diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

"The Economics Just Don't Work": Demand For Electric Semis Plunges Due To High Costs​

For the last year, we've been writing extensively about how high costs and low demand have made EVs uneconomical - and, as a result, unpopular to produce - for the auto industry.

It turns out unionized employees extorting you on labor costs while the government mandates you produce a money-losing product isn't a combination that leads to prosperity and profit. Go figure.

Now, it isn't just car manufacturers that are balking from the idea of all electric vehicles: the trucking industry, once expected to eventually make the shift to all electric as well, is seeing tepid demand for new rigs, according to a new Wall Street Journal article.

“The economics just don’t work for most companies,” Robert Sanchez, the chief executive of Ryder, said earlier this month.

Ryder’s experience highlights the difficulties state and federal governments encounter in encouraging truckers to transition from polluting diesel rigs to zero-emissions vehicles, the report says.

It also indicates that significant improvements in battery weight, range, and charging times are necessary for battery-electric trucks to effectively compete with diesel rigs in the cost-sensitive freight industry.

Rakesh Aneja, head of eMobility at Daimler Truck North America, told Wall Street Journal: “Quite frankly, demand has not been as strong as what we would like.”

Aneja said orders for its Freightliner eCascadia battery-electric semi truck are about the same this year as they were in 2023.

Battery-electric trucks are about three times more expensive than diesel rigs, the Journal notes. And while federal and state programs help offset purchase costs, significant hurdles remain due to high operating costs and setup challenges.

Truckers find these electric trucks difficult and costly to run, with installation of on-site charging facilities taking years. These trucks travel less than half the distance of diesel rigs per charge and require several hours to recharge.

Ryder launched a service a year ago to assist companies in setting up and maintaining battery-powered fleets. So far, it has sold only 60 vehicles, mostly light-duty trucks. Three companies use five battery-electric heavy-duty trucks, but only within yards for shuttling trailers.

Sanchez noted that unlike individual electric car buyers, companies will only switch to battery-electric trucks when they can compete with diesel on operational costs.

The cost of changing a fleet over is also expensive. Using data from 13,000 vehicles, Ryder analyzed the annual operating expenses of battery-electric commercial trucks and found they are significantly higher than those of diesel rigs. The analysis, assuming existing fast-charging infrastructure, considered costs like vehicle purchase, maintenance, labor, and fuel.

Ryder found that light-duty battery-electric vans increase annual operating costs by several percentage points, with the gap widening for heavier trucks. Operating battery-electric big rigs costs about twice as much annually as diesel trucks.

In California, converting a fleet of 25 commercial vehicles, including 10 heavy-duty trucks, from diesel to battery power would raise annual operating costs by 56%, or $3.4 million. In Georgia, the increase would be 67%, or $3.7 million. Ryder stated that these higher costs would add 0.5% to 1% to inflation.

The American Trucking Associations said of the U.S. EPA's new rules mandating more BEV semi truck sales by the end of the decade: “Considering that 96% of U.S. trucking companies operate 10 or fewer trucks, these mandates are simply cost-prohibitive for most truckers.”
 

BBC Comes to Terms With Collapsing EV Market​

The BBC is confronting the possibility that the once promising surge in sales of EVs is going flat. Naturally, this is starting to cause a panic because all those pesky climate targets enshrined in law aren’t going to be met. Range anxiety and costs are the two most serious obstacles.

Only cheap EVs will plug the gap but the tidal wave of lower-cost Chinese imports will wreck domestic manufacturers, and the only solution to that on the table is tariffs. Here’s the story:

Buoyant electric car sales are a must if we’re to hit our climate targets. But EV sales in the West are down and if governments want them to recover it may have to be at the expense of their own economies.
By 2035, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says there will need to be 790 million EVs if we’re to hit Net Zero by the middle of the century.
That implies growth in sales of 27% every single year.
China’s largest EV manufacturer BYD has been vying with Tesla for the number-one spot. BYD also saw a slowdown between January and March.
And EV sales in Europe fell more than 10% year-on-year in the final quarter of last year – although in the U.K. total sales are running up on last year.
That’s why the fact that global sales of the world’s largest EV maker, Tesla, were actually lower in the first quarter of 2024 than in the same period in 2023 has raised eyebrows.
In the U.K., analysts say strong EV sales in recent years were fuelled by company car purchases, thanks to generous tax breaks.
But the household market is proving a tougher nut to crack, with people saying they are mostly put off by the high cost. The average price of a new EV in the US is over $60,000 (£47,433). Prices are similarly high in Europe and the U.K.
Large state subsidies and greater production efficiencies mean the average cost to a Chinese consumer is just $30,000. And BYD’s Seagull hatchback sells for less than $10,000.
China is also making massively more EVs than its domestic market needs – it could easily flood the U.S. and European markets with cheap cars if they weren’t held back by tariffs.
Here is the dilemma for European and U.S. politicians. They want cheaper EVs to facilitate the climate transition, but not at the cost of undermining their own car manufacturers – the likes of Ford and Volkswagen – and local jobs.
In fact, the talk is actually of raising tariffs and other trade barriers on imports to keep out ultra-competitive Chinese EVs.
That’s precisely what U.S. President Joe Biden did this week with a new 100% tariff on Chinese EV imports.
Apparently, the hope is that second hand sales will expand the use of EVs. But as any reader of this website knows, the unlikely prospect of there being any secondhand market in EVs at all is a whole other story. EVs are set to be one-owner commodities, like a washing machine or vacuum cleaner.

