Renewable Revolution

Energy => Renewables => Topic started by: AGelbert on July 06, 2018, 06:53:56 pm

Title: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2018, 06:53:56 pm
Agelbert NOTE: The "Oil Drum" mentioned in this article was a web site that pitched happy talk about hydrocarbons and a steady stream of disinformation about Renewable Energy technologies. They closed down years ago. Nevertheless, the propaganda they pitched still continues unabated from the Fossil Fuel Industry paid liars and crooks. Learn about their 😈 mendacious modus operandi.

July 17, 2012

Written by me.  8)

Hope for a viable biosphere: Why fossil fuels were NEVER cheap or cost effective

Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables
Why They Work and Fossil & Nuclear Fuels Never Did

Published July 17, 2012 | By A. G. Gelbert

The biosphere is the global sum of all ecosystems. It can also be called the zone of life on Earth, a closed (apart from solar and cosmic radiation) and self-regulating system.[1]

File:Seawifs global biosphere.jpg

This is a “Big Picture” article about energy resources and use by humanity. In the article I question the most basic assumptions that have become “common wisdom” in our culture in regard to the celebrated “cost effectiveness” of fossil and nuclear energy products and the view that renewables are not a suitable replacement due to alleged “low” EROI (Energy Return on Energy Invested – sometimes shown as EROEI in the literature). I even question the assumptions used in the EROI methodolgy for quantifying exothermic chemical processes (how much energy is released when rapid oxidation, otherwise known as an explosion, occurs in a given energy product).

I will prove that the EROI methodology is, not simply flawed, but unscientifically skewed to narrowly define energy input and output boundaries so as to favor fossil and nuclear fuels and simultaneously delegitimize renewable energy product cost effectiveness. It is most telling that the EROI documents and discussions at The Oil Drum web site are the ones that first show up when you do an EROI google search for fossil fuels and/or renewables.

The claim of scientific objectivity in regard to fossil fuels at a web site called The Oil Drum can only be considered acceptable in a country like ours, where the oil and nuclear lobbies control much of the narrative and just about all of the governmental policies energywise.

Tell me, dear readers, would you consider taking advice on the efficacy of a vegan diet from the owners of a steak house? Do you think they would celebrate the fact that rice and beans provide a balanced protein intake that covers all essential amino acids? Do you think they would, after you provided evidence of the facts, offer chickpeas, which are equivalent in protein density to meat without the fat, as a replacement for the kiddy burgers?

Chickpeas have 361 calories per 100g, and are a good source of protein containing about 20 percent in content, which is equivalent to meat.

Read more:
Rice and beans are both nutritious yet inexpensive foods that, when combined, form a complete protein.

Read more:

Somehow, I think you will agree that the steak house owners are just a tiny bit biased in favor of meat and will attempt to undermine the vegan diet by the following reactions: 1) Ignore it. 2) Ridicule it. 3) Attack it with false propaganda. Provided enough people can be kept in the dark about the benefits to the body and the pocketbook of a vegan diet, the steak house owners and the entire chain of profit generating meat production facilities from raising cattle, hogs and chickens to every fast food burger joint in the country can continue to enjoy the status quo and their profits. I am not a vegetarian. I bring this example to you (remember the time Oprah had to back down on her claim that red meat was bad for you because of the cattle rancher outcry? – She was referring to scientifc studies but the beef industry prevailed anyway – truth be damned when profits are threatened is the predatory capitalist motto) simply because it shows how mendacity is used to defend a bias, regardless of the truth.

I will prove here that the same mechanism has corrupted, not only our government energy use, subsidy and research and development grant allocation policies, but the very mathematics used by scientists to define energetic exothermic processes.

The Procrustean Bed gaming of the boundaries for the EROI methodology is where we begin. I am not a mathematician but I can add, subtract, divide and multiply. Regardless of the calculus formulas or other advanced mathematics and statistical tools used by the scientists doing the EROI math, I will show that every energy cost they leave out favors the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries in their flawed EROI comparison with renewables.  At the end of the article, after having  presented the case which, not simply justifies, but requires a switch to 100% renewables in order to guarantee a viable biosphere, I will point you to some excellent videos from Germany (you have to go to the German web site to see them – they are free but they sell the DVDs of the videos for those who wish to spread the word) where renewables providing power to industrial processes, as well as consumer energy demands, are paving the way to an energy future free of disruptions,  price gouging from contrived fuel shortages and price shocks/hikes from wars (mostly contrived as well) and/or speculators. P

arts of this article may be a bit boring. Please try to remember that your thorough understanding and use for dissemination of the data here to others out there may enable you, after you verify it’s veracity, to effectively counter some status quo victim of brainwashing in the “follow the herd” school of “that’s how the world works and we just have to live with it” tradition. Your efforts to wade through this and digest it’s contents will, I firmly believe, help attain a sustainable future. An unsustainable world is a world that  isn’t “working”. What I want is for it to work.


Procrustean bed is an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced.

Measuring the EROEI of a single physical process is unambiguous, but there is no agreed standard on which activities should be included in measuring the EROEI of an economic process. In addition, the form of energy of the input can be completely different from the output. For example, energy in the form of coal could be used in the production of ethanol. This might have an EROEI of less than one, but could still be desirable due to the benefits of liquid fuels.

This is the general formula: EROEI = Usable Acquired Energy (output) DIVIDED BY Energy Expended (input) The formula appears pretty straightforward, does it not? If you get less energy out than you put in then you will get a number below “1” (i.e. 1/2 = 0.5 EROI not good, 10/1 = 10.0 EROI good). Since the units in this formula are energy units, let’s define those:

Because energy is defined via work, the SI unit for energy is the same as the unit of work – the joule (J), named in honour of James Prescott Joule and his experiments on the mechanical equivalent of heat. In slightly more fundamental terms, 1 joule is equal to 1 newton-metre and, in terms of SI base units:

What’s a newton-metre? What are SI units? Don’t worry about it. Anybody that wants to do an in depth discussion in the comments of how scientists came up with the units from observing the heat effect of lots of energetic molecules in a measured volume of some gas, liquid or solid is free to do so. In the meantime, readers only need to remember that more Joules (J) = more energy.

So taken with the “fabulous fossil fuels” are some people out there that they have the audacity to start using “barrel of oil equivalent” and “ton of oil equivalent” to measure energy rather than sticking with Joules (J).

In discussions of energy production and consumption, the units barrel of oil equivalent and ton of oil equivalent are often used.

To the credentialed scientists in the EROI study published at The Oil Drum’s credit, they appear to have used Joules and MegaJoules(MJ) in their energy units. Use your own imagination as to how objective it would have looked to claim EROI in ethanol and other renewables is too low in terms of “barrel of oil equivalent” units. Okay, so we’ve decided to use “J” units as the input and output energy units in the EROI formula. How do we know how much energy is in a given measure of gasoline?

For you oldy goldies here, do you remember leaded gasoline? Gasoline was goosed (increased octane rating) by adding tetra-ethyl lead. Lead hurt the environment and caused serious health issues and developmental disorders for humans (and surely a lot of animals that were never considered in the studies) so unleaded gasoline became the norm with the lower octane rating. The reason I bring this up is because changes in octane rating change the activation energy needed to start the chemical reaction/explosion.

A low octane gasoline technically has more energy than a high octane gasoline does because a lower octane rating requires less energy (lower energy of activation) for the reaction to begin.

The energy density per mole in a high octane gasoline is assumed to be lower due to the higher energy of activation. This is a half truth. This half truth is used by the EROI experts to claim ethanol, which has a high octane rating, has a lower EROI than gasolene.

Simply changing the compression ratio in an engine to a high compression makes ethanol equivalent in MJ/L to gasoline. But, of course, the Hall study arbitrarily stopped at the octane rating “energy of activation” differences between gasoline and ethanol with zero discussion of high compression engines.

That was very convenient for gasoline EROI and very inconvenient for ethanol EROI. Furthermore the Hall study studied oil and “conventional” natural gas together in computing EROI:

Oil and conventional natural gas are usually studied together because they often occur in the same fields, have overlapping production operations and data archiving.

.. authors also estimated through linear extrapolation that the EROI for global oil and conventional natural gas could reach 1:1 as soon as about 2022 given alternative input measurement methods

Sustainability 2011, 3, 1796-1809; doi:10.3390/su3101796 The authors of the above study made a reasoned assumption that the energy density per mole of global oil and conventional gas is, for all practical purposes, identical. Though one is a gas and the other a liquid, after processing inputs and putputs with similar infrastructure costs, that appears to be a logical approach.

The problem with this approach is that the petroleum industry energy density numbers which predictably apply quite well to hydrocarbons result in bad data (low EROI) when applied to a renewable like ethanol.

There was a study done at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: “BIOMASS AS FEEDSTOCK FOR A BIOENERGY AND BIOPRODUCTS INDUSTRY: THE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF A BILLION-TON ANNUAL SUPPLY”, Perlack, Wright, Turhollow, Graham, Stokes and Erbach – 2005. The conclusion of the Oak Ridge study was that the U.S. could meet at least 30% of its transportation fuel needs from biomass sources by 2030 “…with relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry practices.”. But the Oak Ridge Laboratory study, assumed, in error, that biofuels (specifically, ethanol) should be compared to petroleum fuels (specifically, gasoline) on a heat content basis (e.g. British Thermal Units) when estimating fuel efficiency.

The Heat Value of ethanol is 65% of that of gasoline. Almost all researchers on this subject assume that ethanol’s fuel efficiency is 65% of that of gasoline. Even the U.S. Dept. of Energy thinks this is a valid assumption. Perhaps this is because so many of the studies pertaining to biofuels feasibility are done by individuals with economics backgrounds.

The property of fuels known as the Octane rating indicates a fuels capacity for being combusted under pressure without pre-igniting. This is of great importance because fuels with higher octane ratings can be burned at higher combustion chamber pressures and produce more power which results in more work output (i.e. miles per gallon) than a fuel  with a lower octane rating that cannot be consumed at higher combustion chamber pressures.

Ethanol has an octane rating of 115. Gasoline‘s is 93-95 for high test gasoline. This means that ethanol can be burned in a higher compression engine or an engine with combustion chamber pressures boosted using turbocharging or supercharging. The Department of Energy continues to base its estimates of fuel efficiency (and greenhouse gas emissions) for ethanol based on the Heat Value of ethanol relative to gasoline.

This is entirely in error as it does not recognize the importance of octane rating and the characteristics of the engine the fuel in question is used in. The fact is, ethanol’s higher octane rating than gasoline enables it to be consumed in a higher pressure combustion chamber and obtain comparable (or better) fuel efficiency than that obtained with gasoline. This also means that the estimates of how much of the fuel supply we can meet using ethanol are significantly low.

The estimate of the Oak Ridge study assumes ethanol can only achieve fuel efficiency relative to gasoline that is equivalent to ethanol’s “heat value” relative to gasoline’s or 65% of gasoline’s. But in actuality, ethanol used in an engine that takes full advantage of ethanol’s higher octane achieves comparable fuel efficiency to gasoline’s and thus the amount of the fuel supply that can be met with ethanol is not 30% but 46% (1/.65).

So, returning to the EROI numbers published by the SUNY ESF study at The Oil Drum, you can see that they are way too low (from 1.29–1.70 )  because they low balled the OUTPUT in Joules of ethanol. Output is the top number on the EROI equation.

I refuse to believe that these math wizards over there did not know that ethanol’s higher octane rating would result in equal or greater energy output than gasoline given a proper engine combustion chamber. This was a deliberate attempt to undermine the EROI of the corn ethanol renewable in the service of fossil fuels.

The EROI number for sugar cane ethanol (8.0) that Brazil has achieved would be even higher if the output energy was corrected to the level of gasoline in the EROI formula. Furthermore, corn is a really poor choice for biomass because it requires so much energy to prepare the ground, fertilize chemically and harvest. This biomass crop may not have been deliberately set up to fail as a bonafide competitor to gasoline, but it has certainly worked out that way.

The precise point where The Oil Drum continues to have it wrong on ethanol is this assumption which totaly ignores the FACT that gasoline ONLY has more useable energy than ethanol if you use it to boil water in a lab! In an internal combustion engine the effective MJ/L difference used to transform heat energy to mechanical energy is NEGLIGIBLE:

“New Perspectives on the Energy Return on (Energy) Investment (EROI) of Corn Ethanol,” Adjusting for the lower energy content of ethanol (21.46 MJ/L etoh vs. 34.56 MJ/L gasoline = 0.62), we calculated that the net energy from ethanol is roughly 0.99 billion ‘‘gasoline-equivalent’’ liters.

The actual figure, since ethanol’s high octane rating makes it equivalent to gasoline in an easy to obtain higher pressure combustion chamber in internal combustion engines, should be 34.56 MJ/L as a minimum. I say this because ethanol burns much cleaner than gasoline and reduced costs in simpler catalytic converters (or none at all) for cars would, in a sane world, increase EROI for ethanol from cleaner burning and increased mileage per liter.

Now add to this the other biomass crops out there like Lemna minor (Duckweed) that grow 8 times faster than corn with no tilling and cheap harvesting as well as many perennial grasses that can be converted to ethanol and you have an irrefutable argument for replacing gasoline with ethanol.

But there’s more. Scientific assumptions about energy release during rapid oxidation are surface or substrate dependent as well as temperature dependent.

We all know that when you strike a match, the chemicals on the match head increase to what is called kindling temperature. At the molecular level, what is occurring is that the Oxygen molecules floating around the match head combine with the match head chemicals as soon as they are all expanded (that’s what heat does to them) sufficently to combine.

Once the “energy of activation” is achieved, the chemical reaction proceeds at a previously, scientifically measured and predictable rate. Think of it as pushing a boulder off a cliff. You need some exertion (small amount of heat) to get the boulder to begin falling and accelerating at 32 feet per second squared until terminal velocity (air friction prevents further acceleration) is achieved (a lot of heat is produced until it reaches a self sustaining oxidation which then proceeds until all the reactants are oxidized).

The “cliff” can be a vertical drop (very explosive) or a gentle slope (slow oxidation with a gradual heat release). Rust is an example of slow oxidation.

What I ‘m trying to get across to you is that the fossil and nuclear fuel industry never want to talk about is that the reaction can be slowed down or speeded up by controllling the distance from each other and distribution of more molecules of the fuel and oxygen.

You can also introduce a catalyst which reduces the energy needed to “push” the “boulder” off the “cliff”. This means you need less heat to get the reaction going. In this case you end up with a higher energy output for a given amount of input. Surely you see how this can affect the EROI formula.

But once again zero attention is paid to any renewables using catalysts to increase the energy output by these EROI studies.

No, the standard everything must be measured from some thermodynamic straight jacket for a given simple exothermic rapid oxydation. This is ridiculous. But, it makes criticizing the current fossil fuel and nuclear paradigm difficult because the numbers are quite accurate for hydrocarbons and also nuclear fission heat release.

If a more scientifically broad view of thermodynamics in exothermic processes was embraced, the EROI formulation would have to be modified to favor the separate, but slower energy producing processes of e.g. biomass products from crops that are presently considered waste.

The added energy input from using all of the crop for, not just ethanol, but heat from “waste” would raise the EROI.

The mono mania with a long hydrocarbon chain like petroleum has pushed the “experts” into always attempting to discard multiprocess approaches to determining EROI for one crop. I don’t think it’s because they can’t count to two or three; I think it is because of fossil and nuclear fuel bias.

These people are not stupid; they are compromised by the EROI Procrustean Bed that arbitrarily has excluded inputs that lower fossil and nuclear fuel EROI and included outputs that raise it. I have mentioned only fossil fuels in regard to the gaming of the EROI but nuclear fuel is a far more blatent example.

The SUNY ESF study summarized the EROI of nuclear power from previous studies [26]. The review concludes that the most reliable information is still from Hall et al.’s [7] summary of an EROI of about 5–8:1 (with a large part of the variability depending upon whether the electricity is corrected for quality), and that the newer studies appear either too optimistic or pessimistic with reported EROIs of up to almost 60:1, to as low as even less than 1:1.
Sustainability 2011, 3, 1796-1809; doi:10.3390/su3101796

Since nuclear fuel has a foot in the grave and another on a banana peel, I won’t spend much time on it except to say that the EROI is a blatent falsehood. That nuclear fuel EROI can be 1.0 or higher is pure fantasy. In order to run a nuclear reactor, you need to build and insure it. These costs can certainly be  converted to energy inputs but are excluded from nuclear EROI. The energy required to store used nuclear fuel rod waste and other nuclear waste generated at the plant and keep it from overheating or contaminating the environment for centuries is not included in the EROI either.

Then there’s the energy to mine, concentrate and mill the uranium followed by manufacturing the fuel assemblies with multiple rods and the uranium pellets in them. Nope, not included.

The day to day operation of the nuclear plant is included, period. This is ridiculous.

Add to that the energy used in cleaning up nuclear pollution and you have an energy black hole combined with a horror story in negative health impact to the population.

Finally, there are many studies that have clearly proven that the uranium fuel cycle is not carbon neutral so any attempt to claim nuclear power plants are “green” and CO2 free energy sources is a pure fiction.

A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life.

What about gas fracking energy costs?  I ask you all reading this who just watched the above video, how do the EROI  experts, like the one I had some trouble with when I complained (Nicole Foss 😈 alias Stoneleigh – this means you) that she left out aquifer poisoning in her EROI calculations, separate the science from the emotion?  How can these people fall back on a formula that so narrowly defines energy inputs and outputs that they can blithely ignore the energy costs of cleaning up aquifers and dispensing health care to cancer victims? 

WTF is wrong with these people? The article I complained about on unconventional fuels not being a game changer was an insult to the intelligence of any thinking human being that knows anything about gas fracking. Don’t let anyone tell you that gas fracking has an EROI of 1.0 or better. It’s another Procrustean Bed fabrication. Gas fracking is an obsenity.

Alongside the growth in drilling, reports of fouled water, bad odors and health complaints also have increased. In the few places where basic environmental sampling has been done, the results confirm that water and air pollution are present in the same regions where residents say they are getting sick. Last spring, the EPA doubled its estimates of methane gas leaked from drilling equipment and said the amount of methane pollution that billows from fracking operations was 9,000 times higher than researchers had previously thought.

In Colorado, the ATSDR sampled air for pollutants at 14 sites for a 2008 report, including on Susan Wallace-Babb’s property. Fifteen contaminants were detected at levels the federal government considers above normal. Among them were the carcinogens benzene, tetrachloroethene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. The contamination fell below the thresholds for unacceptable cancer risk, but the agency called it cause for concern and suggested that as drilling continued, it could present a possible cancer risk in the future. Even at the time of the sampling, the agency reported, residents could be exposed to large doses of contaminants for brief “peak” periods.

How did we get this fracking nightmare besides the spineless lackeys that do happy EROI calculations for gas fracking? In the video above these frontmen for predatory capitalism were mentioned: Hill & Knowlton. They are famous for the Tabacco commercials in the 50s. Nothing has changed. Fracking and the Gas & Oil Industry

In 2009, members of ANGA (America’s Natural Gas Alliance), a lobbying organization for the gas industry, spread $80 million in funds across several agencies that included Hill & Knowlton to try to influence decisions on the process of gas extraction known as hydraulic fracturing[15] Similar to the strategy used for the pro-cigarette campaigns run in the 50s and 60s, the tactic the company is using for the issue is to simply raise doubt in the public’s mind about the dangers of the fracking process. any of these EROI experts figure what the following does to EROI numbers for fossil fuels or is this more stuff that doesn’t fit in the Procrustean Bed?

Duke Energy CEO Bill Johnson resigns after one day, gets $44 million in severance For his eight-hour tenure as top dog at Duke, Bill Johnson made a cool $44.4 million.

I haven’t mentioned the tar sands EROI but these “unconventional oil resources” are estimated by Professor Charles Hall to be abot 5.0 or less. Try a lot less, professor; less than 1.0 when all the energy costs in cleaning up the horrible mess they are creating in Canada come due. Oh yeah, you don’t include that in the formula, do you? What about those huge EROI numbers (up to 100.0!) that the EROI experts claim were the norm in fossil fuels when oil was easy to get out of the ground and you didn’t have to destroy so much land and lop off mountain tops to get to the coal? Yeah, the EROI experts lament all these added MJ/L of energy inputs needed these days and celebrate the good old days.

Those were the days before automobiles when Rockefeller would flush his waste (gasoline, among other refinery poisons) products from refining into the rivers at night. Those were the days well into the early 20th century when coal miners worked for slave wages and suffered from myriad lung diseases. Those were the days when miners got shot for wanting to work in decent conditions with decent pay.

Those were the days that the heat energy overload on the biosphere began and the CO2 pollution began in earnest. I firmly believe that the huge EROI numbers for early fossil fuel of nearly 100 are inaccurate because many energy input costs, energy extracted from the public in form of subsidies and handed to oil corporations, energy to build infrastructure and energy to care for an increasingly sickened population from fossil fuel pollution as well as energy to clean polluted lands was, right from the start, offloaded from the fossil fuel balance sheets and on to we-the-people.

Fossil fuels were never cost effective. The captains of industry stifled renewables in their infancy in the late 19th century. Writers, even back then, were discussing the possiblity of clean and renewable energy from electrolysis of water to use hydrogen as fuel. Sure, the technology needed to be refined and developed but the subsidy money went to oil. There was a real interest in electrification through renewables.

Cleveland had wind generators in the late 19th century. Scranton, the town incorporated as a city of 35,000 in 1866 that is now facing bankruptcy from financial shenanigans of predatory capitalism, became known as the electric city in 1880.

Electric trolleys were all the rage in many U.S. cities. Had these avenues been pursued, we would not be saddled with this polluted world. Now, despite the flawed EROI methodolgy which produces numbers above 1.0 for fossil and nuclear fuels, some people in the engineering field are waking up to the fact that the writing is on the EROI wall for them and renewables are the future.

Our society faces the colossal challenge of rapidly developing alternative energy sources that generate sufficient surplus energy to replace fossil fuels. Otherwise, material standards of living will decline – beginning with those of poorer people – as ever more resources have to be devoted to generating useful energy rather than to producing other goods and services. EROI figures indicate that the future lies in renewables like wind and solar, not unconventional hydrocarbons.

So, to summarize all the above, the following “Energy Expended” inputs (the bottom part of the EROI formula*) have been arbitrarily left out by those EROI experts like Professor Charles Hall and the people from The Oil Scum ;D (sorry, I meant the Oil Drum – really) web site:
1) Energy required to bioremediate pollution impacts from energy resource extraction.

2) Energy required to ameliorate negative health effects due to dangerous working conditions.

3) Energy required to counter negative effects on national GDP from slave wages.

4) Energy expended in wars to defend fossil fuel resources in foreign countries.

5) Energy equivalent in government subsidies taken from the populace and given to fossil and nuclear fuel producers. * If you get less energy out (top of the formula) the than you use to get the finished product (bottom of the formula) then you will get a number below “1” (i.e. 1/2 = 0.5 EROI not good). Procrustean bed is an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced.

The Procrustean bed “real world” of these experts is, and always was, a predatory capitalist, destructive and inhuman contrived “world” that they and all the lackeys that have benefited at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the human race and the biosphere cling desperately too by claiming it’s “the way the world works and we just have to live with it”.

No, (Ashvin, Stoneleigh and Ilargi: pay attention) that is not “the way the world works”; That is “how a predatory capitalist con works”. 

Any mathematician worth his salt can, given a standard upstream and downstream time frame from energy extraction of e.g. ten years before and ten years after, quantify all the above Energy Expended Inputs in Mega Joules per Liter.

But because that would shrink the EROI numbers for all fossil and nuclear fuels to a fraction of 1, well below any justification there ever was for making use of these poisons, they won’t do it. 

Furthermore, the improper use and interpretation of thermodynamics by arbitrarily assuming that things that go boom (rapid explosive oxidation) are the gold standard in defining energy per se, they have made important “energy of activation” and “reaction velocity” variables seem irrelevant.

The science of hydrocarbon chemistry and nuclear fission benefits from this flawed view that the more HEAT density in an exothermic process, the greater the potential EROI. That’s certainly true with hydrocarbons and nuclear fuels.

That is NOT true with renewables. The best example I can think of is the internal combustion engine. The purpose of this machine is to use the energy of the explosions in the combustion chambers to drive a piston and produce mechanical energy. An electric motor produces mechanical enegy without wasting over 80% of the energy input on useless heat.

The internal combustion engine, not only loses massive amounts of heat energy in the burning of fuel, but also must use part of the mechanical energy from the combustion to cool the engine. The EROI experts will certainly acknowledge that an internal combustion engine is only about 20% efficient but they flat refuse to see that the electric motor, because it doesn’t produce all that useless heat energy, can do the SAME AMOUNT OF WORK FOR LESS ENERGY.

They may counter that I’m playing thermodynamic games here and the electricity to power the electric motor is coming from a fossil fuel or nuclear power plant so I’m just passing the energy buck, so to speak.

Again, that shows the prejudice of these EROI experts to polluting fuel sources. In the subsequent paragraphs I will show how world electrification complete with electric motors being the motive force in industry and transportation, can achieve exactly the same amount of “useful work” (at a minimum) now produced by fossil fuels with less energy inputs because the resource is PV, geothermal, wind and wave.

You would NOT have all the useless heat energy now contributing to an overheated planet.

Along with all the CO2 and other greenhouse gases, we sure don’t need billions of engines spewing 80% useless heat energy into the biosphere.

Combustion has it’s place with the use of ethanol in furnaces to provide heat in winter where ALL the heat energy output is made use of.

Biomass ethanol used as fuel in high compression engines should be seen as a step in weening us away from gasoline but the whole approach to energy systems that is married to the “more heat is is better forever!”  view is scientifically bankrupt because it refuses to address the damage to the biosphere that waste heat imposes.

As I said in a previous article, nature paces living energy systems with enzymes that lower the energy of activation and control the biochemical reactions to avoid overheating living tissue.

It’s high time the EROI experts accepted that the future lies in an  energy extraction paradigm that does not go boom (explosive, rapid oxidation). We need, for our very survival, to use direct and indirect solar and geothermal energy in a manner so fine tuned that there is zero waste heat. We need to electrify ⚡ all mechanical energy systems and provide them with electricity from renewable and truly efficient, non explosive energy processes.

Let us now see what our global  energy requirements are and how renewables can satisfy them. Remember that our new paradigm has a huge energy debt from all the pollution caused by fossil and nuclear fuels,  the chemical industry pollution and many dirty industrial processes. Even as we begin to power the world cleanly, we will need to be expending a LOT of Mega Joules per Liter to bioremediate the mess the dirty fuel industries have left us with.

Note: The EROI reference below is stated as EROEI but it is the same thing. The “10:1” number convention is a way of stating an EROI of 10.0 with a reference value of “1” as signifying that  1.0 EROI equals equivalent inputs and outputs.  All the EROI numbers I have mentioned previously have the “:1” implied after the number so I have simply left them out.

Given the strong dependence of current technologically advanced economies on oil, Peak Oil may be a distress for entire economic sectors (Hamilton, 2009) if no alternative primary energy is made available during the next decades to take the place of fossil fuels (Hirsch et al., 2005). In a recent report, Heinberg (2009) defined four conditions that a future primary energy source substitute should satisfy: i. must be able to provide a substantial amount of energy— perhaps a quarter of all the energy          currently used nationally or globally; ii. must have an Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI) of 10:1 or above (see Appendix A); iii. cannot have unacceptable environmental (including climate), social or geopolitical impacts; iv. must be renewable. Moreover, as discussed in this manuscript, an additional requirement must be also considered: v. Must not depend on the exploitation and use of scarce materials.

The above authors are being too conservative. As of this writing, renewables already are at 19% of the global energy pie and that information is probaly somewhat dated due to the several month lag on data collection. Because renewable use and their technical efficiency is constantly increasing through added infrastructure and research and development, while fossil and nuclear fuels are in a state where their EROI numbers, even by the gamed formula standards, are heading below 1.0, the renewable percentage of the energy pie will probably increase exponentially, rather than linearly. The fact that renewables, in the early studies nearly a decade ago, had a mere 1% of the global energy pie is strong evidence that the growth is exponential. For those pathetic, parochial clingers to the status quo ante who arrogantly dismiss renewables and their 10.0 PLUS EROIs with the claim that renewables  are a mere drop in the world energy bucket, I suggest you get some metaphorical floatation gear because there is a renewable tsunami coming.  Let us now return to the world energy requirements study and how renewables can fill the gap:


All combined, these authors assume that only 11.5 TW (the 68% of the total mean power) should be produced by the renewable mix to satisfy the 2030 demand of an electrified society. This is close to the 2010 production of 12.5 TW. Current electric generation is only 2 TW, so a six-fold increase is required.

Snippet 2:

The potential primary power sources that remain after this first screening process are wind and concentrating solar thermal (CSP) devices. Besides, the engineering of both technologies is well known and understood and do not actually depend on rare earth elements (REE) and/or scarce materials.

Snippet 3:

2.1. Wind, water and solar proven technologies Windmills of 3–5 MW are being currently built and installed; this is a proven technology in expansion.The EROEI of wind turbines has been estimated in the range 15:1–40:1 (Kubiszewski and Cleveland, 2007). The capacity factor (CF, i.e. the ratio of the power actually produced to the theoretical maximum) of commercial turbines has improved overtime, from 0.22 for units built before 1998, to 0.30 for units in 2000–2001, and 0.36 for those operating after 2004–2005 (US DOE, 2008, p.27). The EROEI of CSP stations is close to 20:1 (Vant-Hull, 1985). Parabolic trough stations are more extended and proven CSP technology.

Snippet 4:

From now to 2030, plausible technology developments would permit colonising continental shelves up to 225 m depth with both founded and floating offshore windmills. In addition, two hybrid wind-wave systems could enhance the yield and power stability of offshore wind turbines: (i)attaching attenuator floaters at the base of windmills and (ii)deploying floating platforms with attenuators at the base and wind turbines above. An example of this technology is the Green Ocean Energy Ltd. prototype of 0.5MW (see: Another example of attenuators is the Pelamis floaters, from Ocean Power Delivery Ltd. (Drewetal., 2009), which generate 0.75 MW with a 120 m long device. An example of the second approach is the Floating Power Plant prototype (see:, designed to produce 10 MW, 56% from waves and 44% from three windmills.

