|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
My view has long been that if the world economy does not have enough energy resources, it will have to contract. The situation is analogous to a baker without enough ingredients to bake the size of cake he wants to make, or a chemist not being able to set up a full-scale model of a reaction. Perhaps, if a plan is made to make a smaller, differently arranged economy, it could still work.
The types of energy with inadequate supplies are both oil (particularly diesel and jet fuel) and coal. Diesel and jet fuel are especially used in long-distance transportation and in food production. Coal is particularly used in industrial activities. Without enough of these fuels, the world economy is forced to make fewer goods and services, and to make them closer to the end user. Somehow the economy needs to change.
My analysis indicates that our expectation of what goes wrong with inadequate energy supplies is wrong. Strangely enough, it is the finances of governments that start to fail, early on. They add too much debt to support investments that do not pay back well. They add too many programs that they cannot be supported for the long term. They become more willing to quarrel with other countries. Of course, no one will tell us what is really happening, partly because politicians themselves don’t understand.
In this post, I will try to explain some of the changes taking place as the economy begins to reorganize and deal with this inadequate energy supply situation.
[1] One energy limit we are hitting is with respect to “middle distillates.” This is the fraction of the oil supply that provides diesel and jet fuel.
Each type of energy supply seems to be most suitable for particular uses. Middle distillates are the ones the economy uses for long distance transport of both humans and goods. Diesel is also heavily used in farming. If the world is short of middle distillates, we will have to figure out a way to make goods in a way that is closer to the end user. We may also need to use less modern farm equipment.
The top line on Figure 1 indicates that the world economy has gradually been learning how to use less total oil supply, relative to population. Before oil prices began to soar in 1973, oil with little refining was burned to produce electricity. This oil use could be eliminated by building nuclear power plants, or by building coal or natural gas electricity generation. Home heating was often accomplished by deliveries of diesel to individual households. Factories sometimes used diesel as fuel for processes done by machines. Many of these tasks could easily be transitioned to electricity.
After the spike in oil prices in oil prices in 1973, manufacturers started making cars smaller and more fuel efficient. In more recent years, young people have begun deferring buying an automobile because their cost is unaffordable. Another factor holding down oil usage is the trend toward working from home. Electric vehicles may also be having an impact.
On Figure 1, data for crude oil (second line) is available through October 2024. This data suggests that crude oil production has been encountering production problems recently. Note the oval labeled “Crude oil problem,” relating to recent production for this second line. The other two lines on Figure 1 are only through 2023.
The problem causing the cutback in oil production (relative to population) is the opposite of what most people have expected: Prices are not high enough for producers to ramp up production. OPEC, and its affiliates, have decided to hold production down because prices are not high enough. The underlying problem is that oil prices are disproportionately affected by what users can afford.
Food prices around the world are critically dependent upon oil prices. The vast majority of buyers of food, worldwide, are poor people. If budgets are stretched, poor people will tend to eat less meat. Producing meat is inefficient; it requires that animals eat a disproportionate number of calories, relative to the food energy they produce. This is especially the case for beef. A trend toward less meat eating, or even eating less beef, will tend to hold down the demand for oil.
Another approach to holding down food costs is to buy less imported food. If consumers choose to eat less high-priced imported food, this will tend to use less oil, especially diesel and jet fuel. Another thing customers can do to hold down food costs is to visit restaurants less. This also tends to reduce oil consumption.
On Figure 1, the third line is the one I am especially concerned about. This is the one that shows middle distillate (diesel and jet fuel) consumption. This is the one that was greatly squeezed down in 2020 by the restrictions related to Covid. Diesel is the fuel of heavy industry (construction and road building), as well as long distance transport and agriculture. Electricity is rarely a good substitute for diesel; it cannot give the bursts of power that diesel provides.
Close examination of the third line on Figure 1 shows that between about 1993 or 1994 and 2007, the consumption of middle distillates was rising relative to world population. This makes sense because international trade being ramped up, starting about this time. There was a dip in this line in 2009 because of the Great Recession, after which middle distillates per capita consumption noticeably leveled off. This flattening could be an early pointer to inadequacy in the middle distillate oil supply.
In 2019, middle distillate consumption per capita first started to stumble, falling 1.4% from its previous level. The restrictions in 2020 brought middle distillate consumption per capita down by 18% from the 2019 level. This was a far greater decrease than for total oil (top line on Figure 1) or crude oil (middle line). By 2023 (the latest point), per capita consumption had only partially recovered; the level was still below the low point in 2009 after the Great Recession.
Middle distillates can be found in almost any kind of oil, but the best supply is in very heavy oil. Examples of providers of such heavy oil are Russia (Urals), Canada (oil sands), and Venezuela (oil sands in Orinoco belt). The price for such heavy oil tends to lag behind the price for lighter crude oil because of the high cost of transporting and processing such oil.
Strangely enough, countries that are not getting enough funds for their exported fossil fuels tend to start wars. My analysis suggests that at the time World War I started, the UK was not getting a high enough price for the coal they were trying to extract. The coal was getting more expensive to extract because of depletion. Germany had a similar problem at the time World War II started. The financial stresses of exporters who feel they are getting an inadequate price for their exported fossil fuels seems to push them toward wars.
We can speculate that the financial pressures of low oil prices have been somewhat behind Russia’s decision to be at war with Ukraine. The recent problems of Venezuela and Canada may also be related to the low prices of the heavy oil they are trying to extract and export.
Extracting a greater quantity of heavy oil would likely require higher prices for food around the world because of the use of diesel in growing and transporting food. Publications showing oil reserves indicate that there is a huge amount of heavy oil in the ground around the world; the problem is that it is impossible to get the price up high enough to extract this oil.
The existence of these heavy oil “reserves” is one of the things that makes many modelers think that our biggest problem in the future might be climate change. The catch is that we need to get the oil out at a price that consumers of food and other goods can afford.
[2] Another energy limit we are hitting is coal.
Coal energy is the foundation of the world’s industry. It is especially used in producing steel and concrete. Coal started the world industrial revolution. The primary advantage it has historically had, is that it has been inexpensive to extract. It is also fairly easy to store and transport. Coal can be utilized without a huge amount of specialized or complex infrastructure.
China produces and consumes more than half of the world’s coal. In recent years, it has been far above other countries in industrialization.
World coal consumption per capita has been falling since about 2011. Arguably, world coal consumption was on a bumpy plateau until 2013, with world coal consumption per capita truly falling only during 2014 and thereafter.
This pattern of coal usage means that world industrialization has been constricted, especially since 2014. In fact, the restriction started as early as 2012. It became impossible for China to build as many new condominium apartment buildings as inexpensively as promised; this eventually led to defaults by builders. World steel output started to become restricted. The model of world economic growth, led by China and other emerging markets, began to disappear.
The problem coal seems to have is the same as the problem diesel has. There is a huge quantity of coal resources available, but the price never seems to rise high enough for long enough for producers to truly ramp up production, especially relative to the ever-growing world population. Coal is especially needed now, with intermittent wind and solar leaving large gaps in electricity generation that need to be filled by burning some fossil fuel. Coal is much easier to ship and store than natural gas. Oil is convenient for electricity balancing, but it tends to be high-priced.
[3] Political leaders created new narratives that hid the problems of inadequate middle-distillate and coal supplies.
The last thing we can expect a politician to tell his constituents is, “We have a shortage problem here. There are more resources available, but they are too expensive to extract and ship to provide affordable food, electricity, and housing.”
Instead, political leaders everywhere created new narratives and started to encourage investments following those new narratives. To encourage investment, they lowered interest rates (Figure 4), made debt very available, and offered subsidies. Governments even added to their own debt to support their would-be solutions to energy problems.
Political leaders developed very believable narratives. These narratives were similar to Aesop’s Fable’s “Sour Grapes” story, claiming that the grapes were really sour, so the wolf didn’t really want the grapes he initially sought.
The popular narrative has been, “We don’t really want coal or heavy types of oil anyhow. They are terribly polluting. Besides, burning fossil fuels will lead to climate change. There are new cleaner forms of energy. We can also stimulate the economy by adding more programs, including more subsidies to help poor people.”
This narrative was supported by politicians in most energy-deficient countries. The increase in debt following this narrative seemed to keep the world economy away from another major recession after 2008. People began to believe that it was debt-based programs, especially those enabled by more US government spending, that pulled the economy forward.
They did not understand adding debt adds more “demand” for goods and services in general, and the energy products needed to make them. However, it doesn’t achieve the desired result if inexpensively available energy resources are not available to meet this demand. Instead, the pull of this demand will partly lead to inflation. This is the issue the economy has been up against.
[4] What could possibly go wrong?
There are a lot of things that have started to go wrong.
(a) US governmental debt is skyrocketing to an unheard-of level. Relative to GDP, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that US debt will soon be higher than it was at the time of World War II.
Notice that the latest surge in US government debt started in 2008, when the Federal Reserve decided to bail out the economy with ultra-low interest rates (Figure 4). A second surge took place in 2020, when the US government began more give-away programs to support the economy as Covid restrictions took place. The CBO forecasts that this surge in debt will continue in the future.
(b) Interest on US government debt has become a huge burden. We seem to need to increase government debt, simply to pay the ever-higher interest payments. This is part of what is driving the increased debt projected in the 2025 to 2035 period.
Figure 6 shows a breakdown of actual Fiscal Year 2024 US Federal Government spending by major categories.
Note that US government spending on interest payments ($881 billion) is now larger than defense payments ($855 billion). Part of the problem is that the ultra-low interest rates of the 2008 to 2022 period have turned out to be unsustainable. (See Figure 4.) As older debt at lower interest rates is gradually replaced by more recent debt at higher rates, it seems likely that these interest payments will continue to grow in the future.
(c) Continued deficit spending appears likely to be needed in the future.
The CBO estimates in Figure 5 seem likely to be optimistic. In January 2025, the CBO expected that inflation would immediately decrease to 2% and stay at that level. The CBO also expects the primary deficit to fall.
(d) The shortfall in tax dollars cannot easily be fixed.
Today, tax dollars mostly come from American taxpayers, either as income taxes or as payroll taxes.
A person can deduce that to stop adding to the deficit, additional taxes of at least 5% or 6% of GDP (which is equivalent to 12% to 14% of wages) would be needed. Doubling payroll taxes might provide enough, but that cannot happen.
Corporate income taxes collected in recent years have been very low. US companies are either not very profitable, or they are using international tax laws to provide low tax payments.
(e) The incredibly low interest rates have encouraged all kinds of investment in projects that may make people happy, but that do not actually result in more goods and services, or more taxable income.
Figure 8 shows that US corporate income taxes have been falling over time. The reason is not entirely clear, but it may be that companies set their sights lower when the return that is required to pay back debt with interest is low. All the subsidies for wind, solar, electric vehicles, and semiconductor chips have focused the interest of businesses on devices that may or may not be generating a huge amount of taxable income in the future.
I have written articles and given talks such as, Green Energy Must Generate Adequate Taxable Income to Be Sustainable. Green energy can look like it would work if a person uses a model with an interest rate near zero, and policies that give renewable electricity artificially high prices when it is available. The problem is that, one way or another, the system as a whole still needs to generate adequate taxable income to keep the government operating.
Of course, many of the investments with the additional debt have been in non-energy projects. There have been do-good projects around the world. Young people have been encouraged to go to college using debt repayable to the government. Government funding has supported healthcare and pensions for the elderly. But do these many programs truly lead to higher tax dollars to support the US government? If the economy truly were very rich (lots of inexpensive surplus energy), it could afford all these programs. Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that the US has more programs than it can afford.
(f) The ultra-low interest rates have encouraged asset price bubbles and wealth disparities.
With ultra-low interest rates and readily available debt, property prices tend to rise. Investors decide to buy homes and “flip” them. Or they buy them, and plan to rent them out, hopefully making money on price appreciation.
Stock market prices are also buoyed by the readily available debt and low interest rate. The US S&P 500 stock market has provided an annualized return of 10.7% per year since 2008, while International Markets (as measured by the MSCI EAFE index) have shown a 3.3% annual return for the same period, according to Morningstar. The huge increase in US government debt no doubt contributed to the favorable S&P 500 return during this period.
Wealth disparities tend to rise in an ultra-low interest period because the rich disproportionately tend to be asset owners. They are the ones who use “leverage” to get even more wealth from rising asset prices.
(g) Tensions have risen around the world, both between countries and among individual citizens.
The underlying problem is that the system as a whole is under great strain. Some parts of the system must get “shorted” if there is not enough coal and certain types of oil to go around. Politicians sense that China and the US cannot both succeed at industrialization. There is too little coal, for one thing. China is struggling; quite often it seems to be trying to try to “dump” goods on the world market using subsidized prices. This makes it even more difficult for the US to compete.
Individual US citizens are often unhappy. With the bubble in home prices and today’s interest rates, citizens who are not now homeowners feel like they are locked out of home ownership. Inflation in the cost of rent, automobiles, and insurance has become a huge problem. People who work at unskilled hourly jobs find that their standard of living is often not much (or any) higher than people who choose to live on government benefits rather than work. Fairly radical leaders are voted into power.
[5] The major underlying problem is that it really takes a growing supply of low-priced energy products to propel the economy forward.
When plenty of cheap-to-extract oil and coal are available, growing government debt can help to encourage their development by adding to “demand” and raising the prices consumers can afford to pay. High prices of oil and coal become less of a problem for consumers.
But when energy supply of the required types is constrained, the additional buying power made available by added debt tends to lead to inflation rather than more finished goods and services. This inflationary tendency is the problem the US has been contending with recently.
Strangely enough, I think that growing inexpensive coal supply supported the world economy, as oil prices rose to a peak in 2011. As China industrialized its economy using coal, its demand for oil rose higher. The higher world demand coming from this industrialization helped to raise oil prices. But as coal supply (relative to world population) began to fall, oil prices also began to fall. By 2014, the decline in industrial production caused by the lower coal supply (Figure 3) likely contributed to the fall in oil prices shown on Figure 9.
It is the fact that oil prices have not been able to rise higher and higher, even with added government debt, which is inhibiting oil production. World coal production is inhibited by a similar difficulty.
[6] The world economy seems to be headed for a major reorganization.
The world economy seems to be headed in the direction that many, many economies have encountered in the past: Collapse. Collapse seems to take place over a period of years. The existing economy is likely to lose complexity over time. For example, with inadequate middle distillates, long-distance shipping and travel will need to be scaled way back. Trading patterns will need to change.
Governments are among the most vulnerable parts of economies because they operate on available energy surpluses. The collapse of the Central Government of the Soviet Union took place in 1991, leaving in place more local governments. Something like this could happen again, elsewhere.
I expect that complex energy products will gradually fail. Gathering biomass to burn is, in some sense, the least complex form of supplemental energy. Oil and coal, at least historically, have not been too far behind, in terms of low complexity. Other forms of today’s human-produced energy supply, including electricity transmitted over transmission lines, are more complex. I would not be surprised if the more complex forms of energy start to fail, at least in some parts of the world, fairly soon.
Donald Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency seem to be part of the (unfortunately) necessary downshift in the size of the economy. As awful as may be, something of this sort seems to be necessary, if the US government (and governments elsewhere) have greatly overpromised on what goods and services they can provide in the future.
The self-organizing economy seems to make changes on its own based on resource availability and other factors. The situation is very similar to the evolution of plants and animals and the survival of the best adapted. I believe that there is a God behind whatever changes take place, but I know that many others will disagree with me. In any event, these changes cannot take place simply because of the ideas of a particular leader, or group of leaders. There is a physics problem underlying the changes we are experiencing.
There is a great deal more that can be written on this subject, but I will leave these thoughts for another post.
Have humans reached peak brain power?
(non paywalled site)
https://archive.md/2025.03.14-075930/https://www.ft.com/content/a8016c64-63b7-458b-a371-e0e1c54a13fc
Peak brain power = peak civilization
Before the cornucopians try to fight this back by saying that AI would be the savior, I have to say that AIs do not design the infrastructure to advance anything. It can find the best paths among available things, it cannot discover anything which has not been discovered yet.
we reached peak brain power 20 k years ago
a stone age man would survive well enough in our time
how long dyou think you would last in his time?
Getting most information from television and the internet must reduce people’s concentration. Using a calculator instead of doing simple calculations without a calculator lowers people’s understanding of math, and how things work. We must be going downhill now.
https://ria.ru/20250316/okruzhenie-2005316102.html (use web translation tools)
DONETSK, Mar 16 — RIA Novosti. About 30 officers from NATO countries were surrounded in the Kursk region, coordinator of the pro-Russian Nikolaev resistance Sergey Lebedev told RIA Novosti with reference to colleagues.
I admit, this is much more relevant to OFW than the murder of a Slovak tourist, as it could well be a step towards WWIII, although I believe WWIII is already being thought; they just haven’t announced it yet.
Probably done by voice recognition over radio. I assume PL, Fr, US and UK provide all personnel. The politics in the surrounded troops must be reaching fever pitch, as many Ukrainians did not commit war atrocities and want to surrender (though these were elite troops, so banderites should be more common). Banderites and Nato are in the same bandwagon now, both having been backstop troops and involved in crimes. Probably only US advisors will enjoy preferential treatment, if the deal is right, the rest are equivalent to banderites. It might end up with banderites and Nato suffering friendly fire casualties.
Slovak woman came to wedding of her schoolfriend, found killed in an abandoned chapel.
https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/regions/2025/3/13/slovak-woman-found-dead-in-boracay-1053
What does a woman who was raped and killed have to do with resource depletion? It’s not my blog, but I’ll still say I dislike seeing this stuff here.
Concur.
Agree Ivan . Not fit for this blog .
Yesterday, I talked with my friend over phone who visited a restaurant here in Slovakia: he ordered a food that looked like delicious, something from fallow-deer, but he was very disappointed. He told that he would rather not complain as some say that if you return the food, the chef will prepare another one and spit into it…
I know it is disgusting, but it can be real.
As the costs make pressure, the quality and safety goes down.
sad
but irrelevant on ofw
A tourist paradise is no longer a paradise. It is about how naive people are today. Living under social media marketing influence.
Boracay Island is the jewel in the crown of Philippines tourism. It has a reputation for beautiful sandy beaches, natural scenery relatively unspoiled by large-scale development, and unusually good safety for that country.
It used to be famous for being unknown, but times change, and nowadays it’s more famous for being one of the world’s top destinations for relaxation. This murder is bound to put a dent in all that.
Boracay murder statistics are hard to find online. However, I found one post that informs me the place has its fair share of crime against foreigners and even by foreigners, including the occasional “gruesome murder”.
“The most tragic deaths reported are the death of John Cowperthwaite, art dealer Manfred Schoeni, German developer Anton Forstenhausler and their helper Irma Sarmiento in 2004; they bore multiple stab wounds, and were found dead on their beds in Forstenhauer’s villa on the island. The suspect has not been recognized. On 2007, A Brit was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his wife. The most controversial and recent one is the murder of Dexter Condez….”
https://livinginboracay.com/crime-in-boracay-island/
In a finite world, which is hitting limits and subject to the butterfly effect, this murder of a young Slovak woman and the abandonment of her body in a church could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back and sets off global economic collapse. Although probably not.
Gail, you may be interested in this article:
Some Finer-Scale Mapping of the Ongoing Petroleum Depletion Process
Courtesy of the underlying labor of several young academic biophysical economists
The basic framework for examining and understanding the fossil fuels depletion problem pioneered by people like Hubbert, Odum, Hall, and Mearns, has lately been elaborated and made more quantitative and useful by a number of younger academics.
Fizaine and Court (2016), for example, have used the detailed economic data available for the US to more rigorously statistically estimate the minimum societal energy return on energy invested (EROI) necessary to maintain and grow the kind of industrialized societies and institutions that arose during the post-World War II global economic expansion. In the case of the US, these authors have determined that it is impossible for the country to maintain its post-World War II industrial way of life if it spends more than 11% of its annual gross domestic product on energy costs. This cost corresponds to a societal EROI of 11:1 – a value slightly different than the older, qualitatively-determined values of 10:1 and 15:1.
