brags to the bartender about his super power.

    • DB says:

      Palmer seems to believe that nuclear weapons are possible. Before reading his work and some of the work he cites, I had no doubt nuclear weapons existed, but now I am very skeptical. What is your take? And do you think this might change your view of the likelihood of global catastrophe from spent fuel ponds in the event the cooling water stops and boils off?

      • Tim Groves says:

        These are two different issues. Even if nuclear explosions were impossible, superheating of concentrated lumps of highly radioactive materials might still lead to the continuous release of large amounts of nasty nuclides into the environment. If not stopped, this could go on for decades or centuries, depending on the nature of the source.

        • DB says:

          I agree that they are different issues, but they are related in that physicists (hundreds of the elite ones involved with the Manhattan Project) seemingly lied about the nuclear weapons of the 1940s. Let’s assume they capitulated due to pressure (even death threats). Because of that capitulation, they become, in my mind, suspect characters and their subsequent work also becomes suspect (much in the same way that a doctor who lies about Covid is probably prone to lying about other medical matters when it’s in his/her personal interest). So the 1940s atomic bomb frauds (if Palmer’s and others’ evidence and interpretations are accurate) should put much of nuclear physics into question. Therefore, it seems to me somewhat inconsistent to say “nuclear detonations might be fake or exaggerated, but burning spent fuel rods that lead to global catastrophe are definitely a real outcome of failed cooling mechanisms.”

          • Tim Groves says:

            Yes, much of nuclear physics must be suspect. You have a valid point, there.

            Can we agree to accept the existence of radioactivity and its dangers for the purpose if this discussion? We’ve all seen x-rays done at the doctor’s or the dentist’s office. And most of us have seen a geiger counter in action.

            And we have been told that nuclear power stations use radioactivity to produce electricity. I haven’t actually been inside an operating nuclear reactor, but I’ve visited a working nuclear power plant, and I didn’t spot any obvious fakery going on there. Can we agree to accept that these plants generate electricity from the fission of uranium and/or plutonium? Or are they Potemkin villages of the nuclear era?

            Anyway, according to the theory/story, nuclear power generates electricity by controlling the rate at which radioactive elements release radiation by facilitating a chain reaction. The theory/story also goes that if the chain reaction isn’t controlled and the amount of mass is great enough, a nuclear explosion takes place.

            Could it be that all of the above is essentially true but the size of the explosion that could be generated in this way is not as large as has been advertised due to physical limits? One would have to be nuclear physicist to know one way or the other, and they are all members of the Guild and may be not at liberty to speak freely.

            All we can say for sure is that there are some incongruities about the atomic bomb stories that cause inquiring minds to cast doubt on their validity. And from this it is reasonable to be skeptical or to reserve judgement about the larger field of nuclear physics, a lot of which involves playing with models and equations that I don’t understand in any case. But at the same time, nuclear power generation seems to work and there are no obvious incongruities in the story. Although deception there can’t be ruled out, it isn’t staring us in the face. So if it’s a con, it’s pretty neat one.

            Unless someone has already debunked it and nobody told me.

            • DB says:

              Thank you, Tim. I agree with your premises and their implications. Like you, I am not qualified to judge the details. But at least the popular version of the theory makes sense. So if nuclear weapons either don’t exist or have been grossly oversold, it could be that the resulting explosions are not as big as advertised (a possibility you mentioned) and/or not as reliable or easily controlled. It could also be that the theory is wrong on the density of fissile material necessary, or that it may be infeasible to manufacture such densities. In any case, anyone who discovered holes in the idea of nuclear weapons would be regarded as a crackpot by the mainstream, of course. And very few individuals/groups will be able to know firsthand from actual experimentation whether runaway chain reactions are possible. That is, it’s a very difficult experiment to replicate, which makes such knowledge extremely tentative even when fraud is unlikely.

              As for the health effects of radiation, a large part of the research on the topic comes from studies of Hiroshima survivors and studies conducted by the militaries of nuclear powers. So those data are dubious.

              I do believe that nuclear power (generating electricity) is real. That has been “replicated” many thousands of times publicly, as you note.

        • DB says:

          I don’t know if my earlier comment will get posted, but in short, I think the integrity of nuclear physicists is questionable given the apparent lies they pushed during the Manhattan Project. In my opinion, it means that much of nuclear physics — that related to scary things (weapons, spent fuel rods, etc.) — is suspect.

          I wonder whether you or anyone else has good evidence that nuclear weapons actually exist. Off the top of my head, there are at least three pieces of independent evidence (independent of military claims) that might indicate their existence:

          1) Seismic signals of blasts (however, it seems that it’s possible to develop non-nuclear bombs that have the same power and seismic characteristics:;

          2) Atmospheric signals of blasts (the so-called bomb pulse:; and

          3) Reportedly increased cancer and injury rates in military personnel and Pacific Islanders exposed to the Bikini Atoll and other tests of that era (I didn’t look for references, but this Wiki page has a little info:

          The fact that non-nuclear bombs can generate the same kinds of seismic signals cancels out that piece of evidence in my opinion.

          The atmospheric bomb pulse (look at the chart on the Wiki page) actually is consistent with no successful detonations until 1955, suggesting there were about 60 fake claimed tests ( I don’t know much about the bomb pulse (other than its application to carbon dating), but I find it difficult to believe that the excess neutron production from approximately 500 above ground nuclear tests over 9 years totaling around 500 megatons ( could in any way come close to matching neutron generation by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Putting that aside, it’s possible that a detonation could produce a lot of neutrons but not cause much of an explosion (e.g., if it’s impossible to enrich uranium enough to create dense enough material to enable a chain reaction).

          As for the cancers and acute injuries, they could be due to other factors (such as other exposures, including intentional ones that coincided with the tests). Making people ill might have been part of the plan — to continue the ruse. And it’s also possible the research was faked.

          Maybe you know of other, better evidence. None of my criticisms mean that nukes don’t exist, but the near certain fakery of the bombs in Japan and early tests means that the threshold of proof has to be pretty high.

          • I think that a more important issue is the question of whether nuclear bombs that can actually be deployed exist today.

            A significant share of the bombs that were initially built have been converted to fuel for nuclear power plants. In fact, there is a link showing the extent to which this has taken place.

            The other issue is whether the bombs, which were made years ago, are really deployable. I doubt anyone has been keeping them up. The level of expertise in this area is likely low, as well.

