By Hideaway: Energy and Electricity

If American citizens could see this in Russia they would be radicalized against their own government.

James Howard Kunstler interviewed Art Berman today.

Apparently they had some heated disagreements. Will listen later today.

https://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast-395-art-berman-on-the-us-oil-scene/

Hideaway’s still fighting the morons in denial at POB. I used to do some of that when I was younger. Then I learned it is impossible to use logic to break through genetic denial. Hunger might eventually work.

I only copied Hideaway’s work, not the posts he was responding to. If you’d like evidence for genetic denial go check them out.

https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-feb-10-2023/#comment-770229

Dennis, “As I said the process will be gradual, there is no need to build anything with no fossil fuels, they will continue to be used in smaller and smaller proportions”

That’s one of my main points, where you are totally wrong. Fossil fuels are not being used in smaller and smaller proportions, their use is growing. There is no transition, all that’s happening is that renewables are being added to total energy used to the detriment of the environment.

In the last 20 years total fossil fuel use rose 10 times the amount added by renewables. Building more renewables means using more fossil fuels to do so.

More renewables and of course the batteries to overcome the intermittency issue, means digging up more of the natural environment to gain access to the lower grades of ores we have to use to get the metals required to build the renewables. It’s done almost entirely with fossil fuels, with a growing rate of use..

More renewables means more fossil fuel use!! The environment wont remain in the Holocene type stable climate with the continued burning of fossil fuels, yet you and Hickory think burning more, digging up more, further destroying the natural environment is OK.

Renewables cost about 20 times as much to produce a terawatt hour of energy as the cheap oil and gas energy supplies. That 20 times cost represents 20 times as much energy in gaining the terawatt of energy, and it’s only electricity that doesn’t supply products.

With a hand wave, and never any energy calculations you claim we can fertilize the world using sewerage repurposed. Do you really think in a falling energy environment, coming ‘soon’ when we are past peak oil, with an accelerating decline in oil availability, humanity will have ‘spare’ energy to build such things??

It’s not happening now on any type of scale while we have overall energy increases from fossil fuels, so what will change?? Even in places like the UK where entropy is taking it’s usual toll on the human built world, raw sewerage is being pumped into the sea because we just don’t have the money (energy) to treat it properly.

Green concrete instead of asphalt? To produce the hydrogen needed, and all the new smelters needed (different design to using coke), all the metals to do so, will either magically appear out of thin air, or a lot more mining using fossil fuels will be necessary, especially oil, which is about to become much harder to obtain.

Everything hydrogen based needs massive amounts of Molybdenum, something that is mostly produced as a byproduct of copper mining in the ppm range. Do you have any energy calculations showing how this is possible?? Or is it just another hand wave of what’s ‘possible’ without regard to energy, environment and resource limits??

Dennis, what you propose is more of the same as we have been doing over the last 20 years, which has lead to increasing fossil fuel use and a more unstable climate, all while we clearly recognise that material limits mean this increase can’t continue indefinitely.
Only around 15% of humanity made it to a modern lifestyle, like all of us who post on these threads, despite the damage we are doing to the environment while using up all the high grade minerals.

Continuing to do the same thing in the next 20 years as we have done in the last 20 years and expecting a different result, is the very definition of insanity.

I wonder if you can see the stupidity in what’s happening in the world. My first solar panel, now over 39 years old was made solidly and can still generate electricity. The panels made 12-15 years ago are often being replaced because they were made of thinner materials, seem to be failing much more often, and the lifetime seems to be shorter than the very old ones, despite the 25 year warranties they came with.

The newest ones come with claims from the companies that make them, that they will have longer lives (yet shorter warranty periods), even though they are made with thinner silicon wafers, have thinner connecting pastes, use thinner glass, with greater surface area, all while being exposed to an environment of stronger storms, greater variations of temperatures and larger hail stones.

The math and physics of replacing fossil fuel use with renewables doesn’t go close to adding up. We can’t replace the system we have with one that costs 20 times more in both energy and money to build, despite magicking up money (debt) to do it. We can magic the money, but not the resources.

Forget the hand wave of things we will do instead of using fossil fuels, do the math and resource availability instead, for a change.

Alimbiquated … “When an industry stops being profitable, it declines rapidly, because profit is the lifeblood of every industry. The extreme fall in price of renewables are already depriving the industry of irreplaceable revenue.”

I agree entirely, yet despite renewables getting much cheaper, they still need subsidies and grants, plus beneficial market rules to get built. Why is that??