……
Digitization of the global petroleum EROI data from this graph and use of a logarithmic scale make it clear in Figure 3 that Morgan’s (2024) data are correct, and the global EROI value for oil is now about only 10:1. According to Table 3 of Fizaine and Court above, this oil EROI is now too far below the minimum necessary 19:1 EROI value to provide sufficient support – on its own – to the continued maintenance and growth of modern societies.
https://grundvilk.substack.com/p/some-finer-scale-mapping-of-the-ongoing
We all agree, our thesis are being proven by data; there is no future in oil, it was a transition fuel.
We will solve tomorrow’s problem’s with tomorrow’s technology. Anthropomorphic climate change is probably real and in general related not as much to the amount as to the rate of heat release.
We need a cubic mile of Pt, we need to go to a H economy. It appears H can be “burned” directly in more or less conventional diesel like engines. If H is generated with photovoltaics there is no overall heat gain to earth and the rate of burn is about the same as direct solar.
Pt is a very nonreactive metal, somewhere out there is a chunk, probably in some rock, etc. Bust out the Pt, shove the waste towards Jupiter and it is a start.
Perhaps we can live on Mars, seems like there are significant problems to me. We can live on spaceship earth, it is very well engineered for biology.
The elephant in the room is AI, we really don’t know how this one will work out as it has never been seen before. A guess the energy growth will slow quickly, there is only so much that can be learned; or if not, space is an excellent place to cool electronics with plenty of fusion power.
Dennis L.
“The elephant in the room is AI”
I think that is the case.
“space is an excellent place to cool electronics with plenty of fusion power.”
The sun is indeed a fusion power source. Cooling works better further out from the sun, the computational zone, about Jupiter orbit. That may be what is going on at Tabby’s star.
Thanks for the link!
anyone with an interest in the functions of energy, should take a hour or so out to digest this pdf of Jevon’s book on the subject, published in 1866
https://www.inist.org/library/1865.Jevons.The_Coal_Question.Macmillan.pdf
“published in 1866”
159 years ago. Has technology changed since then?
The nature in 1866 is the aame as now, only more polluted
Remember technology can help us exploit existing sources of fossil fuels better, but technology is not an energy source in and of itself.
The use of technology seems to add to the need for energy consumption.
Higher technology in lighting has cut the amount of power needed by a large number of GW scale power plants.
A typical laptop uses 20 watts, a desktop of some years ago was around 500 watts.
I can remember when an IBM 650 computer (vacuum tubes) used at least 20 kW and had far less computation ability than an Apple II.
i can show you a pile of bricks where a wall used to be—after banging my head on it so often on that subject
Ah, now it all makes sense, Norman. Stop with the bricks, Pt is the way to go and the lack of frustration will help avoid traumatic brain injury.
Dennis L.
Not necessarily the case if we go to a H economy with Pt as a catalyst. See post above, a H economy also solves the rate issue in several ways.
One way is much less terrestrial energy used to dig
“stuff” out of the ground.
Dennis L.
Keith, was that one of those “whatsit” questions?
That book was written before incandescent lighting. Today we have LED. Do you think technology has changed in the last 160 years?
I now leave my LED lights on, where previously I would have turned lights off
Jevons paradox in my own hands
Even leaving LED lights on all the time takes less energy than incandescent two hours a day. I still turn my LED lights off when I don’t need them.
i was being mildly facetious
but jevons paradox still holds
I still have a few fluorescent lights that I’ve been too lazy to changeover to LEDs.
Mrs Tim goes from room to room turning them on and leaving them on, and I go around turning them off if she isn’t using them, to save electricity.
It would probably be less bother and also cheaper in the long run to convert these lights to LED ASAP and then let her leave them shining as long as she likes.
I agree with Norman, there is a definite Jevons angle to this thinking. It’s the same with water. If kitchen and bathroom water taps were metered like the machines that dispense gasoline and diesel at the gas station and you paid by the gallon for it, it would certainly cut down on usage. Some people let those taps run for ages.
our tech is now as it was then keith—-in essence, nothing has changed.
we use ferrous metals as the tool by which we consume hydrocarbons.
that is our money creation tool, and has been since the 18th c
you can dress it up every which way, but that’s what it comes down to—–we must burn fuels to sustain our current existence.—-create wages etc
we burn fuels to get more fuels, and burn fuels to wage war on those who have more fuels/resources than we do.
hence warfare has become an oil-driven factory based business—which is what happened as the 19thc went into the 20th—and has gone on ever since.
this is why there will be no ‘breakthrough”—or uploading selves elsewhere or similar daftness—-we are species utilising consumption of carbon surpluses—when its gone, our current mode of existence goes with it.
Jevons clearly understood the role of rising population, in the need for ever more coal. This generally led to the need for ever more imports, but this couldn’t be done, indefinitely.
He covers a lot of areas of confusion. Chapter 1 of the book starts out as follows:
One of the most important sentences for me is the following:
“I draw the conclusion that I think any one would draw, that we cannot long
maintain our present rate of increase of consumption; that we can never advance to the higher amounts of consumption supposed. But this only means that the check to our progress must become perceptible within a century from the present time; that the cost of fuel must rise, perhaps within a lifetime, to a rate injurious to our commercial and manufacturing supremacy; and the conclusion is inevitable, that our present happy progressive condition is a thing of limited duration.”
yup
Old Jevons nailed it—150 years ago
he would have made a happy OFW’er
That was many years ago, Ehrlilch had the world starving in the 1970’s. Jevon was right in being wrong for say 150 years. To date everything is transition. We are transitioning and our future is ahead, not behind.
Dennis L.
we cannot transition from or out of consumption of forms of carbon in order to sustain our existence.
dream up as many theories as you like——humans are good at that—-it wont change the endgame.
that is the biology by which we exist.
we wont become ‘something else”—though you might disappear up your own fundamental orifice if you spin fast enough.
“we cannot transition”
Biology is carbon. But it might be possible to abandon biology. If what we see in the light dips from Tabby’s star and 23 other stars in a cluster around there is aliens, then it looks like they abandoned biology. At least water based biology isn’t going to function well at 65 deg K, while computers make few errors at low temperature.
Life needs energy, but it need not come from coal. Out in space, sunlight works fine and it might even be enough to keep a substantial population going on earth. After all, the energy locked up in fossil fuels came from the sun in the first place.
the light/energy from our sun impacts other bodies in our solar system
as no doubt light from other suns does the same elsewhere—in countless sol systems
higher life forms exist on this planet because the means exists to convert that sunlight into biological energy forces.
it does not exist elsewhere in our solar system.—-elsewhere it probly does.—possibility of life under the ice of titan—maybe
I’m taliking about life with ultimate purpose.
despite all that sun energy—here is where intelligent life is
the universe is full of anomalies we cannot currently explain—–seizing on something and building some scientific ‘thesis’ around it to explain an unexplained circumstance is a nonsense beyond description.
the proof of your thesis lies solely in the fact that it cannot be disproved
the baseline of the mythmaker since the beginning of time
god exists by virtue of the fact that no one can prove otherwise.—-same mindset.
“it cannot be disproved”
It certainly can be proved or disproved. We can go there and look. Alternately, we could go out 500 AU or so and use the sun as a lens to look.
On the other hand, they might come to us. The nearest blinking star is 511 ly but they might have started in our direction a long time ago. If we see Vesta being turned into a data center we will know they are here.
go where and look Keith?
“go where and look”
Tabby’s star, 1470 ly or the closest one, 511 ly.
I was for a long time in the “no aliens” camp. It is no end of weird for one to show up next door. If you can explain the light dips of 24 stars any way that does not involve aliens, please do. I am biased against aliens, we don’t need the competition. Dust will not work because light pressure blows it away like a comet tail.
when eddy vanished from OFW—I insisted it must be aliens—an ideal specimen for experimentation on humankind
unfortunately i had no way of proving it—and he only lives in NZ
At my age,a journey of 511 lyr might mean not getting back before my prebooked funeral, which has been arranged and paid for
and certainly dont intend to waste all that money going all that way just to prove it isnt aliens
in any case, a trip of that duration would mean borrowing your chiller cabinet for suspended imagination–sorry meant animation—how would you manage without it?
“how would you manage without it?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Between_the_Strokes_of_Night
Charles Sheffield used biological slowdown methods in that story to subjectively shorten interstellar trips. If (a big if) we upload into virtual reality it will be easy to slow down subjective time by reducing our clock rate.
Cryonics is the only current way to reach the deep future, but it will not always be the only game in town.
Keith
That “if” is so big and so wide, it would stretch from here to Tabbys star anyway.
Don’t knock God, Norman.
He’s omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, although I’m not sure if His preferred pronouns really are He/Him.
And He most definitely wants you for a sunbeam.
He is the Source from which You flow.
How could it be otherwise?
A luminous being are you; not this crude flesh.
How can you possibly argue that the Universe, Life and Everything can be explained without invoking a deity?
You’re not one of those boring atheists, are you?
You’ll never get to heaven with an attitude like that!
Ehrlich isn’t wrong. Just because you don’t see the effects of bombs being dropped and austerity loans and 85% of the planet living in subsistence doesn’t change the matter of facts. He was just delayed in his suppositions of the western world going down faster than would be expected. Alarmism is rational if the magnitude of the effect is greater than the potential substantiated effect would occur within a smaller time frame. It’s like the village chief that said to build a wall or the tsunami would hit and everyone hated him, yet he was called a savior eventually. Same thing would apply. If everyone cooperated in 1970s, the inevitable could be delayed by a few centuries at least. Since no one cooperated, we could only delay until 2030s at best.
Jevons insight definitely useful yet to date he’s wrong.
The Simon–Ehrlich wager was a 1980 scientific wager between business professor Julian Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich, betting on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resource scarcity-wiki
(Paul lost)
It might help to figure out.
It’s probably just a time frame parameter. But time frame matters especially when doomers are scaremongering anytime now.
Or it’s something more like doing more with less – Buckminster Fuller.
Maybe we can hash this out and come up with our own paradox and make Mr. Padgett famous in his new book. His hometown statue will have a plaque “Chucky made it possible “
i’m ok with that as long as they spell my name right
Gail , Patrick Raymond gives a second response to this article .
https://lachute.over-blog.com/2025/03/pour-repondre-a-gail-tverberg-ii.html
I haven’t had a chance to go through the whole article. I notice that the article starts out by showing a chart from 2007 purporting to show that most coal is used for electricity.
This is a chart I have used, based in 2016 International Energy Association data, as published by the IEA in 2019.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/how-world-coal-is-used-2016-iea.png
The uses of coal vary greatly around the world. This chart shows that 46% of world coal use was for electricity. My point was that without coal, it is practically impossible to have industry. Coal (at least historically) has been inexpensive. Without coal, it is very difficult to make iron and steel cheaply. In fact, it is difficult to operate factories, inexpensively. Coal has historically made inexpensive electricity. Factories are themselves built with iron, steel, and concrete [also made with coal in much of the world]. It is the combination that works to build industry. Having inexpensive coal to burn for electricity tends to hold the cost of manufactured goods down, allowing industrial sales to grow.
I did get a chance to look at the rest of Patrick Raymond’s post.
Patrick Raymond talks about the relative sizes of the Russian, French, and American armies. Raymond says,
“What reigns supreme in the collective West and in military budgets is waste, corruption, and overcharging. The FSB, on the other hand, kept a close eye on Deripaska, who owned factories producing military equipment, to the point that he sold everything back to the Russian state.”
Maybe this is the primary reason for the difference in apparent army strength now. I think the big difference is the lack of coal-based industry in the West, to support building munitions for a big army. Also, particular minerals for making munitions are not readily available.
Raymond says, “Westerners can increase their military budgets as much as they want, they will only increase the level of corruption.” If the West had a good, cheap way of making munitions, the corruption likely would not be as bad a problem.
Raymond says,
“As for nuclear weapons, they are significantly modernized in Russia, but most are not modernized due to the cost involved and the pointlessness of the expense.”
In the US, and the rest of the West, modernizing nuclear power plants is indeed silly, because we do not have a continuing supply of uranium, and we do not have the ability to upgrade it to the level needed to make our power plants work. We are dependent on Russia for the upgrading now, and much of the inadequate world supply is in Russian allies. Russia can keep its nuclear going; China probably can also. It is the West that has a problem.
The West does not have the industry and the supply lines need to do all of the things it would like to do. All it can do is create more high-priced services, whose value is very low.
Re-arm Europe
Von der Leyen’s plan to rearm Europe is simply the disguised Draghi’s plan to save European industry which collapsed for Ukraine war and green deal.
The first one has been lost, the second one proved to be wrong.
Von der Leyen didn’t even change the figures…
Both plans demanded to create debts.
Draghi’s plan implied to accept the mistakes.
Von der Leyen’s plan simply requires to blame Russia.
But don’t forget that Draghi asked Italian citizens to accept mandatory mRNA therapy from the age of 50 up during so called pandemy, in order to save public retirement funds.
Draghi’s plan to save European industry didn’t simply have the correct narrative this time.
He was more lucky with mRNA therapy.
September 2024
https://europa.today.it/economia/piano-draghi-800-miliardi-subito-per-salvare-europa.html
March 2025
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/european-union/article/2025/03/04/eu-chief-reveals-800-billion-plan-to-rearm-europe_6738782_156.html
Crashed before takeoff . Netherlands parliament said ” Thank you ” but we are not interested . I had earlier posted the link .
Ravi, I think you missed the point that the plan is going on anyway.
It is something that goes over national parliaments for the same special clause used for vaccines.
EU Parliament clears way for rearmament plan
https://www.eunews.it/en/2025/03/12/defence-eu-parliament-clears-way-for-rearmament-plan-pd-divided-m5s-and-lega-opposed/
Netherland to remain involved in European defense plan
https://nltimes.nl/2025/03/15/netherlands-remain-involved-european-defense-plan-schoof-says
Student , the EU parliament is a useless piece of s**t , it can pass resolutions a la galore but it is the commission that is the key to power . The EU parliament is a place for rejected political candidates so that they can collect hefty salaries and pensions . I have on many occasions been to EU offices on Friday afternoons , The whole block is empty , everybody just marks attendance then f***s off for their paid weekend .
Netherlands . Read carefully -it was rejected by the lower chamber so now they will be in DISCUSSION . Eventually it will pass , the EU lead by VDL is dictatorial .
With what . All explosives need antimony and nitrates . 100 % controlled by China , Russia and Tajikistan a la Russia .
Ravi, explosives constitute only about 5% of antimony use. Since they are the most important use, what will really happen is that countries will produce the ammunition anyways and scale down its use in other areas.
Ivan , the Liebig’s law of the minimum will prevail . It is not important if antimony is 5% . Urea fertilizer is 80 % nitrogen . 15% phosphorus and 5% potash . No potash = no urea and we we all starve . The TINA factor is in play .
That would make more sense if explosives were 5% antimony, but I’m not. I’m saying most uses are non-military (95%) and those can be reduced to provide supply for military applications. In other words, economies will prioritize explosives first and foremost over other outputs. Those countries don’t control all supply.
*more sense if I said
Ravi, sorry, I hope you don’t mind if I ask you, do you live in UK or India?
Ivan what will you cut ? Tell me , bearings , special steels , batteries ? Can’t have your cake and eat it too .
https://www.psanalytical.com/information/antimony.html#:~:text=Main%20uses%20of%20antimony,production%20of%20flame%20retardant%20chemicals.
Student , no problem . Born India and lived there till 40 years , moved to Europe and lived 15 years in Budapest , now 18 years in Belgium . No never in UK but with lot of contacts there with the Indian community there so I have a good idea of what is happening there .
I came across this chart that shows what happens when oil is priced too high. It gave us the GFC shortly after when oil peaked around $124 p/b
https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
Shortly after the systemic shockwave, demand dropped and the price $44 p/b. If people can’t afford the product they won’t buy it and it becomes worthless. As Michael Ruppert said in his Movie, Collapse: “When the price of oil gets too high where people can’t afford it, forget about it, it stays in the ground”.
Nice chart! On an inflation adjusted basis, oil price was much higher than $124 in 2008.
Of course, we had precisely the opposite effect in 2020, when oil prices were way too low. Governments were able to add huge amounts of debt to bail out the financial systems of their countries, thanks to low oil prices. This debt could be at a low interest rate, and benefit individual workers. It could allow the economy to continue for a few more years.
Today’s oil price is USD 41.68 if priced in 2016 dollars . Two rules ;
1. Oil above USD 70 will kill the consumer , oil below USD 70 will kill the producer .
2. USD 70 is the new USD 100 for the world .
FUBAR .
yes but what if the U.S government gives out 0 percent loans to oil companies? Or just gives them the money for drilling? Art Berman is saying that drill baby drill is possible if the government warrants it. They can keep oil prices low enough long into the future. Just saying……and I only quote Art because it seems like he is on a book tour promoting the administration’s meme.
Sam , even the White House cannot triumph over geology . Economics vs Geology then geology wins . I am a fan of Art but recently he has been off the tangent — why ? I have no answer .
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/15/trump-administration-message-to-oil-and-gas-industry-youre-the-customer.html
Oil industry is the customer….they know ….. they have been watching. Energy secretary met with Art Berman. What if they just secretly give money to the oil industry? Who’s going to know? There is no transparency when it comes to the U.s Yes they will lose trust but where else are you going to go? They have the reserve currency…for now…Friday they had the treasurer buy the s&p to prop it up…
https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/historical-crude-oil-prices-table/
Nice find that is very interesting…..is it accurate?
Pingback: The Downward Spiral of Our Civilization – Revelation Six
Canada’s soon to be new liberal premier has close ties to China.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/brookfields-deep-ties-chinese-land-loans-green-deals
Prime Minister Carney will crap his tailored trousers when the American legions push rapidly and far into western Canada.
There is zero question now that that will happen. The only question is how much of Canada will he take? I suspect all of us in the 3 prairie provinces and the high arctic will soon be swearing allegiance to the star spangled banner and giving the bird to both BC and Eastern Canukistan.
As someone who has been very badly treated by this woke, feminist, socialized, low IQ, virtue signaling farce of a nation I welcome the Abrams battle tanks and the reaper drones.
God Bless Donald Trump, and God Bless America.
Cromagnon . Canada is a member of NATO , it will invoke article 5 and then the EU and UK will come across the Atlantic and bomb the hell out of USA . Thou worryth much . ROFL .
I am not worried. You misunderstand. I WANT Trumps America in my homeland. I laugh at the idea of NATO doing anything,….they are neutered dogs. The UK is so woke it can’t even get ships out of ports without sinking them. The EU is a socialist nightmare that cannot even organize effectively on its own doorstep to “repel” those pesky Russians.
My worry is that the conservatives in Canada might actually eke out a win, if an actual election is ever called in this joke of a nation. If that happens, it might forestall Trump sending the legions north. If the communists win yet again then he has no choice. We will see the American land army inside Canada within the year.
In an energy constrained world the drawbridges are being pulled up and the cannons are being primed. Trump knows this. He wants to encircle the entire north American continent into “Trumpland”….fortress North America…..it is logical and doable. But he must exterminate,…utterly decimate, any trace of wokeism, feminsim, socialism etc from our shores to be effective.
I think we will now see a further swing to the hard right that will drag socialist sympathizers into public executions. Firing squads, hangings, burning at stakes type stuff. The stoning of women for promiscuity and beheading of fools touting multiculturalism is coming.
Mass exits from the simulacrum boys and girls and you have only yourselves to blame.
God Bless America,…its been a long time coming.
i sincerely hope you are joking cro
if not, you get the nutter of the year award on ofw—and it’s only March
Ah Norman, you never let me down. For someone who really seems to “get” the physical ramifications of energy depletion you always amaze me at how utterly juvenile your interpretation of politics and human behaviors are.
You are in England which has quite literally given itself over to sand monkeys and the WEF. Your country is in rapid collapse as it has no natural resource base to fall back upon.
Canada is in collapse also because it has followed nearly identical policies as Great Britain……but it has VAST resources……
Canada has not the collective brainpower to save itself, that is obvious now,……but the Americans do,….and come they will.