            • hkeithhenson says:

              “nuclear bombs”

              Gail, I keep up with this topic. From what I read, there is a considerable project to refurbish the nuclear inventory.

              The US bought a huge amount of excess plutonium from Russia after the USSR went defunct and used it as mixed oxide in power reactors. But I don’t think we used many of the US weapons for power production.

              There is a major and expensive project to maintain nuclear weapons. Much of it is simulation. There are a large number of knowledgeable people as well.

            • This is the chart I was thinking of. Both the number of bombs of the US and Russia are way down. The US used some of its own nuclear bombs, as well. You need to scroll down on the page.


            • Ed says:

              I think there is plenty of knowledge between LLNL, LANL, ANL.

              The mechanical integrity of the bombs is in question. The money is authorized to replace the entire nuclear arsenal over several years.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Hoolio does not have any bombs.

  26. Fast Eddy says:

    Oh Wow.

    “WALVAX 2 is taken from the lung tissue of a 3 month gestation female who was ultimately selected from among 9 aborted babies. The scientists noted how they followed specific guidelines to mimic WI-38 and MRC-5 in selecting the aborted babies, ranging from 2-4 months gestation. They further noted how they induced labor using a “water bag” abortion to shorten the delivery time and prevent the death of the fetus to ensure live intact organs which were immediately sent to the labs for cell preparation”

    Humans are amazing!

  27. Fast Eddy says:

    Best Actor(ress?) Award?

    Also acting.. has to be

    Question – are Trans another species? Perhaps from another planet?

  28. Fast Eddy says:

    From the Johns Hopkins site:

    Now consider this nightmare fuel paragraph contextualized with what has happened over the last two years:

    “Self-Spreading Vaccines: Self- spreading vaccines are genetically engineered to move through populations like communicable diseases, but rather than causing disease, they confer protection. The vision is that a small number of individuals in a target population could be vaccinated, and the vaccine strain would then circulate in the population much like a pathogenic virus, resulting in rapid, widespread immunity.”

    But wait…It gets better!

    “Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccines:

    SAM vaccines use the genome of a modified virus with positive sense RNA, which is recognizable to our human translational machinery. Once delivered inside a human cell, the SAM is translated and creates 2 proteins: an antigen of interest to stimulate an immune response, and a viral replicase for intracellular amplification of the vaccine. *The ability of SAM to self-replicate results in a stronger, broader, and more effective humoral and cellular immune response than some other vaccines.

    Drone Delivery to Remote Locations: Drone transportation networks can enable the rapid delivery of clinical materiel and…”

    This might be good news for No Vaxxers… we may get all the benefits of the Rat Juice… in particular we die when Phase Two is released… without all the vax injuries…

    • ivanislav says:

      Another word for a self-spreading vaccine is “virus”.

    • I don’t think that we really need all of these folks trying to spread “protection.”

      • ivanislav says:

        It’s not “protection”. One place I worked was given a grant to try to develop protein immunogens that sterilize pets. The money was provided by an individual who wanted to remain anonymous and who supposedly had taken up the cause of animal welfare. We (the employees) were not told who it was.

        The project didn’t pan out, maybe other labs were successful.

        • ivanislav says:

          I think the goal was to create an immune response to GnRH, if I recall correclty.

    • Jan says:

      You might be more right, than this joke indicates in the first moment, Eddy! A vaccination for sure needs to be adapted to the weight and age of the receiving person. It is incomprehensible, how a daily bombardment of antibody producing substances could protect without causing harm.

      As WHO has recently demanded to suspend Human Rights for health issues, we are having very difficult times ahead!

      • Fast Eddy says:

        Super saturate the CovIDIOTs then osmosis kicks in spreading the Rat Juice to the no vaxxers

  29. Fast Eddy says:

    Van Snyder
    Writes Van’s Substack
    May 4
    IEEE Spectrum published a good piece entitled “The EV Transition Explained.”

    Some take-aways:

    A typical residential 37.5 kW distribution transformer supports 15 households, assuming 2 kW average demand. Replacing a gas furnace and water heater with heat pumps draws 4-6 kW and reduces end-to-end thermal efficiency from 90% to 30%. One L2 EV charger draws 12-19 kW. Transformers are designed for passive cooling at night. With EV’s coming home and charging at night, transformer lifetimes will be reduced from 30-40 years to about three years. Distribution transformers used to cost $3,000-$5,000. Now they cost $20,000. They’ll need to get bigger, too, meaning that 150 million power poles will need to be replaced. 5.5 million miles of power lines will need to be upgraded to handle larger loads. There are no American companies that make substation-size transformers.

    High speed public EV charging stations draw 150-350 kW, and cost $450,000-$725,000. They need nine customers per day to break even, which will be difficult in rural areas. Volta is already in financial trouble. 20% of public chargers in San Fran Sicko are in non-working condition. Software in public chargers is already a target for hackers.

    31.4% of households are in multi-family dwellings. 40% of households have secure off-street parking. California wants to replace suburbs with more stack-and-pack housing, to concentrate racism, drugs, and crime. Where will EVs be charged?

    No system engineering is being done in the Greta Green Energy Transition.

    • That is quite the IEEE report. Wow! This is the kind of thing that planners need to be thinking about.

      • Rodster says:

        Politicians are always looking for votes. They will never tell the public the truth. If they did, it would put them out of office. EV’s won’t work because the math says it won’t.

        Politicians OTOH always view things in a linear fashion, i.e. “let’s make the switch to EV’s and we will figure it out and make it work as we go along”.

        And yet, California tells it citizens not to charge their EV’s during peak hours because the grid can’t handle the load and that’s with just roughly 10% of all California vehicles. What happens when California has to deal with 75% of all vehicles on the road that need to be charged?

        Nevermind that most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and a new vehicle is out of reach. I was recently told that new car loans have hit 10 years to offset the average price of a new vehicle which now easily hits $45K.

        Just wait till those EV owners have to replace the battery module which typically starts at $18K and goes much higher depending on the vehicle.

      • hkeithhenson says:

        “planners need to be thinking about.”

        Design engineers too. There is an obvious way to make less expensive substation and distribution transformers. With cheap, fast semiconductors you can raise the frequency to 60kHz, transform down and make it back into 60 Hz. This takes about 1/1000th of the iron and wire.

        Why this is not already being widely done is a mystery.

