|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Summary: We live in a conflict-filled world today. I believe that this is ultimately a “not-enough-to-go-around” problem. Hidden oil shortages are the problem. Strangely, at this stage in the economic cycle, oil shortages seem to appear as high interest rates rather than high prices. The “climate is our biggest problem” narrative gets told repeatedly because it makes cutting back on fossil fuels sound like a virtuous thing, rather than something we are being forced to do.
Introduction: When a major change occurs, such as moving to a new home, there are always a variety of explanations as to why the change took place. When explaining the change to someone else, we will almost always give a positive reason for the move, such as moving to be closer to relatives, access to better job opportunities, or to enjoy a better climate. We don’t talk more than necessary about negative issues such as being fired from a job, undergoing bankruptcy, or considering a divorce from one’s spouse.
With oil shortages and other energy problems (including the possibility of too much fossil fuels leading to climate change), the situation is in some ways similar. There is no simple answer as to why these problems are occurring. What we end up with is different groups seeing the current situation and its long-term resolution from different perspectives. Each group emphasizes the aspects of the problem that they see as most amenable to being solved. The different perspectives lead to conflicts among the groups.
We are living in a finite world. It is not clear that any perfect solutions are at hand. What is clear is that a finite world behaves very differently from what our intuition or the models created by economists suggests. In this post, I will try provide a partial explanation of what our energy dilemma entails, and how this leads to conflict, even war.
[1] World crude oil supply suddenly “turned a corner” about 1973. There was a huge change both in the price and growth rate of the oil supply.
Prices were amazingly low prior to about 1973. The prices shown have been adjusted for inflation to the 2023 price level.
Once oil prices rose, the growth rate of oil consumption collapsed because goods and services made with oil were no longer as affordable. There was also an effort to cut back on oil consumption because it was clear that low-cost oil supply was limited.
Increases in the supply of very cheap oil allowed many improvements to infrastructure. Electricity transmission lines, interstate highways, long distance oil and gas pipelines, and infrastructure supporting transport by air were all added. The economy became more productive. Figure 3 shows that the wages of even low-paid workers were able to rise.
Up until 1968, US wages for both the bottom 90% of workers and the top 10% of workers rose much faster than inflation. With this change, all kinds of goods and services became more affordable, including food, new homes, and new cars. In the period 1968 to 1981, the wages of both groups rose as fast as inflation. After 1981, growth of the wages of the top 10% far exceeded the inflation rate. Figure 3 shows data for the US, but the “Marshall Plan” helped spread economic growth to Europe, as well.
The rising oil prices in 1973 and 1974 brought the growth of oil consumption down to a much lower level. Without low-priced oil, inflation and recession became much more of a problem.
[2] Interest rate changes are being used to offset problems caused by too much or too little oil supply growth.
Figure 4 shows that rising interest rates acted as brakes on the economy up until 1981. Figure 3 shows that this was a period when the purchasing-power of workers was rapidly expanding, indirectly because of the rising supply of cheap oil. The reason why these higher rates slowed the economy is because higher interest rates make it more expensive to finance high-cost purchases. These higher interest rates also tended to hold down price appreciation of assets such as homes and shares of stock because fewer buyers could afford them.
Lowering interest rates over the four decades beginning in 1981 acted in the opposite direction. These lower interest rates made major purchases more affordable, allowing more people to afford a given home or farm. This tended to raise home and farm prices. In the US, refinancing mortgages at lower interest rates and taking out some or all of the price appreciation on the property became popular, further adding to purchasing power. These changes acted to boost the economy, hiding the growing problems with high-cost oil supply.
[3] The world now seems to be hitting two limits at once: (a) Crude oil supply is not keeping up, and (b) Interest rates are stubbornly high.
Figure 5 shows that world crude oil production (relative to population) was lower in June 2024 than for any month since June 2022. The June 2024 production level was much lower than in 2019, before the drop-off in oil production related to Covid-19 restrictions. A longer view strongly suggests that the peak in world oil production took place in 2019.
Based on the high prices experienced in the 1970s, many people today assume that inadequate oil supply will be signaled by high prices. Instead, what is happening now is more of an affordability problem. There are more young people with student loans who cannot afford cars or families. There are many people with college degrees working at jobs that do not require advanced education, and thus do not pay well. There are more immigrants earning low wages. Because of these factors, overall demand tends to stay too low to encourage the development of new, more marginally profitable, oil wells.
Interest rates shown in Figure 4 have risen sharply since 2020. Governments in many countries have raised debt levels, but this added debt has not resulted in a corresponding amount of goods and services being added. The problem is that the oil supply needed to produce these goods and services isn’t rising sufficiently. Instead, the added debt has tended to produce inflation.
Currently, politicians around the world want to add new programs (financed by debt) to help their economies out. If this new debt actually gets more oil out of the ground (through higher oil prices), it may be helpful. But, so far, the additional spending isn’t producing a corresponding amount of goods and services; instead, inflation is tending to stay rather high. This is a sign that limits on inexpensive-to-extract crude oil are being reached. With more inflation, interest rates on mortgages will remain stubbornly high, and economies will deteriorate.
Governments may want to reduce long-term interest rates, but they cannot do so without having the market for these loans disappear. In this part of the economic cycle, it appears that high interest rates, indirectly due to inadequate inexpensive-to-extract crude oil supplies, act as a brake on the economy instead of high oil prices. This confuses those who are expecting high oil prices to signal inadequate supply!
[4] Citizens are not being told about the shortage of low-cost crude oil. Instead, a climate change narrative is being emphasized.
In the 1970s, huge spikes in oil prices led to an immediate understanding that the world had an oil problem. But the fact that the economy has gone on since then, and oil prices are no longer up in the stratosphere, has led people to believe that the shortage problem has gone away. Adding to this belief is the fact that there seem to be substantial oil resources that can be extracted with current technology if the price is high enough.
With a different model, based on the amount of fossil fuels that might be available (if prices could rise high enough, for long enough), it is possible to conclude that if the world continues to extract fossil fuels as it has in the past, this will contribute to rising CO2 levels. This, in turn, could have an impact on the climate.
In my opinion, we are currently facing a serious shortage problem today, not only with crude oil, but also with coal. World coal consumption, relative to population, has turned down in the period since 2012.
The problem with coal seems to be similar to oil; there seems to be plenty of coal in the ground, but prices won’t rise high enough, for long enough, to allow extraction of the higher-cost coal.
Anyone looking at the situation, regardless of their perspective, would say, “We truly need something other than oil and coal to supplement our current energy supply.” The question becomes, “How can this issue be framed to be moderately acceptable to the public?” President Jimmy Carter, back in 1977, talked about the energy crisis and the need to use less oil, but he was not re-elected. Citizens didn’t like the idea of changing their lifestyles.
Somehow, the plan was developed to frame the problem as a climate change problem. This approach had multiple advantages:
(a) This approach would perhaps lead to finding some alternatives to oil and coal.
(b) Citizens would be able to feel virtuous, as they voluntarily endured higher prices and lower energy supplies, during the hoped-for transition.
(c) This approach would allow huge investment opportunities for businesses, including oil and gas companies. Higher profits would perhaps follow. Universities would also benefit.
(d) The economy would show higher GDP because of the growing debt used to finance the so-called renewables. Job opportunities would develop.
(e) Framing the conversation in terms of a climate change narrative instead of the crude oil shortage narrative conveniently leaves out the importance of very low energy prices for the affordability of finished goods. This narrative also leaves out the importance of an adequate total quantity of energy products to maintain GDP growth. Economists didn’t understand either of these issues.
(f) When the carbon emissions goals were announced in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the goals had the indirect effect of shifting industry from the US and Europe to China and other Asian countries. Because of the use of very inexpensive coal and low-cost labor, the shift would allow for the world production of manufactured goods to grow at very low cost. Businesses in the US and Europe could hopefully take advantage of this shift because US and European oil and coal supplies were becoming depleted, making it impossible to make this change without the assistance of coal supplies from China and elsewhere.
[5] The world economy is already facing a not-enough-to-go-around problem that plays out in many ways. These not-enough-to-go-around issues contribute to conflict.
(a) Exporters are not getting high enough prices for their exported oil. Revenue from oil is used both to support the development of new fields and to provide tax revenue for governments to provide services for their citizens. If oil prices were $100 to $150 per barrel, exporters would have the additional revenue needed to support their economies. This is a major reason why Russia and Middle Eastern countries are in turmoil.
We don’t think of low oil prices as a not-enough-to-go-around issue, but it is. Shortages of fossil fuels of any kind tend to slow the growth in the supply of finished goods and services that use those products. The part of the world economy left behind can be the producers of fossil fuels, even more than the consumers.
(b) Natural gas export prices have tended to be too low. Low pipeline natural gas prices to Europe were a major reason why Russia wanted to shift its natural gas exports toward China and other Asian countries, where prices might be higher. US natural gas producers are also unhappy about the low prices they get. The US would be happy to push Russia out as a natural gas exporter to Europe.
(c) The Advanced Economies have reduced industrialization because of depleting oil and coal supplies. They have substituted the sale of services.
The US first shifted away from industrialization in 1974, immediately after it discovered that its non-shale oil supply was declining, and the price of additional oil would need to be much higher. A further shift occurred after the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
At the same time, the industrial production of the “Other than Advanced Economies” (including China, Russia, and Iran) has soared. The industrial production of these economies now exceeds that of the Advanced Economies (including the US, most of Europe, Japan, Australia among others–defined as OECD members).
What oil is available is increasingly consumed by the “Other than Advanced Economies.”
(d) Consumption of the main products of crude oil is being squeezed down by strange temporary economic downturns, especially in the Advanced Economies.
Advanced Economies seem to be adversely affected far more than less advanced economies, partly because industrialization is essential; services can more easily be eliminated.
(e) Poor people of the world are especially affected by the not-enough-to-go-around phenomenon, while wealthy individuals and corporations amass more wealth and power.
This is a physics issue that plays out in many ways. Young people, in particular, find it difficult to make adequate wages to afford a home and family. Even young people who obtain higher education find it difficult to succeed.
Major foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, gain power over what would appear to be independent organizations, such as the World Health Organization, by making huge donations. Regulators of many kinds become tied to the groups they regulate, making decisions that favor the companies that they are supposed to be regulating over the welfare of the individual citizens that they are supposed to be protecting.
In the current situation, the general public feels increasingly powerless, and many feel the urge to take matters into their own hands. All these things add to the conflict situation.
[6] The United States has been the leading world power, but its ability to defend other countries militarily is rapidly eroding.
While Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and members of the EU would like to think that the US can adequately defend their interests militarily, this ability is rapidly eroding. Today, nearly every type of manufacturing in the US requires supply lines from around the world. It is difficult to supply needed military aid to countries overseas, without placing an order for supplies from a country that the US is increasingly in conflict with.
Even the supply of electrical transformers to replace damaged ones in war zones raises a question of whether a sufficient supply can be assured to meet the demand for replacements for storm-damaged transformers in the US. Long lead times are often required to obtain transformers in the US, even in the absence of any additional demand for them.
The US tends to use sanctions to try to get other countries to do as it prefers. This approach doesn’t work well because sanctioned countries learn to work around the sanctions. Increasingly, in the BRICS countries, steps are being taken to move away from the US dollar as the standard for trade.
As long as the US is the accepted world leader, other countries that are involved in conflicts (which are indirectly about energy supply) will try to draw the US in to support them. Ukraine has been having energy problems for a very long time.
The EU, the UK, and Israel all seem to want war, and they would like the US to help them.
In 2023, US per-capita oil consumption is more than double that of the EU, UK, and Israel at the same date. The US’s total energy consumption per-capita is more than four times that of Ukraine. These countries assume that the US can provide the weapons and other assistance they need. But the countries they are fighting against know that the US is dependent upon supply lines that extend around the world. Actually, the US’s ability to provide help is quite limited. This adds other areas of conflict.