If prices of new EVs stay where they are then there is a rocky road ahead:

If that happens, expect that tension between the desire of Western governments to decarbonise transport and their desire to protect domestic manufacturing champions to grow even more acute.
At some stage they might be forced to choose.
Well, who could possibly have anticipated that? Worth reading in full.
 
now take "climate change" and substitute "Santa Claus". exact same make believe trash.
nothing new about that thinking.
Capture531.PNG

world war III can have no bullets or booms if we all pitch in.
Capture527.PNG
 
Last edited:
3rd day of heat advisory - extended for all of South Florida
Opinion: Seems to be a great deal of surprise in my northern neighbors that it's happening in May (they usually don't see heat advisories until July). Yesterday the heat index here peaked at 120.7°F. That means we beat the New Deli heat wave that made national news!

Cities look for new ways to keep people safe — and alive — as extreme summer heat looms
Nationally, heat kills more people than any other extreme weather event; it’s often referred to as a “silent killer”

La Niña could lead to above-normal temperatures across the U.S. in summer 2024

Thunderstorms, Wind and Climate Change: Here’s What to Know
The severe storms that swept through Houston and the Gulf Coast on Thursday left all the destructive traces of a hurricane, yet they didn’t blow in from the tropics.

Fossil Fuel Companies expanding with >700 billion in loans

Economic damage from climate change six times worse than thought
A 1C increase in global temperature leads to a 12% decline in world gross domestic product (GDP), the researchers found
Opinion: Seems odd, I'll see if I can find and dig into the assumptions in the paper.
Update: Found the paper, it's a future project not past and hasn't been peer-reviewed and the margins of error run to 25%. So probably best to wait to see if other experts concur or shred them. China seemed to a "winner" with a growing GDP. A lot of the projection is based on "social "costs, so who knows. Didn't see any counter based on automation advances, so I suspect the analysis is more of "if nothing changed" rather than attempting to be an accurate prediction.

What does Florida's HB 1645, Energy Resources, do?
HB 1645, which passed largely along party lines, does the following:
  1. Promotes natural gas use, relaxes regulation on building natural gas pipelines within the state, requiring state certification and coordinated permitting only of pipelines 100 miles or longer, rather than the current 15-mile standard.
  2. Removes mentions of "climate change," "greenhouse gas emissions," "climate-friendly" and similar language and removes any emphasis on renewable energy resources from multiple Florida statutes, including the state's energy policy, and aims the state's energy goals at developing more fossil fuels.
  3. Prevents local governments from approving any energy policy restrictions.
  4. Bans the construction of offshore wind turbines or wind energy facilities within a mile of the coast
  5. Removes requirement for state agencies, local governments to select vehicles for the greatest fuel efficiency available and for government agencies to hold conferences and meetings at hotels certified by the state’s environmental agency as "green lodging."
  6. Requires rural electrical cooperatives to create mutual aid agreements with public utilities or private contractors to restore power more quickly after a natural disaster or lose state financial assistance.
  7. Requires the Public Service Commission to develop plans to assess the state's power grid and natural gas facilities against physical threats and cyber attack, and investigate the feasibility of increased use of nuclear power in the state and hydrogen as a transportation fuel.
Opinion: Or in political-speak, it's probably about his presidential bid for the 2028 election.

Republicans are trying to snuff out climate embers around the country

ESS 10x cheaper than Lithium
Opinion: No phase change, so like other mass systems it's going to have a size issue.

Tesla wins approval for second Gigafactory in Germany - protesters plot revenge

Comments on Global Warming Acceleration, Sulfur Emissions, Observations
Global temperature is likely to continue to rise a bit for at least a month, peak this summer, and then decline as the El Nino fades toward La Nina.
Confidence in global warming acceleration thus exceeds 99%
 
Last edited:
Discussion

My impression of the speakers at this meeting is that they were desperately trying to make the point that the transmission challenges for the Climate Act mandates and schedule were impossible goals without actually saying that. I believe that all the technical people who really understand the electric grid in the DPS, NYISO and the electric companies are being held hostage to the political narrative that “All is well”. That did not work out for Kevin Bacon in Animal House and it won’t work out here either.

This overview of the transmission challenges for an electric grid that relies on renewable energy is a useful overview for any jurisdiction thinking about the transition away from fossil fuels. While it may not be necessary to develop and deploy a not yet commercially available technology like the generation sector to make this all work there still are inverter-based resource integration issues that need to be resolved.

In my opinion the bigger problem is the scale of the transmission upgrades and additions needed. New York has already committed $6 billion to start “unbottling” renewable resources which is code in New York for Upstate utilities paying for support for New York City access to renewables. New York also has plans for three major bulk transmission projects to get hydroelectric power from Quebec, another to collect the energy from part of Upstate to New York City, and the third to start the process of connecting the expected 9 GW of offshore wind into the grid. Nobody has admitted to the total costs.

The other New York problem that I suspect is common elsewhere is that the politicians who enacted these net-zero laws were more concerned with the optics of aspirational timelines and not the feasibility of those schedules. A question about longer planning processes planning and deployment timing made the point that the NYISO resource adequacy process that identifies specific need for transmission development, the New York’s de-regulated market process to propose, bid, and choose the development, and the project planning, permitting, and construction plan development which all need to be completed before construction can begin takes a lot of time. Reading between the lines all the speakers are highly skeptical that the artificial deadlines of the Climate Act can be achieved.

One final point not addressed in the webinar but certainly affecting the viability of New York’s energy transition goal is the decarbonization of heating and transportation. That is going to require a complete rewiring of the distribution network.