Currently a terawatt hour of energy from a Saudi oil well or a gas project in WA is costing $US1.7M while a terawatt of electricity from utility scale wind and solar in Australia is costing $US35M (after subsidies!!), while electricity from an existing coal fired power station is costing $US9M. So tell me exactly which forms of energy are cheapest?

In the AEMO market in Australia, renewables are certainly putting coal, gas and hydro power stations out of business, but they are also stopping further development in solar and wind as well. There is no money to be made despite the current subsidies to build more.

So what will happen over the longer term when more coal power closes down, blackouts and brownouts across the country as the grid reliability collapses. Those that can afford their own batteries to back-up their own use of electricity will do well, as the grid prices have risen massively over the last couple of years..

What happens to Industry, especially heavy industry, is it leaves for wherever they can get consistent cheap power/energy.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence (NOT!!) that the Aluminium smelter in Western Australia is closing down at the same time the grid closes down the last coal fired power station.

Please don’t tell us you believe this claptrap…

” Every year, about 15 billion tons of fossil fuels are mined and extracted. That’s about 535 times more mining than a clean energy economy would require in 2040.”

Where are the pure 100% deposits of copper, lithium, nickel, molybdenum, rare earths, tin, silver, etc, etc, that are going to be mined??

Or is it more likely the copper grade currently around 0.5% on average will continue to get lower?? 0.5% means around 220 tonnes of ore are needed to be mined and processed for 1 tonne of copper (recovery is often around 90% for low grades, 92-93% for high grades, plus there is dilution of ore mined by the diggers including waste in nearly every bucket of thinner seams of ore), plus of course all the overburden waste mined just to gain access to the ore bodies of open cut mines, that has to be blasted then removed by diesel powered dump trucks.

Only 4 times as much?? Did anyone bother to go look at the assumptions in the annexes?? Often from papers 12-15 years old, based on much less energy than we currently use, assuming the ore grades are as high as they were back then.

Every one of these types of reports makes simple assumptions without consideration of lower grades of everything and unlimited energy availability to do it.

We are using lower and lower grades of fossil fuels to gain access to lower and lower grades of ores, all while an increasing proportion of an overpopulated world wish to use more resources. It’s only possible while we mine more and more fossil fuels to make it happen, which means more damage to climate and environment, which is most likely already past many tipping points. Feedback loops affecting everything, something never looked at in these simplistic articles.

Yet because people ‘want’ to believe it’s all possible, they jump on every piece of rubbish like this article.

Nick, I’ve never argued that burning all that fossil fuels is ‘good’, in fact I keep saying that we don’t have a future doing it for both depletion and environment problems, but that doesn’t mean renewables nor nuclear can replace them.

The only sure way to save what’s left of the natural environment is to massively power down and massively reduce population, which we should have started decades ago. Instead we get simple thinkers stating we can solve all the problems by just doing ‘xxxxxxx’, as if there was unlimited energy and resources to do whatever ‘xxxxxxxx’ is.

Every ‘more renewable argument’, means more destruction of the environment while burning more fossil fuels to do it. We are just chasing our own tails by trying to attempt it. Currently the money and energy inputs for renewables are 20 times the rate of fossil fuels to produce the same amount of energy. That’s today, despite all the improvements over the last few decades. It also doesn’t allow for overcoming the intermittency issue, nor does it replace the products supplied by fossil fuels.

The numbers are proof that all we are doing is digging a deeper hole for humanity and all other life on this planet.

I keep challenging you to come up with the numbers to show that a renewable future is possible, but you never do. Instead you point to other people’s work that I have easily picked up all the flaws in.

So how about you do the work, show the numbers of how it is possible, instead of this incessant ‘there is no alternative’. Remember it’s a system, if you think hydrogen is viable, show the numbers of how much, and how we make all the high grade stainless steel, including the mining given current and falling ore grades etc.

It’s a lot of work, but just ‘believing’ it’s possible as you do, means you gloss over the massive overshoot we really are in and miss most of the energy inputs needed to build what you envisage.

Nick .. LOL. I’m not in favor of drill baby drill, nor is there any post suggesting I’ve ever indicated that’s a good idea. In fact if you read my posts, you can see I’m against all the burning because of the damage to both climate and environment.

We are in deep overshoot, changing our climate way too fast for natural processes to catch up, killed off most Ocean life, reduced insect numbers by an estimated 70% since 1970, reduced wild mammals not part of our farming to just 4% of total world mammals by weight.

It’s humans that are destroying our own environment just like yeast in a vat of sugar water, using up every resource available while polluting the living surrounds until we kill ourselves off.