Notice the use of hybrid energy systems to increase efficiency of energy collection. This is a giant paradigm shift from the mono mania that the fossil and nuclear fuel industries pursue with their   “one size fits all” approach to the detriment of the environment (this inefficient approach to energy extraction also simplifies EROI math.  ;D). Fossil and nuclear fuel advocates hate hybrid energy extraction techniques. I guess it confuses them or perhaps their predatory capitalist mindset is too consumed by monopolising one energy source in order to achieve price control and then squelch competitors. Whatever their flawed rationale, their modus operandi is unsustainable. Snippet 5;

The three main advantages of hybrid installations are: increased energy return per square kilometre; reduction of maintenance costs of equipments and undersea transmission cables; and compensation of wind generation intermittency, as wind and waves are not necessarily correlated (with the exception of storms).


Fig. 2. Annual average (July 1983–June 2005) of incident insolation on a horizontal surface in kWh/m2/day. Data downloaded from the NASA Surface Meteorology and Solar Energy site (SSE,, release 6.0). Grey and blue dots have twice the real areas occupied by the CSP stations to improve the readability of the figure (see text for details). White lines represent main distribution grid lines. The length scale corresponds to latitude 45°N. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

The above jpg shows where we will get much of our energy from renewables. As you all know, the sun, directly or indirectly, is our energy power source. We now have the technology, even in it’s infancy as to achievable levels of efficiency, that is proven, durable and being installed in the high renewable energy extraction potential points throughout the globe. This is no pipe dream; this is real, practical and happening, unfortunately, for financial reasons (cheap reliable energy free of price shocks) rather than our desperate global climate situation killing various lifeforms in our biosphere at an increasing rate. But even if it’s just being done for profit, my attitutde is, “Any Port In The Environmental Collapse Storm”. If the profit motive is needed to have a sane energy extraction standard, so be it.  This is a table of the proposed Energy infrastructure: Snippet 6:


I have, in a previous article, mentioned the roaring forties (area of the earth in the 40 degrees south latitudes with powerful winds and constantly turbulent seas). Take a look at the huge amount of wind power available sustainably there (there’s a lot in the North Atlantic too):


Fig. 1. Annual average of wind speed at 50 m above the surface of the Earth in m/s. Data downloaded from the NASA Surface Meteorology and Solar Energy site (SSE,, release 5.0). Light blue, blue and dark blue correspond to regions where the wind speeds are in the ranges 6–8 m/s, 8–10 m/s and >10 m/s, respectively. The red line delineates the 200 m isobath, representing the continental shelf.(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) A. Garcı´a-Olivares etal./EnergyPolicy41(2012)561–574 563

Snippet 7:

In addition to hybrid systems, other techniques are being proposed for power consistency: 2.4. Intermittency constraints The unwelcome power variability associated with renewable sources may be mitigated by: (i)   geographical interconnection (Zhou, 2009); (ii)  use of hydroelectric power to smooth out supply (Czisch and Giebel, 2006); (iii) using reversible Electrical Vehicle (EV) recharging as grid storage (Kempton and Tomic, 2005); (iv) using other electric storage systems, as for example, water pumping, air compression, batteries, hydrogen production and storage and (v)  using smart demand-response management and weather prediction to better match inflexible loads to the power supply (Delucchi and Jacobson,2011).

The study referenced above is thorough. So thorough that it lists every metal used in the energy infrastructure today as well as their uses in wind turbines, PV and CSP to list a few. They even project when these metals will be exhausted at current extraction rates. They warn that the renewable solution requires a steady state economy and not the continuous growth paradigm of capitalism and energy extraction corporations. In other words, it’s time to stop being pigs. We live in a finite world and pretending otherwise for environmental degradation and predatory capitalist profits threatens human society and the biosphere. Yes, we can go full renewable and meet today’s total energy demands. Full electrification will reduce the unusable heat polluting the atmosphere from inefficient internal combustion engines that must go the way of the Dodo bird. The savings from newfound efficiencies with renewables will provide some limited room for growth in addition to a lower overall energy load for exactly the same mechanical energy previously used to run civilization because renewables don’t produce massive wastes in heat energy at all steps of the extraction and use process that fossil fuel and nuclear energy products do. Where I disagree with the authors is on their insistence that the renewable energy sources must be scalable. I believe that scalabilty of an energy source, unless it is a government utility (i.e. fully socialized and non-profit), will lead to unscrupulous short cuts and new externalized costs for the populace for the benefit of private power corporations. The promise of renewables must go hand in hand with decentralized power sources. The authors recognized PV panels could make a huge contribution but did not consider them cheap enough yet and voiced concerns with the future availability of the somewhat rare metals used to make them. This issue is being addressed and overcome so I believe the authors will be pleasantly surprised with the massive contribution PV will make to the total picture. The authors discarded alleged low EROI renewables for consideration because of their scalability bias. As I stated early in this article, biomass ethanol, if properly used, has an EROI of at least that of gasoline without the environmental baggage of gasoline. And other biomass products like Lemna minor (Duckweed), that grow eight times faster than corn without heavy industrial chemical fertilization or pesticides will certainly produce EROI numbers far above 10.0. Passive geothermal (also discarded by the authors because it isn’t scalable) and other renewable heat sources such as e.g. placing mirrors a short distance from the north side of house in winter to reflect sun onto the north facing wall to  drastically lower heating costs will play a very important role in the picture of total sustainability. In addition, decentralized renewable energy infrastructure provides jobs, not in the feast or famine pattern of ethics free, dog eat dog, vicious predatory capitalist “business” model, but in a sustainable, predictable and humane way. While we are busy bioremediating all the damage Rockefeller and the nuclear nuts have saddled us with, we will be dealing with violent and unpredictable weather for a century or more. Decentralized renewable energy infrastructure has the added bonus that it provides resiliency to communities in the event of a disaster because “something” is always going to be working and neighbors with some working renewable energy infrastructure will be able to help those without access to energy. Embracing sustainability is embracing a caring society and rejecting the mindless and destructive wars and erosion of trust that is destroying our civilization from the evil wrought by corporations and the psychopaths that run them. We must reject these human predators who constantly pit everyone against their neighbor for profit. There are still so many goodhearted, thinking people out there that take the stewardship of this planet seriously. We can do so much to live in harmony with the biosphere if we could only constrain the insanely greedy psychopaths among us. Just look at the beauty and harmony with nature we are capable of:

Overpass for Animals, Highway A50 in the Netherlands


Germany is the world leader in turning the dream of a world 100% powered by renewable energy sources into a reality. I invite you now to proceed to this German web site and watch the following free videos. These videos are not about proof of concept or pilot programs. These videos are about nuts and bolts applications going on today. To show you how fast things are changing, the largest wind turbine available that is referenced in the above study about a year old has already been increased by over 1MW in energy generating capacity. The switch to renewables is really happening and these videos prove it: There are five videos.  They are all immensely enjoyable and filled with details of interest about several renewable energy technologies but if you are rushed for time, the last one on Wind Energy does a good job of putting them all together. Those new Wind turbines are BIG! When you click on the link below, scroll to the following sentence:

Watch the film online! If you are interested in watching the Spanish or French version please change the language-option of this website.

Below that sentence you can click and watch each video, one at a time. I recommend you watch them in sequence from top to bottom as they are listed. You won’t be disappointed.

Solar energy Hydropower Geothermal energy Bioenergy Wind energy

I hope you have enjoyed this article. I am certain there are some people out there clinging to the status quo ante that will not be pleased. What will be the reaction from people with vested interests in the fossil and nuclear fuel bankrupt paradigm be? See the beginning of the article for the reaction of the Steak House restaurant owners to replacing the kiddy burgers with chickpeas. So prepare for the ignore, ridicule and attack sequence. The “Steak House” owners are not about to change their name to “Chickpea Heaven” or something like that.

But, if all these people so invested in the horror that is fossil and nuclear fuels would sit down and really think that what they are doing will eventually kill their descendants and much of the biosphere, then “The Oil Drum” web site would morf to “Sustainability From The Sun” web site.  And maybe dear Professor Charles Hall and friends would stop their Procrustean Bed mathematics celebrating things that go boom and denigrating passive sustainable renewable energy processes that don’t.

A big thank you to the Doomstead Diner web site and those that work it and comment on it. like Reverse Engineer (alias Josey Wales!  ;D) and Peter who designed an outstanding forum and thread architecture. Print this and plaster it everywhere you can.

The planet Earth is our home and we need to do everything we can to save it. Challenge the deniers to argue the points made here. Demand proof rather than some huffy dismissal about not understanding the laws of thermodynamics, capitalism or free enterprise. Ask them how many Mega Joules per Liter will we expend in dealing with THEIR “GIFT” TO US of 400 parts per million of CO2, increased cancer rates, excess heat from internal combustion engines that are only about 20% efficient, erosion of democracy through monopoly oil corporation price control and purchase of of our representatives and laws and useless wars that get our children killed for their GOD DAMNED profits (no, I am not swearing; I am certain the creator is not amused by humans trashing his garden or those who, like some poor deluded souls, claim that this is the way the world works and we just have to live with it).

And tell them to stuff it when they say we-the-people are responsible because we consumed their products. If they return all the profits and swag from subsidies made by big oil and nuclear, then we’ll consider that possibility but otherwise it was THEY who corralled us into consuming their crap so they could centralize riches and power and turn the USA into a plutocracy ruled by ruthless oligarchs.

Call them cowards for drinking the koolaid. Force them to face responsibility for ruining the future for their offspring with ther blindness and greed. When the Biased Bums at The Oil Scum claim you don’t know what you are talking about when you claim that ethanol (otherwise known as ethyl alcohol) is a superior fuel to gasoline because it gets better mileage in high compression engines and burns cleaner translating to a GREATER effective EROI than gasoline, push this into their face and ask them why they never got the memo:

Ethyl alcohol in the early 20th century

The following excerpt is from a Paper to the American Society for Environmental History, Annual Conference March 26-30, 2003 By William Kovarik, Ph.D. “Studies of alcohol as an internal combustion engine fuel began in the U.S. with the Edison Electric Testing Laboratory and Columbia University in 1906. Elihu Thomson reported that despite a smaller heat or B.T.U. value, “a gallon of alcohol will develop substantially the same power in an internal combustion engine as a gallon of gasoline. This is owing to the superior efficiency of operation…” (New York Times Aug. 5, 1906) Other researchers confirmed the same phenomena around the same time. “USDA tests in 1906 also demonstrated the efficiency of alcohol in engines and described how gasoline engines could be modified for higher power with pure alcohol fuel or for equivalent fuel consumption, depending on the need. The U.S. Geological Service (USGS) and the U.S. Navy performed 2000 tests on alcohol and gasoline engines in 1907 and 1908 in Norfolk, Va. and St. Louis, Mo. They found that much higher engine compression ratios could be achieved with alcohol than with gasoline. When the compression ratios were adjusted for each fuel, fuel economy was virtually equal despite the greater B.T.U. value of gasoline. “In regard to general cleanliness, such as absence of smoke and disagreeable odors, alcohol has many advantages over gasoline or kerosene as a fuel,” the report said. “The exhaust from an alcohol engine is never clouded with a black or grayish smoke.” USGS continued the comparative tests and later noted that alcohol was “a more ideal fuel than gasoline” with better efficiency despite the high cost.”

Ethanol Engine efficiency exceeds gasoline engines, giving greater miles per gallon (MPG) with ethanol fuel: High Efficiency and Low Emissions from a Port-Injected Engine with Alcohol Fuels— By Matthew Brusstar, Mark Stuhldreher, David Swain and William Pidgeon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  size: 70 Kb – 7 pages

When they fall back on the EROI formula Procrustean Bed with the claim that EROI only deals with energy density in fuels and not efficiency coefficients in different engine types, calmly remind them (hopefully, two by fours will be unnecessary to knock some sense into their heads but you never know ;D) that gasoline is not customarily used for furnaces, room lighting, barbeque grills or to boil water; it’s used almost exclusively in the ICE (internal combustion engine).

For these fossil fuel lakeys, water carriers and quislings to refuse to measure gasoline’s EFFECTIVE USABLE ENERGY when it is actually used in an ICE to do work is the height of duplicity.

But this subterfuge by Rockefeller’s admirers is not new. As I have mentioned before, way back at the end of the 19th century, Rockefeller was flushing his gasoline waste product in the rivers by his refineries at night. He could not avoid producing gasoline in his refinery cracking towers (about 19 gallons of gasoline for every 42 gallon barrel of crude refined)*.

When the automobile came out in the early twentieth century, the early car fuel called benzene had to be eliminated because that hydrocarbon is a carcinogenic. As you read above in the 1906 Edison lab study, ethanol was considered competitive energywise with gasoline.

What did Rockefeller do? He lowered the price of gasoline (remember his cost was near zero because it had been a waste product of the refining process) so much that ethanol was priced out of the market**. It was a win-win for Rockefeller.

It was only a matter of time before his nasty habit of flushing gasoline into rivers at night was going to get him and his refinery employees facing the wrong end of a shotgun from some irate farmer who noticed his horses and cows getting sick or dying when drinking the river water downstream of an oil refinery.

So, Rockefeller managed to change the flush operation from the rivers to the atmosphere and make a bundle out of it too.

But this predatory capitalist wasn’t done killing ethanol yet. He gave millions to a temperance group that ultimately succeeded in Prohibition legislation banning the production and use of ethanol (ethyl alcohol), not just for drinking, but for ICE fuel as well (and you thought Prohibition was just the fundies not wanting you to get high on booze. Rockefeller USED the fundies to block ethanol competition).

The reality was that the “cheap” gasoline was far, far more expensive than ethanol due to the atmospheric poisons introduced. It got even worse when tetra-ethyl lead entered the mix in the 1920s. It wasn’t until about 1973 that the severe damage from leaded gasoline was recognized and even so, to this day, unleaded gasoline is not mandatory in off road vehicles.

Now that ethanol is out there and available once again as a competitor to gasoline, the fossil fuel enablers return with the familiar FALSE claims that ethanol is not competitive with gasoline and the poppycock that gasoline gets better mileage than ethanol.

Call out these overeducated, Procrustean Bed, creative thermodynamics “geniuses” carrying water for the fossil fuel industry on their lies and distortions. Accuse them of being well aware of the above and deliberately distorting the fuel facts when they are actually applied to their use in engines. Tell them their Procrustean Bed EROI Bullshit isn’t going to fly anymore.

*On average, about 19.5 US gallons (16.2 imp gal; 74 L) of gasoline are available from a 42-US-gallon (35 imp gal; 160 L) barrel of crude oil (about 46% by volume), varying due to quality of crude and grade of gasoline. The remaining residue comes off as products ranging from tar to naptha.[4]

**The gasoline engine became the preferred engine for the automobile because gasoline was cheaper than alcohol, not because it was a better fuel. And, because alcohol was not available at any price from 1920 to 1933, a period during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol was banned nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment on December 5, 1933. In time to produce alcohol fuels during World War II. By the time World War II ended, the gasoline engine had become “entrenched” because gasoline remained cheaper than Alcohol, and widely distributed – gas stations were everywhere.

Tell anybody with fried logic circuits that claims this is “the way the world works” that the REAL WORLD, not the predatory capitalist hell hole they so love, is the BIOSPHERE.

That world has a set of rules and, for most of our human existence on this planet, we followed them. For over a century and a half, a level of insanity not seen in human history has produced a greed fest so blind, so stupid and so incorrigible that it can only be labelled what it is: EVIL. Fossil and nuclear fuel advocates and their pseudo scientific Procrustean Bed EROI happy number formulations NEVER WORKED. The backers of these poisoned energy sources lied about absolutely everything related to their extraction and use from day one and they are lying through their teeth now to sabotage the truth about renewable energy sources.

Renewable energy sources are practical, sustainable and healthy for the planet and humans.
Fossil and nuclear fuels have brought us pollution, wars and corrupted democracy.

Renewable energy sources WORK!  Fossil and Nuclear Fuels NEVER DID. (
Posted in Energy, Home | Tagged EROI, Fossil Fuels, Fracking, NaturalGas, Oil, Renewables
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2018, 07:27:58 pm
This is totally visual and may not be that factual but I still believe it is an excellent example of the capacity for human beings to attempt to mold reality through denial and wishful thinking.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2018, 07:31:03 pm
Embryogenesis in living color
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2018, 07:41:22 pm
For the first time in 26 years, seven Sumatran rhinos were filmed on hidden cameras this week in an Indonesian national park. Some feared the critically endangered species had become extinct in the region.
Sumatran rhinos, which are the smallest of their species, have dropped in population by 50 percent over the past 20 years due to poachers and the logging industry that has destroyed much of their habitat.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2018, 07:45:48 pm

Tortoise, 98, Witnessed Gallipoli and Outlived Owner

A retired tortoise breeder is seeking to return a 98-year-old tortoise, Blake, to his native home, the beaches of Gallipoli in Turkey.
According to the Telegraph, back in 1916, a British serviceman now only remembered as Mr. Marris took the tortoise from the beach in Turkey “as shells rained overhead” in the Gallipoli Campaign, which is regarded as one of the greatest disasters for the Allies in World War I.

An ideal home for Blake, says Skinner, would be a “secure sunny garden, with a healthy diet of weeds and wildflowers dusted with calcium,” with “warm dry shelter” in cooler weather. Eleanor Tirtasana, rehoming officer at the Tortoise Club, notes that Blake, like many tortoises, could live into his hundreds.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2018, 07:48:33 pm
Canadian Scientists Mourn The Death of Evidence
The organizers cite job cuts at Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Library and Archives Canada, the National Research Council, Statistics Canada and more as proof that this government does not care about evidence-based knowledge. They specifically mention the Conservative government’s decision to make the long-form census voluntary, which will make statistics less generalized and will have a major effect on research for years to come. There have also been cuts to grant programs which fund scientific research in all different fields.

The organizers plead:

If you are fed up with the closure of federal scientific programs and muzzling of scientists, if you think that decisions should be based on evidence and facts instead of ideology, then please come out and show your support.

Read more:

THE ABOVE IS HOW MODERN PEER REVIEW REALLY "WORKS" (hint: if it doesn't pad some corporate bottom line contolling the fascist government, it never sees the light of day, period).
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2018, 07:53:58 pm
Did you know that animal testing does not even accurately
measure the effect the product may have on a human?

This video, which contains no graphic imagery at all, explains
why this is not only unjustified cruelty, but flawed science.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2018, 07:57:43 pm
Fascinating and hope inspiring video with solid information on permaculture reforesting including the fact that pink color increases photosynthesis due to its effect on the light spectrum on young seedlings and also the fact that carbon depleted soils are dryer because they are hydrophobic. Don't miss this 8 minutes of reforesting through permaculture success story.

The Man of a Thousand Trees
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2018, 08:00:53 pm
A maltreated animal has two potential responses to an abusive master: attack to stop the abuse, or cower/flee to avoid it. He cannot disarm the bully with a witty remark or ironically imitate his master behind his back for his own amusement. One of the first government actions in Nazi Germany was the establishment of a law against treacherous attacks on the state and party that made anti-Nazi humor an act of treason, and there was a reason for this. Research has shown that humor is the most effective means of preventing the indoctrination of brainwashing.”
How’s that?! It’s a mind control deterrent! Laugh on, people…it’s protecting you!
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2018, 08:08:39 pm
Laugh on, people…it’s protecting you!

Funny is GOOD!

The GREAT Steven Wright!

Great lines from this Stand Up...

"I'm a Peripheral Visionary.  I see the future, just off to the side."

"Everybody Dies Instantly. You're alive, you're alive...then you're DEAD"

Great laughs!
 I about split a gut with the elevator practice! ;D

I may start a Comedy Channel here on the Diner.  (  It should be no surprise to anybody that in addition to doing the Disk Jockey/Talk Show thing as a Radio Pirate Pumping Up the Volume ( in my teens, I ALSO did Stand Up Comedy a few times at Dangerfields and Carolines just after college, while I was a Piglet working for Drexel.  Met a LOT of girls this way    ( Another Phase of the Life of RE I will cover sometime in the future perhaps. Been some kinda ride for RE folks through the last years of the Age of Oil.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 02:20:32 pm
Humane animal treatment is as important to  OUR health and well being as their health and well being due to the fact that we eat them.

I'll plan to breakdown this report in more detail at another time but it behooves all of us to read it and know when you are being bullshitted about whether the meat you buy is from an animal that was raised in a healthy environment and treated humanely or not.
Humane Farm Animal Care Comprehensive Animal Welfare Standards Comparison By Program – Chickens, Beef Cattle and Pigs
August (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 03:10:32 pm
Agelbert NOTE: This article, originally published August 13, 2012, was posted in two parts on this forum on October 12, 2013. It is food for thought, especially in view of what the 1% 😈 👹 💵 🎩 🍌  was doing to we-the-people then, that resulted in the mess 🏴‍☠️ we are in now.

Female Argiope appensa spider is on the left 👀

Sexual Dimorphism, PowerStructures and Environmental Consequences of Human Behaviors

Published August 13, 2012 | By A. G. Gelbert

Why the 1% is responsible for more than 80% of humanity’s carbon footprint and why Homo sapiens is doomed unless the 1% lead the way in a sustainable life style.

PART 1 (

PART 2 (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 03:28:41 pm
Scientists expose another myth

Every man for himself
While “women and children first” is a noble call that rings out on sinking ships in movies, an analysis of real maritime disasters reveals the opposite is nearly always true. Swedish researchers looked back at the records of 100 major ship disasters from the past three centuries involving more than 15,000 passengers, and found that the survival rate for men was approximately twice that of women. Even the idea that the captain goes down with his ship was trashed, with 61 percent of the crew typically surviving, compared to just 37 percent of male passengers.
The authors of the analysis, published last month (July 10) in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, are actually economists, interested in how far people will go to protect their own interests. The sinking of the Titanic is a rare example in shipwrecks where there was a clear survival advantage to women, but it goes against the observation of self-interest many economists observe in day-to-day activities. In researching the overall trend, the authors show that the Titanic is a remarkable exception to the general rule that every man is out for himself.

Now you know why one percenters love yachts so much!  ;D

More behavior news including why some female spiders sometimes eat the male mate instead of mating with it. 😈

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 03:36:49 pm
This is an excellent summary of the current insanity at empire central by Mike Stathis.

Washington’s double-dip scam and war with Iran

As the United States continues to suffer from the economic disaster created by Wall Street, the “experts” are once again discussing the possibility of a “double-dip” recession. This play on words is ludicrous to those of us who realize the recession which began in December of 2007, never ended.

The problem with the term “double-dip” recession is that it has been transformed into a misnomer by the media. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) came up with the term “double-dip” recession to describe relative changes in economic data during a recession. According to the NBER, a double-dip recession is “A continuous recession that's punctuated by a period of growth, then followed by a further decline in the economy.”
But the “period of growth” referred to by the NBER does not designate the end of a recession. It merely acknowledges a slight improvement followed by a decline in economic conditions. Note the most relevant portion of the NBER’s definition is that a “double-dip” is a “continuous recession.”

As most Americans realize, there has been no economic recovery. Borrowing trillions of dollars in order to finance banking bailouts, housing subsidies, food stamps, unemployment benefits, and medical care for impoverished Americans does not constitute an economic expansion or recovery; at least not for a nation that claims to be based on “capitalism.”
The objective of this deception is to improve consumer confidence, as directed by Washington. The NBER realizes the media and its “experts” have deceived the American people, but they have kept silent on the matter because they too are members of the establishment.
With nearly one-half of the entire U.S. population currently receiving some form of government assistance, no honest person of sound mind can legitimately claim that the U.S. economy recovered in June 2009, or any time thereafter. Furthermore, with such a high level of public assistance, one could argue that the U.S. economy does not operate based on free market principles. Of course, there are many other points that would strengthen this argument.


Americans have been subjected to establishment-based propaganda similar to the “double-dip” delusion for decades. Compiling a list of this deception would easily consume several large books. But I will discuss a few recent examples.

After listing some examples, he continues with this:
During the financial crisis of 2008, the Federal Reserve and Washington utilized a similar strategy. They claimed that unless the banking bailout was passed, the U.S. would enter a depression. But American homeowners and workers were not bailed out. Instead, their tax dollars were sent to Wall Street.
And of course, the bailout did not prevent a depression. Ironically, the bailout made the banks designated as “too big to fail” even bigger. This “too big to fail” mantra is but another scare tactic orchestrated by the establishment. Common sense tells us that any bank deemed as “too big to fail” poses a tremendous risk to the economy and must be broken up.
Today, the same banks responsible for the collapse of the global economy continue to defraud investors and consumers because Washington refused to pass real Wall Street reform.

For those who don't know who  MAINLY runs Wall street in letter and in spirit, read on:
The Zionist establishment’s most recent pack of manufactured lies has been focused on Iran. According to the criminal puppets in Washington, Iran poses a threat to the U.S. and its “allies” as a terrorist nation seeking to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, most Americans are unaware of the facts about Iran and Israel, just like they are unaware of the real reasons for U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. As informed citizens of the world realize, Iran is the most peaceful nation in the Middle East, and has remained so for many centuries. Israel is the real threat; not only to the Middle East, but to the rest of the world. No other nation comes remotely close to the dangers lurking from Israel’s nuclear-armed, trigger-happy regime.
Despite being considered America’s “strongest ally in the Middle East,” Israel has engaged in a long list of activities that could be considered acts of war against the United States. For instance, Israel has been caught spying on the United States numerous times, committed multiple acts of terrorism on U.S. soil, and attacked at least one unarmed U.S. naval vessel, resulting in dozens of casualties.

In every case, there have been no repercussions from Washington because each of America’s politicians have been bought off by Zionist Jewish money, most of which was obtained by illegal means of some form.
As Zionist-controlled Washington reinvigorates its treasonous partnership with Israel, their obsession with Iran also serves to distract attention away from the depression going on in the U.S.
Although U.S. borders remain open, Zionist-controlled Washington constantly reminds Americans that they must pony up trillions of tax dollars to protect borders in the Middle East and defeat “terrorists” who are thousands of miles away.
But they never mention the fact that the (unnecessary) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased the severity of the economic collapse in the U.S. Nor do they mention that future generations of Americans will be required to pay for these wars in the form of tax hikes, as well as huge cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare

Mike Stathis holds a Master’s of Science in biological chemistry and biophysics from the University of Pennsylvania and was formerly a National Science Foundation research fellow at U.C. Berkeley. Mike serves as the Chief Investment Strategist of AVA Investment Analytics. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 03:47:51 pm
More Mutations in Fukushima Butterflies
Researchers have found an increase in butterflies with unusual wing shapes, legs, and antennae than before the nuclear disaster.

Source: International Science Times

Butterflies collected from sites near Fukushima 2 months after the power plant leaked radiation into the environment showed more than double the mutation rates of butterflies collected from other sites in Japan. The researchers, who hail from University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, reported their findings last week (August 9) in Scientific Reports.

Indeed, each subsequent generation arising from the first radiation-affected butterflies had more severe physical abnormalities than its parent generation. Part of this can be explained by the passing down of damaged genes, but an additional factor, the researchers say, was that butterflies ate contaminated food in the area, which can be more damaging than external exposure.

“It has been believed that insects are very resistant to radiation,” lead researcher Joji Otaki from the University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, told BBC News. “In that sense, our results were unexpected.” (

Right! The negative stuff is ALWAYS "unexpected". Sure. NOT! It's true that mammals are more affected because they have more easily disrupted DNA but insects are considered just as susceptible as mamals to increased mutations from generation to generation. This has been conclusively proven for more than 70 YEARS! Drosphila melanogastor (the fruit fly) is one of science's pet torture specimens.

Drosophila melanogaster

 They breed rapidly and genetic effects can be studied for several generations in a brief time period. Scientists love to experment with them. They are cheap and its easy to keep a control group and monitor statistically valid populations for peer review publication requirements.

For purposes of assessing the risks of environmental exposure to radionuclide emissions, the genetic effects and in utero developmental effects are the only health hazards other than cancer that are addressed in this Background Information Document (BID) ,

6.5.1 Types of Genetic Harm and Duration of Expression

Genetic harm (or the genetic effects) of radiation exposure is defined as stable, heritable changes induced in the germ cells (eggs or sperm) of exposed individuals, which are transmitted to and expressed only in their progeny and in future generations,
Chromosomal damage and mutations have been demonstrated in cells in culture, in plants, in insects, and in mammals (UNSCEAR72,77,82), and in peripheral blood lymphocytes sf persons exposed to radiation (UNSCEAR82, Ev79, Po78) ,
Early experiimental studies showed that x-radiation is mutagenic, In 1927, R.J, Muller reported radiation-induced genetic changes in animals, and in 1928, L-J. Stadler reported such changes in piants (Ki62j.

Although genetic studies were carried out in the 1930s, mostly in plants and fruit flies (Drosophila), the studies on mammals started after the use of nuclear weapons in World War II (UNSCEAR58).

Gamma radiation is more powerful than x-rays so it was a nobrainer even BEFORE the bomb that radionuclides would be multigenerationally mutagenic. I hate it when scientists play dumb.
In 1927, H.J. Muller described x-rayinduced mutations in animals (in the insect, Drosophila), and in 1928, L.J, Stadler reported a similar finding in plants (Ki62).
At about the same time, radiation effects on the developing human embryo were observed. Case reports in 1929 showed a high rate of microcephaly (small head size) and central nervous system disturbance and one case of skeletal defects in children irradiated in utero (UNSCEAR69). These effects, at unrecorded but high exposures and at generally unrecorded gestational ages, appeared to produce central nervous system and eye defects similar to those reported in rats as early as 1922 (Xu50)- (
Unexpected, MY ASS!
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 03:52:41 pm
Wowauonihan: To respect and honor everything around us

The people that were here before we got here are returning to the old ways because they work. For those who believe the "old ways" were a Malthusian struggle with danger and disease that kept human population numbers down (and consequently sustainable), science has a refutation of this grim view of the past. Women in hunter gatherer groups were not sedentary; they were very mobile.

Research has shown that active women do not ovulate monthly and can go several months without ovulating. This, not danger and disease, was the main population regulating mechanism for Homo sapiens. When women became sedentary, they began to ovulate regularly. They became sort of like a queen bee that has all its food brought to it and therefore can devote all her energy to making babies. All those human versions of the queen bee got the population ball rolling and antiseptic techniques in medicine made it go to the lengths we have today.

The bottom line is that we (both male and female) were not designed for a sedentary life style. A hunter gatherer can eat meat every day and never get heart disease or hardening of the arteries from cholesterol plaques because his metabolism is never placed in the situation where it has too much excess energy to store.

The cheapest energy, the kind you get from ethanol, goes straight to the liver where it is stored in fat cells (IN the liver) that eventually inhibit liver cell oxygenation and cause death (cirrhosis). Booze is just another great example of why too much energy is bad.