[7] The shift to wind and solar electricity is not working out as planned.
While the US has added wind and solar capacity, it has not added to the per-capita electricity supply. It is too expensive when all the costs are considered, and it is often not available when needed.
Communities are figuring out that if they really want a larger electricity supply (to support electric vehicle use or growing artificial intelligence demands), they need to add something other than wind and solar. In the US, this usually means added natural gas electricity generation. There are also at least two plans to reactivate closed nuclear plants in the US.
The EU has not had any better success at ramping up per-capita electricity generation using wind and solar (Figure 14).
A glance at Figure 7 (above) suggests that industrialization doesn’t really come from an expanded electricity supply. Inexpensive fossil fuels seem to be the base of industrialization, and the world is increasingly short of these.
While approaches for moving away from fossil fuels, other than wind and solar, are being tried, success at an adequate scale seems to be far away.
[8] It is hard to tell the rest of the story in detail.
We live in a finite world. All parts of the economy operate in cycles. In fact, individual people, individual businesses, and individual governments all have finite lifespans. We now seem to be coming to the end of an economic cycle. We don’t know precisely how this will end. We do know, based on history, that the downward part of the cycle will likely take years to resolve.
We as individuals are hard-wired to prefer “happily ever after” endings to our narratives. This is why people who believe that we are running short of fossil fuels tend to believe that if we just try a little harder, we can extract more oil, natural gas, and coal. There must be enough resources in the ground if we focus our efforts in that direction.
On the other hand, people who believe that climate change is our biggest problem seem to think that we can transition to using a modest amount of renewable energy instead. Unfortunately, the physics of the situation doesn’t allow things to play out that way. Also, our so-called renewables are built on a base of oil and coal. If we can’t get enough oil and coal out, already built renewables will stop functioning within a few years, and new ones will be impossible to build.
Nearly everyone who does modeling assumes that the future will be very similar to the past. Analysts assume that the economy can continue to grow forever. They assume that it is possible to pull larger and larger amounts of resources from the ground. It is easy to assume that leaders will look out for the best interests of all their constituents, and that businesses will act ethically. But we have already begun to see evidence that these assumptions don’t necessarily hold. The fact that some people can see that changes are coming, while others cannot, is part of the reason for the current conflict.
A major problem that the world faces is the fact that while governments can print more money, they can’t print more resources. Thus, broken supply lines are likely to become more common. Wars may need to be fought in new ways–for example, taking down other another country’s internet or electrical grid. Pensions will likely need to be cut back greatly, or they may ultimately disappear completely.
We don’t know how this all will end, but a great deal of conflict of one kind or another seems very likely in the next few years.
This tells a different story to the official one looking at the first graph. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/deaths-australia/2022
Hopefully this makes it in it is my third try.
Thanks!
Look especially at “Standardised death rates – 1982 to 2022.” There is a definite upturn in 2022.
Lately I saw a documentary of a retired oil trader. He said: ‘Everywhere I look I see oil, here in my office, my bedroom, the bathroom, on the street, in my car, everywhere without exception’
The problem is a lack of affordability. If citizens could afford more finished goods made with oil, (new cars, for example, and vacations to far away places), there would be less oil available. Also, if diesel fuel price could stay a whole lot higher, even though diesel is the major fuel used in agriculture, road construction, and movement of goods by large trucks. Food prices aren’t high enough to allow farmers to buy more expensive diesel for the machines. Budgets for roads and reconstruction after storms are not high enough to allow higher oil prices. Instead, governments decide to postpone road repairs and new bus routes until better funds are available. Postponing new uses cuts back on demand.
I often say that we are not leaving fossils fuels, they are leaving us. Do you think that governments are well aware of this and are just sugaring the pill by attributing the green transition to climate concerns? Also, today the IEA is reported to having said that in future oil and gas will become cheaper because there will be a glut due to falling demand. To me this is completely wrong thinking. Surely it will become more expensive. The cost of extraction will not diminish, the EROEI will continue to fall and the only way that the extractors will be able to make a profit with dwindling customers will be by putting up prices
The IEA is right.
Demand will fall, because people’s ability to afford it and the products made with it (for example, food, vehicles, long distance vacations, ability to eat out at restaurants) will fall.
You are right. The cost of extraction will continue to rise. Producers will find that they don’t have enough revenue coming in to maintain their current level of production. They will cut back production, saying, “We are voluntarily reducing production to try to get prices back up.” But, at most, prices will only briefly bounce up. High cost fuel is unaffordable fuel.
Also, in response to your question, ” Do you think that governments are well aware of this and are just sugaring the pill by attributing the green transition to climate concerns?”
I think that knowledge of the real situation is quite limited in the US. People tend to believe what they are told. The fact that we have been successful in adding oil through supply through fracking leads people to believe that the problem must be over.
I think politicians in China and India are more aware of the real situation. They are very aware that manufacturing depends on fossil fuels. China knows the official climate change narrative to talk about, but it is adding whatever it can because its cheap-to-extract-and-ship coal supply is depleting. They have coal, but its distance from markets is a major problem.
People in Europe may be aware of the situation, but the situation is so desperate that they absolutely require a different narrative to tell.
There is a huge pushback to understanding the real situation, because people cannot imagine anything other than business as usual. Politicians know that they cannot be re-elected if they suggest that anything other than BAU is possible. University text book sellers know that the only books that they can sell will need to be BAU textbooks, or students and faculty will be frightened. People working at newspapers, selling advertising space, know that the only stories that most advertisers will want are ones following the official party line, suggesting that we should plan for BAU, perhaps with some climate change.
Gail , in India definitely not . Regarding Europe in my 20 years of preaching I met only one person ( he was 22 years when I met him) who has immigrated to Canada . The public wants to ” believe” and not ” know ” . When I try to educate the persona they want to shunt me off with ” I have a meeting “, ” I have to go to pick up my kid ” etc . I destroy their belief system and it drives them into defensive mode . Is it hopeless or is it hope less ? My conclusion — humanity is sleepwalking into the future .
Ravi, it has become evident to me that evolution is going to weed out these people in the coming decades. And honestly, I think it is the only way for the world to go forward. Humanity will improve by losing most of the people unable to think for themselves.
I would think that anyone who is involved with the manufacturing or recycling in India would have to be aware of the need for energy of the right kind.
Maybe the point that intermittent electricity doesn’t work very well hasn’t hit home, yet.
Same as it ever was.
An old shipwrecked sailor sang these verses long ago
Water, water, water everywhere
and not a drop to drink.
Nice one, Kulm
Rime of the ancient mariner, Coleridge
Very traditional male and female roles.
The canary in the coalmine for the automotive industry . Stellantis . The iconic JEEP brand is over . See it file for Chapter 11 or bankruptcy . Their other brands are Chrysler , Dodge , Fiat , Lancia , Alfa Romeo , Peugeot , Citreon — all dead beats .
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/11/nx-s1-5145932/stellantis-jeep-dodge-chrysler-layoffs
This article is not really about bankruptcy yet–layoffs because of poor sales results. But indirectly that would be the result. One important point the article made was this: “. . .one of Stellantis’ missteps is that the company moved toward making pricier, fancier vehicles.” This seems to be the direction a lot of US producers have taken.
It seems like a bankruptcy of Stellantis might indirectly affect the ability of owners of cars to easily get replacement parts for older models. The resale value of these brands might drop. Insurance companies might have trouble providing the coverage that they had planned, if replacement parts aren’t available, or are much higher priced. Some cars of these brands might need to be scrapped, early.
“replacement parts”
Maybe, but an awful lot of parts are made by 3rd parties.
I know. But if a major player is taken out, it will likely leave a gap. Quality may become a problem, for example.
Boeing is basically bankrupt . It has been bailed out by USD 25 billion per year from the government since 2028/19 . It will continue to be bailed out –otherwise the military aircraft will be grounded .
” Boeing has been hemorrhaging money for more than five years, ever since two fatal crashes of the 737 Max in late 2018 and early 2019 killed 346 people and led to a 20-month grounding of the company’s best-selling plane.
Since that time, Boeing has reported more than $33 billion in core operating losses, and there is no end in sight to the red ink. ”
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/16/business/boeing-losses-impact/index.html
A bankrupt company whose shares still trade at $154.
We are living in strange times.
The bankruptcy of Boeing is another big worry.
It seems like the goal of fuel efficiency was set too high for new aircraft. It couldn’t really be met. All kinds of steps were taken without adequate testing. So, to some extent, the reason for the negative profits has to do with the government’s unrealistic goals for fuel savings.
The government may try to bail out Boeing, but at some point, even the government gets stretched with all of its attempted bailouts. Inflation will rise, perhaps becoming hyperinflation if there is nothing to buy will all of the printed money. The actual quantity of goods available will fall. Replacement parts for Boeing plans may be one of the casualties.
Emirates has filed a case against Boeing because it failed to meet the maintains contracts . Boeing replies ” We don’t have the parts ” . The supply chain of Boeing is very complex , 100% of Titanium components come from Russia . What will airlines do if maintaince is not done ? Fly and risk a crash .
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Boeings-global-supply-chain_fig1_322270152
Maybe there won’t be many flights of Boeing jets in the future.
Sounds right
Watched an article by the ‘Óil Geek’ in which he explained manufacturers are recommending lighter oils for their vehicles in order to achieve better mpg, especially in the US market to meet new standards.
Often these same vehicles have different oils recommended in other markets. I believe one new vehicle had 0W-8 oil recommended. This not a good result for engine longevity; much more lead in the oil sample. This comes from excessive bearing wear.
I wonder if the Boeing Wokesters got caught up in this w-fest?
Oh, dear. Don’t buy new cars. They won’t last long.
The new standards make no sense!
Or when you buy a new car, ignore the oil recommendations especially in wokedom-like countries. US, UK, Europe.
Research what the oil properties needed are, and use accordingly.
Last call , what are lighter oils ? Light crude oil is not the same as Oct 95 , 98 or diesel . The consumer buys refined oil and not crude oil . The refineries call the shots . Ignore the article . As to Boeing read the link provided .
Huh?!!
Ignore article?!!
The refineries don’t call the shots for engine oils, the manufacturers are coerced by Govt regulation.
We are not talking about oil at source; oil wells.
This is an article about govt stupidity; they narrowed the specs to consider fuel economy and not engine longevity.
The geek went to a specific univ. with engines monitored left right and centre. They interchanged the oils and measured used oil quality along with fuel economy. The results strongly indicate lighter oils 0W-8, 0W-15 etc are a bad choice dictated by bad regulation.
I recommend you watch the video so you understand what the issues are.
Lastcall , my error . I mixed up lubricating engine oil with petrol and diesel . Apologise .
We would have reached the future without some morons, which some Brits, who would have been relegated to the ‘scum of earth’ status by the Duke of Wellington, call ‘national heroes’ did not do ‘their duty’, or, as I say, did not f’k up and decided flight was the better part of valor.
With most people in the advance world living hand to mouth without any modern amenity like cars or smartphones, and the colonies, now called the Third World, completely disenfranchised and used only for resource extraction, we would have reached Type I Civilization.
Any discussion about future tech is now just idle musings. It is NOT possible to reach the next level of civilization without reducing the standards of living by about 95-99% of the world’s population significantly, something they won’t take peacefully.
Democracy and populism are to blame.
The Greater Good is reaching a higher dimension of civilization. I personally do not hate all these future tech discussions. But, in this stage of civilization, it is all too little, too late to be worth anything.
We are looking at you Chucky.
Which is why UK has the craziest laws against free speech
and its rulers are so eager to displace its incorrigible locals with peoples from other continents.
“We would have reached the future…”
???
We shall reach the future, essentially by definition.
Why you think humans would ever have an aseptic future in an anoxic vacuum at a temperature below that of liquid nitrogen is anybody’s guess.
“The Greater Good is reaching a higher dimension of civilization.”
There are no “higher dimensions of civilization”. There is no Übermensch, only us Apes.