You keep waving your hands,……The light of civilization will be burning in Fortress North America long after Britain is back in the neo-neolithic
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation
just one snippet from the annals of your orange hero
there are many more—too tiresome to list.—reams of frauds….he’s now selling his own crypto currency
if you can’t see he’s out for himself alone, and sees the usa as his personal piggy bank, and has sold the presidency—then i must leave you to wallow—nothing i can do about it.
In another decade, tops, following the next revolution the UK could well be banging on the US door begging to be let in as the 60th to 65th states.
The big question then will be whether to exile the deposed king to the Falklands or the Isle of White. Because the US will not admit a monarchy into the fold as a state.
I’m not advocating any of this, as I remain a loyal subject of King Charles III, but I see it clear as day in my crystal ball.
France and Algeria seem to be increasingly at odds.
France & Algeria Rocked By ‘Most Serious’ Diplomatic Crisis Since End Of Colonial Rule
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/france-algeria-rocked-most-serious-diplomatic-crisis-end-colonial-rule
Other issues:
France is a major buyer of Algerian natural gas.
France has been deporting quite a few Algerians.
Art Berman’s latest Blog: “The Global Reset: Energy, Geopolitics, and Market Upheaval”
https://www.artberman.com/blog/the-global-reset-energy-geopolitics-and-market-upheaval/
Excerpt: Former Pioneer CEO Scott Sheffield warns $50 oil makes it hard to survive. With China’s demand peaking and supply rising, he sees $50-$60 as the new floor. “You’ve really got to hunker down. Layoffs may be coming,” he warned.
“When you get below the cost of supply, you can’t ‘drill, baby, drill.’”
Harold Hamm, Continental Resources CEO
This is definitely a problem.
Now with low oil prices they hide the potential peak by saying “prices are too low”. And the public would have no idea whether that was true or because they are reaching physical limits. (or both).
I looked at Berman’s latest article. He says:
“LNG is expanding faster than expected, giving Trump something OPEC never would—leverage. Unlike past presidents, he’s not weighed down by America’s need for imported energy.”
I am doubtful that LNG will actually continuing expanding quickly. Natural gas production is not expanding quickly. If oil is in short supply, natural gas may slow as well. Exported LNG is a high-priced energy product. It is difficult for any country to do well on it. It doesn’t substitute for diesel in the trucks of US, or for gasoline in the cars of the US.
“Prices have fallen nearly 20% since mid-January, weighed down by tariff chaos, spending cuts, and oversupply.”
Prices are falling because the economy is going into recession. This is a predictable outcome.
“Törnqvist made a comment that got little attention when he said that global inventories are low by historical standards. “There are some checks and balances in place so any big dip would be relatively temporary.” Hold that thought.”
On the other hand, a big dip would translate very quickly to little oil supply being available. The economy would need to make a big downward adjustment quickly, to deal with this problematic situation.
“Crude is likely mispriced—low inventories mean tight supply and higher prices ahead.”
I wouldn’t count on it. It may mean depression ahead.
I have beaten Chalres Fitzclarence and his 200/400 Worcestershires, who are no less guilty than Chucky, as often as I humanly could, since without them the unnecessariats of the West (and by corollary the colonies, now the Third World) would never have had any voice about how the world would be run.
The world of 1913 was such that people knew their places, the worthy stayed worthy and the troglodytes stayed troglodytes, the boundaries of the two never, ever crossing.
Parvenus were not tolerated, the joint forces of the Establishment crushing them. Social mobility did not exist, except in the New World whose denizens were treated as something not fitting the proper society. The American millionaires were treated like the oil sheiks were treated before 9/11.
Such was how human civ was evolving, an eternal exclusion of peoples who do not have any business on the world and should never have given the keys to the kingdom.
Without Chucky the Germans take the channel ports, which would have made the war untenable for the British and everyone goes home by Christmas, preserving the genetic stock of the European elites and the working chaps going back to shovel coal and clean chimneys.
Chucky and his 200/400 Worcestershires prolonged the Great War by 4 years. Border changes are inconsequential compared to the social changes brought by them. Those not exactly part of the ‘worthy’, including the late Dr. Robert Firth, were able to penetrate the top educational institutions, and people not used to run anything began to rise higher in the ranks, having a voice on how things run for the first time in the history of humankind.
We all know what happened after a century, with the clown shows being run everywhere in the so-called West. Clowns being put into the seats of power doing clownish stuff everywhere.
Some people imagine there are ‘hidden hands’ behind the clowns. Well, given how things are going, it seems the hidden hands running the puppets have very rheumatic fingers.
Chucky’s real crime is he opened the door for peoples who had no business running anything to have a chance, something which was denied by learned people throughout history since they knew it never works. Those who were bred for superiority are different from us, and only they should be given power, authority and wealth and all the convenience, and he and his 200/400 Worcestershires, who are no less guilty, opened the floodgates for peoples who had no stake in society to sneak in,
The cold truth is that with today’s tech about 80-90% of all population is not necessary anymore.
Gail and some others have talked about the workers not being paid leads to the end of consumption.
The cold truth is that the consumption of the top 10-20% of the world’s population more than makes up the loss of the consumption of the bottom 80-90% of world pop.
As such the unnecessariats will be treated differently. It cannot be avoided.
you may have missed the point kulm
true, the bottom 80% are unnecessary, —in theory.
unfortunately without those 80%, the wealth of the rest would instantly evaporate.
Take Musk…he has become the richest man in the world by scamming the government into paying him to launch ‘starlink’ satellites or whatever, by skimming off the top of each paypal transaction, and selling electric cars.
Already Musk’s businesses are having problems because we ”’unecesssary” people are dumping them.
the money he’s made comes from us—the ”unnecessary people”–nowhere else
same applies to Bezos and his ”pass the parcel’ business.
without us unnecessary people—he doesnt have a business
no matter what level of ‘AI’ is introduced, their business cannot deliver revenue and profit without ‘unnecessary people’, because they are the ‘consumers’.—-and if theres no consumption, you dont have a business.
the consumption of the top 20% is strictly limited—you can only eat 3 meals a day, sleep in one bed and drive 1 car.
true–you can own 100 of the the above, but you cannot go on buying houses and calling it ‘wealth’….if those houses arent used.
Why not?
because a house is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.
if the world pop consisted of only the so called ”elite”….the value of everything would eventually dissolve to virtually nothing.
I agree. The top 10% cannot live without the bottom 90%. This is especially true today, with our interlinked economy.
Not sure about that one.
AI seems to change economics for a few, it is perhaps sentient but not biology which by definition self replicates and in so doing requires growth.
Were AI to be eternal, economics changes, in a way the only exchange required is for maintenance; there is nothing new under the sun.
These are guesses, AI changes things. I use a primitive form, Copilot and will experiment with others, it works and is an incredible tutor.
Haven’t used it yet, but I suspect Turbo tax has changed accounting greatly, a cpa is a dead-end job for all but a very few. Tax accounting is basically filling in the blanks, AI can try different combinations almost instantly.
I wonder about government, how much of it is really necessary? For those in government service the changes may be existential.
Rambling. If much of economics is “waste” that implies those wasting can be made redundant. Economics only comes into play with biology. Biology is sort of throughput.
The Federal government has run out of money, we are seeing an experiment in progress.
What may be existential for spaceship earth is that biology which maintains it; I suspect humans are more exploitive than maintainers.
Again, miscellaneous thoughts. Yours?
Dennis L.
Having done taxes. The CPAs make money because the rich would have someone to blame to when things go sour.
It is like an insurance policy which AI cannot replace.
AI can advise us how we might improve on the production of ”stuff”
AI cannot of itself produce ”stuff”
the prime wealth of the top percentage of humankind is derived entirely from the production, transport and marketing of ”stuff”
(show me otherwise?)
thats just the way things are i’m afraid
I think Kulm has a good point but has the metrics messed up. IMO.
I don’t think its as simple as (throw away the top 20 percent or the bottom 80).
I think there has to be a mixture and I have no idea what the best formula would be.
I think most humans are not needed now for the same reason horses and buggies weren’t needed when the automobile came along.
humans have made themselves redundant in moderns terms
but an elite them and us wont work either
Most businesses are now business to business so revenues and profits occur without people.
You can only eat 3 meals a day but the quality and ingredient of the meal will be vastly different, as different as a trishaw driver in Dacca and a businessperson in New York.
Without consumers there will still be projects, like city projects, tech projects, etc which do not need people. In fact the consumption by the bottom 90% is not taking too much dollar amount now, since they can’t really consume stuff with added value.
/////Without consumers there will still be projects, like city projects, tech projects, etc///////
i’ll try to spell it out kulm
build as many ‘city projects’ as you like—but without people, they become energy dead ends
if you still dont get that—look at the chinese tower cities—nobody lives there—hence they are ‘dead”
tech projects mean nothing unless people are there to make use of them.
and in any event—who do you think will build all these ”projects”?—not AI—perleeeeze!!!
Harold Hamm Sounds the Alarm: Low Oil Prices Could Shut Down US Shale
By Julianne Geiger – Mar 14, 2025, 2:10 PM CDT
Shale titan Harold Hamm isn’t mincing words—if oil prices stay this low, drilling in some of America’s prized shale fields could grind to a halt. Speaking at CERAWeek in Houston, the Continental Resources founder warned that with oil hovering near $65 a barrel, many U.S. fields are already on shaky ground. “When you get below the cost of supply, you can’t ‘drill, baby, drill,’” Hamm told Bloomberg. “That shuts you down.”
It’s not exactly the raucous celebration oil executives had in mind when they gathered in Houston under the banner of Trump’s second-term Energy Dominance agenda.
Yes, industry leaders were quick to cheer the rollback of Biden-era climate policies. But President Trump’s aggressive trade stance is giving some in the industry a case of the jitters. His latest tariff war with Canada has placed downward pressure on crude oil prices–a scenario that President Trump has referred to as “phenomenal news.”
And it is for some. The oil industry’s mood, however, is just shy of celebratory.
It’s not just Hamm. ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance warned that inflationary pressures are creeping back into the system, while investors are skittish about how Trump’s on-again, off-again trade policies will impact energy markets.
BlackRock’s Larry Fink put it bluntly: “The only way we can navigate this—it’s not by cutting because cutting is going to destroy the economy. We must grow the economy.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. is still the world’s largest oil producer. But industry leaders are suggesting there are limits. Occidental Petroleum CEO Vicki Hollub, for one, has predicted that American crude production will likely peak between 2027 and 2030 before beginning a slow decline.
For now, the low oil prices are great for consumers. It’s not so great for the companies pulling it out of the ground. If prices stay low, even with regulatory relief, the shale boom may finally hit a wall.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Harold-Hamm-Sounds-the-Alarm-Low-Oil-Prices-Could-Shut-Down-US-Shale.html
Looks like shale is peaking.
Anyone seen Plan B laying around?
It is low prices that causes production to stop!!
I thought the orange man wanted low energy prices. who is advising him?
Recession produces low energy prices. Trump is getting the effect he wants.
I don’t know who is advising him, but recession is a fool-proof approach.
“Recession is a fool proof approach” is that sarcasm? Do you remember what happened in 08? Trumps actions will put the U.S in a depression it will be hung on him and only massive debt will be what gets the country out. All the job cut savings will be gone…..if there are really any; I think it is just creative accounting. Also putting the country in a recession and depression is very dangerous business it is like building a fire in winding conditions and hoping it does not get out of control and burn your house down.
At this point, there appears to be no alternative but to make smaller economies, probably less closely connected to other economies around the world. Such economies probably cannot be as complex as our current economy.
I suppose that if there is more energy supply later, things could change (for example, if someone figures out new techniques to extract more oil cheaply (using solar with heavy oil, say), or methane hydrates become economical to extract, or some other breakthrough takes place.)
Are LNG exports to Europe profitable enough in terms of price and strategic value to counteract the lower oil prices?
I doubt it. Europeans cannot afford high-priced LNG (price of $15 or more per Mcf). Without high-priced LNG, the price of the natural gas tends to be too low for American producers.
Also, oil has always been the big profit maker or breaker. Natural gas tends to be priced at breakeven or below. This is a reason natural gas is often flared. It is simply not worth collecting, purifying, and piping to end destinations. The “net energy” of natural gas tends to be very low, because of all of the processing, piping, and other processes (such as those used in LNG transport) used for natural gas. Natural gas is not very compact, so the pipelines must be large in size, also.
UK has been punished by Russia (but UK won’t admit it)
Sorry I don’t have the time to provide all the background articles, but they are easy to find.
I report one.
Solong containership was carrying chemical products for mining industry (see ‘rare raw materials’) while Stena was carrying jet fuel for military airplanes based in UK.
Five members of the Solong were Russian.
Only one Philippino crew member died for the 2 ships.
Talking just in ‘technical terms’ it was a successful operation by Russia.
UK has many issues to be guilty about: intelligence provided to Ukraine, UK ‘foreigners’ soldiers in Ukraine and in Russian Kursk, missiles weapons drones and so on ect. given to Ukraine.
The cup was full.
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2025/03/15/captain-of-ship-in-north-sea-crash-charged-with-manslaughter
This article starts out:
The article is written from the point of view that the Russian Captain of the cargo ship was being punished, not the UK.
UK has been hit hard in this episode for what has been doing to Russia during these last years, but it is just a drop in the ocean in comparison to what has done to Russia.
Russia will surely remember UK actions for long.
And during these hours UK is trying to convince other Countries to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, substantially moving in the opposite direction than Trump.
I have some doubts that Russia will accept UK troops in Ukraine.
“UK’s Starmer says ‘troops on the ground and planes in the sky’ could secure Ukraine peace deal”
https://kyivindependent.com/uks-starmer-offers-ukraine-troops-on-the-ground-and-planes-in-the-sky/
“ how how can you talk about a negotiated settlement with Russia when the con constitution of Ukraine
13:29 prohibits negotiation . . .
Trump has said
13:42 is some of the foundational understandings that have been reached between the United States and Russia a
13:48 Russia didn’t start this war wh there goes the entire European narrative that
13:53 this is a war of Russian aggression Russia didn’t start this war Russia was
13:58 right to defend its interests these are fundamental things guys previously they’ve been dismissed as Kremlin
14:04 talking points but they’re not they’re statements of fact fact-based reality
14:09 two Ukraine will never be a member of NATO ever just not going to happen boom
14:16 three there won’t be European peacekeeping forces deployed to Ukraine isn’t going to happen boom and we can go
14:24 on and on this this is the reality that was set forth having articulate oh perhaps the
14:32 most important the war in Ukraine is a proxy war between the United States and Russia
14:39 Ukraine is just a proxy that’s sort of like it the defining thing when you have the
14:45 Secretary of State articulate this saying this is between us and Russia we’re the Waring parties Ukraine is a
14:52 proxy this is fundamental so because when you say that you now understand the
14:58 role that Ukraine plays they’re not driving this ship they’re just the proxy
15:04 this ship is being driven by the United States the United States started this war the United States is the one who set
15:09 the objectives of this war which we know are the Strategic defeat of Russia and Ukraine is simply the proxy ”?
It is indeed a difficult war to get out, regardless of who started it. The US definitely encouraged the war.
Is this desperation or is it fear .?
Here are a few comments in the context of the ‘narrative energy illusion’, this time about France, nuclear energy and Uzbekistan.
1. France’s Last Uranium Frontier: From Niger to Uzbekistan
At the Élysée Palace, Macron received the president of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, the day before yesterday.
A new strategic partnership has been agreed: Uzbekistan will become France’s new uranium supplier. The South Djengeldi project is expected to yield 700 tonnes of uranium per year for at least ten years.
The deal is presented as a great success. France’s nuclear power plants continue to operate and energy security is guaranteed. The newspapers write about ‘strategic cooperation’, newsreaders praise the ‘stable supply of uranium’. Politicians raise their glasses.
2. Well, what is this really about? 700 tonnes of uranium per year roughly means 600 tonnes of natural uranium (because yellowcake U₃O₈ contains some oxygen). After enrichment, 600 tonnes of uranium provides approximately 8 to 10 gigawatt-years (GWy) of electricity.
France’s nuclear power plants produce approximately 380-400 GWj of electricity annually (70% of total power production). 700 tonnes of uranium from Uzbekistan therefore only covers ~2% of France’s annual nuclear energy needs.
3. The timeline: How long can France make do with this? The deal runs for at least 10 years, so a total of 7,000 tonnes of uranium will be released. That is enough for 80-100 GWj of electricity, or about three months of total annual French nuclear energy consumption.
France presents this deal as a step towards energy independence, but the reality is different. Niger, once the stable source of uranium, has been lost due to the coup. Uzbekistan is now the new gamble, but is economically and politically intertwined with Russia and China. The same goes for Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium supplier, which is firmly in Putin’s sphere of influence. Russia controls 40% of the world’s uranium enrichment capacity.
In short, France’s uranium strategy is sliding from crisis to crisis beneath the surface, without a real long-term plan. And there is another ‘small’ problem. Uzbekistan has a catastrophic water history, with the dry-out of the Aral Sea as the most poignant example. During the Soviet period, massive water diversions were made for cotton cultivation, causing the Aral Sea to practically disappear. What remains is a toxic desert landscape, with salinised soil and heavy chemical pollution. The region suffers from dust storms full of toxic residues and extreme drought.
And now? Uzbekistan is focussing on uranium mining using methods that require even more water.
4. Uzbekistan already uses more water than it can replenish. Uranium mining will further deplete and pollute water resources. And it will compete with agriculture, industry and drinking water supplies.
It is no coincidence that uranium mining often takes place in ‘last frontier’ regions—areas where economic interests take precedence over ecological sustainability. But what about the long term? A country like Uzbekistan may pay the price with its water resources destroyed.
France will get its uranium for a ‘little while’, but the ecological bill will be paid by the Uzbeks. Just as Niger supplied uranium for decades, but was left with polluted mines and radioactive waste heaps. And France is still playing a few moves on the uranium chessboard, while it is already a lost game.
https://www.agenzianova.com/en/news/macron-receives-mirziyoyev-france-uzbekistan-relations-elevated-to-strategic-partnership/
Copy/paste Harry’s blog .
Uzbekistan has no ports.
Will France import all of the uranium through airplanes, going through Russian or Iranian airspace?
If it is not hare brained, I don’t know what is.
This is another sad piece of the uranium shortage situation. France made itself dependent on nuclear, using uranium. But then its own supply of uranium ran short, as did the supply of its major supplier, Niger.
Uzbekistan is trying to get into the business of exporting uranium, but it has no ports, and its extraction uses water, which is in short supply. It has signed a contract to supply a small amount of uranium to France over the next 10 years.
Military vet rages at bougie Republican town hall
“I’m a veteran and you don’t give a f*** about me!”
https://x.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1900568504660631884
Pingback: La escasez de energía y su impacto en la economía global - Hemeroteca KillBait
Do people think that USA ought to annex Greenland and even do a military invasion of the place to grab it? Would that be the manly thing to do, too amoral or maybe people suspect that collapse is just so imminent that it is not worth the drama as entertaining as it might be?
Trump dismisses conventional ‘rights’ claims about Greenland. Danes went there and ‘claimed’ it but so what? In the dominant 19th c. Hobbesian state view of war, states exist in a state of nature that is a natural state of war and none of them are obliged to recognise the ‘claims’ of other states unless they want to.
USA needs Greenland for its natural resources. Trump wants to order economic and military power to USA so that it can compete for security with emergent powers in the future. Physical dissipative (energy) structures compete to order the environment to their own maintenance and survival and states are physical structures that do that.
Likely USA is just too ‘weak’ politically to do an annexation anyway. It is liberal democratic with a pluralist partisan system that would undermine such blatantly natural acts. I could be wrong but my guess is that USA is just too weak politically and it is not going to happen.