Refined sugar, just below alcohol in the "quick fix cheap high energy charge" category, is responsible for the Diabetes epidemic sweeping the world's human population (First Nations tribes have suffered mightily from the effects of alcohol and refined sugars in their diets but the rest of Homo sapiens is heavily impacted now as well).

The First Nations knew for thousands of years that it is deleterious to human health AND the human spirit to get too much of a "good thing". Now they are attempting to get back in balance. If the 1% and Wall Street would realize that the functional equivalent in human affairs of wanting too much of a good thing (GREED), really IS bad, we would all be better off.
Historically, Native nations had their own systems of food generation, relying on tribal knowledge for harvesting, planting and consumption techniques. But over the last 200 years, federal Indian policy disrupted and, in some cases, devastated the traditional practices of Native nations. Federal Indian policy has undoubtedly destroyed the control Native nations once held over their land and traditional agriculture, altering the diets of Native peoples. These historical dynamics have contributed to some of the devastating health statistics on Native homelands, including high rates of diabetes, obesity and devastating health conditions.

First Nations recognizes that healthy Native citizens are the cornerstone of a healthy community and nation. Thus, our work in the area of Native food systems has been aimed at increasing Native control over systems of food generation and consumption.

Formed in 1973, the Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority (OSPRA) is a tribally-chartered program of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Their goal is to develop and implement wildlife protection policies on the Pine Ridge Reservation, encompassing about 2 million acres in South Dakota. Moreover, the Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority regulates and monitors hunting activities, water systems, and other natural resource functions. They are also charged with managing the tribal bison herd. The herd numbers over 700 bison that harvest on four separate pastures with 35,000 acres of land and natural water resources.

Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority is guided by the following values:

Woope Sakowin: Seven basic values or laws of OSPRA brought by the White Buffalo Calf Woman who became a buffalo.

Cante Ognake: To care for the welfare of the people in your heart, to be generous, to share, to help, to give.

Wowaunsila: To have pity and compassion for everything that moves.

Wowauonihan: To have respect and honor those we respect, that is everything around us.

Wacin Tanka: To have patience and tolerance.

Wowahwala: To be humble, to seek humility.

Woohitike: To have principals and discipline ourselves, to follow our principals, not to fear those things that change and happen around us; We must be brave and courageous.

Woksape: To have understanding and wisdom.

Other tribes throughout the USA are growing and marketing many types of traditional First Nations crops like organic heirloom corn (many different colors), apple orchards, berries as well as meat protein foods like organic chicken. (

Nobody talks about it but if 7 billion humans ALL operated human powered machinery to preserve their health and keep ovulation cycles down to two or three a year, THAT could be considered a renewable energy source and using it would lower global energy demands by maybe 5%. You get less babies nad less energy demand. What's wrong with that? Get off those lazy butts butts and get your asses in gear! Don't you know there's an energy war on? Now everybody attach a one ton rock to a cable and, using gearing and a bicycle chain, move that rock up every day! When the rock is coming down, you use it to run a generator that powers something in your house for a while like resistance heating for cooking or winter. And if your wife is fertile, crack the whip to get her cranking that rock up there! For you ladies with couch potato husbands, tell those freeloaders that they will eat cold food if the stove isn't charged up and you are not going pay any hospital bills for some cholesterol laden pig! Da Godmuder has spoken!  ;D
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 04:02:03 pm
Research has shown that active women do not ovulate monthly and can go several months without ovulating.

Expand please. Women living close to the earth I've known, ovulate closely in relation to the moon. I don't doubt, the wilder a woman, the less she ovulates, I'm just wondering about the studies. And I guess it seems to me, women ovulating with the moon has a nice symmetry, as an ideal. The asymmetry of the ovulation cycles of the hunter/gatherer have much to do with the reality that the hunter/gather way is cyclically harsh, more dependent on immediate stimuli in relation cycles of the earth.

I hear you about the moon and menstrual cycles. I know there are surgeons that won't schedule operations within a couple of days of the full moon because of blood flow problems. The lunar gravity definitely affects us. However, a fine tuned metabolism apparently bypasses lunar cycle induced ovulation. Take a look at this chart:


The paper is here. (

It mostly deals with modern female diseases. I had to look up Menarche (first menstrual cycle) because , if I ever studied it, I'd forgotten but notice menarche is much later in the hunter gatherer ladies. That is VERY significant because those young lasses have been jail bait magnets for eons. Their delayed menarche helped keep away the dudes wanting a lot of kids. The first birth was earlier for the hunter gatherers BUT, with a three year lactation period, another delay for a new child was built in if the culture assumed that the new kid should not be in competition for breast milk with the older sibling. A lower birth rate fits elegantly.


I know a number of women who have suffered from reproductive area cancers. The way we treat the earth, is it any wonder at all that illness would be concentrated there?

Yes, it's logical that when toxins accumulate, reproduction will definitely be inhibited. Women are more vulnerable than men in this area because, unlike us, they've got all their eggs (around 500 of them - though in much reduced size from the ones that come down the fallopian tubes during ovulation) before they reach puberty.

Men have continual gametogenesis so, unless the testicles get a huge shot of toxins or radionuclide damage, they CAN, in theory, still make good sperm.

Women, on the other hand, with toxins in tissues from industrial pollutants from their birth as well as radionuclide exposure, are literally damaging every single egg decades before it may or may not be inseminated.

It's truly amazing that we are not saddled with more disease and deformities than we now suffer from. That is why I continue to believe all the hysteria about overpopulation is generated by 1% media propaganda. The "problem" is being poisoned away.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 04:24:54 pm
154. Neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander’s Near-Death Experience Defies Medical Model of Consciousness

Interview reveals how a near-death experience changed everything neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander thought he knew about consciousness, spirituality, and life after death.
You may listen to the 52 minute interview at this link or read snippets from the taped interview below.  I really enjoyed the butterfly 🦋 wing experience. (

What I do remember from deep inside coma, for one thing my first awareness was I had no memory whatsoever of my life. I had no language, no words. All of my experience in life, knowledge of humans, Earth, the universe, all of that was gone. The only thing I had was this very kind of crude existence. And I call it in my book the “earthworm’s eye-view,” because it really was just a crude, kind of underground.

I have a vivid memory of dark roots above me and there was a kind of monotonous pounding, a dull sound in the background pounding away eternally. It was just murky and gross. Every now and then a face, an animal or something would boil up out of the muck and there might be some chant or roar or something. Then they’d disappear again.

It sounds very foreboding to talk about it right now, but in fact, since I knew no other existence I don’t remember being particularly alarmed when I was in that setting. I think that that was the best consciousness that my brain could muster when it was soaking in pus. It turns out that that seemed to last for a very long time. Given that it was my first awareness of anything, it actually seemed to be years or eternity. I don’t know. It seemed like a very, very long time.

Then there was a spinning melody, this bright melody that just started spinning in front of me. Beautiful, beautiful melody compared to that dull pounding sound that I’d heard for eons. It spun and as it spun around, it cleared everything away. This was the part that was so shocking and so hard to explain. It was as if the blinders came off and the reality there was much more crisp, real, and interactive and fresh than any reality I’ve ever known in this earthly existence. That part is very shocking and hard to explain when you go through it, and yet what I’ve found since then is that a lot of people who have had NDEs discuss the same kind of hyper-reality. But it’s very shocking to see it.

For me, I was a speck on a butterfly wing. I had no body awareness at all. In fact, I had no body awareness through this entire kind of deep coma experience. I was a speck on a beautiful butterfly wing; millions of other butterflies around us. We were flying through blooming flowers, blossoms on trees, and they were all coming out as we flew through them.

Of course, as I healed—it probably took three or four weeks for a lot of my neuroscience and neurosurgical training to come back—all along that time I was still writing all this down and not reading anything. I was very tempted but my son had told me, “You want this to be worthwhile, don’t read anything else. Just write it all down.” I just was shocked; I was buffeted because my neuroscience mind said, “No, that couldn’t happen.” The more I heard about how sick I was, my cortex shut down, “No, that’s impossible, your cortex was down.”

Of course, for a while I was going after the hypotheses that involved formation of these very complex, intricate memories either right before my coma or right coming out of it. That really did not explain it at all. Part of the problem, when you get right down to it, is that whole issue of remembering the melody because that was a very clear part of it. I remember the elation when I figured that I could just remember that melody and that spun the melody in front of me.

Then all of a sudden, boom! Everything opened up and I went back out into that valley, so crisp and beautiful, and my angel was with me, as I came to call her, my companion on the butterfly wing. And then out into the core, outside of the universe. Very difficult to explain in that fluctuation.

I guess one could always argue, “Well, your brain was probably just barely able to ignite real consciousness and then it would flip back into a very diseased state,” which doesn’t make any sense to me. Especially because that hyper-real state is so indescribable and so crisp. It’s totally unlike any drug experience. A lot of people have come up to me and said, “Oh that sounds like a DMT experience, ”or“ That sounds like ketamine.” Not at all. That is not even in the right ballpark.

Those things do not explain the kind of clarity, the rich interactivity, the layer upon layer of understanding and of lessons taught by deceased loved ones and spiritual beings. Of course, they’re all deceased loved ones. I’ve kind of wondered where it is that these people are coming from. They say, “The brain was very sick but it was very selective and made sure it only remembered deceased loved ones.” They’re just not hearing something.
It seems to me that they’re really barely making a dent in the medical model that we have. The medical model that we have sees us as these biological robots and death as kind of the ultimate Boogeyman. Can we really believe that we’re really going to change such an entrenched system?

Dr. Eben Alexander: I think so. I think that is very much a possibility. There’s this whole issue of mind and brain and duality versus non-dualism and the physical material reductivist models. I go into this in great detail in my book but I think you have to go back about 3,000 years to really get to the beginning of the discussion and to start to see why certain things have transpired.

I think most importantly was the part of this discussion that happened between Rene Descartes and Spinoza back in the 17th Century. They started us into our current era. Our current era is one of mind/consciousness/our soul has been put in the realm of the church more-or-less. There was kind of a truce of sorts that I guess Descartes came up with back then to say there’s mind and then there’s body and just let the natural scientists, those with an interest like Francis Bacon and Galileo and Newton, let’s not burn them all at the stake. Let some of them survive.

So I think it was a good thing to have that truce so that science survived. I mean, I’m a scientist and I love science and the scientific method. I’ve just come to realize that the universe is much grander than we appreciate. So I have to simply broaden my definitions.
I think science is still very important to get us there. Getting back to that mind/brain issue, what happened over time is science kind of grew up and got to be more and more powerful at giving us many things. Science has been a real wonder. But I think that it’s been somewhat at a price and that price came from splitting out mind and body back then and that dualistic approach because as science gained more and more of an upper hand, people were losing track of the kind of mind part of it, the consciousness part.

Can we really then hope to get out of the consciousness loop that we’re in now? Is it just going to be a matter of a philosophical shift like we had back in the 1700’s? Or is there something fundamental to the way that we’re constructed that’s going to keep us limited in how much we can really tap into and understand that knowing that you experienced?
Dr. Eben Alexander: In my view, what I think is going to happen is that science in the much broader sense of the word and spirituality which will be mainly an acknowledgement of the profound nature of our consciousness will grow closer and closer together. We will all move forward into a far more enlightened world. One thing that we will have to let go of is this kind of addiction to simplistic, primitive reductive materialism because there’s really no way that I can see a reductive materialist model coming remotely in the right ballpark to explain what we really know about consciousness now.

Coming from a neurosurgeon who, before my coma, thought I was quite certain how the brain and the mind interacted and it was clear to me that there were many things I could do or see done on my patients and it would eliminate consciousness. It was very clear in that realm that the brain gives you consciousness and everything else and when the brain dies there goes consciousness, soul, mind—it’s all gone. And it was clear.

Now, having been through my coma, I can tell you that’s exactly wrong and that in fact the mind and consciousness are independent of the brain. It’s very hard to explain that, certainly if you’re limiting yourself to that reductive materialist view.

Any of the scientists in the crowd who want to get in on this, what I would recommend is there’s one book I consider the bible of this. It’s a wonderful book but it is really for those who have a strong scientific interest in it. It’s called Irreducible Mind, Edward Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, Bruce Greyson, Adam Crabtree, Alan Galt, Michael Grassa, the whole group from Esalen and also based in the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia, have done an incredibly good job. Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century is the subtitle and that’s exactly what it is.

I felt their book was quite illustrative and of course it caused a huge splash when it came out in 1987, but again a lot of the reductive materialists like myself were not really going to put in the work to go through all of that. We just thought, “We can’t understand it so it can’t be true.”
Dr. Eben Alexander: I would say for one thing I think that a healthy skeptical approach to all this is a good thing because it helps us get to the truth. It helps us know the answer. What we have to be careful of, of course, is not getting in the trap of having our prejudices rule the day. A lot of these experiments and studies, how you interpret them will depend a lot on what your prejudices are going in.

I found early on in my experience, I had to do as Descartes recommended when he was talking about getting to the truth, and that was to really ignore or to reject everything I had ever accepted as real. That was the only way to start getting to where I could figure any of this out.

I know that a lot of the reductive scientific crowd out there—I have a favorite quote from Stephen Hawking. He says, “There’s a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority or imposed dogma and faith, as opposed to science which is based on observation and reason.” What I would say is I think his statement is true as a general statement but that science, and certainly those who believe in science and scientists, are as prone to addiction to imposed dogma and faith as our religious zealot. So one has to be very careful to really step back and want to know the truth. That’s what I think we all would like to know.
Alex Tsakiris: In this case, if we really do step back one of the things that’s troubling to me, and you touched on it a minute ago, is how overwhelming the evidence seems to be. At this point, we can confidently say that near-death experiences didn’t just start happening in the last 20 years since we had advanced resuscitation techniques.

We can confidently say that 4% to 5% of everyone who has a cardiac arrest is having this. There’s obviously hundreds of millions of people over time who have had these accounts and we have thousands and thousands of well-documented, consistent accounts across cultures, across times. These are the measures that we would normally use to say, “This is a real phenomenon.”

And then when the skeptics, and really the mainstream scientists have pounded against it for 20 years with really what amounts to a bunch of very silly explanations but ones that have been carefully looked at and dismissed—was it CO2 , a fear of death, other psychological factors? Is it all the different things like REM intrusion? All these things.

Clearly this would normally be something where we’d be putting a lot of attention into it. Or that it would then become the presumed explanation for it. But none of that’s happening. They have managed to hold back the dyke, you know? So what do you make of that?

Dr. Eben Alexander: Okay, I think in trying to get back to your original question with the previous guest, to me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact.

And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain. As much as I know all the reductive materialist arguments against that, I think part of the problem is it’s like the guy looking for his keys under the streetlight. Reductive materialists are under the streetlight because that’s where they can see things.

But in fact, if you’re keys are lost out in the darkness, the techniques there are no good. It is only by letting go of that reductive materialism and opening up to what is a far more profound understanding of consciousness. This is where I think for me as a scientist, I look at quantum mechanics and I go into this in great detail in my book, is a huge part of the smoking gun. It shows us that there’s something going on there about consciousness that our primitive models don’t get.

It’s far more profound than I ever realized before.
That’s where I’m coming from because my experience showed me very clearly that incredibly powerful consciousness far beyond what I’m trapped in here in the earthly realm begins to emerge as you get rid of that filtering mechanism of the brain. It is really astonishing. And that is what we need to explain. Thousands or millions of near-death experiencers have talked about this. Not only that but as you mentioned a few minutes ago, people don’t even have to go to a near-death situation.

There are plenty of mystical experiences that have occurred over millennia that are part of the same mechanism. That’s why all this talk about oxygen, tension, CO2 and all that you can pretty much throw out the window. You really need to be working towards explaining all of those phenomena. Part of the problem is they’re hard to explain but that is a clue.

Willy Lomans was asked, “Why do you rob banks?” He said, “Because that’s where the money is.” Well, same kind of thing. They are hard issues and the whole understanding of what consciousness really involves. I came a lot closer to that in my coma experience and coming out of it and in doing all the very intense homework for the three years since then to try and understand it. It’s a difficult question because it’s close to the real truth that we’re going after. If it were easy it would be widely available. It would already have been written up by somebody who wanted to publish or perish. That’s not how it works. It’s not that easy.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 04:30:12 pm
RE, regarding your health problems.  It's never too late to improve your diet to reverse certain health conditions.  Even clogged arteries can be reversed (RE'd?) by going on a short term plant based diet.  Of course big pharm would have you believe you need to buy a pill for that, and they just keep you alive instead of fixing the problem.

But I think you know this and have made your choice?  Did I read correctly that your legs were amputated?

I agree that, since most cells in the human body are replaced (almost fully - except for the brain cells - every seven years or so) at varying rates (the inner lining of the stomach and intestines have the fastest replacement rates), it's never too late to improve one's health with diet. RE said he has PAD and he had some "rotor rootor" (angioplasty perhaps to widen the arterial lumen?) done to keep his circulation sufficient below the knees so he wouldn't lose that part of his legs.

This short article  on vitamin B12 and vegans is interesting because it mentions some Hindu vegans that don't take B12 supplement but don't suffer anemia because they apparently get their B12 from the bugs that get eaten with the plant tissue.
It is true that Hindu vegans living in certain parts of India do not suffer from vitamin B12 deficiency. This has led some to conclude that plant foods do provide this vitamin. This conclusion, however, is erroneous as many small insects, their feces, eggs, larvae and/or residue, are left on the plant foods these people consume, due to non-use of pesticides and inefficient cleaning methods.
This is how these people obtain their vitamin B12. This contention is borne out by the fact that when vegan Indian Hindus later migrated to England, they came down with megaloblastic anaemia within a few years. In England, the food supply is cleaner, and insect residues are completely removed from plant foods (16).
The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products, especially organ meats and eggs (17). Though present in lesser amounts than meat and eggs, dairy products do contain B12. Vegans, therefore, should consider adding dairy products into their diets. If dairy cannot be tolerated, eggs, preferably from free-run hens, are a virtual necessity. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 04:31:33 pm
Opinion: What Is the Human Genome?

The human genome that researchers sequenced at the turn of the century doesn’t really exist as we know it.
The Human Genome project sequenced “the human genome” and is widely credited with setting in motion the most exciting era of fundamental new scientific discovery since Galileo. That’s remarkable, because in important ways “the human genome” that we have labeled as such doesn’t actually exist.
Plato essentially asserted that things like chairs and dogs, which we observe in this physical world, and even concepts like virtues, are but imperfect representations or instances of some ideal that exists, but not in the material world. Such a Platonic ideal is “the human genome,” a sequence of about 3 billion nucleotides arrayed across a linear scale of position from the start of chromosome 1 to the end of the sex chromosomes. Whether it was obtained from one person or several has so far been shrouded in secrecy for bioethical reasons, but it makes no real difference. What we call the human genome sequence is really just a reference: it cannot account for all the variability that exists in the species, just like no single dog on earth, real or imagined, can fully incorporate all the variability in the characteristics of dogs.
Nor is the human genome we have a “’normal” genome. What would it mean to be “normal” for the nucleotide at position 1,234,547 on chromosome 11?  All we know is that the donor(s) had no identified disease when bled for the cause, but sooner or later some disease will arise. Essentially all available whole genome sequences show potentially disease-producing variants, even including nonfunctional genes, in donors who were unaffected at the time.
Furthermore, the current reference genome sequence is haploid, which means that even if it were compiled from just one donor, the single reference sequence does not report the variation at millions of nucleotide positions between the donor’s two copies (except for X and Y) that we know exist. I understand that the DNA template is being resequenced, to be reported as a diploid sequence, which is progress. Hopefully this will be done in a way that produces phased sequence, in which each chromosome is reported separately, rather than just identifying the two alleles at each variable site along the genome without specifying on which chromosome it lies. Only the former format will represent sequences as they actually exist in the sequenced person, identifying which alleles go together on a chromosome, and are thus linked evolutionarily.
Even so the reference human genome will keep changing! (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 04:35:10 pm
How To Create A Low Maintenance Green Roof 🌼
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 04:37:39 pm
I have found some great articles covering various subjects of interest to readers and dealing with our present problems in society and the environment by Robert Riversong. I will be presenting them here for your reading pleasure.
Civil War: The Conquest of Agrarianism by Industrialism
“Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals the fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex. And in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners.”
- Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States
Because much of the myth of American exceptionalism that is the dogma of global empire and the core of our cultural paradigm has its roots in the clash of civilizations that we call the Civil War, I’ve excerpted the following from a most important book on America’s cultural dysfunction – one of the very few honest and accurate analyses of the nature of that internecine conflict (and of the American personality).
The Subjugation of the South by the North
From Why America Failed: The Roots of Imperial Decline
Morris Berman, 2012
Nearly everything in modern American history turns on the Civil War, because the nascent ideology of America (which can more accurately be described as a mythology, or grand narrative) requires us to “fix” traditional societies and eliminate obstacles to progress. With the Civil War, these two goals converged. What the North did to the South is the model of what America did and does to “backward” (i.e. traditional) societies if it can. We wiped out almost the entire indigenous population of North America, we stole half of Mexico, we literally vaporized a large chunk of the Japanese population, we bombed Vietnam “back to the Stone Age” (in the immortal words of Gen. Curtis LeMay, Air Force Chief of Staff), we “shocked and awed” Iraqi civilians, and spent ten years trying to “pacify” and “nation-build” Afghanistan.
The Civil War was, in fact, a clash of civilizations and what was at stake was nothing less than the definition of what constitutes a meaningful life. It was this great conflict which generated the energy that sustained a four-year battle and the death of 625,000 individuals.
The popular, school-book version of the antebellum South was one of a backward and immoral place – a national embarrassment – which refused to abandon the abomination of slavery, which led to the Civil War to rectify this injustice. Under the leadership of the saintly Abraham Lincoln, the virtuous Union armies defeated the evil Confederate ones, and the slaves were set free. This remains the political correct and liberal academic version to this day.
Slavery was a barbaric system, which the South attempted to defend to the bitter end, but this explanation ignores the complexities that contributed to the war, as well as the fact that the South had a rich intellectual tradition and a virtue of its own. There is, in truth, so much complexity to the relationship between North and South that few historians agree on whether slavery was the primary motive for the War or a smokescreen for concealing other motives, on the nature of Southern society, on the nature of slavery and the motivations and character of the anti-slavery movement, and on the interpretation of the sectional clashes which preceded the final crisis.
Among the complexifying elements that contributed to the crisis were economic motives, the desire to preserve the Union at all costs, and the fight over states rights versus federalism, in addition to the nature of the new territories of the westward expansion.
Though the denial of the slavery issue as the prime factor is sometimes a form of Southern apologetics, it is never-the-less true that prior to the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, the North had proposed no change in the status of the Negro as a result of the war. This gives credence to the claims of Jefferson Davis (among others) that the real goal of the North was not abolition but domination of the South. Charles Beard, in The Rise of American Civilization (1927), saw the war as a struggle between two conflicting economies, the watershed division between the agricultural era and the industrial era in American history. For him, slavery was more of a footnote to the war, as the most obvious result of the war was the ascendancy of Northern capitalism and the emergence of a plutocracy in the United States.
But even this interpretation over-simplifies, as slavery was central to the economic differences between the two American cultures. Without the slavery issue, there would have been no Republican Party, formed as it was by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers (who opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories, arguing that free men on free soil comprised a morally and economically superior system to slavery).
Most Northerners believed, at least initially, that the war was not about slavery as a moral issue. In an address to a special session of Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln stated, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the United States where it exists”, repeating what he had said at his inauguration earlier in the year. Secession, he said, was the real issue, for the Union must be preserved at all costs (the Union Congress passed resolutions endorsing all of this). Lincoln already made it clear that he did not favor social and political equality for blacks “in any way” and was a major proponent of repatriating them to a colony in Central America. For other Republicans, moral opposition to slavery was a non-issue.
Union soldiers saw themselves as fighting for the Union and against what they regarded as treason. Only a minority had an interest in fighting for black freedom. A popular Northern war-time ditty went:
A willingness to fight with vigor,                                                                                         for loyal rights, but not for the ****.
In the case of “contrabands” – slaves who escaped from their masters during the war and sought refuge in Union army camps – the typical Yankee response was indifference or cruelty, often using them as defacto slaves, with the women occasionally raped.
Although Lincoln personally believed that slavery was morally wrong, his primary motivations were social and economic. His vision was of a nation of unlimited economic opportunity and upward social mobility – “free labor”, or what would later be known as the American Dream. He had no special prejudices against the South; his goal was to halt further expansion of slavery into the Western territories (what we now call the Midwest) so that the white people could build a better life for themselves through their own efforts. Abolitionists like Horace Greeley, editor of The New York Tribune, rebuked Lincoln in 1862 for not taking a stronger stand against slavery. Lincoln’s reply ought to clear up any doubts as to where he stood on the matter, at least at that point in time:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
All the evidence suggests that the North’s “nobility” in fighting slavery was a long-afer-the-fact justification, an attempt to portray the conflict as a victory of morality over depravity. It’s a thesis that gets people exercised, but it doesn’t wash with the facts.
If not slavery as a moral issue, what then of the economic factors? The conflict between an agrarian slave economy and an industrial capitalist one is also enmeshed in the sectional conflict over the future character of the Western territories and the nature of modernity. Historians James McPherson and Eric Foner see the conflict as a clash of worldviews. Foner concludes with the
“conviction that North and South represented two social systems whose values, interests, and future prospects were in sharp, perhaps mortal, conflict with one another. The sense of difference, of estrangement, and of growing hostility with which Republicans viewed the South cannot be overemphasized…An attack not simply on the institution of slavery but upon southern society itself was thus at the heart of the Republican mentality.”
Each ideology, the Northern and Southern, contained “the conviction that its own social system must expand, not only to insure its own survival but to prevent the expansion of all the evils the other represented”. The conflict had become Manichean; only the aspirations of one of these sides could prevail. To have remained in the Union after Lincoln’s election, says Foner, “the South would have had to accept the verdict of ‘ultimate extinction’ which Lincoln and the Republicans had passed on the peculiar institution [slavery].” Secession, he adds, was “the only action consistent with its ideology”. As the Italian historian Raimondo Luraghi puts it, “no society can ever be expected to commit suicide”.
The Southern economy was agrarian, the Northern one industrial. After the 1830s, cotton ceased to dominate the economy of the North, which had then become a manufacturing region. North and West came to depend less on the South and more on each other. While Northern business interests were hardly advocates of war for the sake of the Union, their expanding interests never-the-less could result in nothing less. “Nowhere”, writes Luraghi, “has the industrial revolution…ever been achieved except by compelling agriculture to pay for it”.
Between 1800 and 1860, the proportion of the labor force engaged in agriculture in the North dropped from 70% to 40%; in the South, the proportion held fast at 80%. One tenth of Southerners lived in urban areas; 25% of Northerners did. For those engaged in business, the North to South ratio was three to one; for engineers and inventors, six to one. In 1850, only 14% of the national canal mileage ran through the slave states. Those states represented 42% of the country’s population but only 18% of its manufacturing capacity. The city of Lowell, Massachusetts operated more spindles in 1860 than all eleven of the future Confederate states combined.
Lincoln’s economic views were central to his political philosophy. Lincoln first came to prominence in rural Illinois as an advocate of better transportation. As a Whig member of the Illinois House of Representatives, he supported the creation of numerous private companies engaged in river, canal, turnpike and railroad construction, as well as the establishment of a state bank in 1835. His vision, according to Gabor Borritt (Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream), was that of endless material progress. The extension of slavery thus had to be opposed, in Lincoln’s eyes, because it flew in the face of this economic objective. Lincoln believed the Union “formed an indivisible economic unit”. In socio-economic terms, Lincoln regarded “unobstructed upward mobility [as] the most important ideal America strove for”.
The Republican Party was united, according to Foner (Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men), by the idea that free (entrepreneurial) labor was socially and economically superior to slave labor and that “the distinctive quality of Northern society was the opportunity it offered wage earners to rise to property-owning independence”. Their political pitch throughout the 1850s was that freedom meant prosperity, progress, and upward social mobility, while slavery was an obstacle to all those things. The Republicans held that today’s laborers would be tomorrow’s capitalists, and that if a man failed to rise above his status he had only himself to blame (the legacy of this, as John Steinbeck pointed out many years later, was that in America the poor regard themselves as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires”). Lincoln was the perfect representative of this group, because his life embodied the ideology of the self-made man – an ideology that would be carried into the next century by means of Horatio Alger stories.
In the antebellum period (let alone much later), the idealization of the self-made man was largely a myth. During that period, 4% of the inhabitants of New York City controlled 50% of the wealth, and only a tiny percentage of the wealthy were self-made; the vast majority being born into wealthy families. As for “free labor” – autonomous or entrepreneurial labor – the reality is that it included wage labor (factory or other types of employment). In 1859, almost 60% of the workforce was employed by another, not economically independent (self-employed). By the late nineteenth century, Lincoln’s argument that wage labor was a temporary state on the road to free labor could not be maintained, and labor unions argued that coercion was as inherent to industrial capitalism as it had been to slavery.
“Wage slavery” was a popular phrase in the Gilded Age (during the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy rose at the fastest rate in its history) – a concept that Southerners were bandying about decades earlier. Southerners saw the Linconesque vision of a “race for life” grotesque. They looked North and saw a society of frenetic activity, selfishness and greed and wanted no part of it. Frederick Law Olmsted, traveling through the South at that time, commented that the Southerner “enjoys life itself…[and] is content with being”, whereas the Northerner couldn’t be happy unless he was doing something, making some sort of “progress”. Looking the other way, the Cincinnati Gazette, in 1858, saw a society lazy, decadent and absent of industry.
The treatment of the South by the North was the template for the way the United States would come to treat any nation that got in the way of progress: not merely a scorched earth policy, but a scorched soul policy (the destruction of Native American culture was, of course, a preview of this). From Japan to Iraq and Afghanistan, to the extent that we have been able to impose it, we first destroy the place physically and murder huge numbers of civilians (as the North did to the South with 50,000 civilian deaths) and then we Americanize it. Humiliation, the destruction of the identity of the defeated people, has always been an important part of the equation. What the Cincinnati Gazette called introducing “the Northern system of life” later became the American way of life, exported at the muzzle of a gun.
Lincoln told an official of the Interior Department in 1862 that, as of 1863, “the character of the war will be changed. It will be one of subjugation…The South is to be destroyed and replaced by new propositions and new ideas”. There was an incessant repetition of the theme of how it was necessary to “Northernize the South”. Thaddeus Stevens, leader of the radical faction of the Republicans in the House of Representaives, believed this would have to “involve the desolation of the South”, and in his speeches of 1865 he said that the Southern institutions “must be broken up and relaid…This can only be done by treating them and holding them as a conquered people”. Slavery notwithstanding, it was hard for the South to regard the North as an ethical society.
William Tecumsah Sherman’s march from Atlanta to Savannah in 1864 was a deliberate policy of scorched earth and scorched soul. It was, wrote James McPherson, retribution for secession (not for slavery), a war of plunder and arson. Sherman, himself, said that his aim was to terrorize the state of Georgia and demoralize it. By 1865, the South was “an economic desert”. A quarter of the Confederacy’s white men of military age perished, along with 40% of Southern livestock, 50% of Southern farm machinery and thousands of miles of railroads. Whereas in 1860 the South had 30% of the national wealth, in 1870 it had only 12%. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 04:41:46 pm
Fishermen Find Lost Baby Walrus, Now Safe at SeaLife Center

Like many sea mammals, baby walruses have a deep tactile connection with their moms who offer them both nourshiment and protection during the early years of their lives. But every once in a while, something goes wrong, and the little ones become separated from their natural mothers.
The Alaska SeaLife Center is currently rehabilitating one such baby, a male Pacific walrus calf that was stranded near Barrow last month. The calf, estimated at four to six weeks old when found, was spotted by local fishermen who came across the calf in North Salt Lagoon. A large group of walruses were sighted passing Barrow on floating ice a few days earlier and the calf is presumed to have been separated from this group.