US electricity generators binge on ultra-cheap gas
https://jkempenergy.com/
For how long ?
The natural gas suppliers seem to be having a difficult time forecasting prices for the coming year, based on the wide range of “guaranteed rates” I see.
It seems to me that all of the new natural gas electricity production that is planned for the US is making gas distributors think that prices will rise. The big need for more electricity in the US seems to come from:
1. Operating new factories for electric cars, batteries, and the like, based on subsidies. (This is big in the state of Georgia, where I live.)
2. Providing electricity for EVs, if there is a switch to EVs, including new charging stations.
3. Providing electricity for AI.
There is also a plan to sell more (high-priced) natural gas to Europe.
It is easy to see a way that all of these plans will fall through. Keeping demand for natural gas high enough for producers is likely to be the major problem.
Volkswagens employees earning Eur 62.50 per hour now face unemployment .
https://www.dw.com/en/volkswagen-employees-add-to-german-carmakers-headaches/a-70425198
According to the article
But they have many other problems, too. Sales are dropping and they won’t meet emissions targets, with too few sales, so they will face fines. Employees want guarantees of no layoffs, but it looks like plant closures are needed.
EIA has posted a figure for world crude oil production for last June (81.105 mb/d) — that is their lowest monthly figure in 2024.
Considering the prices ( https://oil-price.net/ ), was post-covid peak oil last December (83.043 mb/d)? — https://davecoop.net/seneca
https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/petroleum-and-other-liquids/monthly-petroleum-and-other-liquids-production?pd=5&p=0000000000000000000000000000000000vg&u=0&f=M&v=mapbubble&a=-&i=none&vo=value&&t=C&g=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001&l=249-ruvvvvvfvtvnvv1vrvvvvfvvvvvvfvvvou20evvvvvvvvvvnvvvs0008&s=94694400000&e=1717200000000
“I don’t claim to know exactly how the oil age will end. My guess is it’ll go out with a whimper, not a bang. But in the end, that won’t really matter because the world will be poorer for it. I’m okay with that, but I doubt most renewable enthusiasts fully grasp what they’ve signed up for.”
https://www.artberman.com/blog/this-is-how-oil-ends/
This is a very good article by Art.
Art talks about not knowing demand, because it is impossible to know the demand of 120 countries. I think the issue is that demand is based on what is affordable. Affordability depends on a whole lot of things:
-Oil prices
-Availability of debt
-Interest rates at which debt is available
-Wage and wealth structure of economies
-Availability of investments that are truly productive
-Ability of system to stay together with reduced oil supply. There may be small or very large breaks in the system, as in 2008 and 2020, but predicting these breaks, and how they will appear to us, is impossible.
Pingback: The Bulletin: October 10-16, 2024 – Olduvai.ca
This article makes a strong point about how hidden oil shortages are causing global conflicts and economic pressures like inflation. Instead of addressing the real issue—limited cheap energy—governments are focusing more on climate change, which leaves economies struggling. It’s an important reminder that energy shortages are a driving force behind today’s instability.
I don’t think that people understand the role energy plays. Governments and educators have stayed away from this issue for a long time because they can see how bad the result would be, if energy supply falls greatly. People selling automobiles and other long-lived investments, including homes, don’t want anyone to know this either. Instead, the only story we hear is a “happily ever after story.”
‘As chemist turned economist Frederick Soddy explained in the early-1930s:
“Still one point seemed lacking to account for the phenomenal outburst of activity that followed in the Western world the invention of the steam engine, for it could not be ascribed simply to the substitution of inanimate energy for animal labour. The ancients used the wind in navigation and drew upon water-power in rudimentary ways. The profound change that then occurred seemed to be rather due to the fact that, for the first time in history, men began to tap a large capital store of energy and ceased to be entirely dependent on the revenue of sunshine. All the requirements of pre-scientific men were met out of the solar energy of their own times. The food they ate, the clothes they wore, and the wood they burnt could be envisaged, as regards the energy content which gives them use-value, as stores of sunlight. But in burning coal one releases a store of sunshine that reached the earth millions of years ago…
“Then came the odd thought about fuel considered as a capital store, out of the consumption of which our whole civilisation, in so far as it is modern, has been built. You cannot burn it and still have it, and once burnt there is no way, thermodynamically, of extracting perennial interest from it. Such mysteries are among the inexorable laws of economics rather than of physics. With the doctrine of evolution, the real Adam turns out to have been an animal, and with the doctrine of energy the real capitalist proves to be a plant. The flamboyant era through which we have been passing is due not to our own merits, but to our having inherited accumulations of solar energy from the carboniferous era, so that life for once has been able to live beyond its income. Had it but known it, it might have been a merrier age!”’
From: https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2024/10/15/or-should-it-be-five-es-and-a-c/?fbclid=IwY2xjawF8VyBleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHRbzrHkuF81gjI_ocYdp_KyU9v1PpdFVH7crZde700gcI483Pttb2cbQ3Q_aem_RaCdxc9RAl3ZLPvpKN_EEQ
it wasnt the steam engine per se
it was access to cheap iron
once you have cheap iron, anything is possible
Cheap iron was extraordinarily important, too.
It nearly always comes from coal, rather than oil. Reprocessing scrap iron with electricity is a different process.
You can’t make the cheap iron with out the cheap coke (from cheap coal).
And to mine the cheap coal you need steam engines to pump out the water in the mine.
So no, the steam engine needs to come first.
no
i beg to differ
you can mine a small amount of coal with a shovel……where i live its only 3oft down, or less–the romans mined it here 2000 years ago
but to sink lots of mines 1/4 mile down you need lots of steam engines for pumping and winding
for that you first need a lot of cheap iron
History says you are wrong and i am correct.
Steam engines made mining large amounts of coal possible.
Cheep steel came later.
you cant have 000s of steam engines without iron that is cheap to get hold of and work in vast quantity.
i live within walking distance of where it all kicked off
This is a good article.
Part of it is about the neglect of the subject of physics today.
just wondering is nuclear a fossil fuel extender or can it run the world on its own without oil?
Adonis , the answer is no . Diesel needed for mining of uranium . Several petrochemicals used in processing from ore to cake . Nuclear is only electricity what is needed transport fuels .
In the 1970s it was calculated that the energy output per unit energy input was in the range 4-11 (calculations by Prof Peter F Chapman I think). It was about 4 if none of the waste heat output was used up to 11 if all of it was utilised. 11 is a tall order, given the ratio of heat to electricity demand in industrialised societies. Also, as stated, a lot of road transport needs portable fuels even if rail can be electrified.
Which is why all these talks about space mining is a moot point
What would they mine the rocks with? With pickaxes and shovel?
I have been to machine shops and also places where machinery are made quite a few times. They use lots of energy. Beyond the carrying capacities of the oh-so-wonderful starships.
” What would they mine the rocks with? With pickaxes and shovel?”
A metal asteroid is like a giant anvil. Posted two days ago.
https://htyp.org/Mining_Asteroids
The processing starts by melting it with a 30 GW power satellite. That takes about 1000 StarShip flights to get into space.
The question remains whether the energy required for “1000 StarShip flights” would ever be repaid by whatever energy could potentially come from having a honking great cube of metal to look at.
What about recuperating the metal we have right here at arm’s length, that’s already been mined?
Oh, right… we quit recycling because it *took more energy than it was worth*.
Our local dump doesn’t even pretend to distinguish any longer.
“we quit recycling because it”
You should go through a Newcor steel mill. 100% scrap iron.
Mine-able uranium is of limited supply. Getting the price up high enough, long enough, is an issue most people don’t think about. It seems to have the same issue as fossil fuels.
Also processing uranium is a specialized activity, taking fossil fuels. Russia does the vast majority of its.
Reprocessing of spent fuel is another possibility, but there is little productive capacity for this, and creating it takes both investment and fossil fuels.
I have seen stories about a possible way to extend uranium supplies by using a combination of uranium and thorium. But this is only now be tested (in China) at reasonable scale, I understand.
Regarding electricity, electricity is only a small share of the energy used today. The precise share depends on how it is counted. If it is less than 20% of today’s energy use today, there would need to be vast changes to make the whole system operate on electricity.
Electricity does not store well. One big need is for heat in winters. We don’t have a good way to store electricity from solar panels from summer to winter.
Electricity does not transport well, either. It needs a huge grid, and this grid tends to go down in storms and to cause fires. Easily transportable battery material is of limited supply. It doesn’t recycle well.
Engineers can design plants to convert one kind of energy to another. It only gets done if the economics makes sense.
The total converted cost has to be affordable by the consumers. This adds a huge challenge.
Right. But back of the envelope calculations look like you can make diesel from coal and intermittent energy for less than the current cost of oil. That’s preliminary, lots more design work to do.
You mention intermittent energy sources. What would happen if you had a nuclear technology that had modular capital costs that were half of today’s tech and fuel costs that were perhaps a thousand times cheaper than today’s tech? Diesel from coal which was understood in the 1920s I think and other technologies like extraction of atmosphere and chemically building up liquid fuels require lots of heat which a liquid salt reactor can supply very easily. This tech was running at Oak Ridge in the 1960s. There is no real constraint on uranium supplies as U-233 cannot be found in nature. It is manufactured from Thorium+neutron -> Protactinium -> U-233. The U-233 chicken hatches the Thorium egg that grows up to be a U-233 chicken. The original chicken needs a specialized reactor to burn existing tech waste fuel to create the starter U-233. If you are interested you can look at energyfromthorium dot com and flibe dot com for more details.
The big advantage is that every atom of Thorium can be used without enrichment. It is four times as abundant as uranium. Only 7 of 1000 atoms of uranium are fuel. So the ratio of available fuel is 4000 to 7….more than 500 times more fuel available.
Maybe we need to think of nuclear as a heat source rather than electricity source and have it in the strange role of more input energy than output energy but that is not a problem when your energy source is millions of times more power per mass of fuel.
I am very familiar with molten salt reactors. Studied them partly because one of the designs included a topping cycle using potassium that i waned to copy for a thermal power satellite. They are in my opinion a better idea than the common power designs.
Uranium is not that bad as a fuel. Breeder reactors allow using the U 238 as fuel by converting it to plutonium. Much the same way molten salt reactors convert and then use thorium.
You can use these reactors as heat sources.
They are tricky in that you need to be careful with the neutron economy.
Yep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design-to-cost
16 years ago I set up a web page mostly to discuss synthetic fuel costs.
It is necessary to have supply chains that work, I expect. It is not just a cost issue.
”running the world” requires conversion of one energy form into another—and thats it
every aspect of our lives pivots on that
whether you are a dinosaur or a daffodil—there are no exceptions to that continued function of your ongoing life force.
So the energy abundance of fossil fuels temporary displaced feadulalism , and eventually as we fall back down the energy ladder, it will re-emerge as the dominant political form of goverance
Perhaps. We don’t know precisely how things will turn out and what the temporary stops will be on the way down. Different patterns might occur in different parts of the world.
We know that the political forms we have today can’t hold; they require too much energy.
To see our future, it may help to look at the failed states that exist today. Armed groups who band together and warlord? That is a question, I am not sure how people are living in those areas. My guess is they are banding together in small group.
“Armed groups who band together and warlord”
That’s what the inner cities in some developed countrie look like.
The world will generally be a lot more violent like it was in the recent past but to what degree will depend on a variety of sociological factors.
This time it will be robots that are the slaves. The humans who are not owners will be superfluous.
Nations without robots and AI will go back to feudalism. Until the civilized nations choose to make them nature reserves.
The elites have decided that the robots and AI will go to the Asian countries I have seen evidence the elites chose the Asian countries because they were subservient to an authoritarian rule. That means the westernised countries such as Australia US of A and Europe will go to a more lower standard of living perhaps 19th century.
those damned elites annoy me
if i dont get invited to be one soon it will be too late
“Asian countries because they were subservient to an authoritarian rule.”