But the whole subject is entertaining. Maybe Trump will surprise us all and pull it off? The whole thing could be worth the look on the faces of the ‘leaders’ of European states who are a part of NATO and who basically rely on USA to uphold the post-1945 ‘liberal international’ and ‘just war’ order.
https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-says-he-thinks-us-will-annex-greenland-13327945
Donald Trump says he thinks US will annex Greenland
Mr Trump questioned Denmark’s claim to the territory, saying Denmark was “very far away” from Greenland despite being part of the country’s kingdom.
Donald Trump has said he thinks the US will annex Greenland, days after the country’s incoming prime minister said: “We don’t want to be Americans.”
During an Oval Office meeting with NATO secretary general Mark Rutte, the US president was asked about his hopes to annex Greenland.
“I think that will happen,” he said. “I didn’t give it much thought before, but I’m sitting with a man who could be very instrumental.
“You know Mark, we need that for international security. We have a lot of our favourite players cruising around the coast and we have to be careful.”
Mr Trump questioned Denmark’s claim to the autonomous territory, saying Denmark was “very far away” from Greenland despite being part of the country’s kingdom.
“A boat landed there 200 years ago or something. They say they have rights to it,” Mr Trump said. “I don’t know if that’s true. I don’t think it is, actually.”
He said the US already has a military presence in Greenland and added: “Maybe you’ll see more and more soldiers going there.”
I think he will annex it. Yes, politically weak, but not so weak that it can not annex 57,000 people. same for Panama.
Chris Martenson just did a video on Peak Oil.
https://odysee.com/@Chris_Martenson:2/250314-MSR-Return-of-Peak-Oil:a?src=embed&t=29.020113
Chris Martenson talks about the CERA oil conference this week, and the fact that oil executives are talking openly about tight oil from shale hitting a peak in the very near future. Even the EIA forecasts are absolutely flat.
Chris talks about financial turbulence and very high oil prices. I agree with financial turbulence. If oil prices spike, I don’t think it will be for long. The country is headed into recession.
Yep, heard it all before
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwysfmKNNkQ&t=3813s
Description
In Memory of Michael C. Ruppert – Full Interview – “Zeitgeist: Moving Forward” by Peter Joseph 2.4K. Likes 154,771 Views 2014 Apr 17
From Peter Joseph, April 16th 2014:
In early 2010, I interviewed Michael C. Ruppert for a film.
This is the full interview with only minor editing.
Given his tragic death, I would like to say that Michael was an extremely rare person – far beyond what most see. While he certainly had no shortage of detractors and attackers, he also had courage unprecedented – fearless – and was an inspiration to millions, including myself.
Mike ruthlessly put forward and defended what he had concluded without intimidation or fear of reprisal. In the climate of tension common to the activist community, Mike was a pioneer…and sadly people with this kind of commitment and sensitivity often find tragic ends.
This interview, as with many he did, again shows his understanding of the world along with his relentless plea for humanity to change course.
IMO, the only interview one needs to hear, listen and understand and act upon
I agree that Michael Ruppert was a gem and he made me question things. In his movie Collapse he charged that the CIA was involved in the drug traffic trade into the US.
Thank you, Rodster. Michael Ruppert awoke me to humanities predicament in his movie “Collapse”.
After understanding his message, my focus was elsewhere.
Suppose he could no longer carry the message any longer and checked out leaving us to carry on…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYirUFMB8s0
Crosby, Nash and Young with lyrics
Or was he possibly Epsteined? That we’ll never know although a close friend did say he committed suicide. I still question that because Ruppert taught me to question everything.
I have no proof but i’m leaning on being suicided/Epsteined because he knew too much and was a threat. His movie Collapse was a hit and he didn’t care if it was pirated on the internet because all he cared about was getting the message out.
I think he was the launchpad for the Alternative Media we have today that are now doing the job that the Legacy Media is supposed to be doing.
I came across an article by the remarkable journalist Dave Lindorff which explains what Trump is unable to understand with his entire kakistocratic cabinet of greedy incompetents demonstrating that with tariffs, he’s going about bringing car manufacturing back home the wrong way. This is also why Canadians will never accept being an American state, despite all the torrents of lies he spouts. We will never accept a criminally insane leader in a country that denies proper medical care to pregnant women. Texas and most red states are now worse than Gilead in “The Handmaid’s Tale”. Moreover, in Canada, patients with an incurable disease do not have to spend months of painful agony and can require medical assistance to die. This also has the advantage of reducing energy consumption. We have evolved in the separation of church and state and will not impose unprovable beliefs on atheists. Canada will become a member of EU, never USA, especially the way tRump who requests respect from everyone, never giving it to others, is asking. His anti-science suppression of Education department and university research conforms to Project 2025 making people uneducated so they will lack critical thinking to protect themselves from the nationalist evangelical right.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/03/10/why-us-automakers-make-vehicles-and-source-parts-in-canada/
In short, this is Claude Castonguay’s legacy to Canadians that the Democratic and Republican parties will never give to US citizens so the insurance companies, contributing to their campaigns, continue to pocket the middlemen profits.
Kind Regards !
I honestly think he only wants Alberta and BC. so you are safe.
OPEC has repeatedly slammed the international agency for what the cartel says are “dangerous” predictions of peak oil demand by 2030. Saudi Energy Minister Abdulaziz bin Salman even called in 2021 the IEA’s Roadmap to Net Zero “La La Land”.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/OPEC-Drops-US-EIA-as-a-Secondary-Source-Assessing-Oil-Production.html
So, Saudi is not worried about oil demand peaking higher to the point that they can’t supply it. They’re more worried that there will be less and less need for their oil. It doesn’t make sense especially if their reserves are in danger of depleting soon because you would want to conserve the most valuable resource.
Ruble has been strengthening a lot lately. Not sure whether this means traders think Russia is going to “win” versus there being some sort of settlement, but it’s interesting either way.
Interesting!
What Musk is doing is in accordance with his business interests. Destroying the institutions that were suing him or blocking his activities especially regarding the multiple tens of deadly accidents the “self-driving” teslas had despite his assurances that all was ok, or snafu with FireworX err i mean SpaceX. In Clinton’s days, the administration reduced the weight of government in a careful way in contrast with the random errorful way the muskrats are using. Chances are when the crisis they are causing is bad enough Musk will privatize essential functions through his companies. Project Pluto for cruise missiles and project Daedalus for space exploration was a lot more advanced than anything SpaceX is doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus
Here’s the regurgitation from WizardLM-2 on scarce resources allocation. Book 2 and probably book 12, does not exist.
The explanations on allocation for an expert in decision science can be further elaborated on for each step in the list.
please give me a list of good books about how to allocate scarce resources of oil, coal, gas and electricity
Bot
Here’s a list of books that provide insights into the allocation of scarce resources such as oil, coal, gas, and electricity. These books cover a range of perspectives from economic theory to practical case studies:
1. “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power” by Daniel Yergin – This comprehensive book details the history of the global oil industry and its implications for geopolitical power and economic development.
2. “Energy and the Modern Economy” by Vaclav Smil – This book provides a detailed examination of the role of energy in modern economies, including how societies allocate scarce energy resources.
3. “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air” by David J.C. MacKay – MacKay discusses the realities of sustainable energy consumption and challenges readers to think critically about resource allocation in the context of climate change.
4. “The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World” by Daniel Yergin – A follow-up to “The Prize,” this book explores the transformation of the energy sector and the challenges of allocating resources in a rapidly changing world.
5. “Power Play: The Fight to Control the World’s Electricity” by Sharon Beder – This book investigates the politics, economics, and technology behind electricity allocation, including the transition to renewable energy sources.
6. “The Coal Question: Political Ecology and Industrial Revolution” by E.A. Wynne – Although originally published in the late nineteenth century, this book remains relevant for understanding historical perspectives on coal as a scarce resource.
7. “The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism and Sustainability” by Gus Speth – This book addresses the challenges of allocating natural resources within the constraints of capitalism and environmental sustainability.
8. “Electricity for the Modern World: Future Energy Systems” by Roger F. Harrison, Tony R. Wales – This technical reference provides an overview of modern electricity systems and discusses the challenges of managing and allocating electricity resources.
9. “Scarcity: Humanity’s struggle with Earth’s limits” by Giles Slade – Slade examines the concept of scarcity in relation to natural resources and discusses how societies have historically dealt with resource limitations.
10. “Energy Economics and Policy” by Paul L. Joskow – This book offers an economic perspective on the allocation of energy resources, covering topics like market structures, regulatory policies, and environmental externalities.
11. “Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution” by Amory B. Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins, and Paul Hawken – This book provides a blueprint for businesses to increase efficiency and reduce waste, effectively allocating scarce resources in a sustainable manner.
12. “The Economics of Energy” by J.J. O’Doherty – This textbook provides a comprehensive introduction to the economics of energy resource allocation, including topics like supply and demand, market failures, and environmental impacts.
13. “Oil: A Beginner’s Guide” by Vaclav Smil – Smil offers an accessible overview of the global oil industry, discussing its challenges and the implications for resource allocation.
14. “The Carbon Bubble: What Happens to Us When It Bursts” by Jeff Rubin – This book explores the economic consequences of shifting away from fossil fuels and how societies can reallocate resources in a low-carbon future.
15. “Resource Economics and Policy” by Jonathan M. Harris – This book provides an in-depth look at the economic theories and policy tools used to manage natural resource allocation, including energy commodities.
These books offer a mix of historical context, economic theory, practical case studies, and forward-looking insights into the complex task of allocating scarce energy resources. They can provide valuable knowledge for understanding the challenges and opportunities inherent in ensuring sustainable…
please explain in a detailed manner how to allocate scarce resources of oil, coal, gas and electricity as if i were an expert in decision science
Bot
As an expert in decision science, you would approach the allocation of scarce resources such as oil, coal, gas, and electricity with a multidisciplinary toolkit that includes economics, operations research, psychology, and data analytics. Here’s a detailed explanation of how you might tackle this challenge:
1. Problem Structuring: Begin by clearly defining the decision problem, including the objectives, constraints, and preferences of stakeholders involved in resource allocation. Use decision structuring tools like decision trees, influence diagrams, and multi-attribute value models to map out the decision landscape.
2. Data Collection and Analysis: Gather comprehensive data on resource reserves, production capabilities, consumption patterns, and environmental impacts. Utilize statistical analysis and predictive modeling to understand trends, variability, and potential future scenarios.
3. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): Apply MCDA frameworks, such as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) or Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), to evaluate alternative resource allocation strategies based on multiple objectives, including economic efficiency, social equity, environmental sustainability, and political feasibility.
4. Optimization Models: Develop optimization models using techniques like linear programming (LP), mixed integer programming (MIP), or stochastic optimization to find the most efficient allocation of resources that maximizes utility or minimizes costs while satisfying a set of constraints.
5. Risk Assessment and Management: Conduct probabilistic risk assessments to understand the potential impacts of resource allocation decisions under uncertainty. Use tools like Monte Carlo simulations and sensitivity analysis to identify risks and develop strategies to mitigate them, such as hedging in energy markets or investing in diversified energy portfolios.
6. Dynamic Resource Allocation: Implement dynamic models that can adapt to changing conditions over time. These models might use control theory or agent-based modeling to simulate complex interactions between supply and demand, market prices, and policy interventions.
7. Behavioral Considerations: Account for human behavior in decision-making processes using insights from behavioral economics and psychology. Recognize cognitive biases that can affect judgment, such as loss aversion or overconfidence, and design decision-support systems to help decision-makers make more rational choices.
8. Game Theory and Strategic Decision Making: Use game theory to analyze competitive situations among resource consumers and producers. Develop strategies that anticipate the actions of others, aiming for equilibria that balance self-interest with collective well-being.
9. Resource Allocation Mechanisms: Design and evaluate mechanisms for resource allocation, such as auctions or cap-and-trade systems, that align individual incentives with collective objectives, ensuring efficiency and fairness.
10. Decision Support Systems (DSS): Develop or utilize sophisticated DSS that integrate various models and data sources to provide real-time support for decision-making. These systems should be user-friendly and capable of presenting complex information in an accessible manner to facilitate informed decisions.
11. Stakeholder Engagement and Negotiation: Engage stakeholders through participatory decision-making processes that allow for the negotiation of interests and the building of consensus around resource allocation strategies. Use techniques like mediation or structured deliberation to navigate complex stakeholder landscapes.
12. Policy Analysis and Design: Analyze existing policies and regulations to understand their impact on resource allocation. Design policy interventions that can shape market behavior and ensure the equitable distribution of resources, taking into account externalities and public goods challenges.
13. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation: Establish metrics and performance indicators to monitor the outcomes of resource allocation decisions. Use feedback loops to continuously improve decision-making processes based on observed results and revised projections.
14. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Work with experts in economics, engineering, environmental science, and public policy to ensure that decisions are well-informed and consider the full range of relevant factors.
15. Ethical Considerations: Incorporate ethical analysis into the decision-making process to ensure that resource allocation strategies promote justice, equity, and sustainability, reflecting societal values and norms.
By applying these decision science principles and tools, you would aim to create a resource allocation strategy that is robust against uncertainties, adaptive to changing conditions, and aligned with the long-term goals of economic stability, social welfare, and environmental stewardship. The ultimate goal is to allocate scarce resources in a manner that not only addresses current needs but also lays the foundation for a sustainable and resilient energy future.
Sort of a reply to several comments.
Perhaps once one has all the wealth they need, all the women they can handle attention is turned to world which has given one so very much.
To get where they are, they did something right.
This site is very informative, comments included, but the envy towards those who have succeeded is unsettling.
Someone has to put together the capital, someone has to make the teams work. No business will work for long under a despotic leader.
In the mean time. we are entering space, there is more than enough stuff up there. Space X launched some astronauts today and will return two or maybe four. The first stage went up and came back on its butt. Routine, incredible.
Oil is depleting, we all have known that for some time. H is a possibility and Pt is up there somewhere.
The wealth of Tesla is not in the cars, it is in the AI, and the manufacturing process. Space X is on the the few corporations that views failures as learning opportunities. So far, so good.
Dennis L.
One word. Luck.
My sense is that all of these attempts will end like Project Prometheus due to Peak Affordability. Instead of worrying about Musk or Soros, Gates or Thiel.. I’m going to try and spend more time with family and friends and at the cabin improving the habitat, honing my nature skills and walking the dog 2x a day to prepare for the great simplification.
If we have 50 years we would have made it
but we don’t have 50 years
thanks for that booklist polbel—appreciate that.
in searching through it i also came across this one, written by Jevons in 1866 on coal—-some scary reading even in the intro
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Coal-Question-Concerning-Exhaustion-Coal-Mines/dp/178987646X/ref=asc_df_178987646X?mcid=3ae5204dff51338eb1218196c357d3be&th=1&psc=1&hvocijid=9550931911683164411-178987646X-&hvexpln=74&tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=696285193871&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9550931911683164411&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9220300&hvtargid=pla-2281435176458&gad_source=1&asin=1330747348&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
Art Berman is saying we have 60 years of oil left based on today’s reports. Does anyone know if this is correct?
https://www.youtube.com/live/SgzLyjmS5Fk?si=cT33s-0f5bUkYpZ4
Not sure why they didn’t have Gail on here. It’s a little painful to watch at least for the first 20 minutes
These are pretty much the “peak oil” folks. Most of them believe that high prices will keep oil flowing for a long time. I am not really part of this group.
deep down i must put myself in your camp gail you do explain the reasons why prices will trend lower eventually and i think you are spot on .
I tried watching it but Art took over pretty much most of the discussion, talking over people at times in a condescending manner.
I switched to the comments instead. One of the comments made was that Art said if we don’t drill another well, we have 60 years left of reserves. Others disagreed.
What everyone did seem to agree on, is that Industrial Civilization and our comfy way of life is in major if not catastrophic trouble in the coming decades.
It basically boils down to, our entire current system and way of life was made possible because of fossil fuels. Take that away and IC quickly goes in reverse. Even alternative sources of energy or the “next great energy hopium” still requires heavy inputs of fossil fuels such as wind and solar.
What will be interesting to see is if the push for AI data centers and CBDC’s will accelerate the free-fall by using up even more energy. We never planned things out in making the switch from fossil fuels. Now we are relying on Energy Witch Doctors to come up with a solution.
We are to some extent short of demand because so many would-be consumers are poor. A person could argue that AI data centers and growing CBDC’s will temporarily be helpful in keeping up demand, especially for electricity.
I’m not sure how this will play out. These AI and CBDC’s aren’t really essential to the economy. My guess is that they will get squeezed out early on.
Art believes that scarcity leads to high prices, and high prices will keep production up.
I think this is nonsense.
Production falls because prices do not rise high enough to maintain production. The financial system tends to collapse.
Well I think he also believes in what countries call recoverable oil. Don’t countries and oil companies have an incentive to exaggerate this.? He also believes that technology will decrease production prices and increase oil exploration…. That might be true with AI…
Countries don’t really know what is recoverable. They often assume that prices will rise so that extraction will be possible, but this doesn’t really happen.
Hmmm.. it is interesting that Art met with trump energy secretory in November and I wonder if that has had an effect on his view
why would AI provide savings?
No one charges for the electricity required for AI, one possibility.
Even considering without a charge for electricity, it is not clear that AI can do very much.
“that AI can do very much.”
Even the first versions of AI that we have today are remarkably useful to working engineers. They are useful even to retired fossils like me.
AI is very good at creating enormous amount of bs
It is also good at simulating bs jobs which were not really needed
It is not really good at solving real problems
“why would AI provide savings?”
By helping engineers find less expensive ways. An example is that trash to diesel proposal where an AI helped a lot. I am using it today to sort out the complication of the counter current steam generation.
I understand it is not a new idea. Or did AI create it? calculated first the energy gain? Now that would be a first.
“not a new idea.”
The chemical reaction was first used around 1850, so not a new idea. Using intermittent renewable (mostly solar PV) to drive the reaction is about a year old. I might have mentioned it on OFW first, would have to look back in my email to be sure. I thought about filing for a patent, but there is too much related prior art.
If you ask copilot, it will tell you that the energy gain is 3 MWh to 13.17 MWh after going through a bunch of math. I got the same checking the numbers.
If you ask copilot, it will tell you that the energy gain is 3 MWh to 13.17 MWh after going through a bunch of math. I got the same checking the numbers.
Go and dig up some landfill and try and turn it into energy then tell us the numbers.
“tell us the numbers.”
The plan is to use trash and some coal as vaporizer feed before it goes into the landfill.
But if you can make a case that the analysis is wrong in any place it would be highly appreciated.
It will be impossible to get the capital to fund the project. Or if you do, the payback will not be sufficient to keep the system from default.
“It will be impossible to get the capital to fund the project. ”
If the project analysis does not show considerable profit, it should be impossible to fund.
“Or if you do, the payback will not be sufficient to keep the system from default.”
The product cost is the product of production cost and sales price. To get market share, the cost has to be less than alternates for jet fuel. Production is mostly capital given free trash. The downside would be jet fuel from oil or some other process that undercut jet fuel from trash. Is that likely? If I ever write a business plan for this should I mention you concerns as a risk?
The project requires considerable profit to “work.” Otherwise, it collapses the economy the same way that renewable energy collapses the economy. There needs to be enough profit to pay back investors with interest, and for the risk of the operation. There also needs to be a substantial tax contribution, to keep the government from collapsing from the lack of funding.
People looking at EROEI miss this point. Front ended investment is very difficult to make work. The fact that fossil fuels could quickly be burned, and produce the energy profit was very important. You need to imitate this.
“People looking at EROEI miss this point.”
I tend to use energy payback times to rank proposals. Power satellites are projected to pay back the fuel needed to lift them into space in around 66 days.
For capital intensive energy projects, I usually consider 5 year return on capital. None of the projects I looked at for making fuel passed this criteria before trash (and coal) to jet fuel.
“fossil fuels could quickly be burned, ”
You have been talking about seasonal shifting renewable storage. Is that compatible with “quickly be burned?”
In the first place, I regard AI as a tool that does the “heavy lifting” in thinking. Just as dump trucks and mechanical diggers can outperform men with shovels and wheelbarrows when you want to get a big job done, AI can outperform an army of clerks, accountants, writers researchers, and lecturers, or provide them with so much assistance that they produce ten or a hundred times as much output at much higher quality than they would otherwise be able to achieve.