Conclusion


Francis Menton’s recent article on the Green Energy Wall concluded that something has to give with these energy transition policies. The magnitude, costs, and technical challenges of the generation and transmission electric grid transition ensure that that there is no question that New York will hit that wall. The only question is when New York’s crash dummies will hit it.
 

Twelve Reasons Why I Don’t Believe There’s a Climate Emergency​


  1. Looking back through history, there have always been doomsday prophets, folk who say the world is coming to an end. Are modern-day activists not just the current version of this?
  2. I look at some of the facts – CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere; humans are responsible for just 3% of CO2; Britain is responsible for just 1% of the world’s CO2 output – and I think “really“? Will us de-carbonising really make a difference to the Earth’s climate?
  3. I have listened to some top scientists who say CO2 does not drive global warming; that CO2 in the atmosphere is a good or vital thing; that many other things, like the Sun and the clouds and the oceans, are more responsible for the Earth’s temperature.
  4. I note that most of the loudest climate activists are socialists and on the Left. Are they not just using this movement to push their dreams of a deindustrialised socialist utopia? And I also note the crossover between green activists and BLM ones, gender ones, pro-Hamas ones, none of whom I like or agree with.
  5. As an amateur psychologist, I know that humans are susceptible to manias. I also know that humans tend to focus on tiny slivers of time and on tiny slivers of geographical place when forming ideas and opinions. We are also extremely malleable and easily fooled, as was demonstrated in 2020 and 2021.
  6. I have looked into the implications of Net Zero. It is incredibly expensive. It will vastly reduce living standards and hinder economic growth. I don’t think that’s a good thing. I know that economic growth has led to higher living standards, which has made people both safer and more environmentally aware.
  7. Net Zero will also lead to significant diminishment of personal freedom, and it even threatens democracy, as people are told they must do certain things and they must not do other things, and they may even be restricted in speaking out on climate matters.
  8. What will be the worst things that will happen if the doomsayers are correct? A rise in temperature? Where? Siberia? Singapore? Stockholm? What is the ideal temperature? For how long? Will this utopia be forever maintained? I’m suspicious of utopias; the communists sought utopias.
  9. If one consequence of climate change is rising sea levels, would it not be better to spend money building more sea defences to protect our land? Like the Dutch did.
  10. It’s a narrative heavily pushed by the Guardian. I dislike the Guardian. I believe it’s been wrong on most issues through my life – socialism, immigration, race, the EU, gender, lockdowns and so on. Probably it’s wrong about climate issues too?
  11. I am suspicious of the amount of money that green activists and subsidised green industries make. And 40 years ago the greenies were saying the Earth was going to get too cold. Much of what they said would happen by now has not happened. Also, I trust ‘experts’ much less now, after they lied about the efficacy of lockdowns, masks and the ‘vaccines’.
  12. I like sunshine. I prefer being warm to being cold. It makes me feel better. It’s more fun. It saves on heating bills. It saves on clothes. It makes people happier. Far few people die of the heat than they do the cold.
 

Climate Comedy​

IMG_7153.jpg
 
Twelve Reasons Why I Don’t Believe There’s a Climate Emergency
aenyc, while I enjoy your list, something seems missing. look at the trend line of the graph below, keep in mind
the values are in billions of metric tons :oops: and increasing at a rate that in IMO is not going to end well for anyone.

I'm sure that would have no long term effects on the health of the earth/us 🤪

Capture518.PNG
 
being a older RINO I've learned the many uses for wars, but being a human I hate the cost
in young human life, WW3 which is now a thing is a war I can get behind, all the countries
of the world are our allies in this one, while the enemy is human hubris and greed.

Capture518.PNG

IMO ford making EV's not tanks is a win/win, dresser rand company making wind turbine
generators not torpedo denotators is a win/win.


Capture532.PNG535.png
 
Last edited:
How much is net zero? When I google I see every price under the sun...
The reason for the different prices are there's no one plan, and the pricing depends on the plan of action. Each country (or state) can also have special needs (e.g., solar might not work well for Alaska). Certainly the anti-climate change rhetoric picks the most expensive plans whereas the Greens go the other way. Neither typically give you all the fine details.

Master Plan 3 is fairly comprehensive and released last year, it puts the price at $10T spread over ~30 years. That plan is interesting as takes advantage of synergies which other plans don't. The WEF is on the high end and says $3.5 trillion a year globally to 2050.

The cost is frequently pointed to by deniers, but really it's a silly argument to say I don't believe it because it costs to much.
If climate change is true, then we have to pay it or suffer the consequences of in-action. But a price tag is a reason to be willful, not as proof of reality.

The numbers sound like a lot... but typically it's given as a global cost. For example, the WEF plan is about $435/person/year or $1.19/day. A cup of coffee costs $4.90, so yeah, we're arguing about a 1/4 cup of coffee a day Vs. the health of the world and to avoid a crisis of epic propotions

Finally, those are not new costs. It's costs we were going to pay that anyway. For example, over the next 30 years most coal and natural gas power plants will hit their end-of-life and need replacements. If they're replaced with renewables/ESS that have the same or lower LCOE, then we actually saved money in the long run.

The longer we delay the more it costs us. For example, the graph to the right shows how severe weather has been increasing, and so has the repair bill. $600 Billion last year alone.


 

What Is The Most Pernicious Example Of “Misinformation” Currently Circulating?​



“Misinformation” — It has been one of the most-used buzzwords of the past few years. The “misinformation” label has been applied by advocates on both sides of the political divide in the attempt to discredit their opponents. Numerous assertions that have dominated the news cycle for months or even years have ultimately proven to be completely false, that is, “misinformation.” Examples of such assertions that have been established as “misinformation” include the assertion that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election; the assertion that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian plant; and the assertion that the Covid virus originated in a wet market in Wuhan.