  30. Fast Eddy says:

    Ford Is Losing $66,446 On Every EV It Sells
    And FoMoCo isn’t making up for it in volume.

    hahaha so i guess it’s gotten worse

    • Selling EVs profitably is a huge problem.

    • Hubbs says:

      The EV’s were NEVER meant to be “profitable,” just as the VAXXes were never meant to protect people from COVID. EV’s are a distraction to fool the people into abandoning fossil fuel ICE transportation and to leave them confined in 15 minute cities. It’s all about control.

      From Gates’ thousands of acres of farm land that he is not planting because of “concerns” about “climate change,” to the confiscation of the farms in the Neatherlands, or the attempt to push CBDCs, or enabling the Vanguards and the Blackstones to buy up residential housing or fiancially shackle the dumb students with unpayable college tuition debt, it is all an attempt to leave everyone hungry, homeless, and penniless.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        The closer we get to the cliff the more they are pushing the EV PR… gotta convince the MOREONS that the Great Transition is actually happening.


    • Rodster says:

      Ford is taking a wait and see on EV’s. They are still investing in ICE’s and that may serve them well if the EV market doesn’t work out. GM OTOH is all in on EV’s but note that GM took government bailout money during the 2008 financial crisis, while Ford did not.

      “We’re investing in ICE segments where we’re dominant and where we think, as competitors leave the segments, we can actually grow,” Farley told FOX Business.

      “I find it intriguing that we’re portraying the future of our industry as monolithic. That’s not how it goes. That’s not how it’s going to manifest itself.”

  31. We all have our opinions on the war in Ukraine, but if the Russian side wins, the end of Civilization has arrived.

    Putin is an Eastern despot , little different from Ivan the Terrible whose most famous act was killing his oldest son because he got frustrated in a whim.

    A Russian victory means the world basically goes back to the era of Jeanne D’Arc, Mehmet II and Francois Villion, forgetting everything which happened from circa 1480.

    A lot of people will fight to death to keep the advance way of life going.

    • houtskool says:

      If the Russian side, whatever that is, loses, promise me kulm, send me a picture of your latest Bitcoin piercing.

    • Cromagnon says:

      Of course Russia “wins”. That was never in doubt….look at a map.

      Relax,….the sun will solve all your concerns very soon.

      I wonder what roasted day trader tastes like?

    • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

      “… if the Russian side wins, the end of Civilization has arrived.”

      oh please, oh Great Reality, most wonderful Mother Universe, PLEASE…

      may kulmthesq live to see the day this happens!

      and may I further beseech You oh Great Reality Mother Universe…

      sooner rather than later?

    • Student says:

      The reality in my view is that if Putin and his allies go away from Russian power, the result will be worse for us, because he is actually a moderate.
      In my view if we don’t understand this we make a mistake.

      • Foolish Fitz says:

        A very important point that most don’t see Student, as they are bombarded with 24h propaganda.

        Putin tried for years to be an honest business partner to the west and each time we spat in his face. He warned in his famous 2007 Munich speech, the outcome of that path and told the world that Russia would prepare accordingly and here we are.

        Russia+o won’t be ruled over.

        “However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

        It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

        And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

        Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

        I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.

        Along with this, what is happening in today’s world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.”

        Russia will develop hypersonic weapons.

        “Yes, the United States is ostensibly not developing an offensive weapon. In any case, the public does not know about this. Even though they are certainly developing them. But we aren’t even going to ask about this now. We know that these developments are proceeding. But we pretend that we don’t know, so we say that they aren’t developing new weapons. But what do we know? That the United States is actively developing and already strengthening an anti-missile defence system. Today this system is ineffective but we do not know exactly whether it will one day be effective. But in theory it is being created for that purpose. So hypothetically we recognise that when this moment arrives, the possible threat from our nuclear forces will be completely neutralised. Russia’s present nuclear capabilities, that is. The balance of powers will be absolutely destroyed and one of the parties will benefit from the feeling of complete security. This means that its hands will be free not only in local but eventually also in global conflicts.

        We are discussing this with you now. I would not want anyone to suspect any aggressive intentions on our part. But the system of international relations is just like mathematics. There are no personal dimensions. And of course we should react to this. How? Either the same as you and therefore by building a multi-billion dollar anti-missile system or, in view of our present economic and financial possibilities, by developing an asymmetrical answer. So that everybody can understand that the anti-missile defence system is useless against Russia because we have certain weapons that easily overcome it. And we are proceeding in this direction. It is cheaper for us. And this is in no way directed against the United States themselves.”

        Quite amazing that the evidence of two decades is completely forgotten by the western media and the people that read/watch it. You need only read/watch any high level speech from Russia and they lay it all out, sometimes decades in advance, for us.

  32. Mirror on the wall says:

    USA Joint Chief of Staff Mark Milley has acknowledged that UKR does not stand a chance against Russia.

    Russia has placed several hundred thousand troops in and around UKR, and UKR is not going to be able to regain its ground any time soon.

    And the supply of F-16 planes will make absolutely no difference as Russia has total air superiority.

    The conflict will end in negotiation or by a military solution (Russia wins).

    We are seeing repeated public interventions by the Pentagon and senior USA military officers.

    The Biden camp has not got a clue what they are doing, they just make up lies like they change anything, and the Pentagon is supposed to put up with that nonsense.

    Russia has the industrial military capacity to wage war of attrition, and NATO does not, which is reflected in ongoing arms production.

    Everyone knows that, and it is only a matter of time before UKR loses.

    UKR is an historic NATO blunder, it is liable to hasten the collapse of USA hegemony, and that is liable to take a horrific financial toll on USA.

    USA is going to struggle to find any narrative to ‘manage’ that outcome. Sometimes, collapse just is what it is.

    Pentagon admits to Ukraine’s inability to defeat Russian troops; Moscow lauds U.S. ‘assessment’

    • Mirror on the wall says:

      UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has admitted that all of UK/ NATO/ Europe are running out of weapons.

      They will not be able to fulfill promises of supplies to UKR.

      Western stockpiles are already drained and severely depleted.

      “We’ve seen reality, which is that we are all running out of weapons,” Wallace admitted.

      NATO is reduced to trying to buy supplies on the open market, which is desperate and nothing like a solution.

      There is talk of ‘ramping up’ the production of arms, but NATO lacks the industrial military capacity to compete with Russia in attrition war.