The saving on coffee and cheese sandwiches alone would make that well worthwhile.
In the second place, the sky’s the limit—I have no idea what AI can achieve in the realm of providing savings. Perhaps someone should ask AI. I understand Elon is currently doing just this with regard to the US Federal Government, and this is pissing off a lot of people who are being pushed off the gravy train.
https://x.com/cb_doge/status/1899174852936028544
In the first place, I regard AI as a tool that does the “heavy lifting” in thinking.
For halfwits, perhaps.
There you go. I do not see a single significant role AI can play. AI is the ultimate monkey, it can only imitate. Once someone builds it, and after it has been run manually for a few years, AI may provide the automated control system. for oil field activities, not even that.
“I do not see a single significant role AI can play.”
I would bet long odds that you have not used an AI to solve engineering problems.
“Once someone builds it, and after it has been run manually for a few years, AI may provide the automated control system. ”
I installed the hardware for automatic control systems in a copper concentrater decades before AI came along.
“for oil field activities, not even that.”
Perhaps you could enlighten us. I have no idea of why an oil field would need a control system. A refinery, yes, and my company installed them.
yes, no control systems are needed and so no contribution possible. No one is going wire up the Permian and install millions of sensors.
In regard to the ability (or inability) of AI to do frontier engineering, here is a simple one: ask your favorite program to design the electricity harvesting machine for the atmospheric vortex engine (link below). I have not tried but I have 20 years of familiarity with AI and IMHO it can not do it.
https://vortexengine.ca/
You should try an AI. Copilot knows a lot more than I do on this subject. If vortex engines produce significant air flow, wind turbines in the stream will convert the energy to electricity.
you can see for yourself that the answer is at the mediocre engineering undergraduate level. I am telling you, AI is just a monkey.
How would a text prediction program decrease oil production prices?
If I’m not wrong he still works in that business.
I think he would have serious problem in his activity if he described inside articles or during conferences of the way things are told in ‘Ourfiniteworld’.
So, I think either he doesn’t see the problem being inside it or prefers not to see.
He uses the preferred approach by politicians everywhere. Nate Hagens has a tendency this way, too. It makes a more salable story.
“know if this is correct?”
It does not matter. Either things fall apart so much that oil will not matter or technology will advance far beyond the point oil makes any difference in 60 years.
Tech won’t advance fast enough to avoid paying the piper
not relevant. energy cost of energy determines how much must be expended on maintenance, infrastructure, roads, transportation and distribution as well as mining for materials to extract that oil. can have 19913919 years of reserves but if its too high cost, discretionary economy goes away and high dependency costs of maintaining population.
“how much must be expended on ”
Technology is a big factor too. Fracking was developed not that many years ago.
Heavy oil needs to be heated before it can be pumped. That may be another use for intermittent PV.
I imagine that intermittent PV has already been somewhat investigated in heating heavy oil. Chevron (and perhaps others) have been in the heavy oil business for years. They are very much aware of using solar panels to operate monitoring equipment. (I have seen it myself.)
I expect that there might be room for innovation using solar panels and heating heavy oil, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Even if it is perfected, actual widespread use of the innovation is likely to be at least 10 years away.
“intermittent PV has already been somewhat investigated in heating heavy oil.”
Maybe. From this trash to diesel project, I know that business people boggle at the idea of using (expensive!) electricity for heat when they are used to burning something to make heat. But technology advances and the cost of PV has fallen to ridiculously low prices. It’s less expensive than hydro was when that was really cheap. So for something like heating a heavy oil reservoir with resistors, instead of burning fuel and sending steam down might make sense. The fact that the heat is only when the sun is shining does not hurt when it takes months to years warm up the heavy oil.
It’s just changing economics.
It doesn’t matter. Oil will be so yesterday in less than ten years.
Much in the world is very painful to see, much is incredible and has great hope.
Life is that way.
Dennis L.
“It doesn’t matter. Oil will be so yesterday in less than ten years. ”
I am not certain about this, hydrocarbons are a really effective energy carrier. But synthetic hydrocarbons may displace the oil pumped out of the ground. To some extent that may depend on how seriously governments take heat. How many people it will take dying of heat to get attention is unknown.
Source?
As usual it comes from your delusional mind.
Vlad the great . Trump asks for mercy .
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-phone-call-asks-putin-spare-lives-ukrainian-troops-surrounded-kursk
Spare the lives of the Ukrainian soldiers. Let them withdraw unharmed.
Putin of course answered that the Ukrainians lives are guaranteed. He called for Zelensky to tell them to drop their weapons and surrender to avoid bloodshed. Trump is really becoming smaller by the day. I think he will tickle the constitution instead of bulldozing it.
The real problem is the many western advisors caught in the cauldron. For them the Geneva convention does not apply, although in the current zeitgeist they might be more valuable as prisoners.
>> The real problem is the many western advisors caught in the cauldron.
That is what I suspect also. I’m not aware of any concrete evidence, however.
Putin must be enjoying this. I’ve just read his various statements over the last few days and he’s openly toying with the US/nato. Praising the Trump team, then calling them idiots was good.
Just to diminish Trump’s statue further, Iran, China and Russia have issued a joint statement on Iran’s nuclear program and the message is very clear (as was their joint naval exercise). Next up Iran’s reply to Trump’s letter. I do hope he didn’t threaten too much, or it could well be time for true promise 3.
AnsarAllah, when threatened by Trump, shrugged and said ok, whatever, we’re still going to do as we said.
Now Sudan, when demanded for talks, just refused to listen, so no talks there.
Thanks for updates on middle east, not something I follow as much, but good to know. Would give you an upvote if I had a linked account.
You’re welcome and I do believe it’s an area that we should watch closely(it will probably be where the real show goes off), as such a large percentage of trade routes and energy supplies are and will be will be determined there.
On the tremble at Trump fantasy, Abbas Araghchi(Iranian FM) made the point clear again
“It is not a matter of stubbornness or seeking ideals. This is an expert issue. It should be proved to the other side that the pressure policy is ineffective so that we can come to the negotiating table in equal conditions.
We do not have a passive policy at all to sit and look what decisions they make for us.
We will enter direct negotiations when we are in equal conditions, free from pressure and threat, and when we are sure that our people’s national interests are served.”
Join that with other statements(not just from Iran) and it’s a clear signal that they are not intimidated and feel no need to even consider talks until sanctions are lifted and certain other guarantees are put in place. That is going to be painful to accept for some and will more than likely get even more deadly before it’s understood who is in the driving seat.
But the man of the moment has to be Sayyid. Abdul-Malik Badruddin Al-Houthi, who calls out not just the west and it’s genocidal encampment, in such a wonderfully dismissive way, but also Arab leaders silence and complicity. He doesn’t attack the man on the street, but he words it in a way that lets them know the shame they live under. This all backed with real and painful action to reinforce what is possible.
He’s as skilled with language as any Tavistock mind manipulator(as a young Austrian artist discovered over a century ago). He really could unite the faith, so expect the usual(KSA really doesn’t want to get involved in creating such a powerful martyr next door, but there’s no evidence to suggest that they aren’t stupid enough).
Round up and links to some useful media in the area
https://geopolitiq.substack.com/p/ansar-allah-ready-to-step-up-military
Regular Italian links in the aboves articles, so Student might get a better feel for the sites validity, although the Almayadeem round ups always appear genuine.
An interesting exchange on Quark’s blog . Complexity kills .
” I remember seeing a presentation a while back by MIT researcher Andrew McAfee, in which he said everything was going to improve because the economy was “dematerializing.” As an example, he showed a photograph showing a bunch of office supplies and equipment (landline telephone, paper diary, computer with CRT monitor, typewriter, SLR camera, various pens and pencils, notebooks and Post-it notes, envelopes and stamps, ink bottles, etc.) and then he proudly and smilingly showed off his smartphone, implying that we now carry all of that in a much smaller device, thanks to the development of technology. He then showed the corresponding graphs of materials used, and it was clear that, indeed, much less copper, plastic, paper, etc. was used in the manufacture of a smartphone than in all previous office supplies, to achieve the same functions in a business.
It sounded good. I must say, it convinced me, and I breathed a sigh of relief. However, years passed, and things didn’t seem to improve economically. Now, thanks to blogs and sites like this one, I understand the sleight of hand of that presentation. All I needed was to see the list of materials from the periodic table used in the manufacture of a smartphone. It’s true, its manufacture uses much less copper, iron, and paper… but to make a paper diary, praseodymium and molybdenum weren’t used, nor was coltan necessary. Smartphones are. And the more advanced they become, the more their manufacturing complexity increases. It’s not that the industry is dematerializing, but rather that it is being “doped” with rarer, scarcer, and harder-to-obtain materials. The athlete runs the same amount of time eating less rice and chicken than before… but to do so, they’ve needed to start using amphetamines.
Once again, increasing complexity. For modern industry, we need elements we didn’t use before, which are much scarcer and require much more complex and energy-intensive production, transportation, and processing systems, in addition to straining geopolitical relations like never before. And if we assume that we won’t be able to maintain these more sophisticated devices for long and stop using them (with the consequent blow to our way of life), curves of copper and other simpler materials will take off again more quickly than before.
It remains to be seen how much longer remains before one of the pillars supporting this increasingly heavy and complex edifice goes from cracking to collapsing completely… but that’s about it. Complexity has raised us to heights we never imagined, and at the same time, it condemns us to fall. That’s what I believe now. I wonder, am I any closer to the truth…?
Reply
Gustavo DonosoMarch 9, 2025, 2:19 PM
Perfect. Just add a scope to Liebig’s law of the minimum, which indicates that all the complexity you’re referring to depends on the availability of the scarcest element. A hidden limit that makes predicting the weather even more difficult. But it’s going to happen, have no doubt about it.
Juan Antonio Martín RodríguezMarch 9, 2025, 3:35 PM
It makes sense. When you need to breathe, drink, and eat to stay alive, you’ll stay alive as long as you have air, water, and food. If you suddenly run out of water, it won’t matter how much air or food you have. All three resources are necessary and irreplaceable.
This is also true of our productive system. The complexity created now depends on a myriad of material elements and energy sources. If even one of them fails, we’ll fall at least to the previous layer of complexity that didn’t require it, and since we’ve recently seen an accelerated increase in development, that fall may be steeper than it seems.
Hence, news like the one referenced by Quark regarding “peak silver,” for example, is so important. Oil (or energy in general) is a very important variable in the problem, but not the only one. Everything is intertwined. It’s curious to realize how simple and intuitive it is, at least in broad terms, when you finally decide to accept it.
Juan Antonio Martín RodríguezMarch 9, 2025, 3:39 PM
By the way, I wasn’t familiar with the formulation of Liebig’s law, and when I looked it up online, I found the metaphor of the barrel with the shortest stave that lets the water out. Very intuitive. I’ll note it down for future reference when I talk about this topic. Thanks, Gustavo. 🙂
BlackhornMarch 9, 2025, 8:36 PM
Certainly, Juan Antonio, Mr. McAfee, in his, as you rightly say, sleight-of-hand exercise, demonstrated to us the dazzling idea of compacting multifunctions into a small device. What he omitted, on the other hand, was the exponential growth in complexity that such false simplification required. Of course, this requires broader and larger supply chains, as well as large networks and data centers, and the development of a significant economy of scale that has made possible the reduction in costs and, therefore, also the fact that there are currently more mobile phones than humans on the planet. Liebig is also joined by Jevons.
Of course, this is not achieved through the fanciful shortcut of dematerialization; the numbers show that the inevitable step toward the coveted future goals (including the energy transition) will always be growth in the demand for materials.
Keeping the complex system we have becomes more and more impossible. We keep adding complexity and debt, but the system becomes difficult to sustain. Wages start falling too low. The financial system starts to come apart.
I made this post because HK posted this earlier .
” Electric cars are substantially less complicated than combustion engine cars. They have around half the parts.”
Getting and keeping a supply of electricity is not easy. Charging stations are impossible. Even getting enough electricity to homes would likely be a problem.
Delta’s CEO just admitted what no one wants to say out loud—the economy is breaking down in real time.
That comes as no surprise when you read articles that says that the middle class and upper class are now shopping at Walmart and dollar stores. Automobile repos are consistently hitting all time highs. The average American doesn’t have $500 to spare for an automobile repair or medical emergency. In NYC, rent for a 1 bedroom apartment in Manhattan or Brooklyn can set you back for $3800-4500 a month because people can’t afford to buy a home.
And that’s just America. It’s far worse in Europe where civil unrest is common while their leaders like Heir Starmer and Macron want to go to war with Russia, to coverup their collapsing economies. Germany is in a freefall as the German Chancellor Merz has made it known that they are industrializing by selling off parts of their industrial base to the highest bidder.
The entire system is collapsing because politicians can’t say “NO” to debt and buying votes with the intention of never paying it back.
All of the airlines are saying how bad the economy has recently become. Airlines are dropping the prices, because demand is so low
ause thee
essentially, what we have got used to, is an economic system where at any one time, roughly 1% of the world population is lifted off earth through the use of fossil fuels.
that is what unsustainability means
The airlines are ALWAYS first to feel the tremors of a recession and this one will be brutal on the industry …. Management of all the majors gave out generous contracts to workgroups and seems they are still not happy.
It’s going to be very entertaining when the major layoffs are placed and later calls for cutbacks in pay and benefits. Imagine the pilots will seek and get stock for these, the others tuff titties…
Next in line . Tourism , hotels etc . Grab some popcorn .
We have the Popcorn, thanks!
Just in case you haven’t seen the UK FIRES Absolute Zero report with a detailed “timeline” for phasing out shipping, airline travel, textiles and private vehicle transportation.
https://ukfires.org/impact/publications/reports/absolute-zero/
What will unemployed pilots do ? Drive trucks ? The stewardesses can work as waitresses at least . I don’t recall but a standup comedian called them as ” flying waitress ” — could be George Carlin ,always sarc and cynical .🤣
They will be in a similar market to unemployed programmers.
Hi Gail. What do you think are the good vocations to transit to/prepare for in view of the uncertainties ahead? I’m a programmer lurking here.
” good vocation”
Long run, I have no idea. But short term, I am trying to get funding to model the trash to fuel converter. Any experience with Comsol? AI experience seems like a good idea as well.
Here is a bit of conversation with CoPilot.
[me] If you use renewable energy to heat carbon in steam, what is the energy gain of the hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas?
This is a fascinating question! The process you’re referring to sounds like gasification or a related chemical reaction, where carbon (such as charcoal or coal) reacts with steam (water vapor) to produce hydrogen gas (H₂) and carbon monoxide (CO) through the water-gas reaction:
C+H2O→CO+H2C + H_2O \rightarrow CO + H_2
When using renewable energy to heat the carbon, the efficiency of the process depends on several factors, such as the temperature, pressure, and the setup of the system. To understand the energy gain from the produced gases (H₂ and CO), you’d calculate their combined heating value. This value measures the energy that can be released when the gases are burned.
A Basic Outline:
Energy Inputs:
Heat energy supplied by renewable sources.
Energy required for carbon and water preparation (if needed).
Energy Outputs:
The higher heating value (HHV) or lower heating value (LHV) of the hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
Energy Gain:
Subtract the energy inputs from the energy content (HHV/LHV) of the output gases to find the net energy gain.
If you’d like, I can help calculate the energy gain for a hypothetical setup. Let me know, and we can dive deeper!
[me] as an example, it takes 3 MWh to evaporate a ton of carbon in steam. what would be the HHV of the gas generated?
Great question! Let’s calculate the higher heating value (HHV) of the gases produced using the example you provided.
Assumptions:
For simplicity, 1 ton of carbon reacts completely with steam to produce syngas (CO and H₂) based on the reaction: $$C + H_2O \rightarrow CO + H_2$$
The molar mass of carbon (C) is 12 g/mol. Therefore, 1 ton of carbon is approximately 1,000,000 g12 g/mol=83,333.33 mol\frac{1,000,000 \, \text{g}}{12 \, \text{g/mol}} = 83,333.33 \, \text{mol}.
For every mole of carbon, 1 mole of CO and 1 mole of H₂ are produced.
The HHVs of CO and H₂ (per mole):
Carbon monoxide (CO): 283 kJ/mol
Hydrogen (H₂): 286 kJ/mol
Calculations:
Total moles of gas produced: Since 1 mole of C produces 1 mole of CO and 1 mole of H₂, the total number of moles of gas = 2×83,333.33=166,666.662 \times 83,333.33 = 166,666.66 mol.
HHV contribution:
For CO: 83,333.33 mol×283 kJ/mol=23,583,332.39 kJ83,333.33 \, \text{mol} \times 283 \, \text{kJ/mol} = 23,583,332.39 \, \text{kJ}
For H₂: 83,333.33 mol×286 kJ/mol=23,833,332.39 kJ83,333.33 \, \text{mol} \times 286 \, \text{kJ/mol} = 23,833,332.39 \, \text{kJ}
Total HHV of syngas: $$23,583,332.39 + 23,833,332.39 = 47,416,664.78 \, \text{kJ}$$ Converted to MWh: $$\frac{47,416,664.78 \, \text{kJ}}{3,600 \, \text{kJ/kWh}} \approx 13.17 \, \text{MWh}$$
Final Answer:
The total HHV of the generated syngas would be approximately 13.17 MWh per ton of carbon.
This is a simplified calculation and assumes 100% conversion efficiency in the reaction. In reality, system inefficiencies and losses may reduce the energy output. Let me know if you’d like to explore this further!
[me] a thousand metric tons per hour carbon vaporizer needs 1500 tons per hour of steam. how much boiler tube area is required to make this much steam?
To estimate the boiler tube area required to produce 1500 tons of steam per hour, we need to consider the following:
Key Factors:
Steam Generation Rate: 1500 tons/hour = 1,500,000 kg/hour.
Specific Enthalpy of Steam: The energy required to convert water to steam depends on the pressure and temperature. For example, at 10 bar (saturated steam), the latent heat of vaporization is approximately 2000 kJ/kg.
Boiler Efficiency: Assume a typical efficiency of 85% (0.85).
Heat Transfer Coefficient: This depends on the boiler design and operating conditions.
Step-by-Step Calculation:
Energy Required:
Energy to produce steam = Mass of steam×Latent heat\text{Mass of steam} \times \text{Latent heat}
1,500,000 kg/hour×2000 kJ/kg=3,000,000,000 kJ/hour1,500,000 \, \text{kg/hour} \times 2000 \, \text{kJ/kg} = 3,000,000,000 \, \text{kJ/hour}
Convert to kW: 3,000,000,000 kJ/hour÷3600 s/hour=833,333.33 kW3,000,000,000 \, \text{kJ/hour} \div 3600 \, \text{s/hour} = 833,333.33 \, \text{kW}.
Heat Input:
Adjust for boiler efficiency: 833,333.33 kW÷0.85=980,392.16 kW833,333.33 \, \text{kW} \div 0.85 = 980,392.16 \, \text{kW}.
Heat Transfer Area:
The heat transfer area depends on the heat flux (kW/m²) and the heat transfer coefficient. A typical industrial boiler might have a heat flux of 50 kW/m².
Required area = Heat input÷Heat flux\text{Heat input} \div \text{Heat flux}
980,392.16 kW÷50 kW/m²=19,607.84 m²980,392.16 \, \text{kW} \div 50 \, \text{kW/m²} = 19,607.84 \, \text{m²}.
Final Estimate:
Approximately 19,608 m² of boiler tube area would be required to produce 1500 tons of steam per hour, assuming typical conditions.
This is a simplified calculation. The actual area will depend on the boiler design, operating pressure, and temperature. Let me know if you’d like to refine this further!
{me} The concept here is an induction heated vaporizer with the gas flowing counter current to the steam. The interior diameter is 16 metersand the height is 45 meters. if the steam generation section is 30 meters, what tube diameter and number would be needed?
This setup is quite an engineering challenge! Let’s break this down to estimate the tube diameter and number required for the steam generation section.