Anybody who thinks this needs to familiarise themselves with Chinese history.
Start with the Tai Ping rebellion, proceed to the present day via the Boxer Rebellion, the Warlord Period, the Civil War and the Cultural Revolution.
..and that’s just the last 150 years.
Yes, the peoples of the northern plains are a feisty and independent lot. Nothing like the slum dwellers of NA and EU.
Back to technofeudalism, controlling what is remaining as tight as possible.
Someone sent me a link to this new paper:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/At-Least-55-Undeclared-Chemical-Elements-Found-in-Diblasi-Monteverde/70f72a08308d3b4a829e5ae719de2716c2a731cc
At Least 55 Undeclared Chemical Elements Found in COVID-19 Vaccines from AstraZeneca, CanSino, Moderna, Pfizer, Sinopharm and Sputnik V, with Precise ICP-MS
Abstract:
The paper is in a journal called International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. The Journal has been publishing since 2020. Three of the four authors are from Argentina; one is from California. Three of the four are biologists; one is a physician. Wikipedia says about the Journal, “The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research (IJVTPR) is an anti-vaccine journal. It is known for promoting misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.”
Bye Bye Bougie!
If you look hard enough and long enough, you can find any element in anything.
This is similar to a reply I received by a friend of mine who decided to vaccinate his children with mRNA therapy (and he had 3 doses).
He said, “yes, there could be something wrong inside, but we also live in places with polluted air and chemical components in food and water, so what can we do?”
He had a stroke.
Of course, only a coincidence.
Yes, but the question is whether that will be worth it.
“ A study involving 1.7 million children has found that myocarditis and pericarditis only appeared in children who had received Covid mRNA vaccines. Not a single unvaccinated child in the group suffered from these heart-related problems. “?
https://x.com/drsimonegold/status/1843783426312470636
“Safe and Effective”
“It caught on in a flash”
I went to the article and most of the metals are in there at part per billion levels. likely from the manufacturing process. I think one of the manufacturers used aluminum vessels and the other stainless steel vessels.
The exceptions are elements like Sodium, Calcium, Potassium. But those are metal ions used by the body.
So yeah this is kind of a nothing burger.
Eat and heat = energy for sustaining human population. That is the core problem of the overshoot.
People very much like to eat. They also like their children to eat.
They also like to eat their children.
I have read recently in China mothers ate their children knowing that if the didn’t others would.
That shook me to my core.
pure propaganda
Well said Ed.
we can have a little friendly bet on when cannibalism in the suburbs first appears in the US. I got dibs on 2040. All according to the laws of physics and available reosurces.
Energy rationing coming to Britain .
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/10/13/why-an-age-of-energy-rationing-is-looming-over-britain/
Tim Watkins takes it a step further . Peak oil , failed disaster management and energy rationing in UK .
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2024/10/04/why-is-anyone-surprised/
Watkins ends his article by saying:
I am sure that the ability to recover from catastrophes is disappearing. We have the fire that burned a whole city on the island of Maui in Hawaii over a year ago. Now the electric company is being blamed for the fire. But I am fairly sure that little rebuilding has been done. There are going to be a lot of places that cannot be rebuilt.
The UK is closing both coal and nuclear plants. There clearly won’t be enough wind and solar to go around. The articles say,
The unravelling in UK .
” According to Tiff Lynch, the acting chairwoman of the Police Federation, the situation is dire – with Home Office figures showing that voluntary resignations among police officers have hit an all-time high, with more than 5,000 quitting last year – 3.4% of the workforce, which is more than double the rate of just four years ago. What’s worse, a Federation survey found that 20% of officers are planning to leave within the next two years or sooner, adding up to nearly 29,000 officers ready to walk out.”
https://metfed.org.uk/news/intention-to-quit-reaches-record-high-according-to-national-police-wellbeing-service-survey
I thought and still do think price is the mechanism that rations all goods and services in a capitalist society.
Europe shite . Copy/paste . Too many useless eaters as per FE .
” The sooner we accept that in Europe we live in a Yupi world, the better off we will be. The welfare state is a big lie. We are the continent that spends the most on social security and without having any real wealth. Neither energy resources nor precious metals nor…
I am European and I love having a “free” doctor and retirement tomorrow but what cannot happen is that more and more people are bled dry to maintain things that cannot be maintained. I will always say that no one who does not work should earn more than someone who does. Pensions should all be at the minimum and none higher than the SMI. This also has its counterpart: as long as you work you will pay the minimum. But when you retire you know that you will be given the minimum to live on and that’s it. Who needs €2000 at 70 if you are only there to go to the park to sit and feed the pigeons? I also think that co-payment for health care should be established (minimum, if possible) but what cannot happen is that the emergency rooms are full of people with flu and then when there is football they are empty. And I have been a civil servant for a few months, if I tell you about the hundreds of thousands of euros that are spent on subsidising town X to celebrate party Y… it’s a joke. A real joke.
There are too many subsidised beach bars, too many absurd subsidies (whoever wants parties should pay for them out of their own pocket and if they can’t, then they can sit down), there are too many freeloaders and cheaters (I know cases of people with jobs, money and a partner collecting widow’s, orphan’s and disability pensions… being able to work quietly, ahem, they ask you to work illegally).
And of course there are too many politicians… sooooooo many. Does anyone know the number 50 of the PP or the PSOE? What is their function apart from saying “yes bwana” to the party leader and earning an average of €5000 a month for it?
And of course there are also too many autonomous communities and duplications of services. ”
There are a lot of pensioners who are voters, so it is hard to change the status quo.
Public schools in the German capital can no longer reimburse teachers for school trips due to budget constraints, but the local government increased its expenditure on migrant housing to €1.3 billion in the summer
https://rmx.news/article/berlin-freezes-school-budgets-while-allocating-billions-for-migrant-housing/
Some here say the elite will survive . How ? Gates and Bezos wealth is in the stock market { paper wealth] . Gates is the largest landowner in the USA . What does he know about farming ?? Reminds me of of Tolstoy ” You only need six feet of land ” . Here is a view point from a long article . What a financial collapse will look like .
”The collapse won’t come in the way many imagine or say on social media. It won’t be like those apocalyptic movies where, overnight, everything falls apart and chaos takes over the streets. There won’t be a cataclysmic event, nor a single “incident” that marks the beginning of the end.
The reality is much more subtle. What you will see (and are already seeing), if you pay attention, is a gradual deterioration in every aspect of daily life. This is the real threat, one that slowly infiltrates our existence without us even noticing.
First, you’ll notice that simple things become a little more expensive every day. It’s not a sudden leap, but a constant and almost imperceptible increase.
Your working hours will extend, but your salary won’t keep pace, or your hours may remain the same while your work increases. The time you used to dedicate to your loved ones will begin to shrink, and you’ll find yourself worrying less about them with each passing day. It’s easy to think this is normal, that it’s simply part of adult life, but there is something deeper at play.
The expectations you had for yourself, the standards you used to maintain for your work, your diet, your relationships, all will begin to crumble.
You will no longer strive for excellence but will settle for just enough to survive. Job security, a concept you once took for granted, will begin to fade. You’ll discover that the houses and apartments you live in seem to shrink — not physically, but in terms of what they offer and how they make you feel.
People around you will start clinging to the little they have: clothes, objects, relationships; everything becomes something they can’t let go of, out of fear of losing the little that’s left.
You will see fewer people getting married, and even fewer having children. It’s not that society has abandoned these institutions, but rather they no longer seem like viable options.
Technology, which was once seen as a tool to improve our lives, will become a trap. We will immerse ourselves in virtual worlds and digital distractions, drifting further away from tangible reality. This constant evasion will leave us unable to face the real challenges ahead. We will tell ourselves that everything is fine, that we are making progress, while we drift further away from what truly matters.
So, what happens to those dreams and aspirations we once had? They will fade. What was once a vibrant vision of our future will become a distant memory, a shadow of what it once was.
The reality will be one of debt and poverty, both financial and emotional. Every day, we will be bombarded with messages telling us that we are enough as we are, that we are free, prosperous, and secure, while in truth, we become weaker, more dependent, and more desensitized.
This is the real collapse. Not a dramatic event, but a slow and constant erosion of what it means to be human. The reduction of the individual to just another cog in a machine they don’t understand, unable to feel love, hate, or any emotion.
We will find ourselves trapped in a life without meaning, unable to see the true nature of our situation, and even more unable to recognize our own value.”
land is worth nothing until you work it
just looking at it is nice, but that wont feed you
If you own 400k acres, you must pay someone else to work it–they expect wages.
unless they are slaves
in which case you need guards for the slaves—and then they expect wages.
The quote you give seems very realistic, I am all too afraid. I tried to find the origin on the internet, but I didn’t find it. Do you have a link?
This is an earlier view (2008) I found of what collapse will look like.
https://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message736421/pg1?c1=1&c2=1&disclaimer=Continue
It contains things like “Gold will be called back in.”
Space drones:
Someone mentioned Starlink and replacements. Per Copilot the satellites are manufactured at Redmond Washington, about 6 per day. What seems often missed is Musk’s manufacturing abilities, he is damn good at it be it cars or rocket ships. If it is necessary to replace 2k/year, that is about a year’s production from this facility.
I don’t see the doom many here anticipate. Technology is changing very rapidly, and we seem to have opened up space. We already know solar works in space, it is your basic fusion.
Dennis L
solar is not fusion—the sun is fusion, but a long way away
solar produces electricity
Ummmm….
sorry but solar is fusion.
The distance between the sun and the solar panel is irrelevant.
Nuclear fission produces electricity too, you know.
But of course Dennis is absurd to think that star link can provide communications for the whole world. (take a look at its capacity ) And even more absurd to think we will be mining asteroids.
But hey, I do get a kick out of his Zombie Gerard K O’Neil schtick
GO L-5!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society
I did not realize you helped found the L-5 society, that is awesome.
Wait a minute are you the Keith Henson who was planning on cloning himself, visiting every solar system in the galaxy and having a meet up on the opposite side of the milky way?
Cause that is the most hilariously audacious personal goal i have ever read.
You picked up on the essential humor involved. https://www.aleph.se/Trans/Words/f.html
See also the “”bean dip catastrophe” If the party gets too large it collapses into a back hole. For an even larger party, the bean dip alone collapses.
BEAN DIP CATASTROPHE: (humorous) A potential disaster at the far edge party: if it gets big enough the bean dip will form a black hole.
https://www.scribd.com/document/7865648/tranhuman-dic
That is just awesome Keith.
I use to make jokes to transhumanist about a future where every third person is Keith Henson. LOL
I think the first person to record that joke (page 279) was Ed Regis in Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition.(1990) But I don’t know who originated it, might have been you.
“Great Mambo Chicken is a riotously funny book that takes us romping through an underground network of scientists and brings us up to date (and beyond) on the cutting edge of better living through chemistry, physics and math.”
AI will replace you – Emad Mostaque
https://youtu.be/qWDi9I2Tmmk?si=5SFQI51SWDx69jGk
Judging from his surname, this Bengali might have had Portuguese ancestors.
What will happen is cheaper ‘talents’ like him will be replaced. There are no spot in the winners’ circle for a Bengali.
In fact Asian brains , good for repetitive tests and quality control, are the precise kind of brains which would be very easily replaceable.
The cost/benefit of AI is at this point still very uncertain.
AI is already dismantling . The shortest bubble –did not last even a year .
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/asml-pukes-after-dismal-third-quarter-results-forecast-slashed
USD 450 billion gone in meltdown of chip manufacturers .
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-chip-stocks-shed-420-025259801.html
The effects of education for women: reduce the birth rate among the most academically inclined women (start families later, make it more difficult for them to marry-up as women are wont to do) and thereby gimp the long-term national future. It turns out to be a cultural attack on the intelligence of the nation.
“attack on the intelligence of the nation.”
If you think about it, any bell curve trait is being trimmed at both ends. If it were not, then the center if the curve would drift until it was being trimmed equally on both ends.