      Very recent assessments by the West itself have confirmed that, and Alex on The Duran discussed that last night.

      NATO is not projected to be able to produce anything like what UKR is presently consuming, let alone what Russia is both producing and consuming.

      War of attrition relies entirely on the ability of the side to replenish consumed factors, and UKR/ NATO is bound to lose without that capacity.

      And as USA Joint Chief of Staff Mark Milley points out, UKR can forget about success in any ‘big manoeuvre counter-offensive’.

      We can see that the Russian decision to wage attrition war in UKR was entirely informed and bound for success.

      West to walk back on weapons promise to Kyiv? ‘Running Out Of Arms…’ admits UK Defence Chief

      • We will see what happens next.

        • Jan says:

          A lot of young men will die. Kids will be traumatized, women have to flee, arable land will be devastated.

          I think it is time for peace negotiations!

      • postkey says:

        ” . . . but NATO lacks the industrial military capacity to compete with Russia in attrition war.”

        And I’ve been telling ‘everyone’ that the world ‘revolves around’ the MIC!
        Maybe the ‘wrong type’ of weapon?

    • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

      the WoketardWest will eventually call it a “stalemate”.

      (like the Korean War?) there will be no final treaty. There will be no admission of defeat by the WokeWest.

      the best that the West can hope for is that Russia will stop once it has absorbed about “half” of Ukraine, the majority Russian speaking east and south.

      then these WesternWoketards can force their corrrupt media to spin it that it was a “draw”, a “tie”, because R only took half and U kept half.

      it’s abbbsurd, but that’s what the LoonyLeaders of the West have devolved into.

      • Sam says:

        “like the korean war” ? little bit different but ok….. What good would half be to Russia why have they spent so many Resources to get Half? I don’t see the advantages of this war other than a distraction or misguided….

  33. urseldoran says:

    Gail we all are very grateful for your superb genius work!!
    Here is an article of interest on the subject of the wind / solar industry.

  34. Dennis L. says:

    Last one before off to the farm, ugh!

    Basically young people can’t have families which in my time didn’t work 50% of the time secondary to divorce. Supposedly there is now a gender pay gap with women making less, but, but, they are graduating from college at a higher rate than men.

    The universe has taken billions of years to make a spacecraft for us, it has rules which work irrespective of our social wishes. The captain has spoken so to speak.

    It takes two to make a life and making a life is damn hard business. Humans are self replicating and biologically two dissimilar parents(fill in that one for yourself) have “skin” in the game figuratively and literally. Recently came across an article with two physicians, women, wanted a child, went to a sperm bank, there is more, irony here, do a google search for yourself. A basic question, what biological interest does the woman who is not carrying the child have in the child? Is divorce more likely or less likely?

    Again, life is very hard, we don’t get what we want but what we need. Rolling Stones circa 1969.

    Off to idyllic, rural paradise; 13K pound lawn mower, bring on the diesel, bring on the DEF, so very environmentally conscious. Maintaining waterways per government regulations and doing so in a sustainable manner. Hot here, grateful for the air in the cab. Laughing quietly at irony.

    Dennis L.

    • I am afraid that with conditions today, most young people cannot afford a family. If a person adds in the problem of educational debt, the problem gets even worse. We don’t know the answers to your questions. I am not sure that we ever will, unfortunately.

      • Dennis L. says:


        Traditionally, you are probably correct. I see the Amish around me raising families, building homes and running land. They have intermittent energy and not T. See the second to last paragrah, they find something to entertain themselves sans TV. Something is working.

        Today saw 20 horsepower, two 2 horse drawn planters for 4 horses, one two horsepower wagon(seed?) for 6 horses, one eight horse power plow and a six horse power disk for 20 horses. There were five men working as a team to get the job done – the rows look as though there were done with GPS and soil compaction is probably not an issue. These are self regenerating farming implements, yes I know, where does one get the iron.

        I have yet to see an Amish man with a gut overhanging his belt, well, they don’t wear belts.

        The most alarming sight is three children, young, riding in the back of a two wheeled buggy, facing backward on the floor, on the highway without seatbelts! Mom had the youngest in front with another infant in her arms while driving the horse – women are always good at multitasking.

        A guess: the average Amish child with an 8th grade education would far surpass most inner city children in math, writing and common sense.

        Any tradesman today, worth his salt, in Rochester makes $100K/year. It is dirty, tough work and overtime on the weekend is not optional. But, in a way, if one considers one’s truck as a home office, one does not have to go into the office.

        Dennis L.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        I recommend a dog vs a child … Perhaps I will offer Hoolio stud duty… the world could benefit from the spread of joy that is embedded in his DNA…

        I’ll make him available for one session per day — you bring your female in the rut and we’ll get them down to the business.

        And no norm… don’t think of submitting SSS for a session … that’s a disgusting thought

    • drb753 says:

      Do you want depopulation yes or no? No one said it would be easy or painless. Depop by ancient means was far more cruel but, alas, mercifully brief generally.

      • as long as energy input is rising—you will have rising population

        when energy input declines, so will population

        • Dennis L. says:


          Don’t know about that one, does the population always rise? The US has had rising energy for a long time, replacement rate is below sustaining rate.

          Humans are very adaptable and very well designed. Elon is copying humans for his robots, one might wonder if they will be different genders – I shall stop there, let your imagine run wild.

          Dennis L.

      • Dennis L. says:


        I have no opinion on that one, there is a fabric to the universe, they will think of something; no cynicism, it is God’s work not man’s.

        As for ancient means, old, but wasn’t there(that is a joke). I suspect it was not a brief death but a very uncomfortable one. Dentistry without local anesthetic comes to mind.

        Dennis L.

      • houtskool says:

        drb, we all sound like superb mamals. We are not. We, eventually, all have to deal with reality.

        Brain quantity is no guarantee for succes.

    • nikoB says:

      Dennis you are quite wrong about the gender pay gap. Now that men can easily identify as women there is no longer a glass ceiling for women. Thanks to courageous men that are women that problem has been solved. We can hopefully continue to eradicate more of these inequality issues between the sexes in short order by men in short skirts. To infinity and beyond. 😉

    • Fast Eddy says:

      Having children is over-rated… they are a burden…

      And now that we have Tranny Freaks in the classroom flashing packages… and teachers encouraging the kids to have gender swapping surgery and explaining the joys of pedo relationships with gnarly old Rat Juiced geezers…. who would in their right mind want to have a kid?

