I love framing things. This helps me see the world more clearly, and have a shot at accurately “predicting” the future.
I put predicting in quotes, because it’s not really predicting, but rather seeing the direction of things and extrapolating from there. I think this is what George Orwell, et al., did. They simply understood the initial conditions (i.e. human nature) and then carried on traveling in the direction that was already set in motion.
In this episode you’ll learn about how to put on a pair of “energy goggles” and see the world as it really is, just like Neo in The Matrix when he could finally see the green dripping source code.
Energy is everything. Literally everything that makes all of our lives what they are.
Very eye opening about the energy consumed to bring my steak to the grocery store! I never considered the amount of refrigeration that we require to eat our diet. Refrigeration revolutionized life — I’d hate to go back to the days without it. Looks like I’m going to have to learn how to can meat, not just veggies. That will take more energy too. ?
Battery based Haul Trucks are in development.
Mines are buying them for political correctness, rather than practicality.
Get yourself a few subscription to Coal Age Magazine.
For 22 years I designed the electronics that ran Longwall machines. I’ve been in a lot of mines.
Hi @198472 . If you didn’t already figure it out, go to the top of the page and click on the Membership link and sign up for one of the memberships available. Both of them will give you access to part 2 of any of Chris’ talks plus a lot more.
@ @58872 if you haven’t already found it and you are a member you can see the link to it on the homepage if you are logged in and a member. If not, you’ll want to go to the top of the page and click on the Membership link and join the tribe. Then when you login you will see the link to the second part of this and other talks that Chris has given.
@197823 you will love canned meat. It is much easier than I thought it would be to can meat and it is delicious. You are correct that it takes more energy, but at least it is something we could do over a wood stove if we had to.
My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour……> https://www.pay.salary49.com
I Met A Representative Of This Company That Claims To Have Nearly 99% Recycling Of Plastic Into Pure Diesel, Methane, And Carbon
** I have no affliation with this company, I just think that they have a novel solution that has not been tried before **
The company is called Technology Transfer Labs
Here is the details from their website:
The thermo-chemical decomposition technology (TCM) differs from the commonly known pyrolysis. The Plastics Power Plant operates on only electricity during its entire operation; it does not use gas to break down plastic. The heat required for decomposition is provided by the self-developed “Super Heater” electric heating system. Mixed plastic waste is converted into storable energy carriers and then into electricity in a closed (anaerobic) system using thermo-chemical decomposition.
Vision
We help the environment by turning plastic waste into feedstock and electricity. We are a global leader in plastic molecular recycling and the worldwide distributor of this technology. We support local economies by creating employment opportunities.
Our patented, zero-emission technology
Converts mixed industrial and household plastic waste (polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, polystyrene, polyamide, PVC and ABS) into three types of feedstock: 70% oil, 22% gas and 8% solid carbon. Our business model proposes three different paths to utilize the feedstock: 1) establishment of a circular plastic economy, 2) generation of electricity, 3) production of eco-conscious.
They have full scale working facilities in Europe and are looking to come to USA.
What do you think @16
What do I think? I think about where the feedstock for that process comes from as a first order of business.
Then I think about the conversion efficiency which is, axiomatically, less than 100%.
Finally, I put on my energy goggles to discern that this is a downstream energy diversion program that does nothing to address the fact that the source of energy for the entire project is … oil.
So, it’s a possibly more efficient means of disposing of plastic waste, which may be a positive in several ways, but it does nothing to address the dwindling of energy resources.
“Renewable diesel” makes me snort a bit. It’s too easy to see through the scam:
"The first trial was conducted through 2022 in partnership with Neste and Rolls-Royce. Rio Tinto U.S. Borax used Neste MY Renewable Diesel, a Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) made from raw materials such as used cooking oil and animal fat from food industry waste. Results showed that a truck running on renewable diesel delivered similar performance and reliability as trucks running on conventional diesel."
Uh huh.
First question for the promoters of "renewable diesel": "Can you tell me how the cooking oil came to be and whether or not any diesel, gasoline or petrochemicals were involved?"
Second question: "Is diverting the used cooking oil to mining operations the best use of that important feedstock and wouldn't it have been used elsewhere by someone anyway meaning that these efforts will simply displace the diesel consumption to a different location?"
A rapid reduction in fossil fuels, essential to avoid devastating climate breakdown, would have minimal financial impact on the vast majority of people, new research has shown.
Urgently cutting back on fossil fuel production is essential to avoid the worst impacts of climate breakdown and the economic and social turmoil that would ensue. However, some opponents of climate action claim it is too expensive. They argue that rapidly scaling back fossil fuel production would leave billions of pounds of “stranded assets”, leading to an economic slump that would impoverish the public through a fall in the value of savings and pension funds.
Research published on Thursday finds that the loss of fossil fuel assets would have a minimal impact on the general public.
“We find that the bulk of financial losses associated with rotten, polluting assets is borne by the wealthy,” said the co-author Lucas Chancel, a professor of economics at Sciences Po in Paris. “Only a small share of financial losses is borne by the working and middle class because they have no or relatively little financial wealth.”
The study, published in the journal Joule, found that in high-income countries two-thirds of the financial losses would be borne by the most affluent 10%. In contrast, governments could easily compensate for the minimal impact on those on middle and lower levels of wealth.
Chancel said: “These latter groups have nothing to fear from rapid action, in particular if governments decide to compensate for their losses, which can be done at relatively low cost.”
The study found that in the US, two-thirds of the financial losses from lost fossil fuel assets would affect the top 10% of wealth holders, with half of that affecting the top 1%.
Because the wealthiest people tend to have a “diverse portfolio of investments”, it found, any losses would still make up less than 1% of this group’s net wealth.
The arguments here are so moronic that I struggle to understand how anybody could make them and not immediately be corrected by their fellow colleagues before they ever saw the light of day.
The argument, such as it is, is that cutting back on fossil fuels would only impact financial instruments, and because those are held by the very wealthy more than the poor, the poor would not suffer any consequences.
*sigh*
The argument then wobbles about in the ditch by claiming that any losses that do materialize can be made up by "government compensation."
Double lol.
I....hardly know where to begin, and so I shant. My work and that of many others, as well as a modicum of common sense, quickly reveals that all prosperity is a direct result of surplus net energy, and all the rest are derivative products.
The poor deluded professor of economics could benefit from spending a bit of time understanding that what he is certain is wealth (cash, stocks, and bonds) are merely claims on real wealth. And that real wealth comes from the earth and that takes both human effort and energy resources to accomplish.
Instead, I will simply put this here as a reminder (or warning) that there are plenty of people out there who think the same things as Professor Lucas Chancel and that's a problem.
I have neighbors and friends who installed grid tie solar around 18 years ago. Their Net Zero contracts will expire in a couple more years, They all pay zero to very little for their electric bills. The way I read it, they were guaranteed a higher price per Kw hour for the life of the contract. They all only paid a bit less than half the installation price, with the other half subsidized. We’ll see what the new price is when the contracts expire.That said, I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be a good idea to delve into installing solar while the resources are still available and affordable, and while .gov is in max subsidize mode?