After the thorough discrediting of so many false narratives during these years, there remain plenty of narratives still out there that richly deserve the “misinformation” label. But of those, which is the very worst, the very most pernicious? Here is my candidate: the assertion that the cheapest way to generate electricity today is with wind and solar generators.

I recognize that there are many candidates for the title of the worst of all misinformation, and we are dealing here with a very crowded field. Numerous other endlessly-repeated false assertions contend for the title, many of them having very large real-world consequences. For example, other serious contenders for the title of “most pernicious misinformation” could include the assertion that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases constitute a danger to human health and welfare; or the assertion that Israel is conducting a “genocide” against Palestinians. Undoubtedly, you have other candidates to add to the list.

So why do I say that the assertion of wind and solar being the cheapest ways to generate electricity is the very most pernicious of misinformation currently out there? Here are my three reasons: (1) the assertion is repeated endlessly and ubiquitously, (2) it is the basis for the misallocation of trillions of dollars of resources and for great impoverishment of billions of people around the world, and (3) it is false to the point of being preposterous, an insult to everyone’s intelligence, yet rarely challenged.

How ubiquitous is the assertion that wind and solar are the cheapest ways to generate electricity? Try Googling the question “What is the cheapest way to produce electricity?” You will get multiple pages of results advocating for wind and solar electricity, with almost no mention of the problems or costs of intermittency. A few examples of what turns up:

  • The top result from Galooli.com, March 13, 2022, “Which Renewable Energy is Cheapest? A Guide to Cost and Efficiency”: “According to the IEA’s World Energy Outlook and other research projects, solar and wind energy have continued to occupy the top spots in terms of the cheapest renewable energy sources. Both energy sources cost significantly less than fossil fuel alternatives and continue to become more affordable every year.”
  • Next up, decarbonization.com, August 2, 2023, “Ranked: The Cheapest Sources of Electricity in the U.S.”: “According to Lazard’s 2023 analysis of unsubsidized LCOE in the U.S., both onshore wind and utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies are more cost-effective than combined cycle natural gas power plants. In the case of onshore wind, this has been true since 2015.”
  • Next, carbonbrief.com, October 13, 2020, “Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA.”: “The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries. That is according to the International Energy Agency. . . .”
Keep going for dozens of these for page after page. Try to find in any of them a serious discussion of the costs of backup, storage, or transmission upgrades to try to make an electrical grid work with these intermittent generators. You won’t. And don’t think that the high-brow mainstream sources can be trusted for anything better. Here is the New York Times from August 17, 2023: “The cost of generating electricity from the sun and wind is falling fast and in many areas is now cheaper than gas, oil or coal.”

In the face of hundreds of different journalism outlets endlessly repeating in unison the mantra of cheap “renewable” electricity, it becomes difficult to blame the voters or the politicians for just nodding along with the crowd. Why do any mentally taxing independent thinking when everybody seems to be saying the same thing?

The problem is that the idea that wind and solar make the cheapest electricity is plain wrong. At least, it is plain wrong if the electricity you are talking about is the reliable sort that works whenever you want to turn on the switch. The idea that wind and solar are cheapest fails to take account of any of the ancillary costs necessary to make a fully-functioning grid: the entire system of backup facilities to provide the power when the wind is not blowing and the sun not shining; the transmission facilities to take the power from wherever is windy or sunny to anywhere else it may be needed on a moment’s notice; the batteries or other storage facilities to save up energy in anticipation of inevitable wind and solar droughts; and so forth. In short, the idea that wind and solar generation of electricity are the “cheapest” is classic misinformation, the endless repetition of an assertion that is clearly false and known to be false.

Meanwhile, among the people incapable of seeing through the fog of misinformation on this subject are our current President, and the Governors of New York and California. In the case of the states, they throw tens of billions of dollars of handouts and subsidies to develop wind and solar facilities (hundreds of billions of dollars in the case of the feds), never having the presence of mind to realize that none of that would be necessary of this method of generation were actually cheaper as claimed.

Between the vast mis-allocation of resources and the sheer preposterousness of the proposition in question, I think that this assertion of wind and solar electricity generation being “cheapest” definitely has the claim for the number one spot.
 
They want to eliminate your travel!!! (Their Private Jets do not apply)

Transatlantic air fares to jump under net zero fuel rules​



The cost of a return trip to New York is on track to rise by £40 as a result of incoming net zero regulations, according to figures from Virgin Atlantic.

The extra burden on travellers is expected if the cost of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is passed on directly. Calculations by Virgin Atlantic, a pioneer in using the greener jet fuel, show that ticket prices would have to rise 6pc.

For a return flight to New York that would amount to a £40 increase at current prices, based on two one-way fares costing about £350 each.

SAF is a refined blend of waste oils, animal fats and ethanol from corn. The fuel is viewed as the most practical route towards reducing aviation’s net CO2 emission before completely new technologies, such as hydrogen propulsion, become available next decade or beyond.

Airlines operating from the UK will be required to use at least 10pc SAF to power their flights from 2030, but with the fuel currently costing six times as much as traditional jet fuel, passengers face a potential jump in fares.

Figures published by Flint Global suggest that by 2040, when the UK mandate will require a 22pc SAF blend, fares will be a third higher if costs aren’t addressed.


The UK rules are more stringent than the EU’s requirement for a 6pc SAF mix by the end of the decade, with the difference potentially giving continental carriers such as Lufthansa and Air France a competitive advantage over the likes of Virgin Atlantic and British Airways.