It is unclear what designer babies will do to this mainly because so many other things are happening on the run up to the singularity. Will humans abandon flesh entirely? They could. Will they? No clue.
>> any bell curve trait is being trimmed at both ends. If it were not, then the center if the curve would drift
You presume there is no remaining selective pressure, that history has ended, which I imagine is incorrect.
That is selective pressure on both sides of the bell curve.
George Kaplan on October 14, 2024 at 10:03 am
It looks like there are about ten countries that are effectively failed states, another fifteen close to complete economic collapse, another twenty or so that have unmanageable debts and all the rest are heading for recession or, at least, much lower growth than hoped (for a few years anyway, then they’ll be in recession like everyone else). I think the biggest threat is that there are at least five of the largest countries by population that are only one step away from collapse and every headline takes them a bit closer: Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Nigeria, Bangladesh (or Congo or Ethiopia). I think Egypt is the most precarious – i.e. most likely to implode and with the largest consequences if it does. It is highly dependant on food imports and Saudi aid, surrounded by conflict (Gaza, Sudan, Libya, Ethiopia, Lebanon), alternative powerful internal factions and has a large educated but unemployed and stifled young population. It wouldn’t take much.
David Korowicz quotes Yaneer Bar-Yam at the start of his seminal “Trade Off” paper about the potential for a total global economic collapse caused by, in effect, a financial heart attack: “A networked society behaves like a multicellular organism…random damage is like lopping off a chunk of sheep. Whether or not the sheep survives depends upon which chunk is lost.”
Our “sheep” is already elderly and unsteady on its feet. I don’t think it could survive the sort of destabilisation that would fan outwards from the collapse of an Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Nigeria or Bangladesh. Two of those are nuclear powers, of course. Ethiopia is already a bit of a failed state. I think we could muddle through, even if it went Mad Max.
Copy/paste from Harry’s blog
Mr B answers the questions usually asked . 8 minutes read .
https://thehonestsorcerer.medium.com/will-there-be-a-second-stone-age-4acbe3cfc52c
There are always plants and animals adapted to the changing living situations. I think that Mr. B, in this situation, is being too negative.
The systems we put in place will fall apart quite quickly, without fossil fuels to maintain them. If human population is down quite a bit, fields will be able to become more fertile within a hundred years. More CO2 will cause plants to flourish. I am not worried about the earth regenerating itself. It always does.
Humans made it through recent ice ages. I expect they will make it though any warmer cycle, too.
“More CO2 will cause plants to flourish. ”
Too much will lead to a ‘mass extinction?
“ . . . it is these ocean state changes that are
1:02:28 correlated with the great disasters of the past impact can cause extinction but
1:02:35 it did so in our past only wants[once] that we can tell whereas this has happened over
1:02:40 and over and over again we have fifteen evidences times of mass extinction in the past 500 million years
1:02:48 so the implications for the implications the implications of the carbon dioxide is really dangerous if you heat your
1:02:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic to melt if you cause the temperature
1:03:01 gradient between your tropics and your Arctic to be reduced you risk going back
1:03:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen sulfide pulses . . . “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ako03Bjxv70
If someone compares Iran to Bangladesh, he or she loses all credibility.
Very good post!
The fact that Russia is able to sell it’s fossiles to India and the BRICS is a sign for an underlying undersupply.
Designing alternative energy sources engineers look for the best suited materials and preproducts available. They should look for the materials available after a crash of supply lines. There are not much, I am afraid.
A lot of the national production of fossiles is over. And without there is no national processing of metals, semiconducters or glass(fibers). That means, the (mostly islamic) resource countries decide also about the alternative energy. And that shifts the system of power completely. There is nothing the resource countries cannot produce and that leads to the fact that there is nothing the countries without ressources could trade.
This must lead to a war to get hold of resources before the lack of resources make it impossible to lead war.
If we assume that fracking will be over around 2030 there is not much time left.
I am afraid you are right.
“There is nothing the resource countries cannot produce and that leads to the fact that there is nothing the countries without ressources could trade.”
The US, at least for now, has some things that it can trade. But Europe, especially, is very undersupplied in goods it can trade.
Also, shipping goods long distance takes oil. If the BRICS can trade among themselves, it saves transport fuel. Long distance vacation travel is likely close to over.
>> This must lead to a war to get hold of resources before the lack of resources make it impossible to lead war.
Yes, I have read various statements that European and US think tanks and military that they need to gear up for a war in ~2027. The window of opportunity is shrinking.
all species fight over diminishing resources
its what nature intends us to do
It is a consequence of natural selection.
“Wars in the EEA came about due to a resource crisis. For this model, we will assume 50% of the tribe will starve in the crisis, the alternative being to attack neighbors and try to take their resources. How often such events happened is not part of the model, but they probably averaged about once a generation depending on population growth, disease, and variation in the weather.
Turning to the mathematical analysis, the warrior himself has one copy of genes for war. He typically had six children, half males, and half females. (From what we know, that is about the minimum for a stable population in the EEA. (3) Each child has a 1/2 chance of carrying the genes for war behavior. (The model is not very sensitive to the number of children.)
If war behavior is to be evolutionarily favored, the number of gene copies must be greater (on average) after the war vs. after starving in place.
For the winners, the count of war genes for a warrior is four, one for himself plus 1/2 times 6 children. This number is reduced to two after 50% starvation. This makes two gene copies the number to exceed if the behavior for war is to become more common than starving in place.
For the losers, the gene count is 1.5 from the female children of the losers that the winners incorporated into their tribe. That makes the average count of the number of war genes per warrior after a war 2.75, using (4+1.5)/2 and a 50% chance of winning. Whereas not going to war (starvation) results in 2 copies. Since 2.75/2 is 1.375, this means that going to war is approximately 37% better from the gene’s viewpoint than starvation (in this simple model, of course). In evolutionary terms this is a large number indicates a strong selection force if this model is close to reality.
If a person looks at the result of war on GDP (more debt, more jobs for young people), there is a clear current reason for war as well. It makes the economy look better!
All seems right in theory, until large groups of aggressive ,optimised, apes become fixated and threatened by other similar groups. Any group playing the numbers game is going to deplete it’s resources faster, just like a larger star and then get to the state where they need more.
This is what we see with the US today.
It was a power, until it used it’s power/ and resource up, by aspiring to bei an economic military-powerhouse, now its more like zombie, that can’t heal wound inflicted by mother nature and entropy.
Being in a small stealth savvy group living within it’s means, minus delusions if granger; might in reality have a better chance.
Humans have had nation states mo more than 5000 years. The selection for war model applies to 50,000 to 100,000 years ago.
I don’t know how the future will play out. We seem to be moving into an era like a highly compressed industrial revolution.
(English Al Abyia)
WHO receives 1 billion dollar funding at Berlin summit.
400 millions arrives from Germany.
WHO made it all wrong and caused deaths and adverse event on million of people, yet they receive more money with same people in charge..
I wouldn’t be surprised if collapsing-Germany is planning to get rid of its great abundance of old demanding people through new genetic therapies, people who ‘steal’ a lot of State-money with their expensive retirement funds.
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2024/10/15/who-receives-nearly-1-billion-in-new-funding-at-berlin-summit-
In an era of too many people, particularly too many old people, it is hard to know what the mission of WHO really is. Is it to extend lives, or to somehow shorten lives, especially of those who are already in poor health? There is a limit to how much governments can spend on the care of the elderly and infirm.
WHO is payed much more from private sector than states. Big pharma earns more money on keeping old people alive than children atm.
Decisions are not made based on reality but on the perception of reality. I think it is likely that people in charge believe they have an advantage reducing the elderly and the stupid. In fact, a state poisioning its own people is a failed state and will not exist for long.
Looking to fertility rates, the world is beyond two kids per woman average. Africa is the only driver of population growth with up to 8 kids per woman average.
Yes, I agree with both of you, Gail and Jan.
It is odd how western countries think to wage war to Russia/China/Iran or others if at the same time promote poorly and shortly tested mRNA vaccines not only to old people, but also to young, children and pregnant women (yes, in Italy they go on suggesting it).
Promoting only to old people would have meant to get rid of expensive people, but promoting also to young, children and pregnants, means that leaders probably want to substitute one group of people (the autochthonous one, or incumbent) with a more compliant and obedient group (immigrants).
Maybe they think that this second group will easily accept to be at war or to go at war for a sentiment of gratitude…
It’s less complex. Companies rule the world more than countries atm, as countries are getting poorer due to a shrinking middle-class. Meaning less tax money. Politicians are either themselves chairholders in these companies, friends or just simply gasslitt by, in this case, big pharma.
Jonas, what you say is nothing new and I know it very well.
Probably almost anyone in this blog knows it.
My point is different .
It is laughable about people who are not family members of today’s winners talking about technologies which they won’t benefit from.
They are not for them.
All the good and great things are for today’s winners. Even if we get such tech it won’t benefit us or them. Just the winners and their immediate families.
it is a winner take all society with absolutely nothing for the rest.
You’re endless incel squealing gets old brah
I am countering these endless cornucopian musings so if they shut up I shut up too.
and when you do that you are 100% correct.
Got curious, Copilot again:
What is the difference between iron ore and iron found in asteroids?
Copilot
Using
the web
Sent by Copilot:
The primary differences between iron ore found on Earth and iron found in asteroids are their formation processes and compositions:
Formation Process:
Iron Ore on Earth: Iron ore, such as hematite (Fe₂O₃) and magnetite (Fe₃O₄), forms through geological processes over millions of years. These processes include sedimentation, chemical reactions with oxygen, and tectonic movements1.
Iron in Asteroids: Iron in asteroids, particularly in iron meteorites, forms from the cores of ancient, differentiated asteroids. These asteroids experienced melting and differentiation due to radioactive decay and impacts, leading to the formation of metallic cores composed mainly of iron and nickel23.
Composition:
Iron Ore on Earth: Primarily consists of iron oxides and other minerals. The iron is often found in combination with oxygen, forming compounds like hematite and magnetite1.
Iron in Asteroids: Predominantly composed of iron-nickel alloys, such as kamacite and taenite. These alloys are often found in iron meteorites, which are fragments of asteroid cores23.
Looks like the Fe and Ni are at the core, as metals. Want asteroids with metal cores, no oxides.
Of course, a cubic mile of Pt would be convenient.
Dennis L.
Will a cubic mile of PtO2 be sufficient?
” a cubic mile”
Platinum is around one part per million so you need to process a million cubic miles to get your cubic mile of Pt. Not impossible, but quite a project.
You just explained to us it is impossible to get a cubic mile. The original concentration is of order ng/g (not micro g/g, as posted below), all determined by the laws of nuclear physics. And, good lord, how comes we posted dozens of times about differentiation, but not until copilot (a total ignoramus) says it, you just ignore it? content yourself with a cubic mile of nickel, it is valuable. There is one, buried deep after a catastrophic impact, in Sudbury Ontario. Of course it is smaller than that, and only a fraction of it nickel.
Many thanks once again Gail. This post is up there with my favourites.
Nice to see per capita oil consumption emphasised. A very key metric. Now down about 7% on the 2014 to 2019 period.
The population issue is a whole lot more important than “peak oilers” and others have imagined.
World population continues to grow, partly because of people living longer. Elderly people become an increasing drain on economies.
Migration tends to add people to countries with low birth rates, evening things out somewhat.
The role of education is mixed. Education seems to help people to live longer, as does sanitation, and understanding its importance. Educated women tend to have fewer children.
Drugs and immunizations play some role in reducing the death rates of children, and thus increasing total population.
New one spotted in Japan.
https://imgur.com/a/30to150
Things like that are quite common in there, a strange land.
Similar to Georgia guide stones, which were destroyed in 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
The inscription, in eight languages said,
Silent Spring continues down under.
All these wonderful hopes for a technological save of the f..k. up civilisation and all its toys ignores the basis of all life; earth ecosystems from the smallest amoeba on up.