The concept of building more, faster (of anything !!!), is totally self defeating because the numbers don’t go close to adding up.

You showed your own ignorance of the situation above in your comment about mining ….. “The material that has to be processed in order to extract something like copper is not itself extracted. It may be processed and may be disturbed, but it’s not extracted.”

That’s a load of rubbish. Most copper is mined in open pits, like the giant Escondida mine in Chile. This is how 90% of the world’s copper is mined..

https://www.google.com/maps/place/BHP Minera Escondida/@-24.2782718,-69.0750117,9516m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x96a5f98787b698d9:0x6f12b4f3fe321ffa!8m2!3d-24.270757!4d-69.0718966!16s/m/0vpxb9w?entry=ttu

Have a good look at the waste dumps that are separate from the tailings dams. The waste dumps are where the rock that surrounds the ore body goes to. It is blasted, dug, then moved.

All this to gain access to the ore body that is also then blasted, moved to stockpile, moved again to ROM pad, crushed, then ground, then has chemicals added like potassium amyl xanthate a highly toxic organosulphur compound that makes the copper sulphide ‘float’ (made mostly from dimethyl sulphide, where the carbon and sulphur comes from fossil fuels). The copper concentrate from the floatation, often 25-35% copper and the rest of the waste gets transported to a smelter.

The remaining ore grade at Escondida, the largest copper mine in the world, is around 0.59% for the massive sulphide ore body, the largest in the world. The strip ratio is 1.7:1 at Escondida.

BHP and Rio Tinto the major owners of Escondida have been high grading the mine for decades, the actual grade of ore they have been mining is around 0.9-1% copper. Of course using up the higher grade at present, means the average grade left declines.

They, like everyone else leaves the lower grade stuff for later, which will take much more energy to bring the same quantity of copper to the market.

No Nick, it’s not me that is the troll on the peakoilbarrel webpages, it is you who keep dreaming of a bright green future, or nuclear future all based on zero evidence that any of it is possible. All with no understanding the carnage that will happen to our civilization when oil extraction goes into an exponential decline. Mines like Escondida will be abandoned when we don’t have the oil available to extract the copper. The remaining oil will be needed just to try and feed the world’s population during the massive decline as those in charge prioritise trying to keep the masses at bay, instead of bright green lies..

Drill baby drill is of no help to anyone, all it would do is make the collapse happen from a higher level, with a worse climate and ecosphere. If you want any part of modernity to have a chance of surviving then SOMETHING like Jack Alpert’s plan is the only way possible. It’s a plan that gets rejected as totally unacceptable by people like yourself that believe in fairytales..

https://skil.org/position_papers_folder/PlanForUnwindingThePredicament.html

WP … “It is unclear where the author got all the information from that led to the conclusion that non FF’s can save 535x of what we are currently using.”

The 535 times is the 28M tonnes of ‘materials needed’ times 535 to get to 14.98B, close enough to the 15B claimed for fossil fuels use.

The 28 million tonnes doesn’t even go close to the sniff test in being all the materials needed either. Just the concrete bases of all the wind turbines in Australia would go well past the 28 million tonnes mark.

For the whole planet we would need in excess of 28 million tonnes of just copper per annum. Mining an average grade of just 0.4% (we are talking about the future), would need about 270 tonnes of ore. Even with a low strip ratio of 2:1 this would mean blasting, digging and removal of 540 tonnes of material to gain 1 tonne of copper, meaning total material moved of over 15B tonnes just to get access to the copper, let alone everything else.

Going to this document from IEA shows mineral intensity needed for their scenarios.
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions

Scroll down and the part on copper shows 2 methodologies where the mineral intensity relative to 2020 is mentioned for 2040. Copper is around 1.7- 2.7 times 2020 levels, or up to 54M tonnes per annum. How much material would we humans need to blast, dig, and move to gain access to this 54Mt? Just under 30B tonnes, or well in excess of double today, meaning much more energy used to do it. (assuming we can get access to all this copper at a 0.4% grade, it might be lower!!)

What’s actually happening is that we are using lower EROEI fossil fuels to gain access to lower grade metal ores, that are often deeper and have a higher ore hardness index, meaning there is an exponential rise in the energy used to gain the same quantity of metals out of the ground, let alone keep increasing the rate of metal extraction.

The newer mines are on average in more remote locations, meaning higher cost to get equipment to these locations, which is why they were left until last to mine, as they are more expensive, due to higher energy costs. Because they are in remote locations, they totally rely upon fossil fuels, diesel in particular for every aspect of their existence.