That baby Walrus is amazingly affectionate!

Eat Sleep and Snuggle, Welcome Baby Walrus!
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 04:53:33 pm
Agelbert NOTE: My estimate for the first ice free summer at the North Pole of 2017 was a bit off. However, since it may happen this year or next, I was a LOT closer than the 2030-2040 scientific consensus (Seymour Laxon, professor of climate physics at University College) at the time. 😎


Arctic Ice Melting Fast

The sea ice in the Arctic is expected to hit a record low by the end of the month.

By Edyta Zielinska | August 21, 2012

The ebb of Arctic ice during the warm months of the year is expected to reach an all time low by the end of the summer. There will be 186,000 fewer square miles of ice than the previous lowest record, which was in 2007, according to BBC News, and the ice is expected to continue melting into mid- to late September.
“We got very close to a record minimum last year,” Seymour Laxon, professor of climate physics at University College London, told the BBC.  The trend may force scientists to reconsider their predicted date for when the Arctic will be completely melted.  In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that as a result of the melting trends, they expected that the Arctic would be ice-free by the year 2100.
“When we had the 2007 minimum, that date was brought forward to 2030-2040,” said Laxon.  “The fact that we look set to get another record ice minimum in such a short space of time means that the modelers may once again need to go and look at what their projections are telling them,” (

Yes indeed. The modelers are way too conservative with the 2030 date.
Agelbert's non-peer reviewed thoroughly thorough scientific examination of the arctic ice melt projects the summer of 2017 as the first summer that all the OLD ice will be gone. That summer will be ice free. Of course new ice will form during the fall and winter but there will be less each year as the open ocean albedo (2 to 10% vs 80% for ice) absorbs more heat (from solar photons, RE, not the atmosphere  ;D) thereby delaying ice formation each fall and initiating earlier ice melt each spring. WHD is witness that I have already stated this earlier here.

A bull market in floating houses on the East coast is comin' (and a bear market in low lying ocean front property in the whole fuc king WORLD!).

Agelbert's non-peer reviewed thoroughly thorough scientific examination of the arctic ice melt projects the summer of 2017 as the first summer that all the OLD ice will be gone.

WHD is witness that I have already stated this earlier here.

I know I asked you, but I didn't see the response. When you say OLD ice, there's some pretty old fuc king ice on Greenland and Antarctica. Are you saying an entirely ice free world in August/Sept, in 2017? :o Cause that's going to displace WHD's entirely un-peer-reviewed assessment of about 2-3 billion people.
No. I'm talking about just the floating stuff in the Arctic. The OLD ice is the kind that doesn't thaw from year to year on the floating ice pack. The floating stuff around Antarctica will last longer but I don't have an estimate on that at this time.

As to the ice of Greenland, once the surrounding sea is ice free during the summer, big chunks may just slide off because of tunneling melt water creating a lubricated based between the land and ice cover and the lack of brake on the glacial slide because the sea has no floating pack in it. I don't think we'll see the ice over Greenland and Antarctica go in our lifetimes (next 20 years or so for me) but we may see some pretty big chunks come o

Glad to hear it. As if we don't have enough problems, without 3 billion refugees.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 05:03:25 pm
I posted on an article by this lady about her decision to change her chicken farming methods despite industry pressures not to do so over a year ago. I thanked her and asked her to keep the welfare of the chickens in mind above and beyond the profit motive while raising them as this would keep their existence less stressful and their overall health would improve because, even though we eat them, we should treat them humanely while they live. I mentioned she would be much happier as well. Apparently enough people talked to her this way because she listened!

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 05:31:51 pm
Agelbert NOTE: As far as racist Trump is concerned, our brutal eugenics and anti-immigration past is prologue. THAT was when America was "great", according to that POS POTUS.  Trump wants to return the USA to the Calvin Collidge model of anti-immigration and brutal racist eugenics that Hitler so admired.


The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics ☠️

Edwin Black
History News Network

Mr. Black is the author of IBM and the Holocaust and the just released War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, from which the following article is drawn.

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Hitler ( even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant ( calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."

Note:  Hitler was praising US immigration policy (actually it was a NO immigration policy) by none other than Calvin Coolidge ( who's term was from August 2, 1923 – March 4, 1929. Look up what "silent" Cal's home state of Vermont was up to in those days. Just the other day the legislature here in Vermont apologized for sterilizing "undesirables" during that period ranging from Abenakis to French Canadians (better late than never, I suppose). Vermont was on a eugenics roll and Coolidge totally approved of this racist crap.

Learn more here:]



Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 05:37:05 pm
The Top 100 Healthiest, Budget-Friendly Foods

Last year, 45 million Americans — more than one in seven of us — participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), the nation’s largest food assistance program. On average, SNAP participants receive $134 per month to buy food and other essentials. But they aren’t the only ones who are trying to work within a budget to feed themselves and their families, and to do so as healthfully as possible.
With food prices on the rise and the economy yet to really pick up, Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released a guide called Good Food on a Tight Budget. “EWG researchers assessed nearly 1,200 foods, comparing national average food prices and 19 different nutrients in order to identify the most nutritious foods that are easy on the wallet and the planet,” according to the press release. The top 100 foods are listed in the guide, which also includes quick-and-easy, adaptable recipes and tips for saving time and money while shopping, planning and preparing meals.
Bananas, watermelons and pears are among the fruits that deliver “the biggest nutritional bang for the buck.” Broccoli, carrots and onions are “best buy” vegetables, and cabbage, at less than ten cents per serving, is also a versatile one that can be used in salads, sandwiches, stir-fries, stews and soups. Oatmeal, barley and rice make great grains for your budget, your health and the environment, while a variety of beans, nuts and turkey are best bets among protein sources. The guide also covers dairy foods, cooking oils and spices.
Some of the best ways to save money, EWG advises, is to buy in bulk when possible and to cook and freeze your food in batches. You’ll also want to avoid most processed foods, which are often more expensive and less healthy than fresh, whole foods. There’s also always the option of growing your own fruits and vegetables.
Foods were rated by EWG based on a balance of five factors:
1. Beneficial nutrients
2. Nutrients to minimize (saturated fat, sodium and total sugar)
3. Price
4. Extent of processing
5. Harmful contaminants from environmental pollution and food packaging.
Nutrients and price took precedence over the rest. Read more about EWG’s methodology here.
“Putting good food on your family’s table on a $5-or-$6-a-day budget is tough, but it’s possible,” said guide co-author Dawn Undurraga, EWG nutritionist and registered dietitian, in the press release. “When shoppers fill their grocery carts with the foods on EWG’s lists, they’ll be doing something good for their health and environment, meanwhile lowering their grocery bills and exposures to the worst chemicals.”
Download EWG’s Good Food on a Tight Budget guide here.
Today, as kids across the country get ready to go back to school, EWG will release its recommendations for healthy and affordable school lunches.

I just want to add that eating properly is the best investment you can make because it keeps your medical and dental bills down. An apple a day may not keep the doctor away but a proper diet sure will! (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 05:43:53 pm

Moby Dick's descendant 🐳  ;D
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 05:45:52 pm
IQ Foods: Processed Food Lowers IQ in Children, Nutritious Food Raises It

Processed foods are the staple of far too many diets, particularly in the United States where 105 million people have either diabetes or prediabetes. These processed foods are filled with white sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, aspartame, artificial food colorings, and a wide variety of other toxic substances. Interestingly enough, research shows that these are some of the worst IQ foods. Given the makeup of processed foods, is it any wonder that children are suffering from IQ reduction upon introducing these foods into their diet?
IQ Foods: The Findings
British researchers uncovered the connection between processed foods and reduced IQ. They followed what 14,000 children ate and drank at the ages of 3, 4, 7, and 8.5 years of age, with answers submitted via parents through questionnaires. The researchers found that if children were consuming a processed diet at age 3, IQ decline could begin over the next five years. The study found that by age 8, the children had suffered the IQ decline.

On the contrary, children who ate a nutrient-rich diet were found to increase their IQ over the 3 year period. The foods considered nutrient-rich by the researchers were most likely conventional fruits and vegetables. If children were to eat a wide variety of organic produce, superfoods, mineral-rich plants, and perhaps even consume a food-based multivitamin, the researchers would most likely see a substantial IQ increase. This eating plan would also benefit the children — or even adults — in other aspects of their lives as well, such as better overall health & well-being.
Processed foods have been known to wreak havoc on the body for quite some time. One joint American and Spanish study has even found that junk food products, particularly those containing trans fats, can make healthy young men infertile by damaging their sperm. Another study, conducted by scientists from the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and the University of Granada, reported that both junk food and fast food consumption can bring on depression. The link was so strong, in fact, that those who consumed fast food were 51% more likely to be depressed. It isn’t surprising that some of the worst IQ foods are the same foods that cause numerous health complications.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 06:14:53 pm
Life (Re)Cycle

God's Inordinate Fondness for Beetles  (


Death breeds life in the world’s most diverse and abundant group of animals.

By Bernd Heinrich | August 1, 2012

An inordinate fondness for beetles.” That reportedly was the wry retort of famed British biologist J.B.S. Haldane to a theologian who asked him if anything could be concluded about the Creator’s predilections by studying creation. Haldane was referring to the fact that there are nearly half a million beetle species known on Earth. Having been an avid beetle collector since I was a small boy, I can say I share a certain fondness for the insects.
The diversity of beetles on our planet is amazing, and their behaviors and life histories are just as varied. Nowhere is this more evident than in beetles that dine upon carrion. I find carrion beetles not only wonderfully diverse, but also emblematic of natural cycles of birth and death, the focus of my latest book, Life Everlasting.
As a scientist, I worked for years on the behavior of ravens, the ultimate carcass-disposal specialists, so I was not particularly mindful of the roles beetles play in the recycling process. While large scavengers, such as ravens, eagles, wolves, and coyotes, quickly dispose of animal carcasses in snowy Northern Hemisphere forests, insects take the recycling lead in summer. One group in particular, the burying beetles, or nicrophorines, bury whole carcasses to create an underground smorgasbord for their larvae.


Burying beetles are conveniently attracted simply by setting out a dead mouse. After one beetle discovers a fresh carcass, it wafts an attracting scent to “call” a mate, who arrives in minutes. The pair transports the carcass to a suitable burial site and inters it there.
The fate of large animal carcasses, such as moose or deer, may be similarly quick, and it usually involves large scavengers as well as small. Plant carcasses present a more complicated challenge, however, and the disposal of dying and dead trees may take decades, sometimes even centuries.
Because it is a process that proceeds at a glacial pace, the decomposition of a tree is not as flashy as a hyena killing an ailing antelope, or even the burying of a mouse by a pair of Nicrophorus beetles. So the fate of dead trees and the roles that beetles play in it are therefore easily taken for granted, especially since one seldom sees the beetles as adults—they come, lay eggs, and leave, and the larvae then stay hidden inside for months or years. Yet the beetles use the tree as a food source, and thereby help degrade its tissues and recycle its remains into other organisms as surely as burying beetles do those of mice and birds.
Peel back the bark of almost any tree that is dying or recently dead, and you find the fantastically patterned feeding galleries of beetle larvae, primarily members of the family Scolytidae.


Each beetle species leaves distinctive tracks, and each specializes in depositing eggs in a narrow range of tree species. Digging deeper inside the dead tree, one encounters long-horned beetles (Cerambycidae)

and emerald beetles (Buprestidae),

their much larger larvae move from gnawing the cambium, part of the plant’s vascular system, to burrowing deep into the xylem at the heart of the tree.

Reminded day and night in the summer when I hear the chewing of sawyer beetle grubs in elderly trees,
I think of the thousands of gorgeous beetle species in woods the world over that make forest life possible. The topic of disposal of the dead is reminiscent of metamorphosis, and is key to the ecology of life everlasting. Beetles occupy a major hub of it. Haldane had more reason to be correct than he may have realized.
Bernd Heinrich is an internationally recognized scientist and the author of numerous award-winning books, including the best selling Mind of the Raven, Why We Run, and Winter World. He is a frequent contributor to national publications and professor emeritus of biology at the University of Vermont.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 06:27:21 pm

Winner at the festival for the Golden Kitty 🐈 award was a two-minute film called “Henri 2: Paw de Deux.”

It is the “existential” tale about a black-and-white French feline. Meet the Humphrey bogart of felines.

Other winning videos were, “Snooky and the Metronome,” “Kittens Inspired by Kittens” and “Kittens Riding Vacuum.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 07:00:03 pm

Untangling the Quantum Entanglement Behind Photosynthesis

The future of clean green solar power may well hinge on scientists being able to unravel the mysteries of photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into electrochemical energy. To this end, researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California (UC), Berkeley have recorded the first observation and characterization of a critical physical phenomenon behind photosynthesis known as quantum entanglement.

Previous experiments led by Graham Fleming, a physical chemist holding joint appointments with Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley, pointed to quantum mechanical effects as the key to the ability of green plants, through photosynthesis, to almost instantaneously transfer solar energy from molecules in light harvesting complexes to molecules in electrochemical reaction centers. Now a new collaborative team that includes Fleming have identified entanglement as a natural feature of these quantum effects. When two quantum-sized particles, for example a pair of electrons, are "entangled," any change to one will be instantly reflected in the other, no matter how far apart they might be. Though physically separated, the two particles act as a single entity.
"This is the first study to show that entanglement, perhaps the most distinctive property of quantum mechanical systems, is present across an entire light harvesting complex," says Mohan Sarovar, a post-doctoral researcher under UC Berkeley chemistry professor Birgitta Whaley at the Berkeley Center for Quantum Information and Computation. "While there have been prior investigations of entanglement in toy systems that were motivated by biology, this is the first instance in which entanglement has been examined and quantified in a real biological system."
The results of this study hold implications not only for the development of artificial photosynthesis systems as a renewable non-polluting source of electrical energy, but also for the future development of quantum-based technologies in areas such as computing -- a quantum computer could perform certain operations thousands of times faster than any conventional computer.
"The lessons we're learning about the quantum aspects of light harvesting in natural systems can be applied to the design of artificial photosynthetic systems that are even better," Sarovar says. "The organic structures in light harvesting complexes and their synthetic mimics could also serve as useful components of quantum computers or other quantum-enhanced devices, such as wires for the transfer of information."
What may prove to be this study's most significant revelation is that contrary to the popular scientific notion that entanglement is a fragile and exotic property, difficult to engineer and maintain, the Berkeley researchers have demonstrated that entanglement can exist and persist in the chaotic chemical complexity of a biological system.
"We present strong evidence for quantum entanglement in noisy non-equilibrium systems at high temperatures by determining the timescales and temperatures for which entanglement is observable in a protein structure that is central to photosynthesis in certain bacteria," Sarovar says.
Sarovar is a co-author with Fleming and Whaley of a paper describing this research that appears on-line in the journal Nature Physics titled "Quantum entanglement in photosynthetic light-harvesting complexes." Also co-authoring this paper was Akihito Ishizaki in Fleming's research group.
Green plants and certain bacteria are able to transfer the energy harvested from sunlight through a network of light harvesting pigment-protein complexes and into reaction centers with nearly 100-percent efficiency. Speed is the key -- the transfer of the solar energy takes place so fast that little energy is wasted as heat. In 2007, Fleming and his research group reported the first direct evidence that this essentially instantaneous energy transfer was made possible by a remarkably long-lived, wavelike electronic quantum coherence.
Using electronic spectroscopy measurements made on a femtosecond (millionths of a billionth of a second) time-scale, Fleming and his group discovered the existence of "quantum beating" signals, coherent electronic oscillations in both donor and acceptor molecules. These oscillations are generated by the excitation energy from captured solar photons, like the waves formed when stones are tossed into a pond. The wavelike quality of the oscillations enables them to simultaneously sample all the potential energy transfer pathways in the photosynthetic system and choose the most efficient. Subsequent studies by Fleming and his group identified a closely packed pigment-protein complex in the light harvesting portion of the photosynthetic system as the source of coherent oscillations.
"Our results suggested that correlated protein environments surrounding pigment molecules (such as chlorophyll) preserve quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes, allowing the excitation energy to move coherently in space, which in turn enables highly efficient energy harvesting and trapping in photosynthesis," Fleming says.
In this new study, a reliable model of light harvesting dynamics developed by Ishizaki and Fleming was combined with the quantum information research of Whaley and Sarovar to show that quantum entanglement emerges as the quantum coherence in photosynthesis systems evolves. The focus of their study was the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) photosynthetic light-harvesting protein, a molecular complex found in green sulfur bacteria that is considered a model system for studying photosynthetic energy transfer because it consists of only seven pigment molecules whose chemistry has been well characterized.
"We found numerical evidence for the existence of entanglement in the FMO complex that persisted over picosecond timescales, essentially until the excitation energy was trapped by the reaction center," Sarovar says.
"This is remarkable in a biological or disordered system at physiological temperatures, and illustrates that non-equilibrium multipartite entanglement can exist for relatively long times, even in highly decoherent environments."
The research team also found that entanglement persisted across distances of about 30 angstroms (one angstrom is the diameter of a hydrogen atom), but this length-scale was viewed as a product of the relatively small size of the FMO complex, rather than a limitation of the effect itself.
"We expect that long-lived, non-equilibrium entanglement will also be present in larger light harvesting antenna complexes, such as LH1 and LH2, and that in such larger light harvesting complexes it may also be possible to create and support multiple excitations in order to access a richer variety of entangled states," says Sarovar.

The research team was surprised to see that significant entanglement persisted between molecules in the light harvesting complex that were not strongly coupled (connected) through their electronic and vibrational states. They were also surprised to see how little impact temperature had on the degree of entanglement.
"In the field of quantum information, temperature is usually considered very deleterious to quantum properties such as entanglement," Sarovar says. "But in systems such as light harvesting complexes, we see that entanglement can be relatively immune to the effects of increased temperature."
This research was supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science, and in part by a grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

This is a two year old article but I bring to your attention as an example of a real world biochemical process in plant life that DOES NOT obey the laws of thermodynamics. Action at a distance without energy transfer is the hallmark of quantum entanglement. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 07:10:16 pm

The gist of my argument is that 2 - 2 = 0 in thermodynamics. The petroleum industry would never have gotten off the ground if the "externalities" had been accounted for responsibly. They weren't.They still aren't and it is quite literally killing us.The solution to pollution is not dillution unless we live in an infinitely pollutable biosphere.

As to population carrying capacity, I think that "problem" is solving itself by the amount of toxins that have been introduced into the biosphere over the last 150 years or so. I also believe that we do not need the level of energy use that the media claims is essential.

We can do with much less. We need to reduce our use and make THAT use totally renewable energy products. Of course it won't happen and there will be a huge die off but that's not because there are no options. For example, you see the biofuel paradigm as a "food or fuel" binary. That's a bill of goods the petroleum industry has sold us. The ethanol from corn idiocy was a set up. Lemna minor (Duckweed) grows about 8 times faster and does not require petroleum pesticides or fertilizers. It grows in stagnant water on unusable land (we've got a LOT of that and is fertilized with animal feces). The corn ethanol boondoggle is just one example of the "We have to have oil" bullshit we are fed.

Duckweed post (

To show how massively unnecessary our oil setup is in the USA, Here are some facts from a scholarly book that has been peer reviewed:

Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
"As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East. So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "

As for the scientists I rail about, corporations have basically taken over "science" with all research geared towards profit. That's par for the course you might say but the level of bought and paid for mendacity in the service of fossil and nuclear fuels is breathtaking.

Here are some examples.

Gas fracking corruption posts

I've got to hit the hay now but I will continue this discussion tomorrow. I agree that, in a sane society, we would agree to reduce our energy use 90% NOW and also target about a tenth of the present human population as the ideal and work towards that goal together.

It probably won't happen but it doesn't mean we shouldn't holler from the rooftops how this crap got started with Rockefeller so that when, or if, humanity recovers from the coming environmental and civilizational collapse, the survivors will not let the greedy idiots play their stupid polluting power games again. Talk to you tomorrow. 😎
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2018, 07:14:45 pm

Carrying capacity is a function of carbon footprint in humans (unlike other non tool making species). The issue of resource depletion is not relative to our physical biomass.

This is an excerpt from the following linked article ( I wrote that addresses the population issue.

Mankind got into trouble with the biosphere when he got carried away with his tool making. We've discussed this here at length. To a degree, we appear to be an evolutionary dead end because we quite literally cannot stop (industrially, not physically speaking) "shitting" where we "eat". The biomass of humans is smaller than that of all the ant species on the Earth yet they don't have a carbon footprint problem. We have a serious carbon footprint problem coupled with a lot of biosphere poisoning. The media love to remind us of this. But here is where the "S H I T where you eat" metaphor breaks down. Carbon footprint is about poison, not feces.

Seven billion humans could quite conceivably make excellent use of their humanure to eliminate the need for chemical fertilizers and much of the wasted water used in sewage treatment. It 's a very convenient dodge to claim the solution to our problem is to reduce the population. The false claim is made that then all those cars and trucks wouldn't ruin the planet and the biosphere could have a chance. That is a "solution" that only solves about 20% of the pollution problem and leaves the real heavyweights (about 80% of the pollution), industry and military operated of, by and for the 1% elite, out.

That is where the major carbon footprint is. For those who are shaking their heads, go look at those U.N. stats on how many people out there are living on 2 dollars a day and tell me THEY are the problem. They aren't, no matter what Bill Gates says. The combined feces of all the ants and every other life form out there, far, far exceeds how much we defecate. As RE, myself and many others here have correctly pointed out, the people at the top refuse to accept responsibility for their horrendous attack on the biosphere and are trying to shift the blame on the rest of us.

Those of us little piggies in the USA and Europe are the favorite whipping BOYS of those who say we 55k or less (median income in the USA at present) share almost as much as the 1% in the pollution blame. They hasten to add that depopulation, especially in the piggy countries like ours, is rational. I would support it if it was rational but it is irrational because it fails to deal with, and make an example of, the worst offenders FIRST.

People will not give up their pickup trucks until Warren Buffett gives up his jets and multiple houses. The fact that a few of us have reduced our carbon footprint voluntarily as an act of conscience does not mean that most aren't still Bernays brainwashed.
What we need is a detailed map like this one of UK for the USA:


Experian have found a direct link between wealth and willingness to embrace a green agenda; those most concerned about climate change tend to live in the wealthiest parts of the country.

Poorer and greener
But here's the rub. The company has also found that the richest constituencies... are also the most polluting.2
And that's just the homes. Try adding the carbon footprint piggery these rich have added to their homes with stock portfolios, ownership of retail space, factories, ships, office buildings, jets, etc.The 55K or less crowd have none of these things. At any rate wages don't even begin to tell the real carbon footprint piggery story; the real story is in who owns what. More on this later.
Here's a breakdown of carbon footprint by income decile in Sweden, a country with far less extremes in wealth dstribution than the USA. Notice that the top decile have nearly 6 times the carbon footprint of the lower decile. 3
[smg id=423]
The figure illustrates three types of emissions presented by adult equivalents. The direct emissions come from the household’s consumption (the private consumption) of fuel and heating. The indirect emissions come from the production of goods and services in the Swedish private consumption. International indirect emissions come from the production of goods and services consumed in Swedish households, before being imported. All three types of emissions above sum up to the total emissions from private consumption in Sweden.3
In the USA, the per capita CO2 emissions of about 21 metric tonnes is VERY misleading. (This data is about 5 years ol and. as of 2012, is much lower) This paper studies the differences in emissions from state to state without addressing income levels.
If U.S. per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were equal to those of its most populous state, California, global CO2 emissions would fall by 8 percent. If, instead, U.S. per capita emissions equaled those of Texas, the state with the second-largest population, global emissions would increase by 7 percent.
What makes Californians’ emissions so different from those of Texans, and from U.S. average emissions? And are the factors that explain these differences amenable to replication as policy solutions?4
If you live in any one of the following states (or D.C), your per capita CO2 emissions are less than 10 metric tonnes:
NY, DC, OR, CA, RI, WA, VT, NH, AZ, CT. In Vermont, direct residential of about 3 tons is an average. Just one mansion here can equal 4 or five 2,000 sq. ft. houses and the small homes like mine with less than 1,000 sq. ft. are much lower. People like myself, and there are lots of them here, are probably not running a carbon footprint above 3 metric tons due, in addition to having less house to heat, to driving less than 2,000 miles a year. But what is published is the national 21 metric tons. NY's per capita footprint appears the lowest in the nation at around 7. That's obviously not taking into account the Wall Street Banks and investors in NY that own stock in retail space and just about every other high carbon footprint venture in the USA including weapons contractors. I'll wager NY's would be double AK's 34, the  state with maximum per capita footprint,  if the real estate throughout the country that the banks owned (Bernie Sanders said it was 60% of the country's wealth) was figured in.
Since the study just looks at homes and not the money the rich spend to "green up" their homes with geothermal (remember Bush's ranch?) or PV while they own stock in and support weapons contractors and dirty industries elsewhere, it is expected that the study would come up with this gem:
The lack of correlation between income per capita and transportation and electricity emission per capita demonstrates that, at least among states of the U.S., there is no rigid relationship between affluence and emissions.10
Similar incomes can be associated with very different levels of emissions. It is possible — as evidenced by the contrast between California and Texas — to enjoy the typical American lifestyle with per capita emissions that are widely divergent from the U.S. mean.4

The above statement is an excellent example of scientific blinders in the service of raw wealth. The hypermobility alone of these rich would skew their footprint up (lots of vehicles of all sizes) if those engaged in this study had bothered to count boats, cars, airplanes, etc. They do, however, provide a sensible explanation of why states like Vermont keep their carbon footprint relatively low:
Information about policies that have succeeded in reducing emissions in some states should be circulated to the rest of the country. How have some states managed to reduce their emissions well below the national average? In broad strokes, states with low per capita emissions:
" Drive less per person and have, on average, better fuel economy;
" Use less electricity per person in their homes;
" Have higher gasoline and electricity prices;
" Rely more on public transportation; and
" Use less oil for heating and less coal for electricity generation.
What does our analysis say about the difference between per capita emissions in California and Texas? Transportation emissions are almost one and a half times as great in Texas as in California.4

WHY don't these carbon footprint researchers look at this kind of data:
FAA statistics show the number of U.S. business jet flights grew 11 percent in 2010, after plunging 20 percent in 2009. And providers of private jet services are expanding: In March 2011, NetJets (owned by Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway) placed a $2.8 billion order for 50 new Global business jets from Bombardier, with options for 70 more; last fall, it ordered up to 125 Phenom 300s from Embraer—and it bought Marquis Jet, a marketer of private jet cards. Also in March, CitationAir by Cessna added six 604-mph Citation Xs—which it calls the fastest business jet in the sky—to its fleet of 81 jets, targeting “busy executives and business travelers who often need to be in multiple cities within a compressed timeframe,” a spokesman says. XOJET has added to its fleet as well and has hired 45 new pilots.5

Does anybody want to take a stab at what umpteen executive jets used EXCLUSIVELY by the 1% do to the USA carbon footprint? I know a little something about airplanes. I never flew a jet for hire but I flew Piper Navajos for a year or so. Each engine used 18 gallons per HOUR. Now when people start talking about all those J6P pickup trucks out there while ignoring executive jets, I sigh. The carbon footprint of those jets is massive.   
How much greater are the emissions from executive jets? I am indebted to HalogenGuides Jets, "the insider's guide to private aviation", for doing the stats.
They reviewed 10 popular private jets using emissions stats provided by TerraPass, the offset company used by Chief Executive Air. The planes ranged from the Gulfstream 400, which burns up 32l of fuel a minute and can carry up to 19 passengers, to the Learjet 40XR, which burns more than 13l a minute to carry a maximum of five passengers.
HeliumReport converts this fuel burn into carbon dioxide emissions per hour. If we assume the plane is fully loaded with passengers, they mostly come in at between 200-300kg of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere per passenger per hour. But of course, the purpose of having your own jet is that you are not stuck with silly cost-cutting exercises like filling every seat on the plane.
I know of no analysis of how full private jets normally fly, but let's assume they are mostly half full. That gives emissions per passenger-hour of 400-600kg of carbon dioxide. That's about half a tonne.
How does that compare with a regular commercial flight? For one from London to Paris, which is roughly an hour, TerraPass reckons 59kg per passenger per hour, or little more more than a 10th as much as flying your own, half full, Learjet.
If you are interested in carbon emissions, these numbers are scary. An hour's flight on a private jet will emit more carbon dioxide than most African do in a whole year.6

The  African CO2 footprint referred to is about one metric ton but let's compare it with our "rich" Americans making anywhere from 55k a year on down that only see executive jets in movies.  In 20 hours of of flying, an afterthought for the jet set 1% of the USA, they use up one yearly quota of J6P's  "greedy irresponsible pig" footprint. Now count the executive jets and count the total hours they fly each year and you will absolutely gasp at the carbon footprint the 1% is happily spewing into our biosphere. There are over 10,000 private jets in the USA as of 2008.
How private jet travel is straining the system, warming the planet, and costing you money.7
And this is JUST THE EXECUTIVE JETS part of their piggery!
And Buffett thinks it's A-F*CKING-OKAY to add more.