Assumptions:
Steam Generation Section Dimensions:
Diameter = 16 meters → Cross-sectional area = π×(16/2)2=201.06 m2\pi \times (16/2)^2 = 201.06 \, \text{m}^2.
Height = 30 meters → Available volume = 201.06 m2×30 m=6,031.8 m3201.06 \, \text{m}^2 \times 30 \, \text{m} = 6,031.8 \, \text{m}^3.
Steam Flow Rate:
Steam production rate = 1500 tons/hour = 1,500,000 kg/hour → 1,500,000 kg/hour÷3600 s/hour=416.67 kg/s1,500,000 \, \text{kg/hour} \div 3600 \, \text{s/hour} = 416.67 \, \text{kg/s}.
Heat Transfer Calculation:
Assume the heat flux per unit area of the tube wall is about 50 kW/m² (typical for industrial setups).
Energy required for steam generation: 416.67 kg/s×2000 kJ/kg=833,340 kW416.67 \, \text{kg/s} \times 2000 \, \text{kJ/kg} = 833,340 \, \text{kW}.
Tube Properties:
Tubes are arranged with an average heat transfer area per tube (outer surface area).
Assume tube length = 30 meters (spanning the height of the steam generation section).
Step 1: Total Heat Transfer Area Required
Heat transfer area = Total heat input÷Heat flux\text{Total heat input} \div \text{Heat flux}.
833,340 kW÷50 kW/m2=16,667 m2833,340 \, \text{kW} \div 50 \, \text{kW/m}^2 = 16,667 \, \text{m}^2.
Step 2: Tube Surface Area and Number
Let’s assume the tube outer diameter (OD) is dd.
Surface area of one tube = π×d×length\pi \times d \times \text{length}.
For a tube length of 30 m: Surface area/tube=π×d×30 m2\text{Surface area/tube} = \pi \times d \times 30 \, \text{m}^2.
To find the number of tubes required:
Total tube count =Total heat transfer area÷Surface area of one tube= \text{Total heat transfer area} \div \text{Surface area of one tube}.
Substitute: N=16,667 ÷π×d×30N = 16,667 \, \div \pi \times d \times 30.
Simplify: N=16,66794.25×dN = \frac{16,667}{94.25 \times d}, where dd is in meters.
Example Calculations:
For a tube diameter of 0.1 meters (10 cm): N=16,66794.25×0.1≈1,768 tubesN = \frac{16,667}{94.25 \times 0.1} \approx 1,768 \, \text{tubes}.
For a tube diameter of 0.2 meters (20 cm): N=16,66794.25×0.2≈884 tubesN = \frac{16,667}{94.25 \times 0.2} \approx 884 \, \text{tubes}.
Final Consideration:
The total number of tubes depends on the tube diameter you choose. For practical spacing within the vaporizer (to allow for efficient heat transfer and gas flow), 0.1–0.2 meter diameter tubes seem reasonable, with 884–1,768 tubes as an estimate.
Let me know if you’d like me to refine this further or consider more specific design parameters!
[me] The tubes will dip into the inductive flux of 3 GW in a coil diameter of 20 meters. How much inductive heating per meter will the smaller and larger absorb? Assume typical conductive steel tubes?
To estimate the inductive heating per meter of the tubes within the inductive coil, we’ll consider the basics of electromagnetic induction and heat transfer. Here’s the step-by-step breakdown:
Key Information:
Inductive Power: 3 GW (3,000,000,000 W).
Coil Diameter: 20 meters → Area of the inductive field = A=π×(20/2)2=314.16 m2A = \pi \times (20 / 2)^2 = 314.16 \, \text{m}^2.
Steel Tubes’ Conductivity: For typical conductive steel, the electrical resistivity is around 10−7 Ω m10^{-7} \, \Omega \, \text{m}, and we assume standard magnetic permeability for low-carbon steel (μr≈100\mu_r \approx 100).
Tube Characteristics:
Smaller tube diameter: 0.1 m.
Larger tube diameter: 0.2 m.
Length of tubes submerged in the coil: Equal to the height of 30 m.
Step 1: Average Inductive Power Per Unit Area
The inductive power of 3 GW is distributed over the cross-sectional area of the coil (A=314.16 m2A = 314.16 \, \text{m}^2):
Power density=3,000,000,000 W314.16 m2≈9,549,296 W/m2.\text{Power density} = \frac{3,000,000,000 \, \text{W}}{314.16 \, \text{m}^2} \approx 9,549,296 \, \text{W/m}^2.
This represents the average power per unit area available for inductive heating.
Step 2: Power Absorbed by Tubes
Total tube surface area available for induction: The number of tubes (NN) and their surface areas affect how much inductive heating is absorbed. Assume NN tubes span the length of the inductive coil (30 m):
Surface area per tube=π×diameter×length.\text{Surface area per tube} = \pi \times \text{diameter} \times \text{length}.
Example Calculations:
For a 0.1 m diameter tube: Surface area per tube=π×0.1×30≈9.42 m2.\text{Surface area per tube} = \pi \times 0.1 \times 30 \approx 9.42 \, \text{m}^2.
For a 0.2 m diameter tube: Surface area per tube=π×0.2×30≈18.85 m2.\text{Surface area per tube} = \pi \times 0.2 \times 30 \approx 18.85 \, \text{m}^2.
Step 3: Power Absorbed Per Tube Length
The inductive heating power absorbed per meter of tube depends on the coupling efficiency of the magnetic field to the steel (assume ~50% efficiency due to resistive losses and eddy currents).
Smaller Tube (0.1 m diameter): Power per tube = 9.42 m2×9,549,296 W/m2×0.5≈44.95 MW.9.42 \, \text{m}^2 \times 9,549,296 \, \text{W/m}^2 \times 0.5 \approx 44.95 \, \text{MW}. Heating per meter = 44.95 MW30 m≈1.50 MW/m.\frac{44.95 \, \text{MW}}{30 \, \text{m}} \approx 1.50 \, \text{MW/m}.
Larger Tube (0.2 m diameter): Power per tube = 18.85 m2×9,549,296 W/m2×0.5≈90.00 MW.18.85 \, \text{m}^2 \times 9,549,296 \, \text{W/m}^2 \times 0.5 \approx 90.00 \, \text{MW}. Heating per meter = 90.00 MW30 m≈3.00 MW/m.\frac{90.00 \, \text{MW}}{30 \, \text{m}} \approx 3.00 \, \text{MW/m}.
Final Results:
Smaller Tube (0.1 m diameter): ~1.50 MW per meter.
Larger Tube (0.2 m diameter): ~3.00 MW per meter.
These values assume uniform distribution of the inductive power across the tube surface and ideal positioning within the coil. If you’d like a deeper analysis or to refine these numbers, let me know!
[me] is there a better reasonable cost material which would absorb less power than steel for this application?
Yes, there are materials that could absorb less power than steel in an inductive heating setup, depending on their electrical and magnetic properties. Here are some options to consider:
1. Stainless Steel (Low Magnetic Permeability Grades)
Certain grades of stainless steel, like 304 or 316, have lower magnetic permeability compared to carbon steel. This reduces the eddy current losses and power absorption.
Cost: Slightly higher than carbon steel but still reasonable.
2. Aluminum
Aluminum has much lower electrical resistivity than steel, which reduces the power absorbed during inductive heating. However, it has a lower melting point, so it may not withstand high temperatures as well.
Cost: Generally cheaper than stainless steel.
3. Copper
Copper has excellent thermal and electrical conductivity, meaning it absorbs less power. However, it is more expensive and may not be mechanically strong enough for structural applications.
Cost: Higher than aluminum and steel.
4. Nickel Alloys
Alloys like Inconel or Monel have lower magnetic permeability and better resistance to high temperatures. They absorb less power but are significantly more expensive.
Cost: High.
5. Ceramic-Coated Steel
Applying a ceramic coating to steel can reduce its electrical conductivity and magnetic permeability, minimizing power absorption while maintaining structural integrity.
Cost: Moderate, depending on the coating process.
6. Composite Materials
Non-metallic composites, such as carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers, do not conduct electricity and would absorb minimal power. However, they may not be suitable for high-temperature environments.
Cost: Varies widely.
Recommendation:
For a balance of cost and performance, stainless steel (304 or 316) or aluminum could be good alternatives. If high temperatures are a concern, ceramic-coated steel might be a practical solution.
Would you like to explore the thermal or mechanical properties of these materials further? Let me know!
[me] What is the lining of an induction furnace made of?
The lining of an induction furnace is typically made of refractory materials designed to withstand high temperatures and resist chemical reactions with molten metals and slags. The choice of lining material depends on the type of furnace and the metal being melted. Here are some common materials:
Silica (SiO₂) Ramming Mass:
Used in coreless induction furnaces for melting cast iron and non-ferrous metals.
It is an acidic lining material, suitable for slags with high acidic components.
Magnesia (MgO):
A basic refractory material used for steelmaking in induction furnaces.
It is ideal for slags with high basicity and offers good resistance to chemical attack.
Alumina (Al₂O₃) and Spinel (MgO-Al₂O₃):
Neutral refractory materials used in medium-sized and large induction furnaces.
These materials provide excellent thermal shock resistance and durability.
Zirconia (ZrO₂):
Sometimes added to silica-based linings to improve high-temperature performance and corrosion resistance.
Ceramic Coatings:
Applied to enhance the lifespan of the lining by reducing wear and chemical interaction.
The specific choice of lining material depends on factors like the furnace’s capacity, operating temperature, and the type of slag and metal being processed. You can find more details
[ME] An induction furnace can’t be conductive. How are they supported without metal?
You’re absolutely right—induction furnaces can’t use conductive materials for their support structures, as these would interfere with the electromagnetic fields and cause unwanted heating. Instead, they rely on non-conductive, heat-resistant materials for structural support. Here are some common solutions:
Refractory Bricks and Castables:
The furnace lining itself is often made of refractory materials like silica, magnesia, or alumina, which are non-conductive and can withstand high temperatures.
These materials also provide structural integrity to the furnace.
Ceramic Supports:
Ceramic components are frequently used to support the coil and other parts of the furnace. Ceramics are excellent insulators and can handle both the heat and the electromagnetic environment.
Fiberglass or Composite Materials:
Non-conductive composite materials, such as fiberglass-reinforced plastics, are sometimes used for external structural components. These materials are lightweight, durable, and non-conductive.
Air Gaps and Insulation:
The furnace design often incorporates air gaps and layers of insulation to prevent heat transfer and electromagnetic interference with the support structure.
Specialized Non-Metallic Frames:
For larger furnaces, the external frame might be made of non-metallic materials like high-strength polymers or specially designed composites.
These materials ensure that the furnace operates efficiently without interference from conductive supports. If you’d like, I can dive deeper into the specific materials used in a particular type of induction furnace!
More ‘fun’?
“A new study has now identified two previously unknown SPEs, dated to 7176 BCE and 5259 BCE. These findings, extracted from the precise records hidden within tree rings, suggest that the Sun was capable of producing solar storms far more intense than previously assumed. Not only do these newly discovered events surpass many known historical solar storms, but they also force us to reconsider our understanding of solar activity, its potential impact on Earth’s environment, and the risks it poses to our modern technological society. “?
https://ancienthistoryx.com/solar-storms-tree-rings-and-underground-cities/
https://thecuriosityfiles.substack.com/p/the-curiosity-files-8
I am confused. are they saying they found 9000+ yrs old trees?
OK, so these are riparian trees buried under sediments in anaerobic conditions after a flood. A whole lot of data matching (the oldest tree they analyzed was 575 yrs old), but credible.
The Curiosity Files substack seems to list a whole lot of beliefs about what happened thousands of years ago. I am not sure how well documented these happenings really were.
The dates are exact, the intensity fairly accurate. Last I looked, the cause was not certain as a galactic cosmic ray burst would cause the same anomaly.
The car makers, including those of the EVs, cut costs, the reliability of the cars goes down
https://auto.pravda.sk/magazin/clanok/744409-aj-elektromobily-vas-zradia-na-ceste-pocet-zlyhani-dokonca-stupol/
“The regular report of the assistance service of the German Automobile Club ADAC does not have good news. In fact, the number of “yellow angel” calls to helpless motorists increased last year. In the case of electric cars by up to 46%!”
More electric cars is perhaps part of the problem. They are not problem-free however. Complexity seems to lead to frequent problems.
It’s a fact that they encounter more repair problems and chew up tires (batteries makes the car heavier) more frequently than gas powered vehicles.
“Complexity seems to lead to frequent problems.”
Electric cars are substantially less complicated than combustion engine cars. They have around half the parts.
No one is told that if water from a 10-12″ flood gets to the car, the car is totaled. Economist, Martin Armstrong who owns a BMW i8 EV found out the hard way when a hurricane hit Tampa where he lives. His garage where he kept his BMW i8 got about 12″ of water.
He took it to BMW and they refused to work on it citing the potential risk of fire or explosion from the batteries after they made contact with water. He called several other repair facilities who work on EV’s and they told him the same thing. So the car is 100% totaled and that car isn’t cheap because it cost around $150,000 new.
He’s rich and can afford the loss but i’m sure the average EV owner would be crying the blues.
Oh and insurance premiums are astronomical to insure an EV or vehicle or a high performance, luxury EV because insurance underwriters are fully aware of the total loss of an EV that has been subjected to flooding.
Guess he was not as smart as advertised. He appeaes to have gotten old recently
US government by randomly flopping from one unconstitutional action to another. This will not end well.
At least I do not have to see another drag queen story hour for young kids.
In the 40s or the 70s, people have lived with much less living standard than today. Theoretically it should be possible to fall back to those times.
There are some obstacles, though:
Regulations have become much more complex and forbid lower building standards or keeping small livestock. Prices for land have climbed up! There is an elite class living from the middleclass that can pay higher prices and outsmart the rest.
In the moment the economy shrinks permanently and not only cyclic, debts cannot be repaid which affects pensions and assets and eventually leads to a crash of the financial system.
Lower living standards lead to lower standards of technology – and these contradict with more high technology needed in the exploration and production of fossiles. One example: Less sales of cars with a steel body will affect the steel price as effects of scale will play a role. The same will apply to streets and bridges and maintaining the infrastructure. This might affect oil production or delivery.
People will be dissatisfied with low living standards and blame their politicians. Could war change this perception and people would be happy to be alive?
People have lost the knowledge how to spin and weave and knit and repair shoes or milk the goats. Some of this knowledge is noted down in books and could be recovered, other is lost forever, especially lots of regional knowledge in farming. When the European settlers arrived to the new world, a lot of knowledge was transferred from the indigenous people. This tradition is broken.
The regionally adapted seeds and more resilient breeds are lost forever. Fertile land is destroyed by roads or electric wind generators or poisioned with glyphosate or bisphenol A. Soil is depleted and insects have died out. Groundwater levels are lowered and the water is contaminated. Forests have not been reforested and erosion has destroyed the land.
Buildings cannot be maintained as the material has risen in price, for example for large glass panels or light roofing material. Modern roofs cannot be repaired with birch bark and sods or shingles, they arentoo heavy for the construction. In the past houses were built with regional materials, in the Alps with shingles, in coal areas with burned ceramic tiles. Nowadays there are ubiquus standards for all areas. But when transport declines these materials can neither be produced nor shipped.
The Roman city Carnuntum in nowadays Austria had to be left after a fire had destroyed the nearby forest. Vienna became the city to grow, Carnuntum declined and vanished.
When transport becomes expensive, these mechanisms will play a large role. Cities cannot be maintained and with workers leaving will crucial industries cannot be kept upright. People cannot afford education because kids have to help in food production. So teachers and skilled workers will be missing soon.
There is another obstacle: The new generation is not in any way prepared for such a senario.
I dont see many chances! What I think will happen instead is a sudden breakdown of all state activity, people will wait for a change, become weak and lie in their beds as their safe places until they die with no water and food.
Some groups will manage to keep up knowledge, tools and breeds and stay in safe places, trying to survive and get knowledge to the next generation.
This is how the world ends. Not with a bang, but a THINNNER.
What youre describing is what the powers that be will fight tooth and nail to avoid and i believe that Trump and Muskie are preparing us for the next phase of the plan lower interest rates even going negative to try to force prices for energy higher so then uneconomical oil becomes economical and oil exploration takes off more shale and tar sands will be produced if the oil price stayed north of eighty dollars permanently and arctic oil could also be produced if prices went permanently over 100 dollars the earth is a big place and with the correct mindset more can be done to avoid the collapse scenario.
“ . . . he was saying that he’s he would put pressure on Saudi
11:43 Arabia NBS to reduce the price of oil ”?
oil supply isnt the problem
using it is the problem.
or current way of life was not built on ”oil”—-it was built on the surplus energy in oil, left over after we had used it for essential stuff like food supplies.
(and the business of extracting it in the first place)
the earth has plenty of oil
what we no longer have is plenty of energy surplus, derived from that oil.
this is the point that the MAGAnuts cannot grasp.
We can’t go backwards, unfortunately. There are too many people and resources (especially energy resources) are too depleted. Supply lines and manufacturing tools for old techniques are gone. People have been taught very specialized skills (like programming) that don’t work when electricity is no longer available.
We have a real problem today.
I expect that some groups will succeed, nevertheless.
And Marcus Aurelius, pending off the barbarians, died at Vindobona, Wien in German.
Even then it was the outpost of civilization.
AI Overview
An estimated 90% of fruit and vegetable varieties in the United States have vanished, representing a significant cultural and food security loss, with many people now rediscovering the value of heirloom varieties.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
The Decline:
“In the United States alone an estimated 90 percent of our fruit and vegetable varieties have vanished,” according to Slow Food USA.
Why it Matters:
This loss is not just a cultural issue but also poses a risk to food security.
Rediscovering Heirloom Varieties:
Many people are now “rediscovering the variety of textures, flavors and smells that heirloom varietals offer us, motivating…” the interest in these older varieties.
What are Heirloom Varieties?
Heirloom seeds are those that have been saved and passed down over time and must be open-pollinated.
Why are they important?
Heirloom vegetables are known for their unique flavors and textures, and they can also be more nutritious than modern hybrids.
Challenges:
While heirloom vegetables haven’t been bred to be disease-resistant like some modern hybrids, they’ve lasted for as long as they have because they’re an excellent choice for almost any garden.
Jan, Gone, baby, gone… theoretically, it’s not going to happen.
Another video saying that the Chinese economy isn’t doing well. Prices are too low in the thermal coal industry, because industry is down, and doesn’t need as much electricity. The IT industry is also cutting wages and staff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAgE6xHvJZk
This is a really solid Substack article by CHS
“Roaring 20s or Great Depression 2.0? The binary ahead is the result of a simple law of Nature: adapt or die.”
https://charleshughsmith.substack.com/p/roaring-20s-or-great-depression-20?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1692393&post_id=159019962&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=4cyn7j&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
This is primarily a video discussion between Gordon Long and CHS regarding the state the world is in now. We seem to be at a point of converging cycles. There are divides of many kinds–urban, rural; Wall Street, Main Street; Baby Boomers vs younger people who cannot afford a house now. I am afraid the answer to “Roaring 20s or Great Depression 2.0?” has to be Great Depression.
“has to be Great Depression.”
It might be, but there are trends running counter, particularly the rapid development of AI. That might be more significant than all the political hoo rah.
The declining coal region of Slovakia
Municipality’s deputies advise mayor to monitor mental state of staff, he talks of bullying
Read more: https://myhornanitra.sme.sk/c/23462844/poslanci-odporucili-starostovi-monitorovat-psychicky-stav-zamestnancov-on-hovori-o-sikane.html?ref=mnt
It sounds as if budget allocations of $0 have been made for many important things:
The article also mentions that some officials are receiving high salaries.
Sounds like a recipe for contflict.
> Russia says it does not want a temporary ceasefire in Ukraine
The reality is that the post-1945 ‘law’-based international order trumpeted ‘sovereignty’, a merely conventional category, and never really got to grips with the real security needs of states. The ‘sovereign right’ to undermine the security of other states was always unrealistic.