      • Ed says:

        Private school.

      • Foolish Fitz says:

        “who would in their right mind want to have a kid?”

        Interesting thought Eddy, have you ever considered that it wasn’t your choice?

        It’s debatable that we have any true free will. We are also just vehicles to carry our genes around and our sole purpose of being here is to pass those genes on.

        So, have you ever considered that the choice wasn’t your own. You may have been selected as a bad egg and unbeknown to yourself, been consigned to the genetic waste bin without even a hint.

        Basically, an evolutionary dead end, which is the looser in the game of survival of the fittest genes.

        My gene pool thanks you and your kind for making space for the genetic fit.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          I did battle with MR DNA … and won.

          I also convinced M Fast by dumping her with a family member whose kids are raging lunatics without any rule enforcement — for a weekend … then whenever we’d see a kid who was navigating a luxury E-chair with his tongue… with parents dutifully in tow… I’d say … gosh that must be tough for the parents.. just think we wonder what to do with the dogs if we leave for a month .. do you think the kennel would take a kid in a chair?

          • Foolish Fitz says:

            Stop lying to yourself Eddy.

            You have clearly lost that battle and by continuing the lie, you do no more than continue to deceive yourself.

            You rightly moan about the fraud of intelligence, but spend your whole time trying to deny the true purpose of your existence. A classic example of supposed intelligence justifying itself without logical reason.

            The rantings of genetic dead ends, however load, disappear so quickly and eternally, without reprieve.

            aeternum vale sucker.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              What do you mean I didn’t beat Mr DNA? As far as I know I have not dumped any mini FE’s on the world…. that is winning.

              Your purpose in life and FE’s are different. FE was not placed here to rut sows… HIS purpose to provide enlightenment to those wishing to be enlightened.

              HE is also in our midst to rain abuse on MORE-ONS. Call it entertainment value

            • Foolish Fitz says:

              No Eddy, you didn’t beat anything. You were thoroughly defeated without even a single moment of understanding the true reasoning.

              It’s quite stunning, the fantasy world that people wrap themselves up in, rather than face the harsh truth that they have been selected for genetic oblivion. That’s part of the reason we were given imagination. To ease the journey to oblivion.

              You had no say in the matter, but keep lying to yourself, if the truth is too painful to bear.


            • Fast Eddy says:

              When do you dip into Super Snatch? Let me make sure her Herps are in full bloom first though

            • Foolish Fitz says:

              I see from your reply that the truth of your situation is starting to sink in.

              Well done you 👍

            • Fast Eddy says:

              SSS says she’ll give me a bulk discount … you guys can queue up OBTD … and wait your turn … keith – we need you to film this

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Have I mentioned the path to Greatness … involves realizing that you were wrong.. accepting it… celebrating it…

              Do you need some help with this?

              Try – Oh Great Fast Eddy – thank you for helping me to see the light… your example of dipping into the Fester of SSS was Pure Genius… only one of your calibre could have thunk of that one… It makes perfect sense … SSS is a diseased skank… harbouring nasty viruses ….or at least widgets… something that will spread to me should I partake of her Festering Gape… therefore I shall save myself the grief of incurring Fester on my doodleglopper… having been epiphanied

              Today I learned something. Today is a good day.

              Thank you almighty Fast Eddy who art on the Goat Ranch … hallowed be they name … for if I had done the experiment… then what?

              Now we have to consider norm … norm who partakes of the Fester + Rat Juice… hope you Trojan it for the Fester norm…

            • Human reproduction follows a bell curve, with the highest- and lowest-IQ people tending to have the fewest offspring.

            • Foolish Fitz says:

              Does that bell curve also match population size?

              There are less really thick and really smart people and masses in-between, so I’d say it’s meaningless, but probably comforting for some.

            • It’s per cranium, silly.

            • Tim Groves says:

              We all have lots of ancestors. Although CTG has a theory that we don’t.

              And we will all leave no decedents , if the famed Diabolical Extinction Plan is carried out successfully.

              So FE’s choices may not matter very much in the end.

              MR. DNA is a hard master as well as a sly one. It’s no mean feat to be able to cheat him out of his due and enjoy a life free from being parasitized or even cannibalized by one’s progeny.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Mr DNA once confronted me and insisted I breed. He cajoled… then he threatened.

              I slapped him in the face and told him to get f789ed. He roared and bellowed and flashed his fangs at me …

              I did this to him… and he never bothered me again…


    • Cromagnon says:

      I have 5 mature Angus bulls eating my yard grass right now……combined weight of 11,000 lbs. Fully renewable and non polluting. Just watch where you step when crossing yard. Also advisable to pull your mirrors in on motor vehicles…or they are gonna be removed.

      • Replenish says:

        I had a close encounter with a mature red Angus bull on the top of a ridge a couple years ago. I saw him grazing with his head down in the neighbor’s fenced hayfield. He caught wind of me and came crashing up through the corn. I stood about 15-20 feet from him across the fence and talked calmly thinking he got loose. He snorted with an angry look and then walked away. He was ripped like our friend Hoolio.

      • Ed says:

        You live an exceptional life.

  35. There will be a movie named Oppenheimer soon.

    Oppenheimer is well known in USA since he was the most famous of the lot creating the atomic bomb who could , with some stretch, be called an ‘American’. He was born in New York, although none of his ancestors had anything to do with USA.

    In the famous photo of the Solvay conference, the only American, Irving Langmuir, had parents born outside of USA. And he was the only American there.

    Americans during the Manhattan Project were as relevant as the Chinese managers in a FoxConn factory or the Taiwanese managers at the TSMC, just supervising and completely irrelevant as far as the big decisions were concerned.

    Because of the world wars, Europe stopped producing talents, and that was the end of it. There were some American talents being produced, but after around 1972 it stopped. Keith is not a young person either.

    I will spare words from ‘talents’ from Asia since I have nothing to say about them.

  36. If Trump or someone in the same vein does take over, workhouses will come back.

    Cheap labor with no chance of workers comp and labor dispute, easily disposable, to do the menial work.

    The rich, the capitalists and the landowners, who are able to drive civilization, have suffered long and it is time for their revenge, which will be hard and very swift.