The scale of mining needed for the bright green future many people believe in, all of much lower ore grades, increasingly in remote locations, with an exponential rise in the energy needed to do it, all before considering the massive negative effect on the natural environment in these areas, appears to be a blind spot in the thinking.

It’s also not a one off event. At the same time we need to feed a growing population using industrial agricultural methods that also use vast quantities of fossil fuels, all in a world where the very use of fossil fuels is causing massive disruption to the climate which is only going to get a lot worse.

Up thread Nick G accuses me of being drill baby drill, whereas it’s those promoting the bright green future that are in favor of drill baby drill, they just don’t realise it’s what they are promoting, as they have no idea about mining.

I’m in favor, because it’s what the numbers show what we must do, of powering DOWN, less building of everything. We needed massive population control decades ago, we need to rewild a lot of agricultural land, to have an environment we humans are able to live in. We have ignored all the warnings for decades, or centuries if we go back as far as Malthus. We have a belief that technology will save everything, totally blind to the reality it was cheap easy to access energy in the form of fossil fuels that built our modern civilization. Fossil fuels are leaving us, we have mined all the easy to get high quality resources, leaving much lower EROEI resources. Using more energy to gain energy to build renewables is a fool’s errand, making the situation much worse, distracting people from the real problem of massive overshoot.

WEEKENDPEAK … “What would happen though in the theoretical case where all energy required to extract / process the various metals and minerals were provided by renewables?”

Going back a few years I was one of the largest shareholders in a company that owned the rights to the West Musgrave mineral deposit, one of the last known major undeveloped Nickel/Copper deposits in Western Australia. Around the time I was a believer in the green renewable future. As a large shareholder I had access to all the information I could possibly want about the deposit plus all the local wind and solar characteristics of the area from the companies own weather station.

The area of the mine is extremely remote, more than 1,600km from the nearest grid, with only dirt/gravel roads for hundreds of kilometers. It’s very much desert out there, which is precisely why it hasn’t been developed yet.

Try as much as I could, The cost of renewables with the appropriate backup batteries for power, didn’t come close to being economic. You need all the diesel generators no matter how much solar and wind. In fact the current plan (PFS) for the mine is for solar power to operate as much as possible so that the diesel generators use less fuel, but trying to replace the diesel generators with just renewables and batteries makes the mine nowhere near economic.

Without diesel generators, it’s just not economically possible, as these mines run 24/7 all year round. You can’t have expensive fly in fly out staff sitting idle being paid big money, which is an important consideration, just because the wind is not blowing and sun not shining.

At the time solar and wind were being touted as comparable to coal in costs, yet no allowance is ever considered for the intermittency factor. Overcoming the intermittency is the huge cost. I even halved the renewables and battery costs to allow for future price reductions and still couldn’t make the numbers go close to working for the whole mine.

Fully electric dump trucks working off a catenary system doesn’t work on a mine site, as the trucks are changing where they will be going all the time. If it’s waste rock, it goes to location A, until that location gets filled, then the next area is used for waste and so on. If it’s ore it can go to the stockpiles, but it depends on exactly the grade of that truckload of ore, for which stockpile the load goes to.

An ore body is not just one big homogenous body, there are seams of lower and higher grade all over the place. What is mined gets placed into the appropriate grade stockpile, then when the processing happens it is a consistent mix of these different grades, so that the chemical mix of xanthates (floatation chemicals) is appropriate for the exact grade of ore being processed, so maximum recovery for cheapest cost can happen.

If you notice any mine that has some catenary wires for electric trucks, it is the main route up out of the pit only, not beyond. These trucks then switch to diesel for most of trip to wherever, once out of the pit. It saves on fuel if there is a cheap power supply. They are always diesel electric trucks, not ever fully electric dump trucks.
Even with the West Musgrave mine, I was only considering the processing plant, but the numbers just don’t work once batteries are included.

It should be easier than the grid as remote mines use diesel power for everything, which is much more expensive than coal and gas fired power, plus the cost of getting diesel to the remote site greatly increases it’s cost, yet the upfront capital cost of a lot of solar, wind and batteries can more than double the overall capital cost of the entire mine, turning something with a cap cost of a few hundred million into over a billion dollars, just for the processing plant’s electricity requirements. The cost of money then comes into the equation.

Solar on remote mines is used to save a bit of diesel, especially when the government throws in some incentives to do so, plus it looks good for the ESG requirements. However it adds complexity to the operation of the whole system with the diesel generators still running while solar or wind are providing power, in case the output suddenly drops because of clouds etc. A 22Mw ball mill running on suddenly lower power is likely to cause massive heating and damage to expensive equipment, so instant back up power is needed.