China's per capita carbon footprint, in the meantime, has become greater than that of several U.S. states, including Vermont.
The latest report shows that in 2011 China's per capita emissions increased 9%, rising to 7.2 metric tons per person. 8

I am certain, as is the case in the USA, that the Chinese 1%'s carbon footprint is orders of magnitude above the Chinese version of  our "J6P".  Those who love to point at J6P piggery in the USA should drop that broad brush and start looking at per capita carbon footprint and, when available, decile breakdown of that per capita carbon footprint. Please observe that the per capita carbon footprint in the USA has been going steadily down over the last decade (as of 2012, it is down to 17.3 metric tons 9) and that there are 11 countries with a higher per capita carbon footprint than the USA.9 USA highlighted in yellow.

Click here for a table closeup: (

J6P makes a real convenient whipping boy but that does not reflect the facts on the ground even before you account for 1% piggery. What matters is not data points like how much retail space there is in the USA (a huge amount is now empty anyway since 2008) but who OWNS that retail space and all the other large carbon footprint piggery. The wealth breakdown in the USA (as of 2007 - it's even more concentrated at the top now according to senator Bernie Sanders) shows that 1% own 42.7%, the next 19% own 53.7% and the BOTTOM 80% own 7%.10 I am using the financial wealth stats rather than the "net" worth stats because that reflects the sad reality that the 15% attributed to the bottom 80% is now about 7% and the "net" worth of the top 20% matches 2007 financial wealth percentages (The top 20%, but mostly the top 0.5%, have exponentially increased their ownership of everything in the USA since the Greater Depression began in 2007).

The last time I checked, when you OWN something, you are responsible for it's carbon footprint. The fact that the predatory capitalist "drug pushers" are out there pushing the consumerist "drug" does not justify blaming the addicts. The addicts must be treated but the priority is to get the pushers off the street. Every addict can go cold turkey and the pushers will adjust by giving the "drug" away really cheap until they hook a new set of addicts.

Focusing on the addicts while giving lip service to the evils of the 1% to the point that the addicts are given a 40/60% (99% carbon footprint vs 1% carbon footprint) responsibility ratio in biosphere degradation when it is more like a  20/80% ratio is  just plain wrong and doomed to failure. Of course the 1% love this kind of "blame the victim" illogic.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 08, 2018, 05:19:25 pm

Snippet 1:
Researchers at North Carolina State University have found that a tiny aquatic plant can be used to clean up animal waste at industrial hog farms and potentially be part of the answer for the global energy crisis. Their research shows that growing duckweed on hog wastewater can produce five to six times more starch per acre than corn, according to researcher Dr. Jay Cheng. This means that ethanol production using duckweed could be "faster and cheaper than from corn," ]says fellow researcher Dr. Anne-Marie Stomp.

"We can kill two birds – biofuel production and wastewater treatment – with one stone – duckweed," Cheng says. Starch from duckweed can be readily converted into ethanol using the same facilities currently used for corn, Cheng adds.


A LOT of hogs are raised in the USA and many other countries as well. Do the math on the win-win situation of vastly increased ethanol production from duckweed while simultaneously stopping nitrogenous and fecal coliform waste which contaminates water and contributes to ocean dead zones. And remember that duckweed isn't particular; it can use ANY animal feces as fertilizer.

High nutrient removal rate from swine wastes and protein biomass production by full-scale duckweed ponds]

NOTE: Don't be confused by the above term "nutrient" in the Sciencedirect article; they are talking about algae "nutrients" from animal waste that cause algal bloom and ocean dead zones from de-oxygenation. Feces causes algae to grow a LOT. In this case it is a bad thing and duckweed prevents it.

Duckweed is the smallest flowering plant known to man. Being aquatic, it uses most of the solar energy gained from photosynthesis to grow its buoyant fleshy leaves, avoiding the energy intensive requirements of slow growing woody root systems. This ultra-efficient use of energy is the main reason it grows so fast.

Note: Unlike GM plants tinkered with to grow fast or forced to do so with chemical fertilzers, Lemna minor (duckweed) sacrifices nothing in it's nutrient value for animals (it is edible and nutritious for humans too - In a world environmental collapse this humble angiosperm may be the key to preserving life, health and energy for millions of humans).

Global pork production in 2012 is revised upward 924000 tons from the last forecast to. 104.4 million tons.

Snippet 2:
The duckweed system consists of shallow ponds that can be built on land unsuitable for conventional crops, and is so efficient it generates water clean enough for re-use. The technology can utilize any nutrient-rich wastewater, from livestock production to municipal wastewater.

Snippet 3:
Cheng says, "Duckweed could be an environmentally friendly, economically viable feedstock for ethanol."

"There's a bias in agriculture that all the crops that could be discovered have been discovered," Stomp says, "but duckweed could be the first of the new, 21st century crops.

In the spirit of George Washington Carver, who turned peanuts into a major crop, Jay and I are on a mission to turn duckweed into a new industrial crop, providing an innovative approach to alternative fuel production."


Duckweed for electricity at 3 CENTS per kwh:

Snippet 1:
It's a little, water-born plant that doubles in mass every 24 hours. The ducks really like it," Behrens said. Two pounds of duckweed seed in a 32-foot tank in Philadelphia grew to a depth of 2 inches in 10 days, he said.

"It's very easy to harvest," Behrens said. "That was the undoing of a lot of algae concepts. You can't spend too much energy removing fuel from water, otherwise on your balance sheet you haven't made any energy."
Duckweed is smaller than a grain of rice, but a million times bigger than an algae cell, he said. The duckweed is harvested with a nylon mesh, similar to screen doors, then dried.

In many ways, it's similar to wood-products waste, another type of biomass, which is used to generate electricity in White City and other places around the country.

"Trees don't grow fast enough, so we found something that grows faster," Behrens said. "The key is growing fuel on site, because shipping it in is too costly. We just had to find a fast-growing plant -- and there are plenty of those -- and then create an artificial environment that optimizes plant growth."

The artificial environment -- BioEnergy Domes -- is where Pacific Domes comes in. There are four sizes of BioEnergy Domes, ranging from a backyard-sized, 5,000-kilowatt version that can supply energy for one home to a commercial-size, 60-foot-diameter unit, such as the initial unit in a Philadelphia industrial park. The generating unit sits outside the dome and runs silently.

Behrens said it costs about $750,000 to $800,000 to install the largest BioEnergy Domes, and the payback time is only two years.

"You are able to generate electricity at the cost of 3 cents per kilowatt hour, the same as coal or nuclear plants," Behrens said. "It's completely controllable, unlike wind or solar power, and generates on demand like a fossil-fuel plant." (

While I laugh at the idea that the actual cost of coal or nuclear power is just 3 cents per kwh because the EROI numbers on those two poisonous energy products exclude massive subsidies and environmental costs, I see no reason to doubt that the 3 cents per kwh is bonafide with duckweed. Nuclear fuel EROI of 10.0 and coal  EROI of 80.0 are corporate pseudo-scientific Procrustean Bed lies ( See this article (

Even if ethanol produced from duckweed is only in the wind EROI range of 18, it is still a far better alternative than any fossil fuel planetary poison. Furthermore, transportation costs would be next to nothing as well because duckweed infrastructure would be decentralized and local. Renewable energy produced this way also provides jobs for the community.

In addition, duckweed can be pelletized and used as food for tilapia fish farming or fuel in furnaces (after a low tech drying process).


Duckweed has great potential!

Drying duckweed on a screen

Duckweed is easy to grow. Just add water and poop.

What about those that claim that renewables like duckweed, wind, photovoltaic, etc. are just niche energy markets and will never actually replace fossil fuels as number one?

Snippet 1:
4. Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil fuels
Last year was the first time global investments in renewable energy surpassed investments in fossil fuels.

The global market for clean energy was worth a whopping $250 billion.

The United States is currently leading in corporate R&D and venture capital investments in clean energy globally, and last year retook the top spot in overall investment with a 33 percent increase to $55.9 billion.

Snippet 2:
6. Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean energy
To date, the oil-and-gas industry received $446.96 billion (adjusted for inflation) in cumulative energy subsidies from 1994 to 2009, whereas renewable energy sources received just $5.93 billion (adjusted for inflation).

Renewable energy investments should be put in proper historical perspective. According to the Energy Information Agency, “focusing on a single year’s data does not capture the imbedded effects of subsidies that may have occurred over many years across all energy fuels and technologies.”

The U.S. government is showing a smaller commitment to renewables than it showed in the early years of the oil-and-gas industries. A study showed that “during the early years of what would become the U.S. oil and gas industries, federal subsidies for producers averaged half a percent of the federal budget. By contrast, the current support for renewables is barely a fifth that size, just one-tenth of 1 percent of federal spending.”

Snippet 3:
Here are the top six things you really need to know:

1)  Clean energy is competitive with other types of energy

2) Clean energy creates three times more jobs than fossil fuels

3) Clean energy improves grid reliability

4) Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil fuels

5) Investments in clean energy are cost effective

6) Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean energy


Given all these real world facts about the main energy investment trends and the promise of EROI increases from renewables such as wind, photovoltaic and duckweed free of the environmental hazards of fossil and nuclear fuels and the prospect of much reduced government energy subsidies that we-the-people will benefit from,  isn't it folly to cling to the concept that centralized power systems will remain dominant in the energy markets?
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 08, 2018, 05:32:39 pm
Fun with mendacity for money through the fossil fuel corruption of scientists for the purpose of producing gamed (e.g. The Oil Drum published EROI studies) "scientific" studies that make fossil fuel extraction techniques look cost effective and environmentally benign.   >:(

Smelling a leak: Is the natural gas industry buying academics?

Last week, the University of Texas provost announced he would reexamine a report by a UT professor that said fracking was safe for groundwater after the revelation that the professor pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Texas natural gas developer. It’s the latest fusillade in the ongoing battle over the basic facts of fracking in America. (

One comment from a wide awake Texan:

Kim Triolo Feil

Regardless of the academia studies.....I'm not a rocket scientist and speak from experience.
I live in Arlington TX - home to 55 urban drilling padsites in a 99 sq mile area...these are my concerns besides the water waste, disposal issues, and the related seismic events. 

The industry has a failure of emission control technologies and accident prevention layered protocols to prevent ....

1) drilling hazards like drilling mud that "dries and flys into the air", Bentonite's MSDS says it is toxic to the lungs

2) fracking silicia dust blowing off the sites (silicosis is a permanant disease)

3) flowback emissions they try to call "steam" but has hydrocarbons than can and HAS killed a worker last January-even Green Completion equipment is late to be deployed and exposes us to "top flowback" water vapors

4) diesel emissions in neighborhoods during all phases of the life cycle of the wells (diesel has benzene in it and is a carcinogen).

5) accidents that should be a zero tolerance in urban areas and the acknowledgement that the build out being so big that aggregate emission events and spills are not an "acceptable risk"

6) methane leaks that speed up climate change

7) piping that is not earthquake & leak proof over the test of time

Gas fracking is an obscenity:

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 08, 2018, 05:36:51 pm
Golden Oxen,
Yes they were (ARE) great at brainwashing. The same outfit (Hill & Knowlton) is doing the same kind of brainwashing for fracking. They learned how to push all the amygdala reptile brain buttons real well from Freud's nephew, Bernays.

I used to watch the Ed Sullivan show when I was a kid. I was about 11 when I saw Elvis sing Hound Dog and Blue Suede Shoes. My old man got really bent out of shape when Elvis was doing his thing with his knees. ;D

Anyway, the commercials were mostly Tide (boring) and Newport cigarette commercials. I can still see the star trek type symbol they had (long before star trek) and the dancers. All that talk about menthol and fresh air stuck with me so well that when I began to smoke at age 19, that's the brand of cancer stick (yeah, we called them that) I chose. I hope that the public gets it about fracking sooner than we did about smokes.

As the video from the gasland producer says, those wells have to stop biogenic (as opposed to the thermogenic gas they actually drill for) from migrating up a the concrete pipe casings FOREVER. Like the lying bastards from tobacco companies had the hard data and studies showing smokes cause cancer, the gas fracking pigs have the hard data and scientific studies that the concrete pipe casings outside the steel pipe ALWAYS crack and allow biogenic gas migration. That's why I got so p i s s e d at Stoneleigh (Nicole Foss) for blithely ignoring this horror.

Anyone who has a voice in the fossil fuel community and is not using it to try to stop this evil is complicit in grievously harming the biosphere and many humans as well. Once the aquifer gets poisoned, some bottled water corporation gets an instant boost in profits. These predatory capitalist morons don't get the fact that the entire flora and fauna is at risk in these places the aquifers get poisoned.

I really, really suspect these assholes are doing a backdoor "blue water" scarcity push. Yeah, I think they are DELIBERATELY trying to poison aquifers. That is the reason they are so adamant about trying to buy scientists and their studies. They deserve to be strung up from those God Damned fracking drill towers.

I finally quit smoking when I had the pacemaker implanted in 2007. Nothing like a little heart trouble to clear the mind...

Maybe when some friend of Nicole that lives near a fracking well gets breast cancer, her mind will clear as well.

Quote Agelbet  "All that talk about menthol and fresh air stuck with me so well that when I began to smoke at age 19, that's the brand of cancer stick (yeah, we called them that) I chose."

I was one of the smart guys that was too smart to get cancer. I smoked Kents with the micronite filter. Micronite being a fancy name for asbestos. Those friggin pig men are really something aren't they.  I guess we are lucky to still be alive Agelbert after that foolish behavior.   
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 08, 2018, 05:47:54 pm
Geothermal heat pumps are an example of passive geothermal power.

Just look at the fuel oil and natural gas alone that we would NOT USE if we had geothermal heat pumps in all US homes. Then remember that many homes are cooled by electricity as well as some heated by it and you have a MASSIVE (at least 50%) energy reduction just from switching to geothermal heat pumps. Remember that just a short distance below the frost line all over the US the temperature is about 54o year round.


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 08, 2018, 07:24:49 pm
Agelbert NOTE: TAE (The Automatic Earth web site is the home of fracked gas cheerleader "energy expert" Nicole Foss 🦖)
Waste Based Society: Solutions and Alternatives

Published June 12, 2012

Are there viable solutions and alternatives to the Energy intensive Waste Based Society we currently live in, which do not entail a return to Paleolithic levels of technology?  Diner and TAE Commentariat member A. G. Gelbert outlines a myriad of technologies which might be employed to maintain a higher technological base for society.


Solutions and Alternatives to the Waste Based Society

by A. G. Gelbert

We are cursed with a rather effective propaganda machine that defends the status quo and works mightily to provide allegedly iron clad arguments exposing our desperate dependence on fossil fuels and the enormous debt we owe to them for our ‘wonderful civilization’. The media has cleverly weaved fact and fiction to present plausible arguments against the practicality of going cold turkey on fossil fuels and 100% on renewables.

Not one word about the fact that fossil fuels are easy to meter and conveniently provide a constant revenue stream for the rich along with governmental control of a populace that simply cannot move or function without daily use of fossil fuels ever seems to be mentioned. Not one word about how renewables cannot be metered or taxed easily and how that feature gives everyone a large degree of independence aand flexibility in disaster situations to help themselves or a less fortunate neighbor is mentioned.

On the other hand, the continuous and vociferous denial of the link between fossil fuels and environmental problems, regardless of scientific concensus on this very real link, never seems to go away either. The actual history of the industrial revolution involving some very brutal measures to coerce humans to abandon horses, as only one of many coercive measures, for tranportation and farming are always ignored and replaced with a stream of pejorative comments about horse dung in big cities. People did not want to get rid of their horses!

I am not simply talking about city ordinances and fines targeting horses. Right around 1865 a big push began to sell farm machinery. Amazingly, a huge horse plague hit the U.S. that year that killed a massive amount of horses. No explanation beyond “Civil War stress” blarney was ever given. These horses were not just city horses in population centers but out in the country as well.

The move to horseless carriages began on the farm with steam power and hydrocarbon lubricants. The automobile came later along with the bone cancer. Bone cancer from the original automoblie fuel, benzene, is seldom mentioned by the media and apparently is considered no big deal in comparison to horseshit odor. Moving on to the early 20th century, Rockefeller has a waste product in his refinery cracking towers (after separating all those great heavy and light lubricants) called gasolene and he talks Henry Ford into modifying the carburators to run on it.


Of course the ‘minor’ problem with benzene fuel may have helped make the switch. There were electric cars on the road at the time. Cleveland had wind generators creating electricity at that time! You’ll never guess what happened to them and the electric trolleys all over many towns in the USA. So, enough of that. Everyone here knows how predatory capitalism attempts to game the system to achieve price control and a monopoly. Once much more efficient and sustainable technologies are shoved aside by hook or by crook, the distorted and mendacious meme that our current technology is the result of friendly capitalist competition in the ‘free market’ is pushed.

Predation occurs followed by propaganda versions of history. That is the real history of the industrial revolution in regard to our choices of energy production. Renewables got squeezed out, not because they couldn’t compete favorably, but because the pollution and health costs of fossil fuels got ‘externalized’. Along the way, the independence of the mostly agrarian American in energy production and use was crushed.

A love afffair with the car was fostered to the point that in the late 1920’s more Americans had cars than flush toilets. Of course they were better off, ecologically speaking, without flush toilets, but the point is the job of selling Americans on fossil fuels was a done deal by that time.

So please remember that nobody was doing us any favors, like the media wants to claim; they were selling us something in order to concentrate wealth and power in a few hands. They were using us as a cash cow to the point of introducing planned obsolecence, rampant consumerism to keep the factories going and simultaneously thwarting moves to sustainability like Henry Ford’s plan to make cars out of hemp plastic in the early1940s.

We like new stuff and are always looking for the latest model year of the car or whatever because we have been manipulated by experts to do so. It has absolutely nothing to do with our health, well being or happiness. Bernays really messed us up. Fast forward to the present where the witches brew of ecological harm brought about by industrialization has caught up with us. And NOW, all of a sudden, we just can’t live without all this ‘wonderful’ energy packed fossil fuel economy.

Methinks somebody wants to slap a guilt trip on the chumps so they agree to clean up the mess even though the media keeps claiming there isn’t really that much of a mess. We, the masses, are accused of being wasteful pigs that bred like rats thanks to fossil fuels.

Where to begin? How about the fact that family size has been decreasing, not increasing, througout the industrial revolution? That’s right. The numbers were baked in by 1800 and the wars slowed them down a bit. Louis Pasteur and Lister did a hell of a lot more to create our present population ‘problem’ than fossil fuels. Most of the key scientific advancements in medicine were not exactly high tech and fossil fuel dependent. A human makes it past 5 years of age and he has a huge chance of living out his 3 score and ten. It was the enormous reduction in infant mortality brought about by antiseptic procedures that caused the population explosion, not fossil fuels. It’s a stretch to say that fossil fuels alowed people to obtain clean water to wash their hands before delivering a baby, but I’m sure the media verbal contortionists would toss it out there to further muddy the waters of historical truth.

The much touted plumbing advancements that require machinery and factories powered by fossil fuels, while they did reduce disease in population centers and prolonged life, were setting us up for more fossil fuel use through improper humanure handling. I maintain that the main cause of our population explosion is knowledge of disease microbes, their propagation methods and our changes in hygiene as a result.

Edward Bernays (

What about all this waste we now produce that we have been folded, spindled and mentally mutilated through Freud’s nephew Wall Street amygdala reptilian brain control propaganda? They set us up and now WE are the bad guys? They want us to shop till we drop and WE are the problem? And how much ‘waste’ do WE actually produce on a carbon footprint basis compared to the global 1%?

Well, Senator Bernie Sanders stated recently that less than 1% of the U.S. owns about 40% of the assets (I’m not talking about income increases although they have gotten the lion’s share over the last ten years as well). Yes, I know he talks about banks too but he mentions those 400 or so elite families every now and then. Now figure the carbon footprint of those people and compare it with the rest of us. All those endless films about diapers, milk gallons and so on used in our middle class lifetimes with the obligatory landfill mountains thrown in are nothing compared with the horrendous and gigantic amount of crap these families generate. Isn’t it amazing that when it comes to pollution and wasteful habits, we are ‘all in this together’? No attempt is made to segregate out the worst offenders. On the contrary, the poor and middle class are constantly demonized as being irresponsible useless eaters. It’s all quite Orwellian on the part of the media.

But yeah, we do waste, and we have a waste problem that is real, so let’s talk about it.

Waste can certainly destroy a society, species or most of the ecosphere if, as many point out, we continue with the ridiculous paradigm that we can industrially do multi-generational damage to the life support systems humans depend on and not define this as suicide. It’s almost like our nuclear nuts and oil fetish fucks have morphed us into a mass version of the heaven’s gate cult. Those people thought they could hitch a ride on a comet by commiting suicide. Every single step in industrializaton has, for anyone willing to do the TOTAL math, NOT been ecospherically cost effective. The fact that a small group of humans has temporarily benefited at the expense of the overwhelming majority of humans and all other earthlings right now, not to mention the obvious acceleration in environmental degradation promising a super bleak future, seems to go right over the heads of way to many otherwise intelligent people.

Heaven's Gate Cult Leader that convinced many to commit suicide

Just like the heaven’s gate cult, people are addicted to a dream that never was, PERIOD. All talk about this and that from our youth and how much fun we all had and how nostalgic we are for those nicer times is the exact same phenomenum of a drug addict longing for his first high. LISTEN UP! We are a function of the ecosphere. We DO NOT, despite all the best propaganda efforts of our scientific community, understand the mechanism of the ecosphere sufficently to tinker with it, let alone wantonly pollute it with “externalisms”. EXTERNALISMS!? That’s just some economist bullshit! There are NO externalisms inside the life bubble called the ecosphere; it just takes a while to catch up with you when you mine, bomb and toxify with chemicals NIMBY areas for a few centuries. We are there and yet our scientific community and our financial community and our political wheeler and dealer con-artists with their new techno death toys and ‘miracle’ GMO crops and drug after drug to replace patent expirations, new ripoff scams, more war profiteering and emotional button pushing divide and conquer racist crap just DO NOT GET IT (or maybe they do get it and are insanely trying to make hay out of it).

The people in charge of our dysfunctional clusterfuck are akin to that psycho Whiteapple that led the heaven’s gate cult. They will not change to a sustainable paradigm because THAT requires subordination to the reality that we are a product of the ecosphere and the humble acceptance that we do not understand it yet so, until we do, we must henceforth emulate natural processes of cradle to grave recycling in all industrial technology and outlaw destructive activities like war or perish. No, they prefer to insanely reduce the world population by environmental collapse in the ridiculous la-la land elite hope that then the ecosphere will cure itself and they can continue their merry resource extraction paradigm as if nothing happened. It won’t work because these reductionist morons in power with their scientific priesthood of techno nut balls are so full of pride from all their tremendous ‘contributions’ over the last two centuries that they cannot see the monstrous downside of the technology explosion and that, yes, technology can be developed and used in an environmentally friendly manner. They don’t want to do the work. They are supremely irresponsible and supremely greedy and incredibly stupid.

Instead of doing a rethink, they are just flooring the accelerator and increasing their propaganda blitz.

I am not against technology. Since about 1970 we have had the knowledge to use technology to produce an environmentally friendly and sustainable society free of poisons in food and industry in the scientific literature. It has been deliberately supressed time and time again. Imagine what it cost to cover the country with roads and power lines. Well, decentralized power, food and transportation would cost a hell of a lot less. It’s total bullshit that we can’t do this or that we are ‘hooked’ on oil or nuclear or natural gas. We could have switched away decades ago. In the 70s NASA used solar panels to bring electricity to a Navajo community which was not served by the local electric utilities in a southwestern state. It worked great and the utilities went ballistic. They wrote to NASA requesting the solar panel project be stopped because, even though those areas targeted by NASA were not adequately served by the utilities, the fossil fuel free energy would ‘force’ the utilities to lower their rates. NASA stopped the project.

The planet earth DOES NOT have an energy crisis. For you engineering types out there, just do the math on the energy required daily to lift trillions of tons of water vapor out of the rivers, lakes and oceans and deposit this at higher elevations in the form of rain and then try to tell me about how much it COSTS (ZERO!) and how we are running out of energy. What the planet earth has, is a HUMAN GREED AND STUPIDITY crisis among the 1%. But suppose we could dispense with all the agenda laced perjorative propaganda about renewables, agree to clean up the planet and eliminate fossil fuel, nuclear and any other kind of poisonous technology because we have no other choice?

Can it be done? Yes. Will it be done? Probably not. I just heard today (June 11, 2012) on the Thom Hartmann show that phytoplankton replacement in a bay in Maine has dropped 500% over a period of a decade or so. The phenomenum has now been confirmed as occurring globally. Phytoplankton produce approximately 50% of the oxygen on this planet through photosynthesis. They are not regenerating adequately because increased ppm of CO2 (now 400 ppm) is acidifying the oceans and killing them. Can the elite be so insane that they plan to meter our oxygen? I hope not. At any rate, we must accept that the fossil fuel economy is not an exercise in fun conveniences or a requirement to maintain ‘civilization’; it’s killing our oxygen supply now as well. We must switch to renewables.

In regard to available energy to maintain some level of ‘civilization’ with renewables, when I mentioned the world evaporation energy example,  I wasn’t alluding to energy collection through hydroelectric power (although dams certainly help as long as salmon runs aren’t thwarted), but using this vast amount of energy available free to shed light on the scientifically bankrupt view of quantifying energy by using bomb calorimeters like we did in college and energy mass per mole in rapid oxidation. Nature has never done it that way. Everything in our culture always wants to scale up a process or else judge it as wanting. That is assbackwards from a sustainable biological process point of view. In our bodies, the reason we have enzymes lowering the energy of activation in myriad chemical reactions occurring per second is to keep us from overheating and/or rapid ph changes that would kill us but the fact is that the enzymes accomplish a task with less energy than a straight forward math computation of the chemical reaction energy requires.

Capillary processes in us are unconcerned with “stream head'” like scientists or engineers are when they want to build a dam yet they work just fine manipulating Bernoulli forces to use the absolute minimum energy needed to move that blood so the heart pump doesn’t have to work as hard against vessel friction and pressure changes. In our techno-love affair, everything we do is geared to centralized and maximum power. For example we really do not need a lot of stream head to power a house because we can gradually pump water up to a reservoir in our house to give us electricity on demand. But the techno math says you need X amount of head for Y amount of kilowatts. That’s only true if you need all of that all the time. Sure, not everyone lives by a river or a stream but that is simply a small example. A giant Sequoia pumps over one hundred gallons of water hundreds of feet up every day through transpiration. The tracheal elements can stretch water molecules 27 atmospheres as long as the vacuum holds. The technology to make artificial tree water pumps has been around for decades but our society is STUCK on the energy density per mole fixation like a teenager that wants a hot car to ride to school instead of a small electric rechargable scooter.

Have you heard about the roaring forties?


That’s an area of latitude in the oceans of the southern hemisphere that is always turbulent. They alone could power the world’s energy demands after a ten year installation of wave and undersea current power collection systems that are already being deployed off of England and Scotland. In regard to corrosion issues with sea water and maintenance of deep water (massive pressures to deal with), I only ask that you consider technology equivalence hurdles that have long since been surmounted in nuclear power plants (the ultimate in corrosion challenges including hydrogen embrittlement that is not present with sea water) and oil undersea pipelines (pump sea water to a land reservoir and start the power cables from there as a cost effective low maintenance option).

At present, ocean oil rigs (which are mostly metal) have sacrificial anodes placed on them so electrolysis in most areas is thwarted. The anodes are replaced as they are used up.  And remember all we have learned through space exploration about metallurgy, high temperature insulation during re-entry and don’t forget microwave power transmission technology. We can do all this stuff. It’s really not as hard as putting a robot vehicle on Mars or building a space station in orbit.

It’s telling that Einstein described the photoelectric effect at the very beginning of the 20th century but the US government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to develop solar panels (we only did it when we needed them in space) but it spent a fortune on the development of the bomb in the 30s while a large part of our populace was going hungry.

Have you ever wondered why the oil lobby never attacks nuclear power but spares no expense to demonize renewables with disingenuous propaganda and mendacity? Think about that a while. If you come to the conclusion that the nuclear power plants were put out there to make bomb material and get you to pay for it and were never, ever considered a viable alternative to fossil fuels for the production of electricity or a serious source of oil lobby competition, you win the prize.

There is also no excuse whatsoever for not using solar and electric power to run every single ship in the ocean. It would be child’s play to switch all automobiles and trucks to full electric as long we had geothermal, wind, tide and ocean current derived power 24/7, not to mention solar panels.

Do you know what oil tankers do after they offload the oil? They fill huge portions of the holds with sea water (for ballast) and then dump it when they get back to reload with oil. This massive pollution goes on day in and day out. We have a guaranteed continuous oil spill as long as we have a fossil fuel ocean tanker economy.

As for fertilizers and food production machinery requiring a massive amount of fossil fuels to feed 7 billlion humans, the fact is that using decentralized permaculture with humanure (after appropriate and low tech local processing to avoid disease pathogens) along with greenhouse technology for nordic climates can replace the fossil fuel required to run tractors, make fertilizer and insecticides and herbicides.


I mention farm machinery because there is increasing evidence that plowing needs to be replaced by non-plowing with perennial crops in order to stop the massive top soil loss and lowered nutrition of crop yield (they look the same but don’t have the same nutritional content). Other posters here are up on humanure and they are right. I recommend anyone repulsed by this to think again. Feces are an inseparable part of being human and it’s high time we stopped with this Victorian idiocy of seeing it as bad stuff; it’s part of our salvation as a species. An added plus with humanure through the avoidance of chemical fertilizers is no more ocean dead zones and massive top soil degradation. Also the energy and water savings in not pumping human waste to be treated with chemicals (made with fossil fuels) in a sewage treatment plant would save billons of dollars.

Examples of how renewables can switch us off of fossil fuels  quickly:

Pelamis wave power device that looks like a giant snake:

Zero energy balance hotel:

I think this can be done in TEN years, not forty:

Growing food and the fossil fuel ‘requirement’ is a dependency created by the fossil fuel industry but we CAN shake that dependency without mass starvation and depopulation:

“The strategic goal of biofuel is to supplement or even replace fossil fuels, the amount of which is constantly and rapidly diminishing.”

I’ve already mentioned my views on the population explosion and its causes but I wish to point out how the oil lobby has tried to make fossil fuel brownie points out of it.

Remember the green revolution of the 60s, 70s and 80s that supposedly caused the population explosion? The numbers are in. The yields are not statistically different with all the fossil fuel fertilizer, herbicides and insecticides than without them. The green revolution is a lie fostered by, you guessed it, the fossil fuel lobby.