    • Very Far Frank says:

      Silly comment. Trump has already been in power with a senate majority and they didn’t try to dismantle labour unions. Recently Trump republicans have aligned themselves more and more with traditional blue collar groups.

      • Don has many faults, but Don after Nov 2020 is a changed man who does not give a crap about these institutions

        and if he doesn’t do it there will be a legion of politicians who will crack the hoi polloi very hard.

        • Cromagnon says:

          Trump is bought and paid for every bit as much as the old fool in the white house. If not, he would have invoked martial law when he had the chance and drained the swamp in a real way like he talked about endlessly. Guillotines and foring squads
          It does not matter, The “rich, the landowners and the capitalists are about to get eaten as things really go to shit…..hell most of them truthfully took Eddy’s rat poison anyway lol.
          The God of this world will take them all.

          • Fast Eddy says:

            Don’s in the Club… as is Joe … when you are in the Club you do what you are told… you play your role… the rewards are incredible — if you fancy them a ‘bit young’ that’s ok… nobody minds… it’s the Club afterall.

          • cro

            trump did not have the power to invoke martial law—otherwise he would have

            by 26/27 things are likely to be very different

            • Cromagnon says:

              Oh nonsense……the Canadian lunatic invoked martial law over a bunch of truck drivers….don’t tell me Trump could not have pulled the same shiite.

              At this point I could care less honestly.

            • Ed says:

              There is a group that is in insurrection against the constitution, the people, and the nation. That he did not declare martial law seems to say the military is part of the insurrection.

            • Tim Groves says:

              Donald told me confidentially (so please don’t let it go beyond this forum) that he wanted to invoke martial law, but that he feared the condemnation he would get from Norman Pagett. Trump is very sensitive to criticism and craves approval.

            • Tim

              i think you made a typo there mate—and inadvertently described eddy

            • Fast Eddy says:

              If Tim has been describing Eddy he’s have used words like Great.. God.. Amazing… Cutting Edge…

            • sensitive to criticism and craving approval are more than sufficient for the moment

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Fast Eddy needs no approval… HE is aware of his Greatness… HE even admits it.

              You’ve been referred to as a NOF as well as insulted by various other Great Entities on OFW… one might suspect you have an esteem problem norm…

    • Ed says:

      When Kamala takes over we are going to eat all the rich.

  37. The world would have advanced much more if all modern stuff were reserve to the elites and the populace, let alone the denizens of third worlds, still lived barefoot.

    No post-elementary education for those who did not own a property, no post secondary education for those who could not get a recommendation letter from the local representative or governor, and so forth.

    Elites living like gods and the rabble living like animals is the formula for achieving singularity and type i civilization , since it virtually eliminates resource consumption. The resources spent by the elite humans in the First World are trivial compared to the energy consumed by the rabble and the denizens of the Third World.

    • The formula you suggest allocates scarce resources, but it really doubt that it achieves “singularity and type i civilization.”

      I expect that the world’s biosphere will somehow develop economies that will find a way to dissipate any fossil fuel resources that today’s humans have left behind. I don’t know exactly how this will happen, however. Maybe humans, when exposed to radiation, will evolve in a way that is helpful. Maybe climate change will be helpful in making existing fossil fuel resources more easily extracted.

    • ivanislav says:

      This is nonsense. The “elites” are trained as lawyers and bankers, who never come up with any technological innovation. It is the “commoners” who put the time and work in to advance civilization.

      • Cromagnon says:

        They are soft, weak, stupid and their fat will sizzle as it falls on the hot stones around the cooking pits.

    • Jan says:

      Don’t underate economics of scale: Most modern inventions were possible, because materials were ubiquous available. Availability needs huge productions bought by customers and of course a trade infrastrucuture.

  38. CTG says:

    I am starting to hear turbo cancers, “unexpected” death and friends saying that they have been to way too many wakes and funeral lately. No one seems to be interested to know “why”. I justvstay quiet. Not a word from me. Difficult to resist the temptation to chip in about vaccines but I held back.

    It is seriously surreal like I am living in another dimension and no one in this dimension understands me.

    • I think we have to look at overall death rates.

      The CDC recently published information on 2022 US deaths for the US. They were still very elevated, compared to deaths for 2019 and prior. This is a chart from the WSJ.×821.png

      The article it is from is located at this link:

      • CTG says:

        Surreal. It is nor brainwashing or other earthly explanations. I have already looked into other non-earthly explanations

    • Just anecdotal stories

      There has been 5 deaths around my circle. Most of them were kinda old, but.

      1. Someone’s mother died at the age of 89. Her 3 sisters al lived to be 95+
      2. Another person’s parents and half brother died within a few months. They were not young either but they died horribly
      3. The father of another guy died in his late 70s . He was not young either but he suddenly developed an illness and died within a few months

      In addition,

      a co-worker’s husband and his mother both developed diseases. They are not young either, but not that old, the mother in late seventies and the son (the husband) in mid-fifties.

      Stories of customer’s parents, friends and reps dying or getting seriously sick are legion. Granted, some of them would have been old age. However, you-know-what would probably have hastened that a lot.

      I say nothing. Of course I am the only on in the circle who stood strong.

      • I think that bad diet and lack of exercise plays a significant role in a lot of these deaths. Also, depression about how things are going.

    • ivanislav says:

      Continue to hold back. No one wants an “I told you so” or a “he got what was coming” when a loved one dies.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        The thing is … ain’t nothing they can do about it now … there is no unf789ing a Vaxxer.

        The best thing to do is Schad … quietly…. go into a room … away from the Vaxxers… and laugh till you cry hahaha

    • Fast Eddy says:

      It is important to refrain from suggesting it’s the Rat Juice… the last thing we want is for the MOREONS to stop injecting…

      We want more of them to take the 2023 vintage ‘the bivalent reserve’…

      Cuz that feeds our inner desire to experience Daily Schad.

      I highly recommend subscribing to this SS — it’s a curated list of The Best Schad… Crispy Miller’s lists are too long … and list too many nobodies…

  39. Dennis L. says:

    Interesting note on one part of debt issue, student debt. If there are no jobs with which to gain income with which to pay student debt, there is no downside risk to not paying said debt. Hmmm, Houston we have a problem.

    Students are basically saying, “Just walk away from it.” Echos of “keys are in the mailbox.” of the 1980’s. We were sold a worthless education, we will pay nothing for it.

    Dennis L.