British Airways currently sources 90pc of its SAF overseas.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...-fuel-rules-to-add-6pc-to-transatlantic-fares




UK aviation CO2 emissions account for 0.1% of world emissions.

And as with everything else, as the world as a whole gets richer, more people will be flying. Any attempt by the UK to save a few tonnes of carbon will be swamped.
 

The Inconvenient Truth About Copper: Implications for U.S. Electrification Goals​


In the relentless pursuit of a greener future, copper stands as a critical element, central to the envisioned transition to renewable energy and electrification. However, recent insights bring to light a formidable obstacle: the rate of copper extraction is insufficient to meet the ambitious targets set by current U.S. policies. This blog post highlights this dilemma, as explained by the International Energy Forum’s (IEF) report, and examines the broader implications for energy policy and economic stability.

The Copper Conundrum​

Copper is indispensable in the manufacture of electric vehicles (EVs) and the development of renewable energy infrastructure. The IEF report starkly presents the challenge:

“Electric vehicles (EVs) require substantially more copper and other metals than conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. For example, manufacture of an ICE automobile requires 24 kg of copper whereas manufacture of an EV requires 60 kg”.
https://www.ief.org/focus/ief-repor...ehicle,require negligible extra copper mining.
This statement alone encapsulates the monumental demand for copper driven by the push towards electrification. With policies mandating that 100% of cars manufactured be electric by 2035, the strain on copper supply becomes even more evident. The report quantifies this demand further:

“To meet business-as-usual trends, 115% more copper must be mined in the next 30 years than has been mined historically until now. To electrify the global vehicle fleet requires bringing into production 55% more new mines than would otherwise be needed”.
https://www.ief.org/focus/ief-repor...ehicle,require negligible extra copper mining.
Such figures underscore the vast amounts of copper necessary to achieve these electrification goals. The current mining capacity, however, does not align with this escalating demand.

Mining Realities and Economic Implications​

The extraction and processing of copper are time-consuming and capital-intensive activities. Current production rates and available mining technology suggest that ramping up copper output to the required levels within the stipulated timelines is not feasible. The study’s findings suggest a significant shortfall in meeting the raw material needs for the electrification agenda:

“Under today’s policy settings for copper mining, it is highly unlikely that there will be sufficient additional new mines to achieve 100% EV by 2035. Policymakers might consider changing the vehicle electrification goal from 100% EV to 100% hybrid manufacture by 2035″.
https://www.ief.org/focus/ief-repor...ehicle,require negligible extra copper mining.
This revelation invites critical scrutiny of the underlying assumptions in policy frameworks that advocate for rapid and large-scale transitions to renewable energy. It also raises pertinent questions about the economic feasibility and long-term sustainability of such policies.

The Questionable Premise of a Green Future​

The push for a green future is often presented as an inevitable and necessary path. However, this ideology-driven agenda lacks a solid foundation. The transition to renewable energy, while portrayed as essential, is fraught with practical challenges and economic burdens that are frequently overlooked or underestimated.

“Many have expressed concern that the lack of critical mineral resources may not allow full electrification of the global vehicle transportation fleet, and the vehicle electrification resource demand is just a small part of that needed for the transition”.
https://www.ief.org/focus/ief-repor...ehicle,require negligible extra copper mining.
The pursuit of sustainability has become a catchphrase devoid of critical examination. The supposed benefits of a green future are speculative at best, hinging on the unproven assumption that these efforts will significantly impact climate change. In contrast, the immediate and tangible costs—economic, social, and environmental—are substantial and often ignored.

Broader Policy and Strategic Considerations​

Given the intrinsic link between copper supply and the any successful implementation of electrification policies, a reassessment of strategy is warranted. Policymakers need to consider several factors if they are going to go down this road:

  1. Diversification of Material Sources: Investing in research to find alternative materials that can either replace copper or reduce its use in key applications.
  2. Enhanced Recycling Programs: Implementing robust recycling systems to reclaim copper from obsolete electronics and other products, thereby easing the demand on primary copper mining.
  3. International Cooperation: Engaging in strategic partnerships with countries rich in copper resources to ensure a stable supply chain.
  4. Technological Innovation: Encouraging innovations in mining and processing technologies to increase the efficiency and output of copper extraction.

Environmental and Social Impact​

The race to mine more copper also carries significant environmental and social costs. Increased mining activities can lead to environmental degradation, including deforestation, soil erosion, and contamination of water resources. Additionally, the social implications for communities in mining regions—often marked by displacement and health issues—must not be overlooked. Thus, a balance must be struck between meeting material needs and maintaining environmental and social standards.

Conclusion​

The reality presented by the IEF report serves as a sobering reminder of the complexities inherent in transitioning to a greener economy. This situation highlights an ironic unforced error of poor planning and idealistic policy, driven by an optimistic yet impractical vision without fully considering the supply constraints of critical materials like copper. Moreover, the very premise of striving for a green future and sustainable development is itself an unfounded ideological pursuit, lacking in practical justification and burdened with significant costs.

As we navigate these challenges, it is imperative to maintain a balanced perspective, recognizing the need for realistic timelines and diversified approaches. The discourse around the frenetic, ill-conceived, and ideological fantasy of “climate policy” must evolve to incorporate these hard truths, ensuring that the path to so-called sustainability is both feasible and responsible—or reconsidered entirely in light of its dubious foundations.

The full report can be downloaded here
 

Clean energy? The world’s demand for copper could be catastrophic for communities and environments​



As we head towards net-zero emissions, record quantities of copper will be required. Copper is critical for solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles and battery storage.