Their only valid claim is the fuel for machinery which now turns out to lower crop nutrition from top soil plowing degradation. This degradation is caused by a combination of chemical fertilizers and plowing (bare soil tends to blow away when dry or erode when wet) which leaches the soil of trace minerals needed to produce nutritious and tasty as opposed to bland crops. The way things stand right now, agricultural guidelines in the U.S. state that it’s okay to lose 4 tons of top soil per acre per year from ‘modern’ farming techniques. The government claims it is the price we pay for high ‘yields’. Are you comfortable with that? I’m not. Considering top soil regeneration takes over 100 years, I cannot believe we are doing anything but losing massive amounts every year.

And last but not least, the militaries of the world are the most voracious users of fossil fuel. We sure as hell do not need them to keep 7 billion fed and clothed. The U.S. Navy, in particular, has the top spot as fossil fuel user AND polluter.


We need gradual, decentralized trickle charge or slow pumping energy storage systems for sustainable humanity. Anything else is not viable for the planet. If we want to zip around at high speed and be able to have instant this and that, yes we have an energy crisis. If we want to emulate biological processes and eschew the love affair with higher energy density per mole of fossil and or nuclear poisons killing the planet, we don’t have an energy crisis.

Nature paces everything; so should we.

All that said, there is the 1% with their hubris and arrogance and there is the rest of humanity. The agenda of the 1% is a tad different from the rest of us. I agree the knockdown is coming. The people controlling the levers of innovation and adaptation in our governments and the elite parasites that own them want this knockdown so it will come. I maintain that the false notion of a causal relationship between a large population and a polluted, unsustainable, fossil fuel dependent human society is the driving force behind this elite desire for a knockdown. The elites are the only truly unsustainable population on this earth because of their mega-carbon footprints.

So, in true Wall Street Orwellian fashion, they blame the bulk of the 7 billion humans for THEIR piggery and slavish dependency on fossil fuels. The 1% that owns our governments loves the predatory resource extraction paradigm despite the fact that some of them probably suspect that it will cause a population knockdown, not from lack of fossil fuels, but from environmental collapse. Billions of humans dying is considered a good thing by the 1%. They think it will solve the world’s environmental problems and provide a more manageable population of slaves. The 1% probably grumble about minimum gene pool diversity species population required in order to perpetuate homo sapiens. The 1% think robots will take care of all the ‘important’ work while medical technology available to the 1% will provide them with 150 year plus lifetimes. They are wrong and they are the cancer that is destroying humanity.

There’s a way to clean up this world and live sustainably. Killing off several billion is a straw man. It’s typical elite bullshit adding two an two and getting whatever answer keeps them in the catbird seat. The media will continue to block the truth from the people 24/7.

I apologize if I tried to cover too much ground here but this situation we are in has matured for well over a century and we need to see how we got here to understand, if we survive, how to prevent a new set of snakes from selling us snake oil in the future.

Feel free to pass all or any part of this rant with or without attribution.

Everything I wrote can be researched free on the internet if you want to post links about horse plagues, NASA correspondence with utilities, Henry Ford and hemp plastic, Rockefeller chicanery, U.S. solar panel development reasons, Americans starving while the bomb was being developed, Bernays propaganda tools, etc.

A.G. Gelbert

Posted in Energy, Home | Tagged Automobiles, Energy, Fetilizer, Horses, Oil, Permaculture, Propaganda, Sustainability, Waste

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 08:37:34 pm
Enjoy the view while you can.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 08:55:50 pm
Carrying capacity is a function of carbon footprint in humans (unlike other non tool making species). The issue of resource depletion is not relative to our physical biomass.

//People will not give up their pickup trucks until Warren Buffett gives up his jets and multiple houses. The fact that a few of us have reduced our carbon footprint voluntarily as an act of conscience does not mean that most aren't still Bernays brainwashed.   
//The above statement is an excellent example of scientific blinders in the service of raw wealth. The hypermobility alone of these rich would skew their footprint up (lots of vehicles of all sizes) if those engaged in this study had bothered to count boats, cars, airplanes, etc.
// Every addict can go cold turkey and the pushers will adjust by giving the "drug" away really cheap until they hook a new set of addicts. Focusing on the addicts while giving lip service to the evils of the 1% to the point that the addicts are given a 40/60% (99% carbon footprint vs 1% carbon footprint) responsibility ratio in biosphere degradation when it is more like a  20/80% ratio is  just plain wrong and doomed to failure. Of course the 1% love this kind of "blame the victim" illogic.

I don't often comment on your energy analysis posts because I really don't have much to add. Just wanted to post this to tell you how much I appreciate them. You have a wealth of information and some keen analysis at the ready, as well as a good nose for bullshit, as the above post demonstrates. This great stuff, Glad you are here among us, licking the windows at the back of the Diner...

Why not turn the above into a blog article. Meanwhile, I'm posting this on the FB page.

As Willem Dafoe said to William Peterson in "To Live and Die in LA," "I like your work."

The fact that these oil energy loving F U C K S that call themselves scientists can believe it’s wrong to run your car in a garage but a mark of “advanced civilization” to do it outside is proof that they are SERIOUSLY math challenged idiots. The killer combination for mankind is a love of science and a lack of consideration about its place in the world. Have a nice day.

AMEN! :exp-angel:

Thank you. Since the post was a subset of the article, it is technically part of the main article already published but I now realize from your comment that the issue of biopshere human population carrying capacity and carbon footprint is such a bone of contention that I will have to taylor an article that focuses exclusively on those areas. 👍

Thanks. I posted a less fleshed out version of that article at The Oil Drum and they were not happy campers about it, to put it mildly.

Here's the response thread there. It just makes me tired to read how unwilling these people are to look their bias in the eye.


Richard Eis on September 4, 2012 - 9:51am 

Too long. Didn't read.
It seems the twitter curse governs even issues of life and death for the biosphere (see Chomsky on how concision truncates clear thinking and favors propaganda).
jokuhl on September 4, 2012 - 10:48am 

You seem to have useful ideas, but like Richard, I would ask you not to put in a whole chapter or a book. It's considered hogging the thread.
The use of "BS" in the first sentence also quickly made you seem fairly rude and ranting.. making it hard to take anything afterward very seriously.. though as I said, I think some of the ideas in there probably will be great to have discussions on.. just not great speeches or treatises, if you please.
As Leanan says sometimes.. 'get your own blog if you want to share that much stuff'. This is appropriately called a discussion.
This type of response masks a pedantic and dictatorial mindset. His apparent appreciaition for my ideas is a device to appear objective; his next comment (farther down towards the end)  makes that clear.

TOD Community Moderator on September 4, 2012 - 11:13am

Yes, please keep your posts a moderate length - we'll tolerate longish ones if they're nicely formatted - i.e. use your return to make clear paragraphs.

Commenters are able to edit posts until someone replies to them. If you'd like to start over and post a clearer and more concise comment, I'd be happy to hide the old one.
Best to all,


[edit - I returned to disguise profanity - we may have school age kids reading - also added para returns]
She's right. RE is always on my ass about my paragraphing problems. I just slammed that in there in an attempt to gain some readers here as per a request from RE. But again, this sort of pedantry, no matter how polite, is dancing around the meat and potatoes issues on energy that I addressed. Why didn't this moderator go read my linked articles to see where I was coming from? Pro-Oil bias. It's easier to attack the grammar than the ideas. We have all dealt with people that, to avoid discussion, correct your pronunciation (in the English language, many words have two valid pronunciations, e.g. pralines, but people use that to either locate where you grew up or correct you to win argument brownie points and avoid issue discussion). School age kids cuss more than adults do. Is she kidding? No, just being pedantic. Leanan has already made clear to RE that she won't post our articles there so I had to give it the old college try to see if a few with two neurons still rubbing together successfully would come over here.
agelbert on September 6, 2012 - 9:23pm
Very well. Let me discuss some facts in a profanity free manner. The above article was admittedly long and not fully fleshed out. I did so at the Doomstead Diner that posted the article today.
This is a very brief summary of the problems we face and I feel are, at best, insufficiently addressed or ,at worst, ridiculed in sites like this that display a bias towards petroleum products:
CH4 + 2O2 ---> 2H2O + CO2
 Burning hydrocarbons is trouble for planet Earth's biosphere.

The absorption of terrestrial radiation is dominated by triatomic molecules – O3 in the UV, H2O, CO2 and others in the IR because it so happens that triatomic molecules have rotational and vibrational modes that can easily be excited by radiation with wavelengths in the IR.The Earth radiates energy away at the same rate as it is received from the Sun. The Earth's emission temperature is 255K; that of the Sun, 6000K. The outgoing terrestrial radiation peaks in the infrared; the incoming solar radiation peaks at shorter wavelengths, in the visible.

The emission of terrestrial radiation is a function of the Earth's radiative temperature. Earth radiates in the IR band. Therefore even a tiny addition of triatomic molecules such as CO2 and H2O will result in a powerful positive feedback mechanism. Burning hydrocarbons destabilizes Earth's radiative equilibrium profile. It is irresponsible for the petroleum industry to pretend otherwise.
Published EROI studies at The Oil Drum such (Hall) pretend the application of science and mathematics to determine energy return on energy invested. However, in thermodynamics, applying the law of conservation of energy to determine enthalpy is only half the picture. You must also compute entropic effects as well. That is, you must take the energy density per mole and determine how much WORK it can accomplish in the real world. Hall and associates fail to do that. If they had done this for ethanol vs gasoline, they would find that the higher octane ethanol is a better fuel for the ICE (internal combustion engine) than than gasoline. All you need to do to get equivalent mileage per gallon or litre is to burn the ethanol in a high compression engine. This was proven as far back as 1906 in Edison Labs research funded by the US Navy (Google it!).

Furthermore, ethanol does not require a catalytic converter so the entropy is decreased and overall energy output in the form of mechanical WORK is increased. The rabbit hole on ethanol is deep and goes back to Rockefeller gifting religious fundamentalist organizations with millions of dollars to get Prohibition passed. I don't believe it is any coincidence that less than a year after Prohibition destroyed ethanol (it became illegal, not just to drink, but to produce and use as fuel) as a competitor to gasoline, the Tetra Ethyl Lead poison additive to gasoline increased its octane rating to a level comparable with ethanol. You know how tetra ethyl lead ended up being banned for the horrible effects on humans and other life forms.
Petroleum energy's ultimate source is the sun, not an oil drum or a well. Why then, is your site named "The Oil Drum" instead of "The Sustainable Sun"? Why the "Drumbeat" campy title for an energy discussion forum instead of the "PhotonBeat"? Because you suffer from endowment bias. This is unscientific in a site that claims they back up everything they say with science. Politicized EROI formulas neglecting real world application efficiencies and entropy in order to make petroleum products look favorable is flawed science.

We address this issue in detail at the Doomstead Diner web site. Our motto is "Save as many as you can". There is no censorship. People that don't properly reference their ideas with scientifically proven facts are not banned but are identified as pushing opinions as facts. Anyone that questions facts, as those I have just stated above, by claiming they are opinion with pejorative remarks like "this is speculative and not real world" must show some facts to back up their assertions besides unethical debating tactics (e.g. my resume is bigger than yours).

Learn what a proper formulation of the EROI formula should be composed of free from propaganda, politics and the petroleum profit motive.

Renewables, why they work and fossil and nuclear fuels never did (

Carbon Footprint and how the 1% skew the per capita numbers in the USA (Joe 6 pack uses much less energy than is claimed) is discussed, among other subjects of interest to Oil Drum readers, here:

Sexual Dimorphism, PowerStructures and Environmental Consequences of Human Behaviors (

Unlike most sites, the comments on these articles do not get shelved or disappeared into dusty archives. The thread is preserved and you can read through the whole thing. You can tear the articles to pieces and use profanity if you wish to accentuate your prose. As long as you don't conflate opinion with facts and vice versa, you will be listened to. Come one, come all and show us your debating skills.

Richard Eis on September 7, 2012 - 5:07am

Petroleum energy's ultimate source is the sun, not an oil drum or a well. Why then, is your site named "The Oil Drum" instead of "The Sustainable Sun"?

Oil has not been sunlight for millions of years and went through several different processes between then and now. Endowment bias? Really?
All you need to do to get equivalent mileage per gallon or litre is to burn the ethanol in a high compression engine.
Compressing a fuel doesn't change the fact that you still need more of it than gasoline to run your engine (nearly 40% more apparently). Considering that this fuel source is usually taken from our food stocks, this is never going to be a "good" solution regardless of how you play with the EROI.

The poster finds it unreasonable for me to claim the blog expresses pro-oil bias with its title because the sun produced oil carbon sequestering (he doesn't seem to know that petroleum deposit creation is a mechanism scientists have proven is a temperature regulation biosphere mechanism) occurred millions of years ago but appears quite comfortable with the totally irrational mindset that burning something that took millions of years to create in a space of 150 years or so is rational.  :BangHead:

Notice the incorrect statement about compressing fuel. This is false. Fuel economy is identical. Changing the compression RATIO of an ICE does not change the AMOUNT of fuel to achieve a given amount of mechanical work. This is disngenuous bullshit.  I advocate that HALL and associates are the ones playing with the EROI formula and the debater claims I am the one wanting to "play" with it. Again, if they would bother to go to the "behemoth" (see Ashvin and Ilargi) discussion of EROI in my renewables article they would see the US Government references that prove HALL is the one playing to keep oil looking better than ethanol.

The "taking energy products from foodstuffs" tradoff is big oil propaganda. I discuss that in a response to Mark_BC who brings up the same, invalid, point. Corn ethanol was set up to fail. It is one of the WORST biomass products that could have been chosen for biofuels because it requires soil tilling, chemical fertilizers and pesticides". It was wrongheaded from the start; set up to fail. The US oil oligarchy in action.
Nick on September 7, 2012 - 9:38am 

Compressing a fuel doesn't change the fact that you still need more of it than gasoline to run your engine (nearly 40% more apparently).

Actually, it does. Raising compression ratios increases efficiency. Audi has reduced the ethanol penalty to 12%.

At last. One person dealing with thermodynamic truth and objective scientific facts. I hope Nick makes it over. There is actually an energy "penalty" from burning gasoline (catalytic converters - poisonous exhaust fumes - global warming) but at least  Nick is thinking.

Richard Eis on September 7, 2012 - 2:24pm 

12% down from 40% is pretty good. What's the energy loss from compressing the fuel though? That probably won't be a huge factor but it would be a nice to know.

Nick on September 7, 2012 - 3:22pm 

What's the energy loss from compressing the fuel though?
Hard to tell - the compression happens during the engine combustion cycle, so the energy output is a net figure.

They need to read the linked articles but they are, apparantly, two twittered to be throrough. Hell, just doing some Google research on ethanol vs gasoline, enthalpy and mechanical work from both would give them their answer (along with some easily disprovable -no sources, just talk- pro-gasolene PR).

Now, good old BOB doesn't seem to like the direction the "energy" discussion is going with the ethanol heresy so here comes the petroleum calavary to the rescue of mendacity in the service of oil (i.e. it's time to attack the mesenger in order to discredit the argument!).

Richard Eis on September 7, 2012 - 5:16am

Petroleum energy's ultimate source is the sun, not an oil drum or a well. Why then, is your site named "The Oil Drum" instead of "The Sustainable Sun"?
 Oil has not been sunlight for millions of years and went through several different processes between then and now. Endowment bias? Really?
 All you need to do to get equivalent mileage per gallon or litre is to burn the ethanol in a high compression engine.
 Compressing a fuel doesn't change the fact that you still need more of it than gasoline to run your engine (nearly 40% more apparently). Considering that this fuel source is usually taken from our food stocks, this is never going to be a "good" solution regardless of how you play with the EROI.


jokuhl on September 7, 2012 - 11:32am 

 Seeing that you're really here to push the Doomstead diner, is it really necessary to toss in snyde remarks about the site that is hosting this comment? You may have seen some recent threads where many posters here have expressed their gratitude for having a site which keeps high standards of both civility and supported arguments. It's far from perfect, but it's very good compared to anything else I've seen online.
I may peek in to DD at some point, but even without profanity, your tone upstages your points, and I see no reason amongst the ideas you've presented for expecting to have a fruitful discussion over there.

After the initial responses asking for less than a chapter, it might have been more useful to pick a single idea you want to take on, such as EROEI, and let that issue go forward conversationally. (unless it's really off-topic to the thread, which we've now pretty much become..) But it doesn't seem like that's what you're here for. It IS what I am here for.
I think I know what BOB is there for; it sure as hell is not an objective discussion of energy, thermodynamics or EROI. His deliberate respelling of EROI to EROEI (both acronyms are used by wikipeda and Hall to mean the same thing) is more evidence of pedantic pissantry. BOB LIKES the current EROI "formulation". That's what BOB is all about. If he had bothered to read the "Renewables, why they work and fossil and nuclear feils never did", he would understand that the ENTIRE THRUST OF THE ARTICLE was a detailed deconstruction of EROI formulation! You CANNOT do that "conversationally" in a forum thread. He just does not want to go there. 

BlueTwilight on September 7, 2012 - 8:47pm

Written by agelbert:
 CH4 + 2O2 ---> 2H2O + CO2
 Burning hydrocarbons is trouble for planet Earth's biosphere.
Burning large amounts of fossil hydrocarbons is trouble for Earth's biosphere. Reverse the reaction:
2H2O + CO2 + energy ---> CH4 + 2O2
The energy could come from sunlight. It is easier to store methane than hydrogen.
Another fellow with his thinking cap on. RE is right. There are a few over there that aren't lost to big oil. What BlueTwilight just did is define renewable energy from photosynthesis or some other CO2 + H2O chemical process. I hope he comes over.

Nick on September 7, 2012 - 9:48pm 

Are you thinking of utility-scale energy storage? (
Nick is thinking. I hope he comes over here to see that decentralized, rather than utility scale renewable is the only viable answer although utitlity scale does have a role in that picture.

I wish I could say I am geting more optimistic. Im not. It was all I could do to just get out of bed today. I just learned hose FUC KING Russians have been dumping radioactive waste in the arctic ocean for DECADES! Scientists at the cryosphere web site are scratching their heads wondering why the ocean bordering Siberia has such an unusually high temperature. Word is out that there is a nuclear sub the Russians scuttled in the 80s (with nuclear fuel in it) that may rupture now. Some say it is in danger of exploding. I don't know but does it really matter? Radionuclide contamination aside for a moment, this stuff puts out unending HEAT. Man, we are SO ****.

Evolution of sea surface temperatures in August
East Siberian and Chukchi seas on August 5, 2012. SSTs were as much as 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal along the coastal areas in those seas.

Old ice continues to decline

CFS has left the human society "building" (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 09:02:11 pm

jokuhl on September 4, 2012 - 10:48am 

You seem to have useful ideas, but like Richard, I would ask you not to put in a whole chapter or a book. It's considered hogging the thread.
The use of "BS" in the first sentence also quickly made you seem fairly rude and ranting.. making it hard to take anything afterward very seriously.. though as I said, I think some of the ideas in there probably will be great to have discussions on.. just not great speeches or treatises, if you please.
As Leanan says sometimes.. 'get your own blog if you want to share that much stuff'. This is appropriately called a discussion.

This is the kind of BS I simply cannot STAND, because it OBVIOUSLY turns the Blog into a One Way Street.

Leanan can go ahead and drop on 20 Copy/Pastes in her Drumbeat to total out 3000 words or more, but anybody who wants to COMMENT on what she just dropped down has to keep it to 500 Words or less or be accused of "Hogging" the thread, using too much "bandwidth" yadda yadda.

This is ridiculous because in reality nobody can "Hog" essentially Unlimited Space.  If people find your stuff too LONG, they can Scroll over it in a couple of seconds.  The bandwidth argument is equally absurd for Text, the Complete works of Shakespeare in text is only 5 megabytes, around the same as a 30 second video.  Even a 10,000 word article uses negligible bandwidth.

What you get from this is the Blog equivalent of TV Soundbites.  You can't have a real debate about anything if everybody is restricted to 3 or 4 paragraphs the MOST.  The whole purpose is to insure that what gets published on The Oil Drum is the propaganda that Leanan wants to spin out.

Finally that "Get Your Own Blog" argument is worthless, because with a Million Bloggers out there each writing their own Propaganda Blog, nobody actually talks to each other.  Will Leanan ever show up on the Diner to debate me on anything?  Of course not, Hell Freezes Over before that happens.  Similarly, it is highly unlikely even IF the Futilist enlists some "scientists" in a Critique of Mr. Wizard he would ever show up here to debate on a level Playing Field.  He might show up on TOD where he knows the Group Think is basically with him and he will be supported by the Mods as an "Expert", but he won't show up here where he is just considered another Debater in the game, and his "Credentials" as an Arch Druid and Ph.D. Historian don't garner the "respect" he thinks he should get.

It is this sort of Nonsense that underpins the REASON I started the Guerilla Internet Free Speech Project.  The only way to BREAK this is to have many Guerillas out there posting on these websites and making it impossible to Censor EVERYBODY.  Sadly though, the number of people who are like AB and myself and who will go out and CHALLENGE the Group Think on other Blogs and Boards is remarkably small.  Just about everybody claims they believe in Free Speech, but few people will go out and actually FIGHT for it.

Case in point, we have had a pretty large Influx of TOD members here already, but so far as I can see not a single one has confronted Leanan WRT these Policies on TOD.  "Not my FIGHT, and I don't wanna be BANNED also!"

It is NOT of course just Leanan here, though she is amongst the worst of the Censor/Bloggers on the Net.  Karl Denninger is FAMOUS for Capricious Bans, at one point he did a Mass Genocide of over 100 Commenters for the SIN of just MENTIONING 911 on Ticker Forum.  If you appeared to be a "Troofer" to Karl, you got sent to the Great Beyond JUST for that.  Ilargi on TAE is not much better, he Swings His Dick around TAE all the time, and we have at least 3 refugees from that here: Karpatok, Agelbert and of course El Gallinazo who got creamed because of his Alien Conspiracy articles and comments.

Anyhow, here on the Diner, Free Speech runs the show even more than RE does.  I have lost quite a few members because I won't Violate Free Speech principles.  I put this Principle up above even some of my closest Friendships in cyberspace.  SOMEBODY has to stand up for Free Speech and allow ALL perspectives to be heard, at whatever length the Author feels he needs to get his Points across.  See the Dirdy Birdy Chronicles to understand this better.

I am happy to provide this Free Speech Zone on the Internet for so long as I can, but it is not enough.  To truly get the MESSAGE out, we need MORE Guerillas willing to put it all on the line for Free Speech on other Blogs and Forums.  I can do nothing more though than Lobby for the importance of this and ecourage you to Stand Tall for the priniciple.

Meanwhile, until we have enough Guerillas who will fight this battle, The Castle that Peter Built is the HOME for Free Speech on the Internet.  Manned by Surly the PEACENIK who will do everything he can to bring CFS into an argument and keep the Diners together; and manned by RE the FIGHTER who won't EVER let any other Troll or Industry Shill screw up Diner Debates.  NOBODY messes with the Diners on my Watch, EVER.  Go Trolling with me, Pitch the Smoke here on the Diner, you will REGRET THE DAY YOU WERE EVER BORN.  Or at least the day you chose to be an Internet Troll or Shill anyhow.

Just a Sod Buster here with my Trusty Rifle.  ;D  "Pa!  He MEANS it!!!!"


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 09:09:39 pm

Letitia L. Star is a healthy living writer who has written more than 1,100 published articles, including many cover stories for The Herb Companion, Mother Earth News (the Women's Health issue), Natural Home & Garden, GRIT and other publications. She specializes in writing about healthy eating, recipe development, natural products, gardening, enviromental issues and green living for magazines and online marketing communications. She can be reached at or (847) 869-3775

My favorite—and most popular—article that I have written for The Herb Companion  is "4 Recipes for Quick Pickles," published in the September 2009 issue, with a follow-up quick-pickling blog posted in May 2010.
I would like to offer one more original quick pickling recipe showcasing garlic. You can make these pickles with cucumbers or a plethora of other fresh vegetables plucked from your own garden or farmers' market, including summer squash, carrots, tomatoes, peppers, onions and more.
My original, quick method takes only 10 to 20 minutes to assemble. Unlike traditionally canning methods, no special equipment is needed. Just use clean glass jars with lids. (This is a great way to reuse old pickle, olive or salsa jars.) Refrigerate and consume in about a week.

Pickle Jars

Quick Herb Taste: Garlic, Lemon, Peppercorns & Bay Pickles

If you love garlic, this quick pickle recipe is for you. I prefer the strong, pungent taste of German or Russian garlics to make these refreshingly tangy, peppery pickles. This recipe also is a wonderful way get the most out of fresh lemons. Scrape out any of the white pulp of used lemons and thinly slice the peel into vertical strips. While black peppercorns are excellent, also consider red or white peppercorns or multi-color peppercorn mixes.

• 1 (16-ounce) clean glass jar
• 1 to 2 cups of sliced cucumbers
• 2 to 4 fresh garlic cloves, crushed (more to taste)
• 1 to 2 bay leaves
• 3 to 4 sliced thinly-sliced lemon peels, preferably organic
• 1/2 tablespoon freshly **** peppercorns, or regular black pepper
• 1/2 tablespoon whole peppercorns
• 1 tablespoon coarse kosher or sea salt
• 1/3 cup cider vinegar
• 1 tablespoon freshly squeezed lemon juice
1. Peel and slice cucumbers into 1/4 inch round slices. In the clean jar, tightly pack cucumbers, garlic, lemon peels, **** peppercorns until 3/4 full.
2. Combine vinegar, salt, lemon juice, peppercorns and bay leaves in a saucepan. Bring to a simmer and gently stir until salt dissolves. Remove from heat.
3. Add 2/3 cup of cold water to this mixture and let cool. Carefully remove bay leaves and add to jar. Pour cooled liquid in jar to cover cucumbers, garlic, bay leaves and lemon peels. Add more cold water if needed. Leave room at the top. 
4. Refrigerate for about an hour until chilled. Your pickles are now ready to eat. Keep refrigerated and consume in about a week. (Don't store on shelves.)
My Favorite Herb Suppliers
I buy culinary herbs for recipes and more from these four prized companies.

+ Mountain Rose Herbs   
+ Frontier Natural Products Co-op 
+ Monterey Bay Spice Company 
+ San Francisco Herb & Natural Food Co. 

Read more:

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 09:21:43 pm
Rethinking Herbal Medicine

A phylogenetic study of traditional plant remedies could aid drug development.
By Beth Marie Mole | September 10, 2012
The medicinal New Zealand flax (Phormium sp.). Phormium species are used traditionally by Māori people to treat a wide range of conditions, including skin, respiratory and gastro-intestinal problems. University of Warwick, United Kingdom, Andrew Clarke

Many scientists raise a skeptical eyebrow to traditional herbal treatments, but a new phylogenetic study suggests that such remedies may hold promise—for both medicine and drug development.
In the study, researchers from the University of Reading in the United Kingdom found that many medicinal plants used by nearly 100 cultures on different continents are related. Because these distant groups of people likely identified their plant therapies independently, such herbal treatments may be legit, the researchers argue, and the plants likely contain bioactive compounds that scientist could exploit for new drug therapies.
“People think there’s nothing new to be found,” said John Beutler, a leading chemist at the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research, who was not involved in the study. “But, that’s just not true. Wherever we look, we find new stuff.” But critics still doubt whether researchers will be able to sort effective traditional remedies from the bogus ones, and whether pharmaceutical endeavors will follow.
In previous studies that tried to use cultural comparisons to find useful remedies, scientists struggled to make meaningful taxonomic comparisons. “If [local] floras are different, obviously plants that are used in traditional medicine will be different,” said Royal Botanic Gardens Kew postdoc Haris Saslis-Lagoudakis, lead author of the study, which was published today (September 10) in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. But Haris and his colleagues’ phylogenetic comparisons allowed them to link seemingly unrelated plants.
A plant trader selling medicinal plants at the Mona Market, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Natural History Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark, Gary Stafford
They constructed genus-level phylogenetic trees of plants from 3 disparate locations—New Zealand, Nepal, and the Cape of South Africa. Once they assembled their trees, they overlaid ethnobotanical data regarding the therapeutic uses of various plants by cultures from each of the three locations (one culture from New Zealand, three cultures from The Cape of South Africa, and more than 80 cultures from Nepal).
In the flora phylogenies for each of the three continents, medicinal plants clustered into “hot nodes,” meaning they were more related to each other than the other plants in the analysis. Further, categorizing medicinal plants by what condition they treated, the researchers found that medicinal plants clustered into condition-specific nodes, even when the analyses from all three locations were combined—again suggesting a high degree of relatedness for plants used to treat similar conditions and lending some validity to these herbal treatments.
Biomedical researchers have occasionally drawn from ethnobotany and traditional treatments when looking for new drugs, but the use of this strategy has waned in recent decades. Though more than 80 percent of plant species have not been tested for therapeutic potential, the last major drug discovered from plants was the cancer drug Taxol in 1967.
This lack of interest stems, in part, from skepticism about the legitimacy of traditional plant therapies. Many cultures use medicinal plants for multiple ailments, for example. If a plant is good for your stomach, people may start taking it for problems with their nearby liver, then their lungs, then their heart and head, and so on, said Daniel Moerman, a professor emeritus of the University of Michigan-Dearborn and a leading expert on ethnobotany and cross-cultural studies. This makes it difficult to determine what condition a medicinal plant may effectively treat.
Haris, who recently completed his PhD at the University of Reading, sidestepped the issue by accounting for all the documented conditions each plant treated. “We scored everything—all of the uses that are defined—and let the results speak for themselves.”

Pseudowintera colorata, a plant species used medicinally in New Zealand. Pseudowintera species are used traditionally by Māori people to treat skin conditions, respiratory problems, and to help heal wounds. Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand, Steven Wagstaff

Another criticism facing the study is that cultures sometimes use symbolic visual cues to identify potentially disease-treating plants. For example, it may be common for traditional healers to treat menstrual symptoms with plants that have red flowers, explains evolutionary biologist and senior researcher on the study Julie Hawkins. Such appearance-based selection would suggest that relatedness of medicinal plants is due to looks, not bioactivity.
“But, we’re finding a lot of morphological variation amongst [related medicinal plants],” Hawkins said, which suggests that visual cues don’t explain their relatedness.
The researchers also looked at plants being developed or already in use as drug therapies around the globe and found a significant number fell in the nodes with the traditional medicinal plants, further supporting the validity of the method in identifying plants useful for drug discovery. The team noted several plant genera related to traditional medicinal plants that have not been tested for bioactivity, which could serve as low-hanging fruit in the search for new therapies.
Both Beutler and Moerman expressed skepticism, however, that pharmaceutical companies would jump at the new approach to guiding their drug discovery, as the industry has largely shifted toward robotic, high-throughput screens of chemical libraries. But new approaches are always welcome, Beutler said. “The perception is that we’re doing the same old grind and find, and it’s just not the case.” (

It's good to see scientists doing good science instead of rejecting ancient and hard won knowledge out of hand.   (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 09:25:16 pm
I do observe that scramble for Gold by the Chinese and Russians. It reminds me of dinosaurs (Empires "doing what they do") fighting among themselves for the top predator spot while they ignore that meteor in the sky.