My suspicion is most mine managers would prefer to operate without the token solar or wind input that head office demands these days, because of the extra complexity added by another set of machines and connections.

Most people do not have a clue how a mine operates (as in Nick G’s comment up thread), because they have never been to one, nor studied the detail of the operation, so claim with a wave of the hand how easy it is done with renewables, even though there are precisely zero examples of mines running fully off renewables with batteries.

The people running and paying for mining operations are not stupid. If the operation was in any way cheaper to run from renewables and batteries then they would all be doing it.

Weekendpeak, the answer to this question is not as simple as it seems…

“To me the choice is obvious hence my favorite somewhat rhetorical question of “is it better to use a certain quantity of resources to make a F-150 or a stack of solar panels?” The question to that answer in my mind is quite clear.”

The 2 ‘builds’ have different resource and energy requirements to build, so it’s not a matter of one or the other.

Let’s say your answer is build the solar panels. How good is that choice if there is no copper wire? Likewise for the F150, how good is that choice if there’s no fuel or roads?

Everything we build relies upon the rest of the system of modern civilization to operate normally so whatever is built is useful.

What happens if you have your solar panels and find wire after the collapse, but there are no inverters to change the electricity into a form useful for whatever equipment you have to run off electricity?

My answer would be to build neither, save a little of the fossil fuels you would burn to make either, and hopefully the ecosphere is just a tiny little bit better off.

As far as humanity as a whole goes, the most likely scenario is we will burn the fossil fuels to make more of both, but in the long term it wont matter one iota which one was made, as neither will be of any value to anyone in 100 years time.

Humans wont do what’s necessary for the long term survival of some modernity, this being strong population control, like a lottery to have any children, power down to save whatever resources we still have as much as possible, while sending billions of people back to the country for a simple life based on as much self sufficiency as possible, while rewilding as much agricultural land as is possible while the population rapidly declines. (plus a whole lot of other drastic actions)

Because humanity as a whole refuses to look at the massive overshoot predicament we are in, it will be pedal to the metal until it all falls apart, that’s where we are heading. It doesn’t matter what we build with the resources, the burning of fossil fuels to make ‘stuff’ using lower and lower grades of metals, is the predicament we have got ourselves into.

Many decades ago it was a problem that with drastic action we could have solved, but instead we (collectively) chose to go flat out with as much industrialization as possible, until recently when the multitude of predicaments have raised their ugly heads as was always going to happen. Climate, resource depletion, ecosphere damage, massive reduction of insects and wild mammals, ocean fish devastation, pollution etc, take your pick which one has highest priority.

Using resources to build either F150’s or solar panels means your stuck in the mindset that modern civilization will go on in some form or another so all the bits to make either ‘work’, are always available, which means more and more stuff.

We, as in humanity, have been ‘building more’ for over 200 years, none of us can possibly understand a world of ‘less’, it’s beyond our capability of thinking as we, since we were children have always known the world of ‘more’, just like our parents and grandparents, just go to the shop and buy whatever to make the solar panels or F150 ‘work’. Try to think of when there is no ‘stuff to buy” to make either work, what is your choice then??

Another aspect is that so called world reserves of copper by groups like the USGS are often highly inflated. For instance about 66% of Australia’s copper reserves, simply don’t exist. The USGS included all the lower grade resources from the Olympic Dam mine as reserves, when they will never be economical to mine.

OD has over 10B tonnes of copper ore at an average grade of 0.57%, all located between 350m to 1300m deep. What they are mining is the 810Mt of higher grade 1.55% ore with an underground mine. The mined grade has been close to 2% over recent years, but even with this high grading they have continuously lost money on the operation over the last 15 years.
There is no way any of the low grade ore will ever be mined as it’s too energy expensive, and the USGS counting it as a ‘reserve’, is just a joke on humanity. It makes me wonder how much of the rest of the ‘reserves’ claimed for the world are similar junk..

Interesting how there are no comments about these ‘official’ reserve numbers from any of the usual cornucopians.

What it really means is that the amount of energy needed to extract the copper, there are billions of tonnes of very low grade copper, is way higher than most believe. We could probably use all the remaining fossil fuels just to mine copper, and still not have enough bring a modern lifestyle to all of humanity with renewables or nuclear.