In the real world security is the primary concern of states and that is not going to change. That realistically means that the European rump-NATO will either now take the security concerns of Russia seriously and back off or it will be settled in some other way.
So if we are ‘on the same page’ as reality then the first thing to understand is that ‘sovereignty’ is basically imaginary and merely conventional while security concerns are real. The question then becomes whether real world security can be managed in an adult manner.
So it is not about childish and basically imaginary categories about ‘who has been naughty’ and acted contrary to ‘sovereignty’ rather it is about whether European states can face reality, start acting like adults and find some way to solve complex security issues and avoid war.
We can have very well grounded doubts about the capacity of rump-NATO societies to be able to do that. They mistake the conventional for the real and live in a basically imaginary world. They now have to face up to that real world security actually involves more than that.
Physics does not care about “adult” or “childish”. And this is not a rump NATO as militarily at least the EU and the US are on the same page. The whole scene was done to convince the public that Europe is in great danger and therefore people will be more amenable to having their pensions cut. It seems to me that this is to the death, that the war will expand, and this has a really good chance of going nuclear. the West financial status dictates it. The US may not put boots on the ground but it sure has put nukes all over Romania and Poland.
The problem is that there are not really enough goods and services to go around. Someone has to be left out.
The ceasefire offer made no sense. There was little reason for Putin to accept it.
It’s as egregious as all these banks who make bad investments insisting that the government (FED) keep bailing them out. “Because we’re banks. We’re never supposed to lose money even if we are lousy bankers and investors.”
Ukraine: We need to be bailed out with a cease fire, because we aren’t supposed to lose this war. We European Banks and NATO are supposed to win, no matter how lousy our strategy, execution and weapons.
This makes NATO look not just weak, but absolutley pathetic, The US and NATO have no shame.
Don’t look now, but the wolf is back.
Bloomberg peak oil article.
Specter of Peak Oil Production Looms Once Again
The topic of peak-oil production is back in vogue after a prolonged hiatus — if remarks from executives attending the key energy conference in Houston this week are any indication.
The idea that global petroleum production would be on the cusp of a downhill slide was all the rage at industry events, environmental conferences and in academic debates during the first decade of this century.
But as the shale-oil boom took off in places like North Dakota and then Texas, those worries vanished as a point of conversation.
Some of the biggest voices in the shale patch are now talking about it this year at CERAWeek by S&P Global. It’s coming up because the top tier of crude targets is largely exhausted after roughly 15 years of intensive drilling, executives said.
“We don’t have many oil plays left in this country,” Scott Sheffield, one of shale’s pioneers, said in a Bloomberg Television interview on the sidelines of the conference.
“The inventory is getting worse, naturally, because we drill so many wells. You’re fighting the inventory deterioration at the same time you’re trying to improve efficiencies,” he said.
Occidental Petroleum Corp., one of the biggest shale operators, is bracing for a topping out of domestic crude production sometime in the next five years.
ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance expects nationwide oil output to plateau this decade and then hold flat for an undefined period of time.
“It’s going to be a slow decline beyond that because there’s a lot of resource” left to drill, Lance said.
Such concessions for waning output are at odds with US President Donald Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” mantra, which seeks supply growth to keep fuel prices low.
But there’s also optimism from executives that new technology will ultimately postpone the peak. For its part, Exxon Mobil Corp. is aiming to double the recovery rate, which averages about 6% to 8% across the industry.
“Every day we’re continuing to get better,” said Bart Cahir, the supermajor’s shale boss. “I always tell people, ‘It’s a horrible bet — to bet against innovation and technology.’”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-11/shale-pioneer-sheffield-warns-oil-chiefs-of-grim-times-ahead?leadSource=reddit_wall
Reading between the lines it appears that the oil bosses are saying shale is likely to peak in the not-too-distant future. Which would mean the world would peak or be very close since most of the gains over the last decade or more have been from shale.
Russia has the most shale. China was up there too, IIRC. I posted about it either earlier in this thread or the prior thread. Maybe US companies with expertise can help Russia produce it once we run out of our own.
Might not even need if demand drops off a cliff.
Ivan , Russian shale cannot be devolped . It is under a swamp and the water will have to be drained out , worse it is in an area where the permafrost is melting making the ground unstable to setup infrastructure . No driller wants to see his rig gobbled up by a sinkhole while he was sleeping . Forget it . China also cannot be devolped , because the amount of water used in fracking is not available near the locations . Relax .
I disagree. there is no swamp that covers western siberia. they will pick and choose their spots but the area is enormous. My bet is that it will be developed already in the 2030s.
This is yet another article about US shale likely hitting limits, very soon, if not now. We can hope for a technological breakthrough, but not much can be hoped for otherwise.
Trump proposes , Putin disposes . No ceasefire .
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/putin-rejects-us-temporary-cease-fire-plan-appears-military-fatigues
Money talks and bullshit walks . Euro 800 billion plans crashes before takeoff.
https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/03/dutch-reject-ecs-debt-driven-e800bn-rearmament-plan/
They may be against it, but the plan seem to have been approved by parliament..
https://www.agi.it/estero/news/2025-03-12/approvata-risoluzione-su-difesa-europea-rearm-europe-30403623/
I looked at this again.
The first article seems to be about Belgium not being in favor of the proposal. But the EU Parliament seems to have passed it. This would seem to provide funding for Volkswagen making military goods.
I still don’t understand this part.
Bot more worrying, and perhaps it was to be expected, the conflict is quickly becoming a true world war. The Eastern european states are under attack, as said below, because, well, the next round will be to the last romanian. The Indians, being a derelict nation, are aiming at becoming the weapon production center for Europe, which can not produce anything, so they can get some printed money that is better than their printed money.
I have two comments in moderation, probably for their links, which are nothing in particular, anyway in the meantime I ask you: Romania attacked by whom?
Thanks for let me know your point.
I see much probable an attack in Iran, that must be why Cina Russia and Iran have just met.
Gail is visiting her grandchild & said moderation could be slow
I stop by my computer when I can.
Gail, don’t worry, it is very kind of you informing me.
I was just keeping update drb that later he would find other considerations too.
Thanks, have a nice evening.
Romanian troops in Ukraine I assume.
Yes Ravi, and probably you have already read this article.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/us-and-ukraine-hatch-ceasefire-travesty
But, I still don’t think that Trump is deceiving Putin.
It is such a non sense ceasefire that Trump cannot be so stupid to think can be accepted.
My impression is that he made this proposal to let Ukrainians (with a little more time) understand that they have lost.
If this consideration is correct, Trump will launch in the meantime another batch of sanctions for nothing and let Russia work on the battlefield a little bit, then, another proposal will be probably made by US side.
Student , How about this ? Copy/paste from, MOA .
” “Trump has expressed he understood Russia’s position. Unprecedented. Then set up the perfect excuse to stop supplying arms and intel with the debacle. I quite certain he knew the fastest way to end the war was to end supply of arms and intel. I think he was sincere. Someone told him no. It might have been a group of senators and congressmen telling him he was out if he didn’t resume supply. Or someone in a nice suit gave him the equivalent of a second golden pager. Who knows. Someone or a group of someones told him no. Someone with veto power told him nice try but that’s not the way it works. I had hopes and still do but lets face it one sane man does not make an asylum sane.”
<<
*Someone* reminded DJT that the goal of the U.S. is primacy not peace.
DJT says he wants the killing to stop, but that is not how a hegemon sustains itself.
On the sliding scale of hegemonic leaders DJT is on the squishy spectrum, which is no doubt why the Deep State, including Europe’s Deep State, tried to make sure he did not return to the White House. ''
That could be also true.
Thanks
All the best
surely Trump is trying. But it is immaterial. He is the same unwilling puppet of Trump 1, presumably with similar results.
The transport poverty in Slovakia
https://domov.sme.sk/c/23462503/cast-slovenska-zije-v-dopravnej-chudobe.html
Imagine that when you are dependent on the cars like in the USA, Europe with its subsidized public transport is a better place.
Maybe it is better to subsidize public transport than the EVs.
Walking is the long term means of transport. Also, barge, pulled by humans or animals. And ships powered by wind.
Anything that requires government subsidy is not for the long term.
Yes, Gail is 100 percent about walking. I’m old now 67 and just walk trotted 9 miles with a half marathon coming on the end of the month.
Problem is after the bottleneck, as someone pointed out here years ago, there will be no reason to walk very far from maybe the field or garden to the compost pile…
PS. Most people don’t own shoes walking around today..with flip flops or sandals if they are lucky to own them…just one pair with one set of cloths.
Only Kulmie s elite deserve to be endowed with bounty because they promote the advancement of civilization…
However he defines it….
the prime underlying function of the current global economic system, is the production and movement of iron goods., and goods produced using iron/steel mechanisms.
everything else is subsidiary to that.
remove iron, and there is no modern economic system. Iron is much more critical than oil.
without iron, it isnt possible to use fossil fuel in volume.
however—iron is very heavy stuff
it isnt possible to move meaningful amounts of iron using sailing ships and horses.—and we built our modern civilisation, not just on ”stuff”—but the speed we can move ”stuff” from a to b—and then c.
this is why most people dont go hungry between planting and harvest time.
a horse needs about 2 acres of land for its feedstock, a decent sized wooden sailing ship needs 3000 trees to build it.—it is also limited to about 5000 tons in weight—roughly that of the old clipper ships.
the internal cargo-volume of a wooden ship is far less than an iron one.
both the above move at a walking pace—a good sailing ship might get a bit faster but not much, on average.
So, Norman, I best start to walk barefoot now to callouses my feet up when I have walk barefoot.
Years ago I had a very good buddy known as “the barefoot golfer”. Cliff was an old 1960s hippie type from Santa Barbara California and swore walking barefoot was healthier than wearing shoes..while he was puffing on his Marlboro…
puffing ciggies is something i’ve never done
but walking barefoot on smooth sand or grass is amazing for leg muscles or aching feet—takes away fatigue instantly.
i think we are not intended to have shoes on our feet
Your not wrong Norman and for good reason.
Mike may be more interested in this than you, but if you want something to read while you have your bare feet in the grass, try this.
https://archive.org/details/earthingthemostimportanthealthdiscoveryeverbyclintonober2010/page/n4/mode/1up
If you do read it, buy the book, so not too disturb the flow😉
i followed that link—because i genuinely think that bodily earth contact is a good thing, and carries stuff we dont fully understand—healing, water divining and so on
unfortunately that guy started on about 5g masts and smart meters
and then the needle on my bs meter went hard over into the red
“because i genuinely think that bodily earth contact is a good thing, and carries stuff we dont fully understand”
And you deny yourself the chance to understand, if you refuse to explore the world outside the echo chamber. If you “genuinely think” the above, why do you instantly dismiss anything that goes against the narrative of the very people that would deny what you “genuinely think”?
It’s ok to read things that you don’t fully agree with, unless you fear that it might present evidence to challenge those beliefs. Definitely don’t read it if that’s the case.
it was written in 2010—-the 5g mast thing was debunked years ago, along with Bill Gates dosing injections with iron filings and whatnot, so the he could track people from his 5g masts (that was written as ‘absolute truth” too)
What are you blathering on about norman?
Why don’t you just quote the part(or page number) you have issues with and explain why you believe it false?
When people use the word debunked, I generally accept that they know absolutely nothing about the subject, past what the msm has told them(nothing).
Daisy world might be black and white, but our world has a full spectrum and any believer of Lovelock would at least have some hint of the vast interconnectedness of that spectrum, so you need to ask yourself why you get so charged about possible interference to your natural electric harmony(a harmony you yourself admit is real and needs investigating), whilst refusing to investigate.
“bodily earth contact is a good thing”
It depends on where you are. Far enough north and bare feet on the ground is not a problem. In the tropics and the American South it was a way to get hookworm.
They need all those 5G masts in order to track, monitor and remotely control the vaxed, who as we all know radiate a MAC address for every jab they’ve had.
Congratulations, Norman; you are officially a “part” of the Internet of Things. continue to be a good boy and they may even make you a “node.” 🙂
When people use the word debunked, I generally accept that they know absolutely nothing about the subject, past what the msm has told them(nothing).
This!
And it’s not as if Norman was entirely bunk-free himself, is it?
Yes, attempting to debunk with bunkum is rather sad(I’m still waiting for the part of the book that incensed Norman so much), especially when a quick look would find reams of scientific study confirming that the premise of the book is indeed grounded in good science and culturally accepted the world over, except anywhere run by the corporation. That’s why Norman believes, despite the science and his own lived experience, that everything they force on us must be good and anyone that points to opposing science is clearly a heretic(because the corporate media’s, corporate fact checkers told him so). 5g and smart meters are an obstruction to our natural state and to deny that without looking deeper is…. Well, exactly what they want people to do.
You’re just a big wet semiconductor Norman and whatever you do don’t read the last sentence below and pray to god that Keith doesn’t see it.
“It is not widely appreciated that collagen and other structural proteins are semiconductors. This concept was introduced by Albert Szent-Györgyi in the Korányi memorial lecture in Budapest, Hungary in 1941. His talk was published in both Science (Towards a New Biochemistry?)35 and Nature (The Study of Energy Levels in Biochemistry).36 The idea that proteins might be semiconductors was immediately and firmly rejected by biochemists. Many modern scientists continue to reject semi-conduction in proteins, because living systems only have trace amounts of silicone, germanium, and compounds of gallium that are the most widely used materials in electronic semiconductor devices. However, there are many ways of making organic semiconductors without using metals. One of the sources of confusion was the widely held belief that water was a mere filler material. We now know that water plays crucial roles in enzymatic activities and semi-conduction. Hydrated proteins actually are semiconductors, and have become important components in the global microelectronics industry. Organic microcircuits are preferred for some applications, because they can be made very small, self-assemble, are robust, and have low energy consumption.37,38”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4378297/
“that Keith doesn’t see it.
“It is not widely appreciated that collagen and other structural proteins are semiconductors.”
That’s a true statement. I have been an armchair organic/biochemist most of my life, professionally studied Solid State physics, and my first patent depends on semiconductor device physics.
Never heard of proteins being semiconductors. Might be, I have not read everything. Ask a AI if the idea has merit. Silicon carbide and diamond are both semiconductors.
The typos in the material you quoted don’t improve my opinion of the idea.
What typos bother you so Keith?
I’m happy to defer to your knowledge on semiconductors, but I deliberately left the reference numbers at the end of the quote, as I thought they might interest you. They are admittedly old, so huge change in knowledge is more than possible, but I thought you would at least give the time of day to someone from Advanced Materials Laboratories, Sony, with input from B. Gray and Jay R. Winkler (Caltech).
“Bioelectronics is one of the most promising technologies for
the next generation, because bio-materials have excellent
characters which cannot be realized by the silicon devices”
That’s the first line.
https://www.jsst.jp/e/JSST2012/extended_abstract/pdf/16.pdf
I’m left to accept that no one looked at the paper(the one with the typos and so much else). Something we can all test easily and most agree, there’s something going on, but the potential questions that raises appear to be a bridge to far for the (indoctrinated)children of (corporate)progress. Quite unthinkable for the most simple and natural things to challenge the bottom line, eh?
Keith, when progress takes you out of the freezer and you dance on my watery grave, don’t forget to do it this way
https://youtu.be/1Z9G8BdnFGs?feature=shared
“What typos bother you so Keith?”
The most egregious one was use of silicone for silicon.
“Bioelectronics is one of the most promising technologies for
the next generation, because bio-materials have excellent
characters which cannot be realized by the silicon devices”
True and so what? Bioelectronics is a tiny niche if it exist at all where silicon chips are a substantial part of the economy.
“Quite unthinkable for the most simple and natural things to challenge the bottom line, eh?”
Not at all. Molecular machines I expect to replace silicon chips eventually.
“Explain why the Slovak parliament is currently paralyzed based on the website ourfiniteworld.com”
ChstGPT can not connect the dots.
https://chatgpt.com/share/67d24f4a-6d58-8012-9461-48fc1f2aba32
“I couldn’t find any information on ourfiniteworld.com regarding the current paralysis of the Slovak parliament. The website primarily focuses on global energy issues and their economic impacts.
To understand the reasons behind the Slovak parliament’s paralysis, it would be more appropriate to consult local news sources or official government communications that provide up-to-date information on Slovakia’s political situation.”
But DeepSeek can:
https://chat.deepseek.com/a/chat/s/64353438-f209-44e7-94cf-1602d690721e
“Explain why the Slovak parliament is currently paralyzed based on the website ourfiniteworld.com
Okay, so I need to figure out why the Slovak parliament is currently paralyzed based on the website ourfiniteworld.com. Let me start by recalling what I know about Slovakia’s political situation. Slovakia is a country in Central Europe, part of the EU, and has a parliamentary system. Parliaments can get paralyzed for various reasons: maybe coalition disagreements, controversial legislation, or political scandals.
Now, the user mentioned the website ourfiniteworld.com. I’m not too familiar with that site, but I know it often discusses topics related to energy, economics, and sustainability. Maybe the paralysis is related to energy policies? Slovakia has nuclear power plants, like the Mochovce and Bohunice plants. Perhaps there’s a debate over energy sources, especially with the EU’s push for green energy. If the government is divided on whether to support nuclear energy or transition to renewables, that could cause gridlock.
Alternatively, economic issues might be a factor. Ourfiniteworld.com often talks about resource depletion and economic limits. Slovakia’s economy is heavily industrial, so if there are economic struggles, maybe austerity measures or economic reforms are causing political disputes. The parliament might be split between different fiscal policies, leading to inability to pass legislation.
Another angle: recent elections or political shifts. If there was a recent election that resulted in a fragmented parliament with no clear majority, that could paralyze decision-making. Slovakia has had periods of political instability. For instance, after the 2020 elections, there were multiple parties forming a coalition. If the current coalition is fragile, disagreements could stall parliamentary proceedings.
Also, consider external factors like the war in Ukraine. Slovakia borders Ukraine, so maybe the response to the conflict, such as military aid or refugee policies, is causing divisions. Ourfiniteworld.com might link this to energy, as Slovakia depends on Russian energy, and the EU’s sanctions could be impacting their energy supply, leading to political debates on how to handle it.
Wait, but how does ourfiniteworld.com specifically frame this? The site might connect parliamentary paralysis to broader issues like energy scarcity or economic contraction. For example, if Slovakia is facing energy shortages or rising energy prices, the government might be stuck between subsidizing energy, transitioning to alternatives, or dealing with EU regulations. Political parties might have conflicting solutions, leading to a stalemate.
I should check if there’s any recent legislation causing issues. Maybe a proposed energy bill that splits the coalition. For instance, if some parties want to phase out nuclear power while others want to expand it, or disputes over fossil fuel use versus renewables. Alternatively, economic policies related to inflation or public spending in the face of limited resources.
Another possibility: corruption scandals. If key politicians are implicated in scandals, especially related to energy deals or resource mismanagement, this could lead to no-confidence votes or resignations, paralyzing parliament. Ourfiniteworld.com might discuss how resource constraints increase corruption or political infighting.
Wait, but I need to make sure this is based on the website’s content. Since I can’t access the site, I have to infer based on its usual themes. The paralysis might be tied to how finite resources (like energy) are affecting Slovakia’s economy and politics. If there’s a crisis in energy supply, leading to economic hardship, the parliament might be unable to agree on how to allocate resources or respond, causing paralysis.
Alternatively, maybe the site discusses the broader context of political systems struggling with finite resources, leading to instability. In Slovakia’s case, the parliament’s paralysis is an example of this global phenomenon. The inability to manage declining resources or transition smoothly to sustainable energy sources creates political division.
So, putting it all together, the Slovak parliament is likely paralyzed due to disagreements over energy policy, economic challenges linked to finite resources, or political fragmentation exacerbated by these issues. The connection to ourfiniteworld.com would be the site’s focus on how energy and resource limitations impact political systems and economic stability, leading to governmental gridlock when parties can’t agree on how to address these critical challenges.
(Due to technical issues, the search service is temporarily unavailable.)