    • I am afraid I agree with those students. A lot of those degrees were worthless. They propped up educational institutions, and they kept young people out of the workforce, but that was about it.

    • Debtor’s prisons and corvee will be the solutions

      Lenders do not want to lose their moeny

      In the old days debtors were held in debtor’s prisons until they paid their off

      • Dennis L. says:

        A debtor prison is an energy sink, AI robots will work cheaper than cheap labor.

        Dennis L.

        • the laws of physics rule that AI robots must consume energy

          they cannot produce it

          so——end of the AI fantasy

          not that stating the obvious will make one iota of difference to ‘entrenched certainties’

  40. Mrs S says:

    News from the UK:

    Food prices are rising by 15%. The government discussed plans to put a cap on basic foodstuffs such as bread and milk.

    Banks withdrew 800 different mortgage products, and mortgage interest rates crept up.

    British Telecom announced plans to cut 42% of its workforce by 2030 due to AI.

    • Dennis L. says:

      Conclusion: by cutting 42% of its workforce, total energy consumption declines, AI has an EROI >1?

      If one is part of the workforce and has an EROI<1, that is a serious personal and societal issue.

      Information and energy are one in the same.

      Dennis L.

    • Putting a cap on basic foodstuffs may mean that less money gets back to the farmer. In that case, the incentive is not to plant as much. A cap on prices could also mean less imported food. Either way, there will be less food in the future available in the future.

      Our experience in Atlanta with capped oil prices (when pipelines were out due to storms or breaks in pipelines) says that low prices lead to lines of people trying to obtain fuel, due to inadequate supply. I suppose the result could be a little different with food.

      Cutting workforce by 42% means a lot of folks without jobs. The government cannot afford handouts for all of those people. This means less money available to pay farmers.

    • Minority says:

      Hello Mrs S

      >>Food prices are rising by 15%.
      the latest data I have seen over the last week or so is 20% minimum, which I think is more likely. I remember a couple of years ago when Lurpak spreadable reached £3.00 for 500g and I thought that was extortionate. Now £5.00 – 5.75. I don’t understand how the large numbers of not-so-well-off people in the UK are not starving / rioting already.

      “The government discussed plans to put a cap on basic foodstuffs such as bread and milk.”
      This is the tried and tested nonsense of many a govt. Why is it nonsense? Because the UK govt is asking the food retailers to cap food prices voluntarily without any govt subsidy. If it costs a farmer £1.50 to produce a pint of milk, and the govt says sell for £1.20, someone has to lose out and it is usually the farmer, who then stops producing the milk. Govt looks clueless, but maybe the spineless bought-and-paid for politicians are just following orders.

      Hope you are able to make good use of our (UK) uncharacteristic good weather. Long may it last.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        And what is happening in the 3rd world … they could barely feed themselves before all of this … why are they not killing children and roasting them?

        Maybe they are?

    • Fast Eddy says:

      Wasn’t it 19%?

      It’s still a long way to eating a bowl of rice with a bit of rat meat….

  41. infoshark says:

    Memetic Convergence.

    With respect to renewable energy sources, wind, solar, and even nuclear do not provide sufficient net energy necessary to sustain a level of socio-economic and technological complexity necessary to produce them (1). Given we are trending negative on the declining marginal returns of complexity curve, coinciding with rapid global energy descent of fossil energy breaching a 1:1 EROI within a decade, we simply do not have the energy nor net-beneficial complexity to scale up renewables to meet the energy demands necessary to power a complex society. Nuclear energy is advantageous, solely because it is not intermittent, but otherwise suffers from the core issues together with other alternatives. Both Germany and China aggressively subsidized renewable energy for the last decade, and have all but ceased because of (1) above. Merely looking at energy balance, substitution, or EROI of renewables fails to account for the intersection of energy and socioeconomic complexity.

    Moreover, there exists a bubble of money equivalents in excess of 3 quadrillion dollars (>30x Global annual GDP) , coinciding with virtually all western nations at or beyond debt saturation. Given that >95% of these money equivalents is a debt claim on future energy consumption and available energy, combined with cascading counter party risk within the system, within a decade the vast majority of these money equivalents will cease to function as money altogether. Money is the arbiter of trust between the social periphery and the core of complexity mediating stable social relations between relative strangers. With monetary collapse we will simply not have the economic means to increase, let alone sustain complexity, nor will we have the social trust between the periphery and the core to ensure the core can reallocate energy from the periphery to sustain itself. In the end the core of complexity will not hold, thus giving way to localization, and more collapse of complexity in a self-fulfilling positive feedback loop. This is how and why civilizations collapse.

    Changing what money is will not change the fact that the complexity we have today is the result of reallocating 30+ years of global energy demand from the future to the present, that the energetic foundation of that complexity is rapidly evaporating in large part because of this temporal reallocation, and that our economic system that enabled the centralization of complexity across spacetime will succumb to the fatal contradiction that was also its greatest advantage. Dialectically it is not unexpected. Again and again, we observe great things that become great through some internal property, only for that internal property to be the reason for their ultimate demise.

    • Clickkid says:

      Very nicely encapsulated Great comment!

    • Cromagnon says:

      Well done….excellent summation.

      Your next step will be to more fully engage with the non physical reality and try to grok the underlying meaning, message and wonder of it all.

      There is no truly “physical reality” after all……something else is afoot.

    • Dennis L. says:

      “within a decade the vast majority of these money equivalents will cease to function as money altogether.”

      Insightful, a hint of how the debt problem is solved or dealt with.

      In the real world does this imply many capital investments which do not produce energy are sunk costs and thus collapse with the debt?

      With renewables, does that collapse in value stop when the net energy goes positive? If a wind turbine’s cost is reduced by half secondary to non payment of interest and principle does that not solve the problem discussed?

      Dennis L.

    • drb753 says:

      Excellent comment but the conclusions are wrong. complexity is NOT rapidly evaporating in large part because of this temporal reallocation, but due to run of the mill resource depletion.

      • Dennis L. says:

        AI is complexity, per Elon at least $250M is needed in computers alone to make it work.

        Hard to see where it will go, but robots can work in space.

        Dennis L.

        • hkeithhenson says:

          “but robots can work in space.”

          I don’t know if power satellites make economic sense or some other way of making energy is better. But if we do go for power satellites, robots are required to build them.