Unfortunately, we’re headed for a supply crunch. Market analysts estimate the annual copper supply shortfall could be as high as 10 million tonnes by 2030 if no new mines are built. This means prices are on the rise, giving miners an incentive to bring new copper mines to market.

The complexity of these new mines will be unprecedented. Unless mining is done differently, rushing to bring these projects into production could unleash unacceptable, catastrophic impacts onto local people and environments.

A golden age for copper​

Until recently, the copper market has been flat. Prices have been low, and it has not been a good environment for producers. The market is now on the move.

The demand for copper and other energy transition minerals has sparked predictions of a commodity boom, and a golden age for mineral exploration.

On April 12-13, major producers including BHP, Rio Tinto and Anglo American will convene for the World Copper Virtual Conference to gather market intelligence.

But in the face of high global demand, it’s critical these big companies don’t gloss over copper’s sustainability challenges.

4 major sustainability challenges​

There are four major challenges the mining industry faces in the impending copper boom. How well these challenges are overcome will determine who wins and loses in the energy transition.

1. Unearthed copper deposits are locked up in remote and difficult locations

Unearthed copper deposits — known as “orebodies” — are often found in places such as the high Andes, the Arctic, and the deep sea.

The social, environmental and technical challenges of projects in these locations will be greater than before. For example, BMW, Samsung and Volvo have just backed calls for a moratorium on deep sea mining.

2. Many proposed projects face public opposition

This includes major projects such as Resolution Copper in the US, Pebble in Canada, Tampakan in the Philippines, and Frieda River in Papua New Guinea.

Public opposition towards these and other large-scale copper projects means they could face difficult legal battles before these projects are permitted to go ahead.

3. Future copper mines are projected to be lower grade and deeper

Grade is a measure of the how much valuable metal there is in the ore body (deposit). Deeper, lower grade orebodies means new copper mines are likely to generate more waste rock, more tailings, and hazardous elements such as arsenic.


Read more: World-first mining standard must protect people and hold powerful companies to account


Tailings are the residues from mining and minerals processing, and is made up of finely ground rock, chemicals and water. If the projected demand is met, we calculate the world will produce more than nine times the amount of copper tailings between 2000 and 2050, than in the entire century prior.

Meanwhile, the industry faces a crisis of credibility over its management of this hazardous waste.

4. New copper mines will likely be located in politically and ecologically sensitive areas

Our research from 2019 found 65% of copper ore bodies that haven’t been mined are in areas with high water risk: too little water means miners compete for it among other local water users, and too much means waste can be difficult to contain.

Almost half (47%) of these ore bodies occur on or close to Indigenous peoples’ lands, and 64% within or near areas critical to biodiversity conservation. 50% are in socially and politically fragile countries, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo.

A simple price rise won’t solve major issues​

In the past, the mining industry has relied on rising prices to address supply shortfalls. Higher metal prices give companies the financial capital they need to operate in difficult locations and invest in new mining technologies.

Some of this capital will support sustainability improvements, such as recycling and reductions in water and energy use. But many of the sustainability challenges we’ve outlined above are not price sensitive.


Read more: A brutal war and rivers poisoned with every rainfall: how one mine destroyed an island


Mining companies cannot pay their way out of biodiversity loss, extreme poverty, and corruption risk. If they don’t engage these big challenges before the copper boom gets underway these impacts will be baked in mining’s future legacy, without clarity about who takes responsibility in the long term.

This would add to the devastating impacts existing mines have already caused. One famous example is the Panguna mine in Bougainville, which led to massive environmental damage and triggered a civil war.

What’s more, intensifying social and environmental impacts of copper mines could jeopardise the long-term supply of copper. If opposition grows, and supply stalls, then so too will the clean energy transition.

So what are the options?​

As demand for copper moves into overdrive, we are at a crossroads.

One option is to support large-scale copper mining and the clean energy transition for the greater good of the planet. Miners would do their best to minimise impacts, but we’d accept there’ll be collateral damage for local communities. This is far from the latest commitment to “zero harm to people and the environment” that the world’s largest companies recently made to tailings management.


Read more: Renewables need land – and lots of it. That poses tricky questions for regional Australia


A second option is to insist miners exhaust all opportunities to avoid harm. This is because sacrificing the interests of local people in the interests of a greater good would not be considered responsible, as it does not align with the concepts of equity and fairness that underpin the Paris Agreement.

This second approach would require significant improvements in managing social and environmental impacts of copper mining. It may also mean reducing global demand for copper, finding substitutes, and making hard choices about not developing mines if the risks to local people and the environment are too high. Doing this would require a wholesale restructuring of the function of global commodity markets.

We may not yet have a solution, but as the world prepares for this year’s major Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, we must start to ask: what kind of justice are we seeking in the “just transition”, and for whom?


Read more: Why most Aboriginal people have little say over clean energy projects planned for their land


 
Science is just a process.

We fully accept that.

What liberals have done is to try to make the word science mean something like "truth" or "facts". Use either of those two words in place of Science and either will work in the frame they are trying to paint.


Since us non-commies understand it's just a process, we notice when the observation doesn't match the hypothesis or claim.

Example: "the vaccine stops the spread"

Well no it didn't. This claim is the scientist lying about what they observed.
 

Cambridge Professor Right to Slam Climate ‘Scientists’ Peddling Catastrophism​


The world of climate science is in a terrible state. Riven with political activists claiming to be scientists, funded by green billionaires and state actors interested only in the Net Zero agenda, reported by blockhead mainstream journalists who believe science can be ‘settled’ – and increasingly being questioned by bored populations fed up with listening to year-after-year, decade-after-decade ‘Jim’ Dale-style claims of boiling and collapsing climates. That is why the recent paper published in Nature by Cambridge Professor Ulf Buntgen has sent shock waves through a heavily-corrupted climate scientific community. At one point, Buntgen referred to the “ongoing pseudo-scientific chase for record-breaking heatwaves and associated hydroclimatic extremes”. He argued that quasi-religious belief in, rather than the understanding of the complex causes and consequences of climate and environmental changes, “undermines academic principles”.