The Slovak parliament’s current paralysis, as contextualized through themes typically explored on ourfiniteworld.com (which focuses on energy, resource constraints, and economic sustainability), likely stems from energy policy disputes and economic challenges tied to finite resources. Here’s a synthesized explanation:
Energy Policy Divisions:
Slovakia’s reliance on nuclear energy (e.g., Mochovce and Bohunice plants) and fossil fuels may clash with EU green transition goals. Political factions could be deadlocked over whether to invest in nuclear expansion, renewable energy, or manage dependencies on Russian energy amid EU sanctions related to the Ukraine war. This aligns with ourfiniteworld.com’s emphasis on energy scarcity and transition challenges.
Economic Pressures from Resource Constraints:
As an industrial economy, Slovakia may face strains from rising energy costs, inflation, or resource depletion. Disputes over austerity measures, subsidies, or fiscal policies to address these issues could paralyze decision-making, reflecting the site’s themes of economic limits and resource-driven instability.
Political Fragmentation:
Recent elections might have yielded a fractured parliament with no clear majority, exacerbating disagreements on critical issues. Coalition parties could be divided on how to balance EU climate mandates with domestic energy security, a tension ourfiniteworld.com often highlights in resource-limited contexts.
External Factors (Ukraine War):
Slovakia’s proximity to Ukraine and reliance on Russian energy imports may fuel debates over refugee policies, military aid, or energy diversification. The parliament’s inability to reconcile these pressures mirrors broader systemic stresses discussed on the site.
Corruption and Scandals:
Scandals linked to energy deals or resource mismanagement (a risk in resource-constrained environments) might have eroded trust, triggering no-confidence motions or resignations that stall legislative processes.
In summary, the paralysis reflects how finite resources and energy transitions strain political systems, creating gridlock when parties cannot reconcile competing visions for sustainability, economic stability, and external crises—a narrative consistent with ourfiniteworld.com’s focus on interconnected ecological and political challenges.”
Let me help you. The current slovak parliament is experiencing problems because there is an all out offensive (by those who control the EU) against eastern european nations. Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Moldova.
I just wanted to demonstrate that Chinese chatbot seems to be better than the US chatbot. Remembert: they are just assistants.
chatbot trash … no thanks
I don’t think either of these bots crawl the comments. They’re only looking at the main article. You can see the Chinese one just extrapolating, kind of like a fortune teller.
The author Nafeez M Ahmed has some interesting perspectives on systems thinking and global phase transition.
I read a few of his articles to find “the solution.” Ahmed says:
“Central to this transformation is the energy phase transition. While incumbent fossil fuel industries enter an accelerating spiral of self-cannibalising decline, the energy landscape is being disrupted by continuously improving solar photovoltaics, wind turbines and battery storage. Unlike fossil fuels, the more we use them, the cheaper and better they get. As such, they are experiencing exponential cost declines and performance improvements, with EROI equal to or higher than fossil fuels. This is driving exponentially increasing adoption rates.
Projecting these cost curve and adoption rates forward shows that solar, wind and batteries are on track to disrupt, dominate and transform the global energy system within the next two to four decades. A major study last year led by University of Exeter’s Global Systems Institute found that “a global irreversible solar tipping point” has already likely passed due to technology learning curves and economic factors, suggesting that solar energy will largely subsume global electricity markets between 2050 and 2060 even without further climate policies – great news, except for the fact this would be too late to avert the risk of dangerous climate change.”
https://ageoftransformation.org/the-end-of-scarcity-from-polycrisis-to-planetary-phase-shift/
OK, so by 2050-2060, we will be in a position to replace the electricity market with renewables. What are we going to do for the other 80% of total energy consumption that is not electricity?
According to the elders we are entering a bear grylls way of life or fast Eddie challenge world so solar will be a godsend in this post carbon world
Re: Peak Oil > Covid 19 > Great Reset
Postby warpig13 » Sun 15 Nov 2020, 07:46:16
I know someone… ministerial advisor… attends Davos and they spooked me 2 weeks ago… they said they’re going to let the banks fail… and they’re trying to work out which industries to save. I was told to get out of the stock market, get out of debt and buy property so you survive the coming currency reset. I don’t believe the currency is going to be convertible. They said we’re going back to a “more Bear Grylls” way of living… The time frame I’m working to is March – November ’21.
warpig13
Wood
Wood
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat 14 Nov 2020, 21:54:47
This sounds frightening!
The non-electricity supply is a minor detail. We use it for transport and for growing our food, among other things.
Long, long extension cords. haha.
EROI analyses give a misleading impression of how helpful wind and solar are. This is a major reason I object to using the analysis.
wind and solar are energy carriers not generators
“energy landscape is being disrupted by continuously improving solar photovoltaics, wind turbines”
Bunk on part of this….wind turbines are not improving, they have exceeded their limit and are now degrading in reliability and lifecycle cost.
I suspect wind is almost a dead man walking….once the generator companies go bankrupt, wind turbine costs go through the roof, etc.
Volkswagen went all in on Electric vehicles. Germany followed the EU’s lead as well to move away from fossil fuels. The end result, Germany is in a freefall economically and VW is as well, as both are now de-industrializing. They’ve lost business as customers are not buying their expensive EV’s when China showed the world they can make quality EV’s for a fraction of the price i.e. their version of the people’s car. How ironic that it involved VW.
So now that Europe has decided to defeat Russia militarily (good luck with that). VW has now turned to making weapons of war instead of building cars.
https://www.rt.com/business/614098-volkswagen-open-military-production/
If the government will print money to support Volkswagen building materials for war efforts, I suppose that allows the charade that the economy can continue to grow, and Volkswagen can hire workers to continue.
Assuming that this approach can work, I see a problem with young generations.
They have been grown up with green ideas, transgender theories, peace and so on and so forth, therefore I don’t know if they will buy it.
People after 40/50 are more stupid, drink whatever propaganda comes out by TV and can believe that devil Putin will pass by their homes at night.
all these kids born and raised during covid – we’re going to be a lock for the Special Olympics.
Trump is such a clown.
> Ukraine-Russia war latest: Trump threatens to devastate Russian economy if Putin refuses peace deal
So, it is Biden part 2.
What a failure.
Trump’s ‘master plan’ on how to stop the war is ‘let us just stop it, have a ceasefire’. Genius.
Tariffs on, tariffs off, tariffs on, tariffs off, aid for UKR off, UKR will have to give up land, UKR aid on, UKR will not have to give up land.
And Trump’s ‘plan’ now is to threaten Russia with more sanctions – like USA has not been playing that same game for three years.
Trump said that he would end the war in 24 hours – he just did not say which 24 hours.
His ‘big plan’ is supposed to be USA extrication from Europe, win-win deals with Russia and a pivot to the Asia-Pacific.
‘American first’.
That seems to be off.
All that he had to do was to simply turn off the aid to UKR and walk away but he is politically incapable of that.
I suppose that we will have the Dems again in 4 years, the long-term relative decline of USA will continue and that will be that.
So long as we know what to expect.
It is possible that he he is just maneuvering. But Russia now is in Sumy, so he might just be waiting for a fait accompli. His stature, as I have written below, has certainly diminished and will diminish further. Honestly though, I expect a lot of resistance when it comes to Odessa.
Yes, it is possible that he is just “maneuvering”, but he is threatening to escalate and will look like a fool (which he is) when Putin refuses to comply. This could get very ugly “in a NY minute”.
He also said there would be consequences if Hamas did not release all hostages by saturday at noon. that was 4 saturdays ago.
That’s why Russia is attriting enemy forces in place rather than prioritizing territory. Once the enemy is dead, you can take whatever land you want. Russia is also making a point of not fighting in major cities, instead they bypass and encircle them.
Yes, a major disappointment. The war is expanded to include Hungary and Romania. Fifth gen warfare always surprises.
Alex Jones and Elon Musk being targeted! Troops into the NYC subway!
I am guessing that the economy is slowing down, whatever Trump does. And the government cutbacks that the Department of Government Efficiency and the now the cabinet makers are pushing will push it down more.
The economy is lacking for adequate energy. It needs to shrink back to a smaller size. These changes are taking place, whether or not any of the other things Trump claims to be doing are working in any sense. As a practical matter, we in the West have difficulty making war materials. We can’t really ramp up wars in Ukraine or elsewhere, regardless of what we claim.
As William Buckley explained in his book, Man and God at Yale, the trustees own the university and can choose what is allowed and what is not allowed on their private property. Sadly, formerly private universities are now run by the federal government due to the billions of dollars it pumps in to them.
It is time for are turn to private universities with no government thrall.
It is definitely true that if some organization gets its funding from the Federal Government, (or any other interest group), that organization
is likely to be biased in terms of what they say or do.
I think research groups have a hard time being unbiased, because they will always want to please their donors. This is one reason I have stayed away from asking for donations.
Some BRICS countries want a reserve currency, others do not.
Russia is pretty much self-sufficient. It can trade with other countries in its own currency. Other countries, like Brazil, really need a reserve currency for trading. They would like a successor to the US$.
Alex and Alexander talk about going to digital currencies in the next 5 to 10 years, and the whole problem of a reserve currency going away. They don’t seem to be aware of our energy problems, and the debt default problem that this leads to.
Look who else knows nothing about resource limits
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/amazon-google-and-meta-plan-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050
You would think they would have a clue:
An AI ruled future is a merciless, emotionless world which will leave no resources for the unnecessariats.
fortunately there will not be an AI ruled world. Not enough energy. But even if it were, a drone into the power lines is cheap.
I agree with you. Even if the power that be could manage an AI ruled world, it could not last long. Too many breaking points.
AI and it’s appendices’ will file for bankruptcy . Hey , I can live without power auto windows , the manuel handle was good enough . Too much fluff . The market lost USD 4 Trillion and no one is jumping out of the window a la 1929 . Smoke and mirrors .
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/irobot-shares-crash-going-concern-raises-substantial-doubt-about-ability-operate
Nobody needs an overpriced American Roomba when they can buy a much better Chinese robot vacuum for a fraction of the price.
“All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” is a poem by Richard Brautigan first published in his 1967 collection of the same name, his fifth book of poetry. It presents an enthusiastic description of a technological utopia in which machines improve and protect the lives of humans. The poem has counterculture and hippie themes, influenced by Cold War-era technology. It has been interpreted both as utopian and as an ironic critique of the utopia it describes. It is Brautigan’s most frequently reprinted poem.
Basically the world is going back to its eternal norm, comfortable life for very few, hard work and penury for everyone else.
Humanity was NOT meant to live comfortably, without most worries. It was meant to suffer immensely and lives were cheap, as cheap as those of ants or birds.
The time for English speaking troglodytes to drive pickup trucks and consume meat and beer seems to be ending as well.
Starship or not, new power tech or not, we are going back to there. Some people will deny it and some people will prefer to fool themselves in delusions, but the return to norm is inevitable.
The classic story “Flowers to Algernon” by Daniel Keyes comes to mind. A moron is given a genetic experiment and he becomes smarter than the greatest mind of the earth. For reasons unknown, they don’t get too much out of him. As the experiment proves to be temporary, seen in the rat Algernon who dies before his time, the moron realizes he will lose all of his newfound intelligence and decided to retire into a state sanatorium before he loses whatever new connections he ever established when he was smart.
If that is the fate of humanity, there is no escape, and I think it is, no matter what delusions the cornucopians might float.
As with individuals, as with societies, and as with the Earth’s primary raw material resources, entropy is a hard master. Subsistence theory suggests that in the absence of some new factor that can help raise the standard of living of the masses or at least keep it at close to its current level, affluence will decline over time and subsistence will become the norm.
Let me quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Subsistence theory, in labour economics, a theory of the factors that determine the level of wages in a capitalist society, according to which changes in the supply of workers constitute a basic force that drives real wages to the minimum required for subsistence (that is, for basic needs such as food and shelter).
Elements of a subsistence theory of wages appear in The Wealth of Nations (1776), by the Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723–90), who wrote that the wages paid to workers had to be enough to allow them to live and to support their families. The English classical economists who succeeded Smith, including David Ricardo (1772–1823) and Thomas Malthus (1766–1834), held a more pessimistic outlook. Ricardo wrote that “the natural price of labour is that price which is necessary to enable the labourers, one with another, to subsist and to perpetuate their race, without either increase or diminution.” Ricardo’s statement was consistent with the population theory of Malthus, who held that population adjusts to the means of supporting it.
Subsistence theorists argued that the market price of labour would not vary from the natural price for long: if wages rose above subsistence, the number of workers would increase and bring the wage rates down; if wages fell below subsistence, the number of workers would decrease and push the wage rates up. At the time that these economists wrote, most workers were actually living near the subsistence level, and population appeared to be trying to outrun the means of subsistence. Thus, the subsistence theory seemed to fit the facts.
Although Ricardo held that the natural price of labour was not fixed (it could change if population levels moderated in relation to the food supply and other items necessary to maintain labour), later writers were even more doubtful about the prospects for wage earners. Their inflexible conclusion that wages would always be driven down earned the subsistence theory the name “iron law of wages.”
By Paul Lincoln Kleinsorge & Michael T. Hannan
This is sort of a worrisome outcome, given where we have recently been for middle class and upper middle class wages.
keep repeating myself
the last 300 years has been an anomaly in our segment of humankind
the joke of course, is that collectively we think we can keep this status quo by voting for it.
and we kill each other to prove it.
we are evolved to live hungry and die early—with very very few exceptions (me—i eat too much and lived too long)
Norm,
Sort of bored.
It’s the Pt, always the Pt.
Dennis L.
well i hope the pt arrives soon dennis
i dont have all that long to live
Ukraine – Russia ceasefire.
An interesting article about this very strange proposal of ceasefire from a nation, which is losing, to another nation, which is winning..
Trump correctly said to Zelensky that he didn’t have the cards, well, with these absent cards, this proposal actually appears like a bluff..
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/us-and-ukraine-hatch-ceasefire-travesty
Yes, it dues look like the only think Ukraine can do is surrender. Trying to dictate terms, when Ukraine is losing, clearly doesn’t work.
I would not underestimate Ukraine…. Any country could have suicide plans that will take down both countries… you are all so naive. There are a 1000 ways….
About that it is possible.
If one hears any high level person in Ukraine (government or consultants), it is possible to hear only words of fight, revenge and aggresivity against Russia.
I don’t think their minds are ready to any peace or any settlement with Russia that will exclude future fights.
Trump and his team are flailing idiotically. Witkoff is going to Russia apparently to pitch a ceasefire. The proposal is dead on arrival.
Gail, thank you for your article. This is how I read the tea leaves, if I may. Despite the peaks and plateaus of global petroleum production which have been extended into the future, I still subscribe to the Peak Oil Theory, and your article appears to confirm my suspicion. Indeed, the signs are all around us if we have eyes to see, although admittedly the phenomenon is obscure. Still overall production is in decline regardless of the reasons.
You mention in the second paragraph “Somehow the economy needs to change.” I believe that, in the deepest recesses of discussions among global powers, at some point a decision was made to effect such a change. After several attempts at economic stimulus failed (predictably), they accepted that significant global economic growth (supply) was no longer possible. So “they” went all in and decided that the only real option was to reduce demand. Thus they’ve sought to cull the human population, thereby reducing demand for petroleum.
Reducing the human footprint will reduce the demand for numerous other resources as well. It will also reduce the burden on entitlements (which they know full well can never be fully honored due to their incompetence) and resolve pernicious inflation. They attempted this with the Covid scam, the Ukraine War and even, I believe, the vilification of Donald Trump who has stood in the way of their diabolical plan, but none of it has worked. This is why, beyond all rationality, the EU is pushing for nuclear war with Russia and gearing up for military conscription. It’s difficult to fathom after centuries of European history, but there it is.
The feckless, cowardly EU leadership is not stupid. They’re absolutely desperate, as usual, to save they’re own necks and those of their ruling class benefactors. They are pursuing assisted national suicide and using their citizenry as human shields, all while they peddle absurd fantasies of red monsters and ferocious, growling bears. Perhaps they also seek to “give back” by self immolation to redeem themselves of the guilt of their colonial legacy.
So now the great unwinding has begun which will see the end of globalism and quite possibly a mass extinction event of humanity. May God help us all (except the likes of Macron, Merkel und Schwab). Thanks.
Thanks for your comment. You make good points.
I don’t think that this is the end of humanity. Humans have lived through ice ages. Even a nuclear war wouldn’t wipe out everyone, now would problems with nuclear power plants. I suppose a religious second coming could be an end point, but I am doubtful that one religious group would be given this insight.
We don’t know how fast or slow this will be. Those of us with children and grandchildren worry about them.
Whatever Europe is doing is very strange. But what Musk is doing is somewhat strange as well. We see many announcement from companies that look at if recession is close at hand. Pseudo growth can’t go on for long.
which they know full well can never be fully honored due to their incompetence
wtf???? incompetence. they had the hardcore eugenics program and euthanasia and they even said the world was ending in 1970 and YOU are the one breeding infinitely.
HOW CAN THEY BE INCOMPETENT? THEY KNOW THAT THERE ISN’T ENOUGH RESOURCES SINCE 1950s but their HANDS are tied. WHAT can a few thousand elites do if billions won’t do things for the ”greater good”? Why haven’t you asked westerners to commit suicide 1 by 1 once they reached their prime age yet???? -.-
the population ITSELF DEMANDS MORE RESOURCES AND A HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING EVERYDAY… whom do you think people listen to? A HUMAN GOD THAT PROMISES EVERYTHING. come on now, take RESPONSIBILITY for your decisions.
ni67, the elites/leadership needed to put a sustainable (or at least longer-lasting so that further energy tech could be developed) system in place. That they didn’t shows they are either too stupid to come up with such a program or too powerless to implement it. Perhaps all was lost from the get-go.
How can they be the elite if they can’t direct society? If they can’t, then they’re just opportunistic parasites.
//////the elites/leadership needed to put a sustainable (or at least longer-lasting so that further energy tech could be developed) system in place. That they didn’t shows they are either too stupid to come up with such a program or too powerless to implement it. Perhaps all was lost from the get-go.
How can they be the elite if they can’t direct society? If they can’t, then they’re just opportunistic parasites.//////
just how many times does it need to be said????????
there—–is—–no—-elite.
just about anyone with the means to be so is—–an opportunist—–
thats what being a human is all about—we are evolved to be opportunists—-we have no choice in the matter.
those who grab opportunities survive.
it has been so since we came down out of the trees
“just how many times does it need to be said????????
there—–is—–no—-elite.”
Bingo! Norm and I disagree on much, but he has it right.
“just about anyone with the means to be so is—–an opportunist—–
thats what being a human is all about—we are evolved to be opportunists—-we have no choice in the matter.”
Opportunists and some number of other psychological traits that have been selected. The most obvious one is capture-bonding (look it up). More complicated is the psychological traits that lead to war because genes do better (on average) in a resource crisis by humans going to war than they do just starving in place.
“either too stupid to come up with such a program or too powerless to implement it.”
There was such a program proposed in 1975, article in Science by GK O’Neill. Nothing was ever done to implement it. It made sense but short planing horizons doomed it.
guilt? what guilt… everyone is guilty just as the elites are… the party ends just as it started. you and that elite is the same. exploit concentrated energy and human labor. i dont hear westerners complaining about african cobalt children, ewaste india plastic dumping, middle east bombing and chinese land poisoning intoxication. just because your leaders want to save themselves, doesn’t change anything. you are saving yourself too. why havent you swam to a remote island instead of relying on hitmen to take resources from poorer countries so you can type this.
colonial legacy? wtf. come on now thousands of years of human history repeated itself. you enjoy the products of being in top golden billion with amazing lifespan and energy because the people around you have higher iqs than the rest of the world. the only way you can enjoy this is by plundering. with currency control and whatnot. i dont hear french people complaining about 99% discount on uranium from africa. why are you blaming the leaders for going after their self interest? they played with you lot long enough. they started enough wars and diverted most of the world’s resources so you can sleep, eat and be fed long way after UK reserves were depleted. shouldnt you be thanking them for sustaining you as long as possible? you are the one there sitting doing job in and out without trying to get resources into the country…. im not sure why every person that is subordinate keeps whining that a leader is going after their self interests…..