    • I can’t double check your figures, but there have been a huge number of financial promises made. All of the pension plans, including government-sponsored plans, are in this category. The US Social Security plan was started in the 1930s to reduce the number of workers and thus get average wages up. So are Medicare plans, and unemployment plans. Values of stocks and bonds depend on the availability of things to actually buy with them.

      Clearly the amount of goods and service that the world can produce is falling.

      The combination can’t work.

    • ivanislav says:

      Big picture, sure, but I don’t know where you get your 1-decade EROI=1 estimate. I don’t think that’s valid. There are already non-economical formations (EROI < 1) and also those that can pump at fixed levels with no discernable drop-off for decades.

      • If an oil supply keeps pumping for decades, there are things going on in the background. For example, more and more water flooding, or more chemical extraction used.

        The places I have noticed extraction going on for a very long time are the oil sands of Canada. The stuff is hard to get out and process. It goes slowly.

        • ivanislav says:

          I don’t mean that those sources are inexhaustible, just that the EROI remains high for a long time without additional energy input. A lot of those wells are small, i.e. lower flow rate, maintained by small mom-and-pop oil shops, according to what I’ve read.

          Obviously anything fracking-related doesn’t fall into this category.

  42. Allyn L Boldt says:

    It is good to see you becoming woke.

    • I am guessing that you are joking. I have a sister who has been married to another woman for many years. The other woman died recently, at the age of 71. She was a very fine woman.

      My daughter is also married to another woman. My daughter had a baby through artificial insemination, so my only grandchild lives in a same sex marriage.

      I also know several other gay people who seem to be perfectly fine individuals. They go about their lives, pretty much as everyone else does.

      But I am not an advocate of having biological men compete in women’s sports, or young children being introduced to the idea of changing their sex.

      • Dennis L. says:


        Humans are self-replicating, homosexuals are not without outside intervention which you mention. Non replicating humans age and become a cost greater than their surplus income. Simple solution is to make same sex activities a sin which solves some of the problem of using the surplus labor from the reproducing population. It is the old EROI problem in a different form growth is the ever present problem.

        Self stimulation is a fact, skin contact is very nice, we want to touch, it works for the elites but if done widely, no self replication. Or, demographics, always demographics.

        Now, what happens with AI and artificial skin? Wow, slip a few of these in and would many know the difference? Neuralink may be as profitable as porn was to the internet, no skin in the game so to speak.

        TINA and the fabric of the universe has gotten us this far; hard to see the future.

        Dennis L.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        Now that the munchkins have left the nest we have 3 empty rooms … I have posted flat share ads and currently have a list of a dozen or so smoking hot 20 something females very keen (there is a housing shortage here in QT…) … there is an option to reduce the rent to half (but of course nothing comes for free)…

        M Fast got wind of what I was up to the other day and blasphemed me and now the ads have all been taken down…

        I tried to explain as follows — why are you so un-woke? And when she said – WTF were you thinking I said … I was feeling Demoralized by the Ukrainian war and all the tranny freak clips I’ve been watching and thought I should do whatever I could to help …. I also am influenced by the Bidens… and watching Apocalypse Now over 20x… I’ve lost my moral compass…

        She blasphemed me some more

  43. I AM THE MOB says:

    Hey FE

    I went to renew my lease the other day and my landlord was in the hospital with a
    “Medical Emergency”.

    I guess he’s “Lord of the flies” now!

    Score one for the LEFT!


  44. Christopher says:

    Wind power, a green bubble or a black hole. Recent study on swedish wind power plants constructed 2017-2020. Profitability around -10%, look at the first diagram.

  45. Fast Eddy says:

    He must be totally f789ed for CNNBBC to publish this

    Of course this is an extremely rare occurrence.

    Oh btw the covid hotline person said the injuries are rare and only affect at most 1%.

    1%!!! I exclaimed — so I have a one in 100 chance of being f789ed up and that’s safe hahahahaha

  46. Tim Groves says:

    “President Putin, do you want to rule the world?”

    “But of course….”

    • Video from 2018. When Putin is asked whether Russia wants to rule the world, he says that no, it is the US and its allies that want to rule the world.

      NATO needs some external threat, to justify its existence. Russia, with its nuclear power, is the chosen approach.

    • Minority says:

      This video just shows what an intellectual statesman Putin is, and what a complete and utter bunch of arse holes our pollical leaders in the West are. Putin is no angel, but he is way ahead of the idiots in the West.

  47. drhooves says:

    Excellent article. EROI calculations are very “squishy” these days, depending on which energy source you’re favoring – for whatever reason. EROI modeling also suffers from the goal of maintaining the same/current standard of living in most cases, which even a basic understanding of physics and economics (and inclusion in more accurate modeling) reveals that’s not a viable option.

    Gail, you touched on the very high cost of converting food production and long distance travel to “renewables”, and I think that’s a key point. Look for .gov to introduce significant restrictions and lockdowns in the years ahead when it comes to food (rationing) and travel (can you say lockdowns?).

    Whether it will be done in the guise of climate change or emergency proclamations (or both) is the only open question, IMHO….

    • Thanks! Leaders of governments cannot admit to our real problem, which is inadequate fossil fuel energy supply. So they have created a narrative that leads to getting off of fossil fuels, even if it is not really possible to do this, ostensibly to fight climate change. Electric cars and new gas ranges tend to become too expensive to purchase, so most people will be priced out of the market.

      Overshoot and collapse has been a problem in practically every economy. In Old Testament days, people were told that the problem was that they had sinned, and the outcome was related to God’s wrath. It was really that there were too many people for resources. Too many people relative to resources is again the problem. Of course, EROI modeling does not have a population variable in it, so it cannot pick up one of the underlying issues. If a person thinks about it, the average EROI needs to rise over time, not stay level. EROI theory misses this point, also.

      Leaders always need to come up with explanations that look like the downturn somehow makes sense.

      • Dennis L. says:

        Over the past several thousand years, energy has kept up with population growth except for temporal issues which are transitory; sometimes energy production lags behind population growth and adjustments occur.

        Musk has a possible solution to many problems. There is plenty of energy in a concentrated form, fusion, the sun. Manufacture in space, move pollution to space. TINA.

        Dennis L.

        • Tsubion says:

          Dennis, do you really believe we can achieve any of those goals within the next twenty years? Which is the time period I can be bothered to contemplate. Anything beyond that is hazy at best.

Comments are closed.