We don’t have the minerals nor the useable energy to continue with our current modern lifestyle of the golden billion, for much longer, let alone drag the rest of humanity up to our ‘standards’. (not that there is any real attempt to do so by the ‘west’)

Because people refuse to acknowledge the reality of our predicament, the collective we will just continue ignoring reality until it all falls apart.

Indrajit Samarajiva today.

https://indi.ca/collapse/

We’ve discussed the 6 fronts of ‘Israel’s’ war and the 6 wars America is losing. Now we’ll discuss 6 ways the climate is collapsing. 666. Now we finally meet the final boss. The climate collapse that all other collapses are contained within. The sphere that crushes all cubes into meaninglessness.

The big question is, even if ‘Israel’ manages to win its six-front war, even if ‘America’ manages to win its world war, then what? The whole climate is still collapsing, and even they live in the climate. ‘Israel’s scorched earth policy in Gaza is just a sign of the coming times for everyone, when the whole Earth will scorch.

The meta-crisis is really an entropy crisis which we experience as pollution. Warfare is just the worst sort of pollution, the sort that kills you instantly. In just 120 days, ‘Israel’ and America have produced nearly 300,000 kilotons of carbon unproducing 30,000 people. The full climate impact is likely 7-8x higher, equivalent to a dozen countries just chilling. Millions of tons of metal and other resources have been shipped from all over the world in order to be dumped on children in Palestine. The Gaza Genocide is an absolute orgy of emissions and waste in a climate that simply can’t take anymore.

This grotesque genocide is just the culmination of 400 years of colonialism. It’s no coincidence that the greater White Empire (America, Britain, fuck ’em all) is by far the worst polluter in history. It’s no coincidence that the US military is the single worst polluter now. It’s causal. Colonialism was the cancer that gave corporations private rights to something that isn’t even public. The sun, the land, the animals, the plants; they don’t belong to us. They belong to the gods. They are the gods. The gods of sun, the gods of trees, and the new, apocalyptic, gods who clearly said that the end was coming. You don’t even have to believe the signs anymore. We’re at the destination.

The important but mind-bendy thing to understand is that this isn’t a human problem, with human solutions. We’re not the relevant species here. Natural life (which includes us) is being killed by artificial life (which we are merely included in). We’re just the bacteria inside the guts of higher beings we call corporations or even countries. It is this species of artificial life which is killing the natural world, and we’re just along for the ride, until we get shit out. I call these creatures godlike because just look at the power they have over us. They can kill, cage, and harness us like so much chattel, but there’s one thing they can’t control. That’s the weather. Those are the elder, greater, gods, and they’re not too happy about the upstart idols.

Ever since the first IPO in 1602—ever since corporations were given the right to enslave entire lands, peoples, and skin the animals alive—we have been living a deal with the devil. That’s all corporations are, incarnated devils who give us lots of trinkets and let us take the credit for the the ‘innovation’. Over the last century, all we have really done is take a one-time inheritance from higher beings (the photosynthetic life that became ‘fossil’ fuels) and blow it all on dumb shit. It was always a deal with the devil, and the devil always gets his due in the end. And so it’s ending. As Satan said in The Devil’s Advocate, ‘awfully hot in that boardroom, isn’t it?’

But what does this mean when guns and then gas run out? At some point, they’ll run out of both oil to fight over and oil to fight with. Then what? They’ll lose by default. This final thrashing about is just making the end come faster. The tragic fact is that everyone in the Middle East would just sell America oil, America doesn’t even need the oil (for now), and they’re supposed to be quitting anyways! They could die comfortably in reduced condition but, no, they want to kill everyone else on the way out. Empire doesn’t even know what the fuck it’s doing anymore, it’s just beating people out of pure muscle memory. They ‘came up’ on beating natives to death for their land and they’ll be damned if they change now. So damned they are.

The End of the World

White Empire is not long for the world, because the world is not long for the world. Even if it survives the rebellions of men, it cannot escape the judgement of the gods. If the whole climate is collapses, everything else necessarily collapses too. Like castles in the sand. In a few decades (at best), Empire’s scorched earth policy in Gaza becomes redundant. Any Empire that exists will run out of gas and catch on fire at the same time. Empire loses by default. A victory for no one.

At that point, the land will return to the people that actually care about it, stripped of resources, littered with shrapnel, increasingly underwater and uninhabitable. God said the meek will inherit the earth, but he didn’t say what condition it would be in. Mother Earth herself will be a martyr in this war. The best her living family can hope for is a decent burial.

Dr. Joe Lee is speaking live now.

https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1OyKAWbmZwrJb?s=20

I’m fed up with these average doctors who don’t know anything like Dr. McCullough that are grifting their social media fame.