‘Low-level EMF effects on wildlife and plants: What research tells us about an ecosystem approach. The authors warn, “It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants.” Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has weighed in as well with comments in 2017 and 2022 on the rewriting of policies on cell tower placement in public land and National parks.’
https://mdsafetech.org/2021/07/19/wildlife-and-biodiversity-a-disappearing-act-by-cell-towers-on-land-and-in-space/
Starlink will complete the bio-die-versity elimination in areas previously safe from this disaster of an idea.
How bizarre; Americas Cup (should be called NZ’s surely…) on one side of the Mediteranean and Gaza-kirk on the other.
What a disaster of a species.
“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” Tobacco executive (22) in Doubt is Our Product by David Michaels
Yes, you are right.
It is incredible how on one side of the Mediterranean sea we have this new technological version of the America’s cup, which is also difficult to follow for those who understand the principles of classical sailing (because it is too technical), and on the other side there is a bloody war made by an average of 150/200 civilians deaths every week, including children and their mothers, which is a truculent massacre like in the worst barbaric ages of the past.
“massacre like in the worst barbaric ages of the past.”
You got it, but I don’t think you closed the loop on why.
War is the way humans (who are top predators) cope with resource shortages. We have had wars for 200,000 years or so.
From my so far unpublished paper “an account from The Book of Numbers, The Holy Bible, King James Version Chapter 31, verses 17 and 18.
17: Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.
18: But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for you.
A more recent event, the Crow Creek massacre is dated to 1325.
“The bone studies tell us a great deal about the victims. Among the remains of 486 people, women from 12 to 19 years of age were notably scarce, as were very young children of both sexes. They were probably taken captive to be absorbed into the villages of the victors.” (7)
^^^^^
Humans are a nasty lot, the product of evolution.
There is a lot we don’t know about EMFs.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-emf-5092845
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet
This is a government link. Needless to say, it sees no problem.
The U.S. is a smoke-and-mirrors system. It pretends to be wearing a chastity belt as it rapes the rest of the world. It has now destroyed Germany and Europe, and is attempting to provoke wars in other areas, especially Asia. None of this will stop until the United States collapses. The world in general, but particularly the United States, is living beyond its means. Hence the US belligerence in the attempt to retain hegemony. It is unlikely that this tyrannical behavior will end well.
USA! USA! USA!! 😂
That is what is chanted after every national anthem! Now que the dictator who has nothing to lose and everyone will be afraid of him. USA coming for your shit!
You are right. “The world in general, but particularly the United States, is living beyond its means.”
Adding debt, now called “leverage,” is considered a virtue, not a problem.
This added debt is what is used to try to get fossil fuels out of the ground.
The US, with its hegemony, pushes everyone else around.
Good thougths, the whole series. But I think we do not have the data basis to know what is really going on. Crude is not running out, it just requires more effort to get it out. What is really killing the economy, is the money printing which started after Vietnam. It throws off all the models.
The increase in money printing is to try to get the price of oil up, so that more oil can be extracted. In fact, the money printing sort of worked for a while. The higher prices did stimulate more production. But now, the limits of money printing seem to be being reached. Governments find more and more excuses for debt, but they are not really productive enough excuses to pay back well. And the price of oil bounces around in its same old range. What goes up is inflation and interest rates.
thats like saying you have to tie a rope and lower deeper and deeper to get water, the water is not running out, it just requires more effort to get it out. eventually it will take you the whole day to get one bucket of water out, and at some point there is a limit until everyone in the village is thirsty.
That is a good way to put it. High cost crude quickly becomes a problem.
“more effort” is apparently cost (energy cost) free. Yes, money printing is a phenomenon unrelated to resource depletion and the root of all economic evil. This is the type of discourse you get from Western academia. I do believe holding hands and singing together will improve our effort to extract more oil.
In EROEI calculations, only fossil fuel energy is counted. Slave labor has no value. Ethanol from Brazil raised with low wage people has a favorable EROEI. Of course, printed money, to provide inflation is not counted. All of the debt needed to build these devices, and the interest on this debt, is not counted. The energy cost of the electric grid is not counted either.
I generally don’t use EROEI for these reasons (and some others).
Crude oil peak conventional was 2006 . Crude + condensate peak was Nov 2018 at 84.5 mbpd . We are dipping into inventory to stop the price rise and panic . US SPR is down from 700 million barrels to about 300 million barrels . Worldwide inventory is at an all time low .
Mr Orth , we are dipping at the rate of about 800K per day . Enjoy it while it lasts .
https://x.com/BenniKim/status/1844473064404496684/photo/1
Thanks for the clarity in the global warming issue. In Canada we pay a pretty stiff carbon tax with the narrative that reduced fuel use saves the planet. Except that it doesn’t as Randall Carlson has so clearly pointed out.
We’re slowly coming around to the realization that climate change is underway and there’s nothing we can do to change that. Canada emits 1.5% of global co2 – what would a 10% reduction in fuel use do to alter the outcome?
BTW ever with a stiff carbon tax we’re increasing fuel use!
jarvis climate is always changing, stop worrying about it. minski cycles or whatever every 10000 years will freeze the earth anyways. humans can go extinct, animals go extinct, the cycle repeats. people need to stop playing gaia worship. resource conservation is the official policy.
climate change is smokescreen for malthusian eugenics and resource redistribution. if your elites are still buying islands near rising sea levels and driving jets, chances are the words out of their mouths and the scientists they are funding are lying to you
I am afraid this sums up the situation:
“if your elites are still buying islands near rising sea levels and driving jets, chances are the words out of their mouths and the scientists they are funding are lying to you”
Natural climate change is driven by Milankovitch cycles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles We are now in a warm period. CO2 concentration during a warm period was usually around 300 ppm, during an ice age around 200 ppm. We are now at 420 ppm after burning fossil fuels. That CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for 1,000s of years. The orbital changes will of course continue but their climate impact is overwhelmed by human CO2. There won’t be another ice age any time soon.
However, James Hansen has warned in his book “Storms of my Grandchildren” that Europe will cool down when the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) weakens. When I first came across his papers in 2005 I thought peak oil will reduce economic activities and therefore reduce emissions. But then came along the US Federal Reserve with QE1-QE3 which financed the shale oil boom which even oil men Bush and Dick Cheney (from Halliburton!) did not foresee in 2002 because they could not imagine oil prices going to >$100 and staying there for 3 years . There is too much money printing which allows us to burn fossil fuels
If you go back far enough you’ll find CO2 at 500 ppm (and above). Maybe the dinosaurs were the first to industrialise…
I think it was well above, at least when large flying dinosaurs existed (100M years ago?). and not only they flew, at the same time there were crocs and turtles in the Arctic. The future greener world will support a slightly larger sustainable population. There will be more pasture and more firewood. I do think 500 ppm is in fact attainable. Coal is a particularly good contributor.
The “purpose” of the money printing is often to support what are supposed to be alternatives to fossil fuels (or poor people who might be able to afford more fuel for their cars, or better home heating). But wind turbines and solar panels are made using fossil fuels, so their building, at least temporarily, supports extracting fossil fuels. The system is strange!
There is no doubt that higher CO2 is favorable to life in general. There is just more bio-mass, and it so happens that a lot of northern land mass is getting vegetated. I am pro-global warming, since I like it green and lush. so do my cows and sheep.
Population will decline until it reaches a point that can be supported without fossil fuels. That will be a lot less than a billion. Could be several generations, of could be sooner. Humans seem to have decided to enjoy what we have, as long as it lasts. Don’t think there is any other choice.
I am afraid you are right:
“Humans seem to have decided to enjoy what we have, as long as it lasts. Don’t think there is any other choice.”
check pre-1700
that about the right date i think
The answer I found was about 500 million.
I prefer 100 million. It is partially a matter of taste.
The two inescapable fallacies of the grow local buy local theory are-
1 the world itself won’t go back to those times, it will inherit all the problems of the current industrial world, which a pre-industrial population level not only cannot deal with adequately but also cannot expect to support them in the way the actual pre industrial world did. It’s a false equivalence of “sustainability”.
2 the process of population decline will mirror the destructive and violent process of cascading collapse, and these will feed into and influence each other.
And corollary to 2, no one will go quietly into that good night, especially on a collective level. Dunno why the theorists of sustainable population gloss over that rather important consideration.
It is a whole lot easier to image building up to a given level than it is contracting down to a given level. On the way up, the support structure (roads, stores, draft animals, devices used by draft animals, knowledge of how to work with draft animals) would gradually be built up.
Starting from where we are now, it is impossible to imagine moving back down. The agricultural system expects huge tilling machines with few homes in a given area. If a great deal of work by humans and animals is needed, many simple homes will be needed, among other problems.
My guess is agriculture is going robotic with substantial change in methods.
Metaphor: Nature does not build one huge grasshopper; she builds millions of them and they cooperate as a swarm.
The big stuff seems a nightmare to keep working; the small stuff has problems as well. Simple problems cause down time and it is most frustrating.
Dennis L.
Population will bottom out at some point. It did in East Africa during the ice age, down to a few thousand people, then it bounced back when temperatures warmed back up. Dob’t believe there will be a total due our
Subtract the Kool-Aid drinkers from each country.
And what’s left IS the carrying capacity.
Dib’t think the very rich will be the ones who survive.
Look at Bill Gates he is doing exactly that but back in 2017 he installed a bunker on his main residence he knows that we are doomed to collapse so life for him after the collapse will be spent underground so there will be some survivors maybe a million or two above ground who knows if any can survive you would have to be one hell of a survivalist to survive above ground after the collapse.
Some of the people who survive will be people who live on the edges of civilization, in the mountains, other regions out of the way. Farmers, herders, nomads, hunter gatherers who live off the land. Some people in the Appalachians, Andes, Siberia, remote islands, and other out of the way places.
I think you are right. And, if there is global warming, some people will migrate to the newly warm areas and become herders or nomads or hunter gatherers there.
Electric cars and farming.
Approx 50% of IA corn crop is used in ethanol production. Go to electric autos and that market is basically gone. Deflationary for farmland as I see it, less need for diesel to run a farm, less need for fertilizer, NPK, less need for horrible chemicals, better water quality with less runoff.
Some win, some lose, we all need to change and then are heard no more.
Dennis L.
Why did China decline US corn?
I read that they can buy it cheaper elsewhere. South America, I believe.
Specifically, I do not know. Generally for a long time various export nations were steered into commodities by the Sorld Bank and IMF and away from food stuffs. This in part made a market for US agricultural products. The commodity exporting nations were given loans and probably farmed commodities at a loss. BRICS seems to be changing this. Please note, I do not have the specifics and this is put together from general information I have collected over time.
My personal concern is this will decrease US agricultural prices if it is approximately correct.
The push is to eat less meat, as well, because meat (especially beef) is an inefficient way to produce calories. This will further reduce demand for grain.
I am wondering if we will need to go back to old methods of farming and restoring fertility (leaving land fallow, allowing human and animal waste products for fertilizer, rotating crops). These will require much more land to produce the same amount of food crops. The return per acre will be low, so that value of farmland will indeed drop.
That seems approximately correct from my vantage point.
Dennis L.
Eliminating livestock farming, due to excessive costs, will provide much more land being available for human food crops and reduce acreage to feed us all. Creating greater space for natural flora and fauna, a healthier population and considerably less demand for oil.
“land being available for human food crops”
A lot of the land used for cattle will not grow crops. Too dry, too rocky
correct. same for sheep. The land that is recovered is the land used for pigs and chickens.
The human body needs three items fats , proteins and carbohydrates . Animal diet is the best for energy density for the first two components . Carbs are required minimum . We have to do ” animal farming ” or we will die .
Yes , I know we need vitamins and minerals and these are available from fruits and vegetables .
Acknowledgement ; Karl Deininger put me on the right path . Last Cola 2011 , last pizza 2009 , 6 – 10 slices of bread per year , rice 150 gms per month max . No health issues at 70+.
