A tri-fecta of recent common sense from three energy experts... and a humorous bonus video.

Take a good look at the mineral requirements needed to meet the green being legislated... money does not equal success.  Quiz question 1: How many tons of ore need to be processed per 1000lb battery pack?  Quiz question 2: If we never put a battery in a car, but rather put an appropriate sized battery in a house, how many tons of carbon could be saved?  (Trick question: 4 tons per house, 4 houses per EV car.  If you left the battery in the car, about 1 ton/yr/car.  ) Cars after all are responsible for 8% of the worlds carbon emissions.  That's right EIGHT percent.  If you really care about the theory of climate change (sketchy as to if humans could ever control it) you should be putting your efforts into off-gridding as many households as possible.  OOPS, what about all those meters on the side of all those houses?  Hmmmm, stupid is as stupid does - I'm afraid.  8X the reduction in carbon emissions if you off grid homes and NEVER build EV's. So why aren't we doing that?  Where's the energy policy that truly looks out for this reality?  

More common sense, important to grasp that green = profits for your solution which may not be anywhere near correct.  Monetized, tidy spreadsheets that make you feel good.  But don't work and will leave billions in search of a real solution in just one generation.

So in my little corner of the net,  here are some (in my opinion) clear doses of reality that hopefully will help all understand what changes are coming.  Why they are impacting us, and what reality is which is VERY different than the mass media narrative.  

Humor, with facts delivered with some rough language.  

Physics will win regardless of what the politicians and bankers decide to legislate and the talking heads blather on about.  Physics, much like a honey badger, doesn't care about profits.  

A footnote to consider...

None of this technology seems to pass an elementary feasibility test (if you are honest about it) however, as a scheme to shuffle investments about it has merit.  If you do manage to see that big battery factory on the hill, the dangerous nature of the run away thermal characteristics don't just make spectacular fires. Indeed, the off gasses contain enough poison to wipe out a major city.  That with declining ore quality makes energy in / energy out approach infinity - lol.  If you are here to enjoy my pics, maybe read my wandering prose on energy or torsional vibes or whatever... have a look at the footnote too.  

AML NLO, JRO and SEO AML. 

Saudi Arabian proverb: “My grandfather rode a camel, my father drove a car, I fly a jet plane, my son will ride a camel.”

 A bit dated, but still a wonderful set of writings on THE subject of our times...

Human Future

Mineral Depletion

Roper, and so many others have looked at the obvious and tried to awaken the casual observer and the able influencer.  The problem in my opinion is more political abetted by faulty economic theory.  If you consider the non-linearities of discovery, use and depletion, economic growth is absolutely incompatible with how the world works.  

Zero growth and sustainable processes are the only natural schemas in nature that provide anything that looks like stasis.  Making money out of managing money, underwriting development with the promise to provide interest payments to investors are examples of how economics is incompatible with the world.

I've said "physics always wins" and it will.  If you model the system equations by various modifications used in the "Limits to Growth" you can observe for yourself how non-linear results are achieved by business as usual thinking.  

Roper brings an interesting treatment of re-cycling.  The notion that minerals and metals with poorer and poorer concentrations can be refined and used or can never be exhausted because of recycling is obviously incorrect although one can acquire and extend resources that you don't have by adopting re-cycling.  For example if you import a lot of Lithium Ion batteries ostensibly to use and then capture the materials in your own re-cycling effort you can achieve aggregation of those materials.  But an energy analysis of all of the system inputs is not very encouraging.  That is if you also contain pollution.  If you don't consider that in your calculation things look more profitable. But that's based on our flawed economic growth based theories.  

A locally produced and consumed hydrogen energy based economy seems much closer to a stasis maintaining approach, but there are few opportunities to monetize this energy strategy.  IE if you want a real re-set, hydrogen is the obvious way to go in my humble opinion.  Economists and bankers wouldn'i warm up to this - at least until it got cold and dark...  LOL, but I digress.  

There are more important things than making money when it comes to heading off a crises.  Perhaps economic evolution in thought can be merged with sustainable regional models to create a better way.  We need thought leaders to show up pretty soon on this matter!

Anyhow, please treat yourself to a perusal through Dr Roper's work.  He has some wisdom to share even if it's a bit dated.  His view on depletion extends to minerals and metals and his recycling models are fascinating learnings.  These problems won't go away.

Don't forget this oldy either...

Rickover (1957)

Nothing new about any of this, except how solutions are currently being described, what top down change is attributed to and how contemporary schemes are put into action without ever mentioning the word - depletion.  

AML NLO, JRO ans SEO AML