Professor Buntgen is not a sceptic of the idea that humans control the climate by burning hydrocarbons. It is unlikely he would be published in a major journal like Nature if he was. But he is worried about climate scientists becoming activists by failing to work from actual observations. He is also worried about activists who pretend to be scientists. An excellent example of this can be found in the recent Guardian report that portrayed some of the hysterical claims of 380 “top scientists”. Billed as the views of writers of recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, a suitable response might have been ‘spot the scientist’.

The Cambridge geography professor observes that there is a thin line between the use and misuse of scientific certainty and uncertainty, “and there is evidence for strategic and selective communication of scientific information for climate action”. Where to start on this one? There is overwhelming evidence that almost any scientific finding that casts doubt on humans controlling the climate thermostat will be ignored, and if that is unsuccessful, traduced or erased from mainstream view. In extreme cases, and certainly if the findings get any publicity, it might be necessary to put a billionaire-funded ‘fact’ checker on the case. A Guardian journalist helped get a science paper, Alimonti et al, retracted from a major journal because it cast observational doubt on claims of a climate emergency. Google has banned its ads from a page showing accurate satellite temperature on the grounds of “unreliable and harmful claims” of global readings. Less than curiously, the readings from this source happen to be generally lower than those produced by heat-corrupted surface readings. The state-influenced BBC has refused to discuss any sceptical view of the anthropogenic science opinion since at least 2018. Meanwhile, a UN communications official states that the world body “owns” climate science, and the world should know it.

Protected by the political and media class, the well-funded arrogance is off the scale. Buntgen notes that activists often adopt scientific arguments as a source of “moral legitimisation” for their movements, which can be radical and destructive, rather than rational and constructive. “Unrestricted faith in scientific knowledge is, however, problematic because science is neither entitled to absolute truth nor ethical authority”, he says. The notion of science to be explanatory rather than exploratory “is a naïve overestimation that can fuel the complex field of global climate to become a dogmatic ersatz religion for the wider public”, he added.

One well known activist who frequently claims ‘the science’ to shut down sceptical debate is the BBC broadcaster Chris Packham. Last year, he presented a number of Earth programmes that attempted to link past increases in carbon dioxide to rapid rises in temperature – all in the “terror” cause of drawing links with current and upcoming climate collapse. Alas, the ‘science’ shows that over 600 million years there is little or no link between rising CO2 and temperature. But Packham perfected the art of taking imprecise proxy data from the geological record – imprecise as in a margin of error of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years – and comparing it to accurate modern measurements. You can do that of course, but the BBC should surely be under an obligation to provide space for others to dispute the suggestions. No such obligation is evident, needless to say.

Buntgen finds it “misleading” when even prominent organisations, such as the IPCC, tend to overstate scientific understanding of the rate of recent anthropogenic warming relative to the range of past natural temperature variability over 2,000 and even 125,000 years. “The quality and quantity of available climate proxy records are merely too low to allow for a robust comparison of the observed annual temperature extremes in the 21st Century against reconstructed long-term climate means of the Holocene and before”, he observes. Happily, it didn’t stop Packham working back no less than 55 million years.

Dr. Matthew Wielicki was a highly-regarded geoscientist at the University of Alabama but he left academia last year noting that American universities, “are no longer places that embrace the freedom of exchanging ideas”. He said they would “punish” those who go against the narrative. Contributing to this, he noted, was the earth science communities silence on the false ‘climate emergency’ narrative. “Members of the community routinely discuss the mental health effects of climate catastrophism but dare not speak out”, he disclosed.

For his part, Buntgen suggests that the ever-growing commingling of climate science, climate activism, climate communication and climate policy, whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions, not only “creates confusion” among politicians, stakeholders and the wide public, but also “diminishes academic credibility”.

Next time you see dopey crinklies attempting to smash the Magna Carta (avid listeners of BBC Radio 4, no doubt), consider that the ubiquitous ‘Daleification’ of climate catastrophe promotion might have gone just a bit too far.
 
Since us non-commies understand it's just a process, we notice when the observation doesn't match the hypothesis or claim.
checkthisout, put a frog in a pot, turn up the heat slowly see what happens, not sure individual observations
are the right tool in all applications.( like global warming or co2 concentration )

but I get it, in the last 20years we have had countless tornado warnings, yet my house is still standing.:unsure:
does that mean tornado are not real?
 
Example: "the vaccine stops the spread"
checkthisout, this seems off topic, but are you thinking no segment of the world's population got
reduced bad outcomes from covid-19 because of the vaccines?

we notice when the observation doesn't match the hypothesis or claim.
because what you posted does not match my individual observations.
example: my older brother opted not to get the jab, he got covid-19 and ended out in ICU
on a respirator(he's 70yrs) my mom(90) got the jab and then got covid-19, she just had to
stay away from other for a few weeks.

I also got the gab and also covid-19, IMO lamest cold I ever had, only last few days.

individual observations. :unsure:
 
TommySr, observations are actually the best tool, unless you are one of those people who believe what they tell you on "teevee" but dont believe your lying eyes.

TommySr, if A causes B, it does not necessarily mean that B causes A and especially D.