That is fine Ravi. Ruminants can do that for us. We can raise cold blooded animals at greater efficiency. There are pig breeds that can survive solely or almost solely on cow manure. Make that manure plus sugarbeet pulp and/or sunflower pulp after pressing. Of course I expect eggs and dairy to play a larger role.
land is the medium of conversion that allows one form of energy to be converted into another form so that we may consume it.
Testing. Trying to get comments-to-email working.
With smart robots providing the labor we can build all the solar power satellites we need for an electric powered future. The two nation best positioned for the transition from human labor to robot labor are China and Russia. Both countries with declining human populations. China according to some commentators is down to 0.7 billion. A good thing for leading the move to robots. Russia is “tiny” at 0.1 billion. Russia can reach a ratio of 2.0 robots to humans quickly say ten years. Maybe the new metric of power and prosperity will the the robot ratio and the RIQ level of the robot community.
Wealthy nation will have a R of 10 and an RIQ of 160.
Will we be able to make the jump to SPSs? Unknown it is a race between the breakers, those who are working to kill western/modern, and the builders who are creating ASI, robots, and energy.
make that RR and RIQ
Exciting times.
Built the satellites with what? Stones and sticks?
The moon has silicon, aluminum, and iron and water.
Which has to be mined and processed.
How these will be built? Stuff have to be brought from the earth to establish a shop
Obviously people who say such stuff are possible have never entered a factory. I frequently have had.
“Obviously people who say such stuff are possible have never entered a factory. I frequently have had.”
Grounded in reality. I appreciate that. What sort of factories have you been in? I have been in a couple of dozen plus copper mines, concentrators, smelters, aluminum smelter, and one of Nucor’s steel plants.
All possible to set up off planet, but complicated using current technology.
Japan and Korea are well situated in falling population also.
Both countries are just leaving their feudal stage. They now have an unlivable level of income and required work level. The work life is too close to slavery.
The big war to steal resource you did not mention is U.S. versus Russia. The last great resource war. Then we will climb down the ladder with smaller and smaller wars over less and less.
Conflicts will likely become more local. Governments are likely to collapse, similar to the collapse of the central government of the Soviet Union was an example. (Or they could be overthrown. Or the problem could come over a contested election.)
It takes energy, including oil energy, to keep the system operating.
Near term it will be a challenge, long term humanity will do well.
The SpaceX booster was caught, no one would have thought that possible ten years ago. The cycle was five launches to get this far, incredible. We have workable engineering.
Optimus robots are coming.; this makes mining in space possible. Or, there is a cubic mile of Pt out there somewhere, space droids will find it.
Per Copilot it takes 28 nuclear reactors to run cell towers world wide, Starlink does this with fusion to the tune of $8.8B/year electrical costs avoided and there are no towers to fall over secondary to weather events. Fusion has the intermittent conversion to electricity via sunlight. It works 24/7 and is not subject to climate change, hurricanes, etc.
We move to a H economy with Pt on earth.
Agnostic on climate change, prefer to do as little as possible to change the course of things.
The SE US is running an experiment on the availability of AC transformers. How long it takes to get this back and working will be informative.
It will not be easy, but it will be done. TINA.
Dennis L.
“Per Copilot it takes 28 nuclear reactors to run cell towers world wide,
I got 20 reactors 1 GW each from copilot, close enough
“Starlink does this with fusion to the tune of $8.8B/year electrical costs avoided and there are no towers to fall over secondary to weather events. Fusion has the intermittent conversion to electricity via sunlight. It works 24/7 and is not subject to climate change, hurricanes, etc. ”
Starlinks last 5 years. There are around 10,000 of them which means 2000 a year have to be replaced, about 50 flights of Falcon 9, 6-8 for the Starship.
i am surprised at how much power a cell tower uses.
It won’t be easy and it won’t be turn. And I am not a fan of Tina Turner.
Optimus robots will arrive. How long it can last in space conditions is debatable, but since robots tend not to do too well in earth conditions, it is unlikely to do better in the space.
I had suggested one way tour for a large portion of today’s pop. The miners might last maybe for 12 hours, but they will be more efficient than optimus robots which will need constant maintenance. After all they can’t fix themselves, unlike SF movies where old machines fly for years with no maintenance crew.
Your logic is like just because the baby began to walk, it will be able to run 10 miles per hour. It might, but probability does not support it.
But then all informercials only show the fancier pictures, they tend to leave out the dirty reality, the backroom where poorly paid maintenance workers trying to get the machine going at all costs.
Something I never thought about but is obvious when pointed out (to me in a post by Ugo Bardi) – concentration of minerals into economic deposits occur as a result of biogeochemical processes. Asteroids are biogeochemically dead – no prospect for mining there, I’m afraid. WIth the possible exception on nickel and iron.
Iron snowed out of the oceans due to biological oxygen. But most deposits came from hot salty water. Re asteroids, you are partly right. https://htyp.org/Mining_Asteroids
Interesting first paragraph; you often talk about t he r liberals paradigm saying climate change is the problem but you never mention the right wing delusions. Right wing people say there is so much oil and if the liberals would just get out of the way we would have tons of cheap oil every where! I think this is just as bad as the liberals maybe worse.
In section [8] I say,
It’s not that “if we try harder “ the argument is that there is so much “easy” oil to extract but the liberals are keeping it from happening because of their agenda. Very prevalent on zero hedge when they re print your article
yes liberals did try to environmental laws to reduce consumption but hubris didn’t change anything. net result was same. exploding population with exploding consumption.
women’s rights, body positivity, lgbtq, trans, fenatyl and drugs, SSRI permanent depression, abortion, gender equality, anti-male rhetoric, easy divorce laws and every population control measure was not effective enough early enough
My point is that yes the liberals with their climate and we need electric cars and solar panels is ludicrous BUT! The argument that we have sooooo much oil that is easily plucked out of the earth is just as stoopid!!! Gail often focuses on the the liberal side with a hammer while tip toeing around the conservative wing. Have you ever tried talking with a Trumper about oil? Try it sometimes it’s a lot of fun!!! (Sarc) They throw a lot of bullshit out with no facts! And have no interest in learning.
people like fornicating
nature intends that we should
On ZH you get an obvious forum slide with dozens of off-topic comments pushing thoughtful debate to the bottom. When you post an informed comment the reply is often: the abiotic oil argument, no depletion just a lack of investment and/or we confidently have 300 years of fossil fuels yada yada.
I have replicated these results with several conservatives clients and my own family members who generally agree that the Covid operation was an alpha test and power grab. I have tried to offer a finite world argument to explain the creeping censorship and authoritarianism, DEI/BLM shenanigans and obvious kayfabe-agitprop promo smackdowns displayed by the R Trolls and the D Gaslighters to distract the population.
‘Marcus Allen’s testimony before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government was nothing short of terrifying. In September 2021, Allen sent an email to his FBI supervisors, in which he made clear his view that January 6th had been a largely FBI-staged false flag that, even with that assistance, never became anything remotely resembling insurrection. The mail triggered a severe response from the bureau and ended his career, rendering him the subject of persecution from the agency ever since.
“The FBI questioned my allegiance to the United States, suspended my security clearance, suspended my pay, and refused to allow me to obtain outside employment or even accept charity,” Allen revealed testified, “There are no words strong enough to describe the impact the FBI’s lies about me have had on my family and me….The stress has taken a toll on our health and our children have suffered, traumatized by the thought of our door getting kicked in or Dad not coming home”.’?
https://therealslog.com/2024/09/29/dissenting-libertarians-beware-free-speech-costs-money-elections-arent-fair/
“January 6th had been a largely FBI-staged false flag”
That’s silly, there is extensive video of Trump winding up that crowd and pointing them to the Capital building. The FBI was simply not involved and it’s not hard to see why they got rid of such a nut case.
Ignorance is bliss?
Keith Henson.. read the congressional testimony on FBI’s Cointelpro against civil rights leaders and anti-war organizations. Read up on the American Indian movement’s testimony on the violence of FBI “goon squads” on the Pine Ridge reservation. Bro, the whole architecture of the technocratic state relies on informants, entrapment and surveillance to control the narrative. As someone who has engaged the Feds after being targeted respectively you’re out of your league on this topic.
“you’re out of your league on this topic.”
I don’t think so
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson
If you have been a refugee in another country due to a cult corrupting the courts, let me know.
I don’t doubt the FBI has been corrupted, in fact intimidated. They investigated the cult for at least a year but were called off through political pressure. The IRS was blackmailed into giving the cult status like no other.
But the specific idea that the Jan. 6 events had anything to do with an FBI operation is just silly. Were you paying any attention to the video coverage of Trump winding up the crowd and pointing them to the capital?
keith has taken the courage of his convictions to a far greater extent than most of us could conceive of, let alone be willing to.
I notice your graphs are per capita… the quick and easy ‘solution’ is to reduce the population (covid booster anyone?).
Too much population is an issue I didn’t want to bring up. I think it plays a role is the decision of what vaccines to put on the market.
My impression is in fact that, as long as the ‘fighters of the global chessboard’ are ‘satisfied’ by wars and dead people all around, they will not ‘focus’ on other pandemics and deadly vaccines.
As you correctly said in your article, one of the main problems we face is that people in general don’t understand simple concepts like ‘finite resources’ on this planet or ‘affordability of energy’ to have everything functioning.
…Many thanks for this latest article, Gail.
Have a nice evening.
resources are technically not finite. resources change forms, they regenerate just over longer time scales and geological time frames. and accessible regenerating resources are rate-limited. only less than 2% of the world’s population has a high enough intellect to see the problem is human greed for birthing and increasing consumption levels, everyone else believes you can solve things with money and IOUs or its the central bankers or the politicians.
The number of atoms is finite.
We use renewable resources much faster than they renew.
Demographics:
I am in school, basically about 600 pages to cover this semester, same level of difficulty as prior years; I am struggling more now, slower, still get the job done, but more slowly. Years make a difference.
Kids can do more in less time than someone in their sixties, now try it in your late seventies. Attitude only takes you so far. The kids can carry a number of older citizens, but that ability and willingness is limited.
We send the young men off to be slaughtered in war. This is probably/possibly a function of women having more children by a limited number of men than a one to one ratio. Still, it is a loss of youth.
Dennis L.
Actually, I read an interesting article by Ugo Bardi some times ago that described how in times of limited resources the élites (the old people who rule) find that going to wars is a way of killing young people who is in abundance in relation to resources.
The article described what happened about the preparation of world war I and the war itself.
In fact I was thinking lately about how the current leader of Israel was at the same time one of the first promoters of mRNA vaccines in his Country and also the promoter of the current war of his Country against almost every sorrounding neighbor.
It could be described also as a way to cut population in general, destruction and self-destruction at the same time.
Maybe Gail and drb could want to say if this argument may have any sense or not.
Of course your argument is entirely correct. The globalists did a lot of favors to Israel, and called some back by having them lead in the vaccines.
Exciting to read. Many thanks! I guess it can be concentrated into four words, two of which you already use: “Finite world structural crisis”, but then it would not be as interesting to read.
We have known about this likely problem, in about this timeframe, for a long time. Certainly since 1972. But no one really understood how it would play out.
Great read, Gail. Thanks for sharing!
I was having a late breakfast & thinking about war when this arrived— no kidding!
There’s definitely a disturbance in the force. Gail, thanks for your hard work🤗
“On the other hand, people who believe that climate change is our biggest problem seem to think that we can transition to using a modest amount of renewable energy instead. Unfortunately, the physics of the situation doesn’t allow things to play out that way. Also, our so-called renewables are built on a base of oil and coal. If we can’t get enough oil and coal out, already built renewables will stop functioning within a few years, and new ones will be impossible to build.”
And for whatever reason, The Greenies” never put two and two together. Their world is made up of, “if we wish it, it will be done”. The world doesn’t work that way, it never has. We don’t live in a linear world, with linear physics or math.