I think they know the meteor is there. They ignore it because of their deeper concern about today and tomorrow.

Your 9/11 posting was awesome Agelbert, while I had problems understanding some of the physics, the over all message came through loud and clear. To be absolutely honest, it scared the living s h i t out of me, because it had the smell, feel, and created and instinctive knowledge within me that is definitely true.

Going to bed with a lot of whys on my mind, and of lot of things not fully understood before are fast becoming very clear, such as the 400 million bullet order and the Patriot Act. Thank you Agelbert for educating me in this most important matter.       GO

You are always welcome. The more we know, the better prepared we are to face an uncertain future. That is why I hunt around for information that may aid earnest individuals like the gathering we have here at the Diner to to be as well informed as possible given the fact that none of us here are privy to the elite data base.

My ATC experience has helped you and anyone that reads it to get an honest appraisal of the events that day. I can say the same for many bits and pieces of info I have obtained here from virtually everybody that posts, Ashvin included  :icon_mrgreen:. This is the type of synergy that human society can prosper from in the area of the intellect. Times are hard. We are all doing what we can to inform each other soberly and to keep our spirits up as well. I appreciate your constant updates on economics and government intrusion danger as well. 👍

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 09:36:08 pm
Golden Oxen,
Yes sir, if my dream comes true, we will replace all hydrocarbon plastics with plastics made from Hemp. We will use varieties of Hemp Cannabis for health as well as many other NATURAL plant substances. I, of course, would only use pot for "medicinal" purposes.  :icon_mrgreen:  For fuel, we will use ethanol made from Lemna minor (Duckweed) and other, quick growing, chemical pesticide and fertilizer free plants that don't require soil tilling (Definitely NOT the "set up to fail by big oil" CORN biofuels).

1 acre of corn = 150-300 bushels of corn = 420-840 gallons of ethanol 👎   
1 acre of grass = 5-15 tons of plant material = 150-1200 gallons of ethanol 👍
 Ethanol is a process that ferments sugars into alcohol. It can be made from many different plant sources or feedstocks.

Or we may just all choke from our hydrocarbon poisons. :(

Researchers are exploring ways to make ethanol from other feedstocks or plant materials. Feedstocks are also known as biomass and include corn stover (leaves and stalks of the corn plant), corncobs, and wheat straw, perennial grasses, wood chips (including waste from the forestry and paper industries), and waste from food manufacturing. Waste from our communities such as garbage, shredded paper, and wood waste is being considered also. Researchers from around the world are evaluating plant materials that grow in their region for cellulosic ethanol production potential. (

Why Alcohol Fuel? The Two-Minute Summary

1. Almost every country can become energy independent. Anywhere that has sunlight and land can produce alcohol from plants. Brazil, the fifth largest country in the world imports no oil, since half its cars run on alcohol fuel made from sugarcane, grown on 1% of its land.
2. We can reverse global warming. Since alcohol is made from plants, its production takes carbon dioxide out of the air, sequestering it, with the result that it reverses the greenhouse effect (while potentially vastly improving the soil). Recent studies show that in a permaculturally designed mixed-crop alcohol fuel production system, the amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere by plants—and then exuded by plant roots into the soil as sugar—can be 13 times what is emitted by processing the crops and burning the alcohol in our cars.
3. We can revitalize the economy instead of suffering through Peak Oil. Oil is running out, and what we replace it with will make a big difference in our environment and economy. Alcohol fuel production and use is clean and environmentally sustainable, and will revitalize families, farms, towns, cities, industries, as well as the environment. A national switch to alcohol fuel would provide many millions of new permanent jobs.
4. No new technological breakthroughs are needed. We can make alcohol fuel out of what we have, where we are. Alcohol fuel can efficiently be made out of many things, from waste products like stale donuts, grass clippings, food processing waste-even ocean kelp. Many crops produce many times more alcohol per acre than corn, using arid, marshy, or even marginal land in addition to farmland. Just our lawn clippings could replace a third of the autofuel we get from the Mideast.
5. Unlike hydrogen fuel cells, we can easily use alcohol fuel in the vehicles we already own. Unmodified cars can run on 50% alcohol, and converting to 100% alcohol or flexible fueling (both alcohol and gas) costs only a few hundred dollars. Most auto companies already sell new dual-fuel vehicles.
6. Alcohol is a superior fuel to gasoline! It’s 105 octane, burns much cooler with less vibration, is less flammable in case of accident, is 98% pollution-free, has lower evaporative emissions, and deposits no carbon in the engine or oil, resulting in a tripling of engine life. Specialized alcohol engines can get at least 22% better mileage than gasoline or diesel.
7. It’s not just for gasoline cars. We can also easily use alcohol fuel to power diesel engines, trains, aircraft, small utility engines, generators to make electricity, heaters for our homes—and it can even be used to cook our food.
8. Alcohol has a proud history. Gasoline is a refinery’s toxic waste; alcohol fuel is liquid sunshine. Henry Ford’s early cars were all flex-fuel. It wasn’t until gasoline magnate John D. Rockefeller funded Prohibition that alcohol fuel companies were driven out of business.
9. The byproducts of alcohol production are clean, instead of being oil refinery waste, and are worth more than the alcohol itself. In fact, they can make petrochemical fertilizers and herbicides obsolete. The alcohol production process concentrates and makes more digestible all protein and non-starch nutrients in the crop. It’s so nutritious that when used as animal feed, it produces more meat or milk than the corn it comes from. That’s right, fermentation of corn increases the food supply and lowers the cost of food.
10. Locally produced ethanol supercharges regional economies. Instead of fuel expenditures draining capital away to foreign bank accounts, each gallon of alcohol produces local income that gets recirculated many times. Every dollar of tax credit for alcohol generates up to $6 in new tax revenues from the increased local business.
11. Alcohol production brings many new small-scale business opportunities. There is huge potential for profitable local, integrated, small-scale businesses that produce alcohol and related byproducts, whereas when gas was cheap, alcohol plants had to be huge to make a profit.
12. Scale matters—most of the widely publicized potential problems with ethanol are a function of scale. Once production plants get beyond a certain size and are too far away from the crops that supply them, closing the ecological loop becomes problematic. Smaller-scale operations can more efficiently use a wide variety of crops than huge specialized one-crop plants, and diversification of crops would largely eliminate the problems of monoculture.

13. The byproducts of small-scale alcohol plants can be used in profitable, energy-efficient, and environmentally positive ways. For instance, spent mash (the liquid left over after distillation) contains all the nutrients the next fuel crop needs and can return it back to the soil if the fields are close to the operation. Big-scale plants, because they bring in crops from up to 45 miles away, can’t do this, so they have to evaporate all the water and sell the resulting byproduct as low-price animal feed,which accounts for half the energy used in the plant. (

The above is not hopium, it's science! Only Big Oil prevents it from happening.

Lemna minor (Duckweed) ponds treat the waste and provide biomass for pelletized duckweed animal feed, furnace fuel or ethanol.

Duckweed is two solutions in one!
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 09:44:38 pm
Finally! NASA (Never A Straight Answer) gives a STRAIGHT ANSWER!

Sorry, it's not about ETs but it is good for your health.  (

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Want Cleaner and Purer Air? Try Air-Cleaning Plants, NASA Says
Elizabeth Renter
Activist Post

NASA knows a thing or two about keeping air clean, sending astronauts into space with a limited amount of breathable air for months
After all, they can’t simply open a window when things get stuffy in space.

What NASA researchers have learned about air quality in the home concerning air-cleaning plants, however, is refreshing to say the least.

They’ve found several common houseplant varieties can essentially clean the air of certain chemicals. They tested a variety of plants to see which was best at removing carcinogens like trichloroethylene, formaldehyde, and benzene. But, these chemicals aren’t in my home—you might be thinking. And you would be wrong.

Cleansing the air with Air-Cleaning Plants

According to the NY Times:

Formaldehyde is commonly found in drapes, glues and coating products. Benzene is a component of paint supplies and tobacco smoke, and trichloroethylene is used in adhesives, spot removers and other household products.”
And with asbestos, formaldehyde, and other VOCs leaching off every wall of our home, it’s no surprise that indoor pollution may be causing 50% of illnesses worldwide.

Those headaches you have on a regular basis, where the cause just can’t be pinpointed, may actually be a result of poor air quality in your home. The good news is that you can cleanse the air with air-cleaning plants – what better way to solve a problem than with nature.

Taken from NASA’s ‘Interior Landscape Plants for Indoor Air Pollutant Abatement‘ report, it reads:
Another promising approach to further reducing trace levels of air pollutants in side future space habitats is the use of higher plants and their associated soil microorganisms. (28-29) Since man’s existence on Earth depends upon a life support system involving an intricate relationship with plants and their associated microorganisms, it should be obvious that when he attempts to isolate himself in tightly sealed buildings away from this ecological system, problems will arise…
In this study the leaves, roots, soil, and associated microorganisms of plants have been evaluated as a possible means of reducing indoor air pollutants. Additionally, a novel approach of using plants stems for removing high concentrations of indoor air pollutants such as cigarette smoke, organic solvents, and possibly radon has been designed from this work.

The plants found to be most effective at purifying the air include:

Peace lilies

Mother-in-law’s tongue (also called a snake plant - no jokes please!  ;D


Gerbera daisies

Snake plants

Devil’s ivy

Dr. Clifford W. Bassett, of New York University’s School of Medicine says that one plant for every 100 square feet of your home is a good rule of thumb.

Rather than spending several hundred dollars on air purifiers and humidifiers, you can spend a few dollars on a plant and some dirt for the same or even better effects.

And of course there are other air purifying plants you can use as well:

Chrysanthemum (Chrysantheium morifolium) - Reduces benzene and formaldehyde, while adding a splash of color in your home.

Bamboo palm (Chamaedorea sefritzii) - A great plant for being out of direct sunlight, bamboo palm cleanses the air of formaldehyde.

Red-Edge dracaena (Dracaena marginata) - This large-growing plant removes benzene and trichloroethylene from its surroundings.

Spider plant (Chlorophytum comosum) - Don’t want to baby plants? Try this low-maintenance option that filters formaldehyde. [/b]

It’s nearly impossible to get completely away from air pollution. Even if you move to a cave in the mountains, your fire and the smog from nearby areas would reach you. But, if you can decorate your house with air-cleaning plants, you can at least minimize their presence in your most sacred of spaces.

While some insist on moving toward genetically modified plants that produce pharmaceuticals, the rest of us simply want to embrace the the natural cleansing capabilities of nature. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 09:46:54 pm

Our story in 2 minutes
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 09:55:05 pm
The poison hemlock famously drunk by Socrates is deadly, but the water hemlock is just as fatal. According to the USDA, water hemlock or poison parsnip is “the most violently toxic plant in North America”. The flowers and stems are safe, but the stalky roots contain chambers that are full of a deadly sap containing the convulsant cicutoxin. Grand mal seizures are followed by a quick death if even a tiny amount is consumed. (

Medical treatment of poisoning may include the use of activated charcoal to decrease gastrointestinal absorption of the toxic principle along with supportive care including anticonvulsant drugs such as a benzodiazepine. High doses of anticonvulsant medicine are often required to halt seizure activity and further medical care including intubation and mechanical ventilation may be required. (

The street name for Benzodiazepines is "Benzos". You've probably taken some at one time or another if you have ever been prescribed medication for anxiety (or been IN on the college or street drug scene  8)). Veterinarians give it to cats before a procedure. :cat:  It has a curious effect on them (makes them ravenously hungry when they wake up) so, with moderation (Vet supervision strongly recommended), you can perk up your cat's appetite if he refuses to eat. But I digress. 

EMT's carry benzos because, if someone is convulsing, this stuff goes straight to the glutamate transmission mechanism in humans and prevents the transmission from locking in the "ON" position which will produce hypertoxicity and mess you up very badly (a lot of pain for the rest of your life) if it doesn't kill you right away.
Halcion is a benzo. They are very addictive and, since the body of humans (and cats in particular) metabolizes them very slowly in the liver (there are some exceptions to this), can become toxic for the liver. There are other cognitive problems associated with abuse of benzos as well. Don't use them unless it is an emergency but if you can have some in your bugout first aid kit, it's a great idea.

Cicuta (Water hemlock) varieties are quite common in the US.

This is a map of the distribution of Cicuta maculata (spotted Water hemlock) in the lower 48.

Spotted Water hemlock

Spotted Water hemlock
Spotted Water hemlock

All in the (highly poisonous ☠️) family:

Circuta virosa (Northern Water hemlock or Cowbane) illlustration showing the root chambers with the convulsant poison sap. This is common to all types of Water Hemlock.

water hemlock root

Cicuta douglasii (Western Water Hemlock) is just as poisonous. Here's the geographic distribution:

Western Water Hemlock

Western Water Hemlock

Western Water Hemlock poison chambers at root base exposed

I recommend Doomstad Diners read up on this plant (all the Cicuta family). Why? Because it is common and thereby accessible to you in a collapse scenario.

Homeopathic use of this plant's poison root sap or juice is limited to some topical applications and Never for internal use. But always remember the basis of plant poisons is mostly alkaloids. Living things haven't evolved a defense against  alkaloids. Consequently, some insects that attack your dwelling or your skin might be warded off with homemade concoctions of this poison.

Cicuta will be there when we are gone. Make it your friend and it can help keep you healthy. Of course you must make sure that animals don't forage on it (It ain't called cowbane for nothin'!) but you can use cicutoxin to your benefit instead of your detriment.

Don't confuse Water Hemlock with the following two look alikes:

1. Queen Ann's Lace (Daucus carota - wild carrot)
Notice how flat and platelike the flower bouquet shape is

Queen Ann's Lace

As you will see, this plant's charcteristics and uses for humans are radically different from hemlock poisons.

Queen Anne's Lace is found all over the United States and goes by many different names: Wild Carrot, Birds Nest Weed, Devils Plague, Fools Parsley, and Lace Flower. You have probably seen it growing by the roadside.
It grows two to four feet tall with the flower head made up of numerous tiny flowers. There may be a red or purple flower in the middle. This is too attract insects.

Queen Anne's Lace is a member of the carrot family and if you dig up the roots or break the stem and smell it, it will smell like carrots.

When young, the root is edible, but as it grows older it becomes tough and fibrous and doesn't' taste as good.
This flower has been in the United States since colonial times, probably its seeds come over her in bags of grain from Europe, maybe even with the pilgrims. (

MAYBE, my FOOT! It seems those prudish pilgrim ladies that came over from Europe were more modern and practical than many give them credit for.
Women have used the seeds from Daucus carota commonly known as wild carrot or queen anne's lace, for centuries as a contraceptive, the earliest written reference dates back to the late 5th or 4th century B.C. appearing in a work written by Hippocrates. John Riddle writes in Eve's Herbs, that queen anne's lace (QAL) seeds are one of the more potent antifertility agents available, and a common plant in many regions of the world. "The seeds, harvested in the fall, are a strong contraceptive if taken orally immediately after coitus."1 (pe nis/vag ina sex). (

Take THAT, you feminists!  ;D

Where was I?

Right, back to poisons ☠️ :

2. POISON HEMLOCK - (Conium maculatum)

Conium maculatum

Conium maculatum flowers close up

Conium maculatum

Conium maculatum

Doomstead Diners would do well to learn from plants that when you have little or no mobility  (i.e. fast collapse scenario) you need to be unattractive to predators. Spiders use quick acting neurotoxins to immobilize prey. Plants get their energy from the sun and whatever else they need from the interplay of pollinating insects, seed dispersing earthlings that eat the fruit and soil microbes that fix nitrogen and aid in essential minerals uptake.

Plants, unlike us, are quite willing to lose parts without skipping a beat as long as those parts are above ground. Kill the roots and you kill the plant. So it is logical that plants want to send a strong message to any animal that bites into their root systems that it's a lousy idea if staying alive is the plan. Learn from the plants. In a collapse scenario, if you aren't superman, your chances of being left alone are much improved if you are considered as unattractive as a leper. Think about it. It may save your life.

Nature's most widely used defense mechanism is camouflage. After camouflage comes POISON. In the biosphere, a good hiding spot with a biological shield that doubles as a snare is far more energy efficient than fangs and claws. And even all these earthlings armed with sharp teeth, fangs and claws don't go around killing things when they aren't hungry. Only mankind is that stupid.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 09:58:08 pm
Now it's true that Rosary Pea only lives in tropical and subtropical climates, in N America that means South Florida and Mexico.
I think that you hit on the reason right there. The ubiquity of water hemlock combined with the quick acting poison seems to be the FDA reasoning behind giving Cicuta top billing.

As to Lethal Dosing levels with the Rosary Pea, I wasn't aware of their high toxicity. Thanks for the info. I've been reading about different plants with some powerful alkaloids ( ( ) and I haven't worked my way to the Rosary Pea yet.

If you want a VERY high poison for a blow dart, you obviously want a high concentration of toxin in the substance. The best way to go there is the arachnids. Highly venomous spiders immobilize their prey. Death occurs sometimes instantly but often later. From your point of view (and the spider's point of view as well) your main goal is immobilization. Hence you have to interfere with the mammalian nervous system so the ATP (adenosine tri phosphate) energy bundles that drive muscle movement are stopped in their tracks. Muscle movement is directed by magnesium and calcium ion channels in the central nervous system. A neurotoxin locks these channels in the "ON" position resulting in no movement at all OR violent convulsions including heart fibrillation, lung paralysis and subsequent death.  It's been a while since I went through the whole glutamate  channel freeze up (GABA receptors) process so I may have left out some steps in this biochemical death dance but I'm sure you get the idea. It's FAST!

The venom of the abundant Latrodectus mactans (black widow) consists a variable mix of neurotoxic proteins, enzymes and bioactive molecules such as polyamines that potentiate neurotoxicity. This helps immobilize the prey and begins digesting it too. When we get bitten by a black widow, we can suffer from latrodectism. Other spiders like the brown recluse can cause inflammation and hemorrhagic ulceration. I'd go with black widow venom.


The chelicarae are the hollow fangs with a venom sack for each inside and behind them. As long as that venom doesn't get to an open wound in YOU, you can eat a prey animal you just immobilized with the blow dart coated with spider neurotoxin. You cannot say the same about plant poisons. That cicotoxin or other alkaloid plant poison will be in the animal you just brought down. Spider venom in the animal will not affect you.  It seems like a better deal for prey. 

That said, you need to understand that neurotoxins have shelf lives and may require refrigeration. I don't know. You would need to start a black widow raising operation. I'm sure your wife would just love that!  :icon_mrgreen: Those spiders are probably not too difficult to raise. Just make sure they have enough bugs and water. Field biologists "milk" the venom from spiders (without the need to kill them) by a brief exposure (about 10 seconds) to 100% carbon dioxide (spider in a bottle filled with this gas or a hood bubble place over it. You can tell the spider gets knocked out because its legs fold up or appear to relax- the info on how specifically to do this is on the internet if you are interested - no I don't have a link handy). When a spider clamps its chelicerae, the venom is automatically pumped into the holding flask through the latex membrane just bitten.

Finally, depending on how much you actually need to bring down the animal you are hunting (venom to weight ratio), a dart needle covered with the venom may not be sufficient. You may have to get a hypodermic with a tiny steel ball at the end and syringe the venom up into the needle, remove the needle and mount it on the dart. When the needle impacts the animal, the tiny ball will inject the venom for quick immobilization and a less painful death for the animal (the quicker, the better).

This is what black widow venom does to us:
If enough venom is injected into a person's body, severe pain in local muscle groups occurs, and eventually to regional muscle groups. The spread relates to the toxin initially being carried by the lymphatic system until it reaches the blood stream. Once in the blood, the venom is moved by circulation, causing its toxins to be deposited in the ends of the nerves that are inserted into the muscle.
The venom acts at nerve endings to prevent relaxation of muscles, causing tetany — constant, strong, and painful muscle contractions. Thus initial pain is often followed by severe muscle cramps. Contraction of musculature may extend throughout the body, though cramping in the abdomen is frequently the most severe. Back and leg muscles can often be affected as well. (

IF someone shot a dart of this venom at us with 10 or fifteen times the dose a black widow normally injects, we would probably be dead within minutes.

I do not recommend using plant alkaloids for blow darts. Maybe there is a way the curare natives could use it and eat the prey but I don't know the technique. If you learn it, please share it with us here. I hope this helps.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 10:07:08 pm
Is this a tiny ET?

The Water Bear could have made it the Earth without a space ship

The Water Bear is the only creature to have survived the vacuum of space.

Suppose you could survive in a vacuum, live in temperatures the would fry or freeze most life forms, be just about everywhere and when discovered by human scientists, confound classification? Like the Duck Billed Platypus, this is one of theose creatures that defies the Darwinian evolutionary lockstep of modern "science".

This creature seems to have come out of nowhere. No ancestors or fossils of "previous" evolutionary life forms leading t it have been found. The water bear came (possibly from space) with the full package of adaptability to a WIDE variety of climate conditions. The Water Bear (Tardigrade) is no primitive blue green algae or run of the mill microscopic extremophile. It has muscles and a digestive tract. It was named "Water Bear" because of the way it moves and the claws it has that resemble bear claws.

About 1,150 species of tardigrades have been described. Tardigrades occur throughout the world, from the Himalayas (above 6,000 metres (20,000 ft)), to the deep sea (below 4,000 metres (13,000 ft)) and from the polar regions to the equator.

The most convenient place to find tardigrades is on lichens and mosses. Other environments are dunes, beaches, soil, and marine or freshwater sediments, where they may occur quite frequently (up to 25,000 animals per liter). Tardigrades often can be found by soaking a piece of moss in spring water.

Tardigrades are able to survive in extreme environments that would kill almost any other animal. Some can survive temperatures of close to absolute zero, or 0 Kelvin (−273 °C (−459 °F)), temperatures as high as 151 °C (304 °F), 1,000 times more radiation than other animals, and almost a decade without water. Since 2007, tardigrades have also returned alive from studies in which they have been exposed to the vacuum of space for a few days in low Earth orbit. Tardigrades are the first animal to survive in space.1

All that toughness is great but you need the ability to go into suspended animation for successful long duration space travel to the planet of the naked killer apes. Does the Water Bear deliver? Read on.

Tardigrades are one of the few groups of species that are capable of reversibly suspending their metabolism and going into a state of cryptobiosis. 1

Tardigrades have been known to withstand the following extremes while in this state:

Temperature – tardigrades can survive being heated for a few minutes to 151 °C (424 K), or being chilled for days at -200 °C (73 K), or for a few minutes at -272 °C (~1 degree above absolute zero).

– they can withstand the extremely low pressure of a vacuum and also very high pressures, more than 1,200 times atmospheric pressure. Tardigrades can survive the vacuum of open space and solar radiation combined for at least 10 days.Some species can also withstand pressure of 6,000 atmospheres, which is nearly six times the pressure of water in the deepest ocean trench, the Mariana trench.

– tardigrades have been shown to survive nearly 10 years in a dry state. When exposed to extremely low temperatures, their body composition goes from 85% water to only 3%. As water expands upon freezing, dehydration ensures the tardigrades do not get ripped apart by the freezing ice (as waterless tissues cannot freeze).

 – tardigrades can withstand median lethal doses of 5,000 Gy (of gamma-rays) and 6,200 Gy (of heavy ions) in hydrated animals (5 to 10 Gy could be fatal to a human). The only explanation thus far for this ability is that their lowered water state provides fewer reactants for the ionizing radiation.
Environmental toxins
 – tardigrades can undergo chemobiosis—a cryptobiotic response to high levels of environmental toxins. However, these laboratory results have yet to be verified.

Outer space
 – In September 2007, tardigrades were taken into low Earth orbit on the FOTON-M3 mission and for 10 days were exposed to the vacuum of space. After being rehydrated back on Earth, over 68% of the subjects protected from high-energy UV radiation survived and many of these produced viable embryos, and a handful had survived full exposure to solar radiation. In May 2011, tardigrades were sent into space along with other extremophiles on STS-134, the final flight of Space Shuttle Endeavour 1

It looks like this MEEK little creature has a much better chance of inheriting the Earth than the ARROGANT naked killer apes do.

The Biosphere is always teaching. It's too bad Homo SAP isn't learning jack s h i t.

Do you want to have some fun? Go to the Wikipeda link and read the exercise in cheap rationalization and grasping at evolutionary straws from the scientific classification cubbyholers trying to push the Tardigrades into some convenient evolutionary niche (Evolutionary relationships and history 1).

They can't find fossils so they make the RIDICULOUS claim that this multicellular creature that has a chitinous cover (like many insects THAT DO LEAVE FOSSILS BECAUSE OF THE CHITINOUS COVERING)  is "too small" to leave fossils. SAY WHAT!!? There are fossils for MUCH smaller microspcopic creatures out there.
The Water Bear doesn't fit so the old Procrustean Bed is pulled out to MAKE IT FIT!

I think the Water Bear didn't evolve. It might even be an ET GMO made with a lot more skill than Monsanto has and with a benign purpose that Homo SAP isn't aware of. Whenever the scientific community isn't aware of something, or cannot measure it, they always claim it's NOT THERE. So the Tardigrades are just another curiosity for our scientists rather than evidence of a giant flaw in evolutionary theory.

I think the Water Bear is a rather cute ET.

1. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2018, 10:10:50 pm
I'm talking to you. //

Take it easy, Karpatok. And write that article about Adele Davis so maybe you-know-who will to get his head out of his arse and adopt a more healthy diet! I'll proof read it and put pictures in it if you want help packaging it for Da Godfader. Surly1 has also offered help.

The vitriol I am pretty tired of here is NOT centered on you although you have succeeded from time to time in getting my dander up.

My exhaustion is based on a perception, accurate or not, that, as the song whose title I forgot goes, "There ain't no use in takin' when there ain't nobody listening".

But I'm an ornery sob so I may just hang around to see who I can **** off.  :icon_mrgreen:

I recommend you do the same, Xena. Just try to keep a healthy sense of humor and don't take yourself so seriously.

The world is ALL **** UP. There is a huge probability that we won't make a dent in the monstrous momentum of evil and death facing us. But we can give it the old college try.

I do it because I think it's God's will. You do it because you think it's the right thing to do and you don't need some dumb **** "crutch" called faith in and obedience to the will of God.

As far as I'm concerned the walking is what counts regardless of the talking. Curse my God all you want. As long as you continue to stand up for justice and the downtrodden, I'll cheer you on. :emthup:

Karpatok walks in and is greeted by Agelebert: Hi Xena, how's it going?

Karpatok: I feel like fading into the shadows.

Agelbert: Don't worry, you'll get over it.

Karpatok:  :thefinger:

Agelbert: That's better. Just don't let it happen again.  ;D

FWIW, this exchange is one of the reasons I come to the Diner and have invested so much tme and effort in it. It is difficult to have a genuinely human exchange in a virtual community, but here it is. The humanity and decency in AG's approach is a model we all ought to emulate. Well done.

Glad to see you back.

And take heart-- some of us are reading, and listening, whether we reply or not.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 08:27:35 pm
Agelbert NOTE: TAE = The Automatic Earth 👎 web site.

Let's face it, RE, you don't give two shits about agelbert or how much effort he put into his comment, or his message, or anyone else here.

If I didn't care about Agelbert getting his message out, WHY did I publish WBIII and edit it for him so it had decent paragraph breaks AND dig up all the graphics for it also?  I don't even AGREE with half of what he writes! If its all about me, how come Surly and Peter and Ross are in on this? How come I am happy to welcome WHD to the Team?  Sure I write more than anybody else but at least up there on the Blog I am always publishing other viewpoints.  You guys are the ones with the blinders on running the Ego Trip.

You guys got one spin and one spin only over there.  Drink the TAE Kool-Aid or take a Hike. Far as the metaphorical Orkin Man goes, that is YOU Guys on TAE. You'll send non-believers to the Guillotine over there and Ban and Censor them at the drop of a hat.  Here on DD, we Forgive and Forget.


You are dead wrong about RE. His style is different from mine but he, and I, both can spot bullshit, mendacity and verbal dancing a mile away. You are also out of line in attempting an explanation of Nicole's position on this or that. You have danced around the FACT that neither Nicole or Ilargi have gone into a detailed response to my subsequent posts. You're a good debater, Ashvin. when someone goes for generalities, you claim they should be more specific. When someone goes for the specifics, you claim they are "swamping". You have quite a bit of skill in dancing around core issues. When you no longer can dance around a core issue like fossil fuel worship, you reach for some justification to counter that assertion as well. And really, Ashvin, this scripture verse quoting you are using on RE is known as "bible wars". I feel it is improper to attempt to use scripture to score debating points or put down another person. I think Karpatok's assessment of Nicole's ivory tower arrogance and your uncalled for intersession is spot on as well.

I admit I see red every time I see the name George Monbiot. He is a shill of the nuclear homo sapiens poison pill of the worst sort because he has a voice and some pro-environment credentials so yeah, I didn't read the comments before posting. I had read his piece on another web site. GET THIS, Ashvin, this tool always follows a pattern. He gets press for some "pro-environment" position and subsequent  articles will then come up with the BULLSHIT of the "new" and "wonderous" and "safe" Thorium reactors or some other nuclear high tech poisoned boondoggle.  TAE made a grievous error in giving this tool a soap box. As to ANYTHING Nicole feels about his or that, she can come over here and post it. She does not require your mediation.

Getting back to bible verses, here's one of my favorites from good old Paul in Galatians:
GOD IS NOT MOCKED, WHATSOEVER YOU SOW, THAT YOU SHALL REAP. That's not the exact quote, but I think you get the picture. 8)  This, of course, applies to ALL OF US!  ;D ;D ;D

If you REALLY believe your pals at TAE are rational individuals not married to a bankrupt world view and I am the one being irrational here, try this experiment:

Give them this info and ask them, for the sake of truth and accuracy at TAE, to become members of the Union of Concerned Scientists. If they agree to spend a paltry $35 a month (minimum contribution) to get the real story on climate and energy reality and corporate skullduggery, then your pals are being rational and I have overreacted. If not, you and your pals are the ones being irrational, judgemental and closed minded.