TommySr, there is a 50% chance that you got a placebo with you c19 "vaxx". In this case count your blessings, because it does not look good for those that got the real deal. Not good at all.

 
Last edited:
TommySr, there is a 50% chance that you got a placebo
aenyc, if people that got the jab start dropping like flies, I'm going to hope my mom, brothers
that got the jab and sister also got the placebo, if they just can't make babies my individual observations
are not going to help.
 
aenyc, if people that got the jab start dropping like flies, I'm going to hope my mom, brothers
that got the jab and sister also got the placebo, if they just can't make babies my individual observations
are not going to help.

That is in fact indeed what is being predicted because guess what TommySr - the covid vaxx actually destroys your immune system
And it will be labeled as the next "plandemic".
Keep your lying eyes open TommySr
 
That is in fact indeed what is being predicted because guess what TommySr
aenyc, I'm hoping to grow one more arm with a hand. 🤪

if I was you I would also want all the dumbass people like me out of the way, when is predicted
really wishful thinking. :unsure:
 
Tommy can Elon state something that is not common knowledge such as why is he reducing stock. We might think he is doing a sales pitch. He sells solar wares.

Musk mad the wrong group of ppl mad. He controls X former Twitter which made them mad. Still censuring ppl.

His EV has not been doing so well. Henry Ford went through this too.

Musk has probably surrounded himself with wrong ppl. Back stabbers. Am sure of it.

I watched news video other night while sick. It said majority of ppl are not paying their bills and are way behind. Hmmmmm

1000000581.jpg
1000000582.jpg

1000000583.jpg


I lost 3 family to covid. They all had pneumonia and sepsis. 1 without vaccine was listed as covid death. They were given wrong treatments and 2 of them had their vaccines,. I am now the oldest member of my family. The vaccine was a lie. Sepsis can be prevented and treated. They were all put on vents and heavy sedated. Tommy surely you are aware they have admitted Covid company tied to Gates has had all funding pulled over Wuhan labs.

I didn't get covid vaccine had it 2 times. Pneumonia was worst part. It was pin pointed by cdc for certain blood types worse effects. Hence why they thought was designer virus. Several ppl had it no vaccines same as you. Cold.

WHAT IS YOUR BLOOD TYPE?
 
WHAT IS YOUR BLOOD TYPE?
D71, sorry for your loss, but for the grace of god go I .
I'm O- does it make a difference with covid?

I'm glad your feeling better.
while you were in bed I got 8 panels pointed at the sky :ROFLMAO:
only 8 more to go so I can run my AC
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: D71
Thanks Tommy. I survived because stayed away from hospitals and their treatments for covid.

Quoted myself Feb 2023 link above. O is less prone to have bad reactions

""""""What most ppl also miss about Covid-19 is it is blood type specific in test after test for the reactions. Ppl with type A blood were noted time and time again by Studies to get much sicker then ppl with type O blood. I bet that is probably why there are noted different reactions. Militaries could benefit from being able to attack certain pppl more then other with biological targeting. Gain of Function was admitted in the past although that lying little twerp Fauci never directly admitted it. He, Fauci sent tax payer money for it.... Gain of Function under both Obama and Trump.

Covid and Blood type

Blood type and COVID-19?

MIT Medical answers your COVID-19 questions. Today’s topic: What’s your type? Your blood type, that is. And does it affect your risk of contracting COVID-19 or becoming seriously ill if you do?
medical.mit.edu
medical.mit.edu

""""""
 
The link at MIT was deleted. Not sure why it was plain simple is my guess.

IMG_6551.png
The MIT was made so someone without doctor degree could read it. That is what ppl needed for making their own decisions not a bunch of shit.

This is on Fauci s old website

IMG_6552.jpeg

They are still dishonest and should all be stripped of funding and even prosecuted. They played games with our lives Vs giving us accurate information when we needed it. They lied outright then covered tracks

Them deleting so much is why started doing screen shots to capture it. They are dishonest and bought liars.
 
The link at MIT was deleted. Not sure why it was plain simple is my guess.

View attachment 216627
The MIT was made so someone without doctor degree could read it. That is what ppl needed for making their own decisions not a bunch of shit.

This is on Fauci s old website

View attachment 216628

They are still dishonest and should all be stripped of funding and even prosecuted. They played games with our lives Vs giving us accurate information when we needed it. They lied outright then covered tracks

Them deleting so much is why started doing screen shots to capture it. They are dishonest and bought liars.

Not to mention they made the fucking germ in the first place.
 
Not to mention they made the fucking germ in the first place.
Biden admin defunded them - EcoHealth was tied to Gates as well as tax payer money going to wuhan as you said to make it …. and the Moderna vaccine has been recalled. They are sorry as hell .

Obuma knew what fauci was doing and stopped him once but he started right back at it. Playing with that shit is a mental illness like he was torturing puppies…. Ppl that hurt animals and enjoy it are crazy mf’ers to the ninth level of positive crazy and above. Look at gates and fauci. I can see them locked in cell together….awaiting tribunal trial. Nuremberg 2.0

I can’t get my family back but can hopefully read of the ppl’s demise that did it. Robert Kennedy Jr was correct in looking at originals for who got sick vs who didn’t Some of the ppl that were pro vaccine turned out be ivermectin takers too.

Fauci himself went into projects in our country telling blacks they were more prone to covid. How did Africa survive and do so well? They take lot of anti parasite and anti malaria meds in Africa. Hmmm…..

Trust the science - bs. Follow the Money. Fauci got a $1 million bonus from Israel for being best scientist while also getting paid by our military and his job. We made that shit - tax payer funds went to china. Trump was right.
 
Back
Top