Just take a look at the EV market. The globalists running governments around the world want to ban ICE vehicle sales by 2035 and I have my suspicions they mean ban them out right even if you own them.
This is why we are dealing with fools and simpletons because they approach things in a linear fashion. EV’s we are told will solve climate change and we will save the planet. EV’s cost more to purchase, have higher repair bills and have much higher insurance costs.
Enter Hurricane Helene and Milton. So it appears some unlucky saps i.e. EV owners kept their prized EV’s in their garages and with storm surge salt water worked its way into their garages which resulted in shorted batteries which caused the vehicle to catch on fire and then burn their house down. So much for the wonders of EV ownership.
We are also dealing with incredible amounts of government debt, the world over. In the US, the electric grid is aging and decaying. The US electric grid cannot support a fraction of the EV’s those in power want us to buy.
“In the US, the electric grid is aging and decaying. The US electric grid cannot support a fraction of the EV’s those in power want us to buy.”
I would agree.
Also, EV’s with heavy batteries tend to damage the roads more than gasoline powered cars. Maintaining the roads is going to be a big problem.
My sister in the Ashville, NC area, (20 miles away) now has power and fresh water back, but not internet or cable TV. She says that there is a long line at the one pharmacy that is open. Many people in her area are not doing as well as they are. They were able to use their relatively new gasoline-powered car to charge her cell phone, for the first few days. Fortunately, the Verizon cell tower was working. They were able to drive out of the area and stay in a hotel for a few days near Raleigh, NC. They are now back in their home.
Many roads are washed out. This will be a huge problem for repair. It takes diesel, asphalt and earth movers to fix the problems, not just printed money or even electricity.
“Also, EV’s with heavy batteries tend to damage the roads more than gasoline powered cars.”
I really doubt this is much of a problem. My folks bought a 1957 Pontiac with a curb weight of 4000 pounds. That’s within a few pounds of a Tesla 3.
Most the damage to roads is from trucks.
I think we are past the point where we can keep our roads repaired. I would not be surprised if many of the roads in North Carolina never get repaired. It takes diesel fuel and asphalt (or concrete) to move earth and pave the roads.
Our ability to keep today’s huge number of roads paved is disappearing.
Roads in North Carolina not repaired? That would be a spookey situation! Too close to home for me. I have a relative who lives in that area! Other people I know have a cabin in that area. If Gail says something, it may be true! We will see.
$100 says they get repaired 🙄. We are not there yet. Gail is always way ahead in her predictions go look at a 2017 post and she was calling for eminent collapse then. Get a hold of yourself soldier!!
Timing is awfully hard to judge. It may be that Europe runs into a lot of problems first. How this all works out is not obvious. I am doubtful that people will ever see it as an oil shortage or an energy shortage.
Bridges not being repaired is happening. There is a length of river in Germany where bridges are closed…permanently. it will become more common. Old decrepit infrastructure will never be replaced.
A lot of streets were paved with stone in pre-industrial cities. I am uncertain that modern vehicles can operate on those kind of roads or if we can maintain thousands of of miles of stone paced roads.
Pontiac with a real engine, 4 barrel carburetor, burn rubber, nights at the drive in, a real back seat.
We are indeed regressing.
Dennis L.
“Pontiac with a real engine, ”
347 cubic inch, 10 to 1 compression ratio, 270 hp
“4 barrel carburetor”
You could drop a silver dollar through the 2 barrel version, For a short time I had one of the 630 fuel injected Bonnevilles they built but I never got it to run right.
The roads wear out faster because many people migrated to heavier vehicles. Many people bought suvs and pick-up trucks because regular cars and economy cars were seen as less safe in high speed collisions because of less metal being used for the chassis.
We have more trucks than in the past because there are more people who consuming more stuff.
I have a theory that peak steel or peak hard metals was the real limit that the U.S. hit in the 1970s and not oil.
I am barely old enough to remember when metal lunchboxes were made on an industrial scale because steel and aluminum was so cheap. By the end of the 1970s, they were gone. New car emission standards forced auto manufacturers to reduce the weight of cars by replacing steel with lighter metals and replacing lighter metals with plastic where ever possible. Declining metal production may have been a major reason why industry was offshored in the 1970s and 1980s. During that time, I am almost certain that that lighter metals and plastic were used to replace steel where eve possible. Metal production is so energy intensive that it was reduced in America wherever possible after U.S. oil production peaked.
It’s just a theory.
I’m still confused about the extent of the shortage. We don’t see any obvious signs of shortages as consumers. Gasoline is readily available. Natural gas supplies in the US are at an all time high. The US is the #1 oil & gas producer in the world. If we passed peak crude in 2019 is there a reason consumers don’t see this yet? I have read that the technology for producing and refining hydrocarbons has greatly improved. And that there are more areas like the Permian to be developed. Are interest rates and inflation linked to energy? Or also to poor financial management?
There are no shortages expect higher prices as extraction costs rise, it’s passed onto the consumer. Gas prices are low now but two factors are at play here. It’s an election year and Joe Biden used the strategic gas reserves to lower gas prices.
If war in the M.E. goes sideways, then you can bet you will 100%, see shortages in the future.
I believe that one of the problems today is low margins for refining crude oil to gasoline. The oil companies can get the oil out and refine it (without adequate reinvestment) at the current prices, but the consumers cannot afford to buy the gasoline. This issue is sometimes called “low crack spread.”
>> expect higher prices as extraction costs rise
My take is different. People will refuse to buy discretionary items rather than pay those higher prices. Or, more accurately, the set of goods produced will shrink because the physical materials and physical energy inputs are shrinking, and the mix of goods produced will shift towards necessities. As the discretionary economy shrinks, there will be job losses in those sectors, and oil-and-gas industrial workers will maintain some income and purchasing power while others become increasingly penurious.
In short, we get poorer, we don’t pay higher prices. A caveat is that money printing could raise prices, but that’s not oil-price specific, it would just be a different way of getting poorer across the board and limiting access to final goods.
Discretionary goods always suffer. Charitable contributions quite likely. Going out to eat. New clothes and furniture.
If governments are affected, they will cut back on road repair and perhaps schools.
I think that’s a good analogy we will limp along but you are right about cutting back on discretionary spending. Art Berman thinks by 2025 or 2026 the masses will start to become aware of the oil problem
The problem shows up as high interest rates and high prices on housing. This is not where we expect it.
It also shows up in higher prices for goods and services that use metal.
And yet there are some who say peak energy is a myth especially NG.
According to the Doomberg chicken, data centers will turn to NG powered data mining centers to front run the delays in licensing /lawfare, and construction of nuclear power plants needed to run their AI Centers.
It’s cheaper to “do the data” where your NG supplies are located with the power source next to them and then export your data rather than to export the energy to run these data centers to remote places @15:20 on the podcast.
But why is having all this “data” so important? Data doesn’t grow food. Is it part and parcel of a human control grid like financialization via CBDC’s and biometrics?—as useless as the energy expended on “nothingness” like crypto currencies, i.e., the price for control? Again, when the government or some NGO or even some powerful interest claims that something like crypto currency is for the citizens’ “benefit,” it usually is the opposite.
And Doomberg in this podcast relates how Art Berman was really pissed at Doomberg’s claim of abundant energy @16:50
“We are swimming in hydrocarbons” (NG) according to Doomberg.
The segment on energy starts at @13:15
A major problem is that high cost energy is not affordable.
Most analysts (including the ones behind Doomberg) cannot figure this out.
Another problem is that the whole system is interconnected. Debt levels get affected, as well.
Most of them are wealthy and live in wealthy areas. Hard to see shortages if you are at the top of the pecking order.
They should venture to the developing world and see how many people have access to a significant amount of fossil fuels.
I listened to the section starting at 13:15. It first talks about nuclear, and then natural gas.
One problem I see with nuclear is, “Where do we get the processed uranium?” Both total supply is a problem, and processing is a problem. Peak uranium production seems to have been about 2016. Most of the processing is done now in Russia. The price for uranium tends to have same problem as fossil fuels–it doesn’t rise high enough for long enough to get more out.
Of course, even if we are able to get nuclear, it only provides electricity. It doesn’t work to build the electrical grid or pave roads. It doesn’t do much to help cultivate food crops, or get food transported to stores around the country.
I am somewhat more hopeful about natural gas in the US. The problem here is that there is a lot of natural gas, if the price of natural gas gets high enough. But once again, if its price gets very high, demand drops off. If price stays too low for too long, natural gas production disappears.
Electricity becomes very expensive if natural gas is transported a long distance. There are plans to export a lot of US natural gas to Europe. I am doubtful about this ever happening because of the affordability of high-priced natural gas in Europe.
Natural gas is better than electricity because it can be compressed and transported for some uses.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03367-5
vhttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03262-z
Beware of the dismal Nobel! it’s been given to cretins! Paul Krugman, Black-Scholes, Bernanke, Fama!
https://www.artberman.com/blog/doomberg-embarrasses-himself/
I will agree with you that the situation is difficult to see, especially if you have your mind set on high oil prices or gas stations without gasoline as the symptoms of an oil shortage.
The problem shows up many places. In my previous response, I mentioned high interest rates and high prices on housing. Some other things include:
1. The many young people with college degrees who cannot find a job requiring this degree. They end up taking a lower paid job instead.
2. The huge amount of student debt outstanding.
3. The US’s inability to make most products without supply lines running around the world.
4. The large share of the US population who now depends on government aid. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/americans-government-aid-social-security-medicare-unemployment-34e92b19?st=PHpGQa&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Furthermore, the US is doing relatively better than some other countries. Germany and the rest of Europe seem to be having more difficulty than the US. Farmers have been protesting that they can no longer farm profitably in Europe.
Thank you for another post.
The last day will be Sunday,November 3, 2 days before the big show.
Asheville, North Carolina was a bedrock for lithium mining and the locals made sure it stayed that way and along came a Hurricane by the name of Helene and took care of that problem.
This is a link that USGS gives about lithium deposits in the US:
https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5d0baffce4b0e3d31162044c
This is a Lithium Mining in NC link:
https://thediggings.com/commodities/lithium/usa/north-carolina
This is another link.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/albemarle-unveils-details-nc-lithium-101100615.html
US is concerned about lithium-dumping by China. Apparently there is too much lithium production. Who knew?
Balancing any commodity supply on knife edge is very difficult. It is always a problem of too much or too little, and prices too high for the consumer or two low for the producer. Government taxes play a big role, too. Governments of exporters often require high taxes to support the overall government required to support the economy.
Used Lithium is often dumped because it costs too much money to recycle. The authorities say lithium is recyclable but no one is recycling it.
This seems to be the issue with many kinds of recycling. If the cost is too high, it doesn’t get done. It likely uses more fossil fuels for recycling than extraction originally used.
Excellent overview of our current dilemma, gail. Thank you!
The future will be much like the past. Just remove everything that transpired from 1700 until 2040…….
Am I the first to comment?
Am I too early?
Are the comments open yet?
Thanks so much for the new post, Gail!
You are welcome. I tried to add a little summary, after I put the post up. You might need to refresh your screen to see it. Something this long really needs an abstract or summary.
Here is a summary by Claude AI:
Summary of Energy and Economic Issues
* The world is facing hidden oil shortages, manifesting as high interest rates rather than high prices.
* The global economy hit two limits: inadequate crude oil supply and stubbornly high interest rates.
* Climate change narratives are emphasized over discussing oil shortages.
* There’s a “not-enough-to-go-around” problem causing various conflicts:
* Low oil prices for exporters
* Shift in industrialization from advanced to developing economies
* Wealth concentration and increasing inequality
* The US’s ability to defend other countries is eroding due to supply chain issues.
* The transition to renewable energy is not proceeding as planned.
* The author suggests we’re nearing the end of an economic cycle, with an uncertain future ahead.
Claude AI did a good job.