RFK Jr. is using children to meet his political goals and ambitions.

My conspiracy theory is China created a big problem with its one child policy. They don’t have enough young people today to support their elderly. China decided to release a virus to kill their elderly. A secondary objective was to cause lock-downs in the US so ballots could be stuffed to elect Biden who supports China.

Hmmm.. If true, why export young males via the Darien gap? One-child policy created too many males?

Lots of crazies on the call. Covid is a magnet to crazies. Guess that explains why I used to think anti-vaxxers were crazy.

Lee is brutal with crazy/dim people. Doesn’t let them speak.

Call descended into left/right political bullshit.

Rintrah’s thinking that one thing we could do at scale to reduce mRNA damage to immune systems is to use Cannabinoids.

https://www.rintrah.nl/why-people-are-now-constantly-sick-all-the-time/#comment-11566

Michael:

My paranoia saved my ass. I am grateful for guys like you. The outlook is grim.

What can be done besides B-Cell removal? Is broad band CBD an option?

Rintrah:

I’ve been thinking in the same direction.

So far, I have seen just one option, that seems like a suitable candidate that could help repair the balance of lymphocyte populations in the lungs: Vaporized cannabis. THC is known to stimulate apoptosis of T cells and prevents dendritic cells from stimulating their proliferation. Cannabis is effectively used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, as well as experimentally induced autoimmune encephalitis, by shutting down the activity of B cells and T cells and preventing migration of T cells into the brain.

Importantly, we know that cannabinoids reduce NK cell activity too, without killing them. However we also see that the terpenes found in cannabis, like alpha-Pinene, actually stimulate the NK cells to do their job, in addition to being directly antiviral themselves.

Cannabinoids are part of a natural immune modulation therapy, discouraging excessive activity by the adaptive immune system, while the terpenes in cannabis simultaneously fill the hole left by shutting down the activity of the adaptive immune system. We have known for a long time that the cannabis plant is very effective in helping to treat numerous autoimmune disorders.

It’s really the only thing I can think of that could be implemented at scale.

Hideaway would add to Berman’s analysis that nuclear is even more expensive than wind & solar.

https://www.artberman.com/blog/renewables-are-not-the-cheapest-form-of-power/

Germany provides a case history as the western country that has most aggressively pursued wind and solar capacity. Renewable energy cost for German producers and consumers has steadily increased as electric power market share has expanded.

Some might argue that the price increase in 2022 in Figure 2 was because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and reduced natural gas supply to Europe as a result. That is true but it’s also the way that energy markets work. Higher marginal costs along the energy supply chain increase prices for the entire system. That also will get worse with greater renewable market penetration.

Nuclear die-hards will now predictably begin their Greek chorus that more atomic energy is the only answer. That’s a reality-blind dream because nuclear plants cannot be scaled fast enough to move the needle.

Total nuclear generation is expected to increase from 2,682 TWh (Terrawatt hours) in 2022 to 4,353 TWh by 2050 (Figure 3). That’s an 8% drop in bucket compared to the 54,000 TWh of projected electric power generation in 2050.

Doubling the number of plants completed in 2022 every year for the next 27 years would increase nuclear to only 16% of total electric power generation. That’s unlikely to happen.

The unavoidable intermittency of electric power supply from wind and solar cannot be overcome without increasing cost. Backup and storage expenses must necessarily grow as renewable market penetration increases.

It seems that Patrick Pouyanné may be right. Renewables are not the cheapest form of electric power. The renewable transition will probably mean higher—not lower—energy prices.

Everything has a price. The idea that we can reverse climate change and planetary overshoot without some trauma for society is just magical thinking.

Almost none of the influential covid dissidents have embraced string theory, nor have they explained why it is wrong.

Are they all blocked by big egos and Lee’s abrasive personality?

Or could it be the dissidents don’t want to kill mRNA if that means traditional vaccines will also have to be withdrawn?

Before covid I remember being certain that anti-vaxxers were crazy people and wanted nothing to do with them.

Then I learned that everything our leaders and health professionals said about covid and mRNA was exactly opposite of correct, and they killed and harmed millions of people with unethical and unscientific policies.

Now I don’t believe a word they say about anything, including that traditional vaccines are safe and effective.

I say burn it all down and start over with new people that have good ethics and sound scientific skills.

Here is the latest interview with Dr. Joe Lee from a few days ago.

https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/precipitins

Precipitins

What if this hypothesis is proven to be correct?

This article is a discussion of a hypothesis that MAY explain a number of previously unexplained phenomena.

It is a fundamental principle of immunology that when antibodies (Ab) are in the presence of antigens (Ag), the antibody-antigen complex can form cross-links and become large enough to precipitate out of solution.

These are commonly referred to as “precipitins.”

Is it possible that immune complexes (spike protein + antibodies) can form on the lining of arteries? Is it likely? Is it almost a certainty?

Is it possible that these immune complexes can trigger a cascade of events involving platelets, fibrin (and possibly amyloid protein) that results in the creation of the white, elastic structures that embalmers have been finding in 20-30% of the bodies of the deceased ever since the COVID-19 jabs started to be administered?

Is it possible that smaller “precipitins” can form throughout the body and cause a multitude of diseases?

The scientific method demands scrutiny and discussion of this phenomena and the hypothesis that may explain it.

Post your ideas, opinions, constructive criticisms and/or supportive evidence in the comment section below…

Please watch the entire video below…
(Yes, I know that the video is 2 hours long. Please watch it anyway, it’s important!)

https://rumble.com/v4cdtsx-precipitins.html

Much more detail on Dr. Lee’s string theory is provided at the above link.

Dr. Tom Murphy today.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/02/sustainable-timescales/

EVENT TIME
Big Bang 13.8 Gyr
Sun/Earth Formation 4.6 Gyr
First Biology 3.7–4.2 Gyr
Cambrian Explosion 540 Myr
Last Mass Extinction 65 Myr
First Apes 20 Myr
Homo Genus (Humans) 2.5 Myr
Homo Sapiens 300 kyr
Anatomically Modern Humans 150 kyr
Agricultural Revolution 10 kyr
Writing, Cities 5 kyr
Modern Science 400 yr
Fossil Fuels 150 yr
Bulk of Ecological Destruction 50 yr

Unsustainable outcomes can be accomplished arbitrarily quickly—think: global nuclear warfare. Sustainability, on the other hand, necessarily concerns itself with far-future outcomes. No species has ever had to deliberately consider such distant time horizons, but no other species has had the capacity to enact such rapid and grossly unsustainable practices as we witness today. Will our intelligence prove to be too much of a “good” thing and turn us into evolution’s deadliest blunder, or will at least some of us learn to tuck back into our family, no longer hubristic enough to play at being gods?

Good overview of the Eurodollar system and its history which underpins the US reserve currency, and why the Chinese yuan will never replace it.

Jeff Snider thinks a digital currency is the only possible replacement candidate. Which I think means when extreme debt causes the US dollar to hyperinflate, causing the real economy and it’s grids to collapse, there will be no replacement, and global trade will drop to a fraction of today.

B today explains entropy and why reuse is much better than recycling.

https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/the-arrow-of-time

So, can recycling and “renewables” save the day, the economy, or at least the climate? Those who paid attention so far are now shouting at the top of their lungs: no! Of course not. Viewed through the lens of physics, recycling is just another material transformation, inevitably increasing entropy and thus the pollution load of the environment, by releasing toxic fumes, contaminated waste water, and using up a tremendous amount of energy — only to turn all of it into waste heat. Besides, it also uses a limited resource: the amount of stuff already in circulation. Something, which could only shrink with every round of recycling.

You see, entropy is the reason why it is a much better idea to reuse and repurpose a product instead of recycling it, and why the idea of a circular economy powered by “renewables” directly violates the second law of thermodynamics. Since according to this law, overall entropy must increase with every round of recycling, we will always lose a certain percentage of the material (much like “the devil’s cut”), and a tremendous amount of energy in the process — none of which can be replaced by using “renewable” energy. Thus the only question remaining is this: ‘Which one will run out first: the high quality energy needed to do recycling, or the material left to be recycled?’ Based on the data I see, my strong sense is, that we will run out of the necessary high quality energy first, and more than 90% of our material wealth will be left to rust in place. Taken to its logical conclusion, and fast forward a million years, the relentless increase in entropy will eventually turn all our high tech infrastructure into a thin sliver of rock strata, covered with an immense amount of sediment. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

We are living in truly pivotal times. A sea change in material and energy use is coming, something, which will wash away our current lifestyle completely, yet it will take decades to fully unfold. Combined with all the negative side effects of increased entropy, like an accelerating climate change, the accumulation of toxic chemicals, or a rapid degradation of our ecosystems, humanity is facing its biggest challenge yet. And what do we get? Magical thinking and proclamations, flying face-first against the laws of thermodynamics.