Here's the info:

The Union of Concerned Scientists has a new report:
Some highlights of the report:
"The 28 companies we investigated spent more than $300 million lobbying Congress in the run up to possible climate legislation;

Koch Industries alone has spent more than $55 million since 1997 to misrepresent climate science or oppose safeguards to rein in global warming emissions; and

The oil company ConocoPhillips has backed the campaigns of anti-climate candidates for Congress by a ratio of more than 15 to 1 over candidates who have supported science-based climate policies."

"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth"
Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) (

"The Monsanto Company, the leading agricultural biotechnology company, spends millions each year on advertising aimed at convincing policy-makers and the public that their so-called “better seeds” are feeding a growing population, protecting natural resources, and promoting biodiversity. But the reality of Monsanto’s products is somewhat less idyllic. In a post on the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) blog, The Equation, Senior Analyst Karen Perry Stillerman unveils a new series of UCS ads showing that Monsanto is not improving agriculture, but rather undermining progress toward greater sustainability.

UCS just completed a trilogy of reports assessing the biotechnology industry’s claims about the potential of genetic engineering to increase crop yields, reduce nitrogen fertilizer pollution, and make crops drought-tolerant and water-efficient. The reports found that genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. corn and soybean yields, that it has yet to produce any commercial crop engineered for nitrogen efficiency, and that Monsanto’s recently-introduced DroughtGard corn won’t help farmers withstand extreme droughts or reduce water use.
If you’d like to interview Stillerman or hear more about the ad campaign, call Sarah Goldberg at 215-370-2110." (

Please consider becoming a member of The Union of Concerned Scientists. They are thorough, not given to hyperbole or exaggeration and back up everything they say with hard science.

Golden Oxen and JoeP,
I agree that discretion is the better part of valor when dealing with "city hall" at TAE.  But given their inabillity to respond rationally to my "conspiracy theory" that the fossil fuel and nuclear industry is not only poisoning the planet for profit and destroying democracy as well, they have co-opted the EROI methodology to give happpy numbers for fossil and nuclear fuels and sad numbers for renewables, my only recourse is to continue educating people here with my research so more people are aware of how thoroughly gamed the energy "playing field" is. As Karpatok said, they are a small site. TAE is out of line, not just because of ideological purity, territoriality or "circle the wagons" type defense of indefensible issues like justifying EROI computations free of enviornmental degradation "externalities", but simply because, with the George Monbiot article they are showing extremely poor judgement. I was  attracted to that sight because of the "nuclear village" article detailing the abuse of poor japanese by the nuclear industry there. The lengthy articles and thorough attention to detail were a joy to me in this short attention span hell we live in these days. As I told Ashvin some time ago, I HATE twitter. I told Ashvin I enjoyed the lengthy and thorough thought  provoking comments  as another reason to like TAE. And now I'm a "swamper"!!? You've seen my posts. I enjoy detail and have been consistent in trying to explain my positions.

So, the only good thing I can say about TAE right now is: "________________" (This space intentionally left blank).

When you can't say something good, it's better to not say anything at all.  As of this moment, I am beginning a LONG vacation from TAE.

My guide in these posts will continue to be the truth, not the defense of my ego.

Finally, I wish to repeat my gratitude to RE principally but several others here (Surly's thoughtful response to my comment on Freud was one of the reasons I kept coming back here initially)  like you that ponder these posts as they relate to our world and our future; not from some turf protecting infantile position.

Thank you, Doomstead Diners for being GREAT human beings. ( (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 08:31:26 pm
The Union of Concerned Scientists has a new report out detailing current democracy undermining and disinformation campaign efforts by the fossil fuel pigs:

Some highlights of the report:

"The 28 companies we investigated spent more than $300 million lobbying Congress in the run up to possible climate legislation;

Koch Industries alone has spent more than $55 million since 1997 to misrepresent climate science or oppose safeguards to rein in global warming emissions; and

The oil company ConocoPhillips has backed the campaigns of anti-climate candidates for Congress by a ratio of more than 15 to 1 over candidates who have supported science-based climate policies."

Here's one example of a front man for the church of fossil fuel worship in full moron mode:
"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth"
Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) (

And Monsanto continues to lie through its teeth:

"The Monsanto Company, the leading agricultural biotechnology company, spends millions each year on advertising aimed at convincing policy-makers and the public that their so-called “better seeds” are feeding a growing population, protecting natural resources, and promoting biodiversity. But the reality of Monsanto’s products is somewhat less idyllic. In a post on the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) blog, The Equation, Senior Analyst Karen Perry Stillerman unveils a new series of UCS ads showing that Monsanto is not improving agriculture, but rather undermining progress toward greater sustainability.

UCS just completed a trilogy of reports assessing the biotechnology industry’s claims about the potential of genetic engineering to increase crop yields, reduce nitrogen fertilizer pollution, and make crops drought-tolerant and water-efficient. The reports found that genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. corn and soybean yields, that it has yet to produce any commercial crop engineered for nitrogen efficiency, and that Monsanto’s recently-introduced DroughtGard corn won’t help farmers withstand extreme droughts or reduce water use.
If you’d like to interview Stillerman or hear more about the ad campaign, call Sarah Goldberg at 215-370-2110." (

Di you get that? DroughtGard corn by Monsanto is a MONSANTO CORPORATE LIE!

If you can swing it financially, please consider becoming a member of The Union of Concerned Scientists. The lowest monthly contribution is $35 dollars.  If you can't afford it, you can always visit their web site and pass along the info that they have available for non-members. They are thorough, not given to hyperbole or exageration and back up everything they say with hard science.

Also, be on the lookout for disinformation from George Monbiot. He is a shill for the nuclear industry with pro-environment credentials so he is the most dangerous type.

This article from the Union of concerned Scientists explains the truth about nuclear power that George Monbiot never does:

The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up (

Nuclear power never was and never will be carbon neutral or cost effective. As the horrendous effects of 400+ ppm of CO2 accumulate and it becomes more and more difficult to hide the harm that fossil fuels are doing to the biosphere, expect a big PR push to saddle us with "new and improved" nuclear high tech boondoggles like Thorium reactors in order to deny sorely needed government subsidies for renewable R&D by giving them to "green" reactors instead. They might even come up with one of those Orwellian bills with a title like "Renewable Funding for a Better America" which would give .0001 % to renewables and 99.9999 % to new nuclear reactor R&D, land purchases, insurance coverage and power plant construction.

Why do they do this destructive S H I T? Because the 1% want to preserve centralized power systems at all costs, period.

Don't be deceived.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 08:34:39 pm
OK agelbert,

I'll make one last reply here, and then I'm not going waste any more time dealing with this NONSENSE.

The bruised egos over here may decide to carry that chip on their shoulders for the rest of their lives, but I say stop basking in the reality TV culture and move the f u c k on.

Ah, the fundamentalist mindset in full priapic display. My way, or the highway, indeed. Move on, because I have lost the argument.

"By their fruits shall ye know them."

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 08:57:32 pm
@Ashvin Panguri:So before you slink off to sulk and scheme Ashvin, lets get a few things straight. Number one, it was you who banned me from posting on The Automatic Earth, not Illargi. Illargi spoke to RE but not to me. That's your s h i t speak number one. Number two. As to your being smarter than I and wanting so much to pummel me. What makes you think I would ever debate a subject in which I have no interest, a subject which I find boring, and with a person for whom I feel no respect. As far as I am concerned you are a liar and a hypocrite, as well as not being a whole or integrated person. In short, not only are you not a grown up, you have neither a real life nor the integrity that comes from having lived a real life versus a mental fantasy as an escape from dealing with the problems and commitments of real life. As was said way back on the automatic earth when you failed to exhibit any emotion regarding the Greek pensioner who committed  suicide, you are not able to truly feel empathy or sympathy for other people . I doubt whether you are even capable of forging a relationship with another person. All of your christian speak is just blowing a smokescreen to hide your great fear of feelings. You barely keep yourself going by telling yourself what a smart fellow you are and what a good competitor you are, all the while being on very shaky ground and very much alone. Well good luck to you Ashvin because that's not going to carry you very far in this life, especially not with what's coming. You think that you don't need anybody yet in reality you have demonstrated that you are very clingy. As you fight to prove yourself every step of the way , your true emptiness will manifest itself more and more as you go on in your lack of regard for everybody else.

Ashvin, perhaps you should just admit the banning was the wrong thing to do, EVEN IF Karpatok was wrong.  It's the Christian thing to do.

Let it go.

Can you pass this test of your faith?  We're all watching.

Ashvin -  it looks to me that you want to hide your Fundy leanings from the readership (and perhaps I&S) over at TAE and perhaps Karpatok wanted to know if this was also the case for I&S - hence her question (sorry if it appears I'm speaking speaking for you Karpatok - just the way it looks to me).

Nope, not at all. I know at least half the readership over here originated at TAE, or overlaps with TAE, and they know who I am. That doesn't stop me from being 100% honest about what I believe on DD threads and defending those beliefs. I don't care what people do or don't know about me. And if someone asks me whether I'm a Christian on TAE, I'll tell them that I'm the only kind of Christian worth being - a Fundamentalist.

Ashvin, this attitude reveals much. "The only kind of Christian worth being?" An attitude rich with intolerance for others, exuding the zeal of the convert, laden with self-justification. What is missing is empathy and tolerance. As I often say, "Ironies abound."

"The only kind of Christian worth being?" I think not. I think not.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:03:20 pm
Just wanted to say there are surely more paths to God

Many Paths to God.  Many MORE ways to get lost on the Trail.


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:05:56 pm
Quote Surly "Ashvin, this attitude reveals much. "The only kind of Christian worth being?" An attitude rich with intolerance for others, exuding the zeal of the convert, laden with self-justification. What is missing is empathy and tolerance. As I often say, "Ironies abound."

"The only kind of Christian worth being?" I think not. I think not.

This phrase annoyed me as well. I decide not to respond because I thought it had to be a typo or unintentional remark misspoken. Just wanted to say there are surely more paths to God or Jesus than one. It is understandable to me how a person can be so passionate about something or a belief that he thinks others views are wrong, but the words "Only Kind Worth Being" caused a bad vibe and rang loud with the sound of intolerance within me.

I stopped discussing this thread when it became very clear Ashvin was unwilling to accept there can be more than one path.  That was some time before he drove it home with the "only kind worth being" line.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:17:38 pm

It's called having confidence in your beliefs, people. Have you ever said "I'm a ______ and proud of it!"? Same thing. I'm a Christian Fundamentalist and proud of it!

I'll admit, though, that I wish people took their Bibles, i.e. the word of God, at least half as literally as they take short phrases from some arrogant p r i c k like me in an online forum...

OK, I'm stopping on this thread for real now, I promise.


I'll admit, though, that I wish people took their Bibles, i.e. the word of God, at least half as literally as they take short phrases from some arrogant prick like me in an online forum...

On this matter, we can fully agree! (


Ashvin, I did not say that I won't read what you write because you are a Christian. I won't read your material because you are a Fundamentalist.

My very best friend is a Christian and she embodies all that is Christian to me. She's loving, patient, tolerant and empathetic. All qualities that I think, sadly, you lack. That's why I can't read your material.


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:21:37 pm
Sheesh. I step away for a few days, and the thread is engulfed in
Flames from the Hubs of Hell for page after page.

Karpatok (sp?) is new on me.  Amusing rants!  Too bad I missed the
fun over at TAE; I visit there so seldom.

No surprise about Ilargi, who always struck me as a pompous
windbag, and intolerant of even mild criticism. I remember him over
on the old Latoc: he started a thread and laid out the basic TAE rap
about deflationary meltdown, etc.  I tossed in some pointed rejoinders,
to which he responded half-hysterically, before stomping out in a huff.

Interesting about Ashvin, Man of the Cloth. I had no idea.  I always
thought he had Marxist leanings. Though perhaps the two are not as
incompatible as some facts suggest (e.g. the militant atheism of most

Holy Rollers do tend to be insufferable, though I suppose there could
be exceptions.

But, don't mind me. Carry on, all.  Should I make a second batch of

Watch out, you may be attracting more convoluted, Orwellian defenses of the indefensible back at The Amazing Enema site. Or is it Ilargi's The Atrocious Ego site? I seem to have forgotten. :icon_mrgreen: At any rate TAE is definitely on "Automatic" denial of proper EROI numbers for fossil fuels.

Their "realpolitik" fossil fuel numbers exclude subsidies, dedicated fossil fuel transportation machine building costs (oil tankers and a lot of gas fracking associated machinery like trucks that move injection chemicals from site to site and manufacturing costs for tank trucks that transport the gas) and environmental degradation costs while attempting to claim that renewables, which have NONE of those costs because they are mostly local, have "low" EROI numbers. Nicole (Stoneleigh) goes on about how renewable high "feed-in tariffs",  "subsidies" (that, regardless of what she claims, don't amount to a hill of beans compared with the fossil fuel fleecing of the populace through government corruption but she just does NOT want to go there) and "low" EROIs all "prove" that renewables aren't "competitive".( 👎 BULLSHIT!

None so blind as those who refuse to see and all that. I'm done with them. I wiped the dust off my metaphorical sandals at the The Amazing Enema site. 👎

Glad to see you back. I went back over my Oil Tanker comment/article as well as the one on EROI to highlight areas for easy reading if you want to copy and paste any part to post somewhere else. The church of fossil fuel and nuclear bullshit artists has a lot of folks pretending to be critical thinkers but who, in reality, are just status quo defenders of the present bankrupt and environment destroying paradigm. Anything we can do to calmly explain to them that they are full of s h i t is worth doing.  ;D (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:26:25 pm


The above is known as a Procrustean bed in critical thinking and logic. The use of this "bed" is rooted in Greek mythology.

The contemporary use of this "my way or the high way" type of "logic" was recently practiced by TWO people at the TAE in response to some "feather ruffling" that I engaged in (see this thread from beginning to end for details). A THIRD person from TAE comes here to use the same type of flawed logic and sophistic debating skills to flip arguments on their head in order to "WIN" the argument and defend his fellow Procrustean Bed Believers at TAE.

I have observed many responses from fellow Doomsteaders to this technique and I am happy to report nobody here is taken in by the Procrustean Bed Con of attempting to frame the argument boundaries for a guaranteed win. IOW, bullshit goes over like a lead ballon around here. :emthup:

A Procrustean bed is an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced.

But most entertaining is when someone of a scientific and technical mindset engages in these Procrustean Bed fun and games to get "acceptable" EROI numbers for fossil fuels.

A Procrustean solution is the undesirable practice of tailoring data to fit its container or some other preconceived structure.

In a Procrustean solution in statistics, instead of finding the best fit line to a scatter plot of data, one first chooses the line one wants, then selects only the data that fits it, disregarding data that does not, so to "prove" some idea. It is a form of rhetorical deception made to forward one set of interests at the expense of others. The unique goal of the Procrustean solution is not win-win, but rather that Procrustes wins and the other loses. In this case, the defeat of the opponent justifies the deceptive means.

The above procedure is how fossil fuels are made to look better than renewables. (

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:31:35 pm
I'm having a hell of a time getting anything but 3 and 4 year old numbers for  renewable cost benefit analysis (if I can get them at all!) Oh but there is an absolute avalanche of pro fossil fuel and nuclear EROI number bullshit out there that The Automatic Enema site can use to falsely claim that an incrementalist attitude must be taken and a gradual "mother may I?" approach is warranted to phasing out fossil fuels because that's the way the "world works" and renewables are "uncompetitive", don'tcha know? That's real fu cking convenient while the "poison the planet for fun and profit" lobbies from these f u c k s are doing everything they can to sabotage any hope of decent government backing for the renewables AND simultaneously pushing legislation to guarantee continued fossil fuel subsidies and enormous sums for new nuclear reactors.

These are great points, seldom or never mentioned by the Peak Oil and doom crowd. The situation as it is unfolding and the (extremely screwed-up) world as we find it is assumed to be the only situation/world that could exist.  Hence, gigantic subsidies (often hidden or at least not readily apparent) for existing corporate interests are ignored and effectively considered inevitable, as though they were the outworking of immutable physical laws. Meanwhile, viable alternatives coming from non-mainstream or non-established sources -- completely starved for said subsidies -- are dismissed (as you say) as "uncompetitive" or "impractical". Amazing that a supposedly intelligent and astute crowd can eat up the corporate bullshit/propaganda as readily as they do. And I speak as one who was, for a period of years, among them. Peak oil (and "inevitable" collapse resulting therefrom) was, for me, a compelling matter for several years, starting in about 1999 -- shortly after discovering Hanson's It took me about 5 years to begin seeing the cracks in it, and another 3-4 years before they became really serious.  It has only been the last couple or three years that I began seeing that the whole thing is a big fraud, based almost entirely on corporate/capitalist propaganda, and that our problems have little (though admittedly not nothing) to do with resource limits.  In retrospect I am ashamed that it took me so long. I should have made the round trip in under 3 years. Oh well. Just dumb I guess.    ;)

Regarding EROI:  I recall for many years that Jay Hanson derided solar PV technology, scoffing at the possibility of it ever amounting to anything. He turned it into a joke, like (paraphrased): "Only an IDIOT could imagine that modern industrial civilization could be run on solar panels".  He also claimed for years that solar panels were net energy losers, basing that on data from the late 80s or early 90s, I believe. Well, surely it WAS true for some time that PVs were net energy losers; how could it be otherwise, in the early phases?  But those days are loooonnnng gone, and it was foreseeable for many years before the crossover point that things were heading in that direction and would certainly get there. I wonder what Jay is saying these days about China's prodigious PV production, at fantastically low prices, and offering power at near grid parity.  No doubt the codger has quietly dropped that point and moved on to other things.  Oh yes, you can't store PV generated power. Right. SO WHAT?  We have plenty of other ways to generate power at night, and we have many decades of work yet to do to transition to PV (to the extent that PV is useful) and other renewables. The whole "argument" against solar PV has simply disintegrated and been rendered totally irrelevant, by reality. And so it is on other fronts.

Speaking of China: they are doing the big, forward-looking infrastructural things that we used to do, and should now be doing. They subsidize key industries and undertake projects of breathtaking ambition and scope. For example, the Great Green Wall (biggest environmental restoration project of all time, spanning a CENTURY),  and their high-speed-rail land bridge across Eurasia, probably to be completed over several decades, perhaps a half-century: (
China's Land Bridge to Turkey Creates New Eurasian
Geopolitical Potentials   Apr 28, 2012  -  F William Engdahl

Meanwhile, the West has been reduced to obsession with ever-smaller time slices (and worldly efforts/initiatives to match), the ultimate expression of which seems to be high-speed program trading, wherein trades are executed by computer in tiny fractions of a second, and the physical distance of the executing computer from the exchange actually makes for a significant difference in trading results (because of the extra milli-seconds it takes for the impulses to travel over the wires)!  And all of this merely for the purpose of further enriching some already-filthy-rich bastards who have never in their lives actually created anything of value.  What a stark contrast with the grand visions being developed in the East! How sadly emblematic of our spiritual sickness!

Well, I can say that the doomers are at least half-right. Something IS collapsing, and further collapse is (now) inevitable. But it is not industrial civilization. It is the West in general, and America in particular.  And, because Americans are strongly inclined to think that America is everything, the collapse of America is perceived as a collapse of everything, or as the collapse of industrial civilization, or as the End of the World -- TEOTWAWKI.  (And yes, I was guilty of this very thing myself -- until I woke up.)

Invaluable commentary and analysis on America’s failure and collapse, by Morris Berman: ( ( ( ( (

By the way, did you know that the true cost of gasoline, when all externalities are figured in, has been estimated to be as high as $15/gallon?  And that was 10 years ago!  It is probably much higher, now.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:40:21 pm
I said yesterday and it was diplomatically ignored, that Ashvin comes to the diner only to p i s s his own p i s s, not to comment with that great intelligence RE says that he has, not to comment, argue with or commend any of the great and meaningful, informative articles that have been posted. I suggest that it is because he is not only arrogant and supercillious,but too insecure and basically afraid to step down from his high horse. Or MAYBE, he just doesn't eat where he CRAPS.

While I don't hold the level of disdain for Ilargi and Stoneleigh you guys have, I do find it astounding that they are so dismissive of Agelbert's work. I think they don't have the courage to question the status quo bullshit about "that's the way the world is, so...", fearing they will be ostracized not by their readers, but by their peers in the chattering class, as being unrealistic. The f u c k e d up thing about it is, they know the f u c k i n g thing is collapsing. Why not condemn the whole fossil fuel paradigm? Chicken s h i t s. All that tough talk from Ilargi. How many times is he going to say the same damn thing about the economy, that it's f u c k e d up? Duh.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:42:47 pm
Tao Jonesing,
The links I used to reference quotes got stuck into the next paragraph beginning throughout the article so it can be a bit confusing. On subsequent articles I will use the numerical referencing convention used in books and post all the links at the article bottom as an end of the article reference area to make things clearer.

As to energy, as it relates to economics being a fictitious commodity, although I don't have your in depth knowledge of economics, I firmly believe that a corrupt hierarchy that gained enormous power during the gilded age by using the force multiplier of the industrial revolution to garner their wealth became so arrogant that they began to view absolutely all human activity as a commodity along with natural resources as well.

This morally repugnant rationalization enabled them to justify their despotic practices because, with this "commiditization of everything" meme, they had divorced themselves from the responsibility for good stewardship of the earth and humane behavior to employees. Noblesse oblige, whatever small amount remained when the industrial revolution began, died with the gilded age in a sea of greed.

The power of the 1% has enabled them to defend the claim that energy, land and labor are not fictitious commodities even though I agree with you that they are.

The 1% are controlling the narrative and they continue to shove it down our throat. Bernanke and his banking friends couldn't run a lemonade stand successfully with their brand of economics policies but there they are claiming to be experts. It's Orwellian.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:43:44 pm
We are definitely into phase 1 (ignore) from TAE. It looks like they are finding the heat in the "kitchen" a bit on the high side. Karpatok's observation that stoneleigh was argumentative on some issue unrelated to this tells me a lot of stoneleigh's buttons are stuck in the "pushed" position. She HAS read the article and she HAS contacted some pals at The Oil Drum; count on it.

Eventually somebody from The Oil Scum is going to drop by to start phase 2 (ridicule) with some show of pedantry through enthalpy (Heat Value) jargon IF this article goes viral. If not, they'll leave it at phase 1 and keep trying to block you at TAE with history deletion worthy of Winston's job in Orwell's 1984. Either way, I'm ready for them. 8)

One good thing about all this is that the rubber has met the road in exposing rank hypocrisy from scripture quoting, self styled paragons of virtue because they just can't shake their abject submission to the status quo. Their new silence spares us having to read the dissonant comments of one that doesn't WALK the TALK.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:47:14 pm
As to energy, as it relates to economics being a fictitious commodity, although I don't have your in depth knowledge of economics, I firmly believe that a corrupt hierarchy that gained enormous power during the gilded age by using the force multiplier of the industrial revolution to garner their wealth became so arrogant that they began to view absolutely all human activity as a commodity along with natural resources as well. This morally repugnant rationalization enabled them to justify their despotic practices because, with this "commiditization of everything" meme, they had divorced themselves from the responsibility for good stewardship of the earth and humane behavior to employees. Noblesse oblige, whatever small amount remained when the industrial revolution began, died with the gilded age in a sea of greed. The power of the 1% has enabled them to defend the claim that energy, land and labor are not fictitious commodities even though I agree with you that they are. The 1% are controlling the narrative and they continue to shove it down our throat. Bernanke and his banking friends couldn't run a lemonade stand successfully with their brand of economics policies but there they are, claiming to be experts. It's Orwellian.

First, a depth of knowledge of economics is the last thing you want.  It's all a lie, the dogma of the rationalist cult, i.e., the means for RE to get his Ashvin on (although RE is too rational to take the bait).  ;D  Worst of all, economic theory is utterly and thoroughly irrelevant: finance is all that truly matters.  Usury is the one ring that rules them all.

Second, the corrupt hierarchy held sway long before the Gilded Age, they just were just held in check by a truce called the U.S. Constitution.  See this abolitionist screed for a very early analysis along these lines: (

Also, see Michael Perelman's The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation.

Third, I just said that knowledge of economics is toxic, but knowledge of the history of economics is quite valuable.   To my mind, the Gilded Ages was a truly American phenomenon driven by the destruction of the dualistic economy of the United States as a result of the Civil War.  The American South was essentially a physiocratic economy (a French doctrine that all wealth is derived from the ownership of property; Jefferson was clearly a Physiocrat), while the American North had a mercantile economy (much more English and finance-focused; Hamilton was a strong proponent).  These two approaches to political economy are naturally incompatible, and when the North smashed the South, it crreated a vacuum into which finance stepped.

Finally, the size of the elite that truly guide the narrative is a tiny fraction of the 1%.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about the 99% of the 1% have been duped just as much as the 99%.

It's all a lie, the dogma of the rationalist cult, i.e., the means for RE to get his Ashvin on (although RE is too rational to take the bait).

Good one TJ. It might make a Quote of the Month.   (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:49:00 pm
Tao Jonesing,

I'll check that abolitionist out. Certainly, human nature is what it is, BUT, the industrial revolution allowed an oligarch to garner wealth for 10,000 while he had been previously limited to lording it over a handful of serfs and slaves while sparring with the other small time tyrants throughout history. As to the North and the South, I have read that the different areas in the UK that they came from predicated their behavior patterns before they stepped off the boat (four distinct areas I believe).

One of the things about the US constitution is that it was a rhetorical masterpiece because it applied to a VERY tiny group of men excluding, in practice, everyone but landed white men while claiming "all men were created equal". It was breathtaking in its hypocrisy. A free black who built his own clock out of hardwood parts, became an astronomer and computed the ephemeris used by mariners in the day wrote to Jefferson demanding that Jefferson stop insisting that blacks were mentally inferior to whites and offerred to debate him and have a mathematical contest. Jefferson flat refused to even acknowledge him. Jefferson was a great writer but a ruthless opportunist, as were all the founding fathers. The constitution has never, even to this day, been applied across the land and I am fully aware of the Calvinist doctrine in the US after the civil war that maintained that "The people must be kept poor so they will remain obedient". IF the industrial revolution had improved the lives of everyone across the board as was promised, we would have a different world. But, no the people with access to capital deliberately made life worse for the poor and used divide and conquer tactics to create Jim Crow strife to sucker the poor whites into not looking at who was REALLY impoverishing them. All this is as old as human nature. For that reason I tend to look with a jaundiced eye at any claim to greatness or foresight by the founding fathers.

I continue to believe the force multiplier of the industrial revolution increased the power of these oligarchs and decreased, in an equal proportion, the small amount of democracy we had. I know how England and Europe operated in those days. They wanted everything not made in England (machinery and crafted goods) to have zero competition and everything coming from the colonies to be agrarian goods (commodities). The North and South had a different spin on how to make a buck but they were both equally complicit (at the elite level) in fostering tyranny for profit.

I was generalizing when I said the "1%". I realize the main decision makers involve a smaller percentage and the 99% suffer from a serious infusion of fecal coliforms in their glial cells resulting in their amygdalas colonizing their prefrontal cortex. IOW they are being continuously brainwashed with bullshit so their base urges are amplified and their critical thinking skills destroyed. But nevertheless, I see more virtue and hope in the 99% than the souless reptiles in the catbird seat.

Certainly, human nature is what it is, BUT, the industrial revolution allowed an oligarch to garner wealth for 10,000 while he had been previously limited to lording it over a handful of serfs and slaves while sparring with the other small time tyrants throughout history.

But what did the oligarchs do to create the conditions for the industrial revolution?  The conditions did not arise naturally but were created by state intervention.  Here's a link to an article that discusses Perelman's book, cited above: (

I continue to believe the force multiplier of the industrial revolution increased the power of these oligarchs and decreased, in an equal proportion, the small amount of democracy we had. I know how England and Europe operated in those days.

I don't disagree.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 09:55:59 pm
One good thing about all this is that the rubber has met the road in exposing rank hypocrisy from scripture quoting, self styled paragons of virtue because they just can't shake their abject submission to the status quo. Their new silence spares us having to read the dissonant comments of one that doesn't WALK the TALK.

First of all, I'm the only one who will quote scripture from time to time... because it's hard to find many people who will get angry when confronted with such wisdom, even if they are the most spiritually devoid materialists.

You sir, are mistaken. You are NOT the only person who will quote scripture here. Set down your sanctimony long enough to acquaint yourself with the evidence.


I don't want to get into defending I or S here, or explain why no one is responding to agelbert's behemoth of an article, because it's really like arguing with a bunch of bitter old crabby women who don't want to hear what you're saying. For all the hate and disdain of TAE here, it's really surprising that every popular thread ends up being about Stoneleigh, Ilargi, me and TAE (not really surprising). You guys accuse it of being irrelevant, yet feel the need to attack it every chance you get. What's the deal with that? Jealousy perhaps? Or perhaps just bitter anger at the site that really helped get you going here, but then predictably decided to disassociate... either way, I don't care anymore.

I feel like I get dumber, more frustrated and more bitter every time I try to delve into a discussion about anything here... so I'm going to stop for the most part, unless it's something I find to be very important, like misrepresentations of theological/spiritual issues, or someone responding reasonably and rationally to a comment I've made. This bitter environment just isn't conducive towards many meaningful discussions, even though I'll gladly admit that the Admins here pose very interesting thoughts and ideas in their articles. The only really productive discussion I've had here, though, was with Ka, and I actually learned a few things about my own Faith from him. Yes, that's right - I'm still learning, but I'm not sure that's true about a lot of other people here.

As someone who has helped make the environment more bitter with your withering criticism of others who do not share your fundamentalist cant, I am gobsmacked by your temerity. Just stunning.

"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Luke 6:42

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" ~Matthew 7:16

Oh-- perhaps you will explain to the rest of us Diners why TAE chose to take down the Orkin Man article and comment stream.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 10:00:39 pm
Tao Jonesing,
I think you and I are generally on the same wave length.  (

I checked out the book you linked to. Of course the Constitution is a pro-slavery document! Much has been written about the Revolution being, at it's core, an attempt to immunize the colonies from the "disturbing" (to Jefferson and friends) move in England at the time to outlaw slavery. But the industrial revolution and how the elite parasitic modus operandi called "capitalism" benefited massively from mass production is the main historical influence that led to our polluted world and p i s s a  nt wage structure of today. The mass production factories created a new type of slavery without the pejorative connotation of being race linked but it was still slavery.

When enslaving African Americans was no longer cost effective due to farm machinery, new ways to enslave them and the poor whites as well as any other ethnic poor had to be invented. After all, the elite did not like one bit the idea that the increased efficiency of a laborer could provide that laborer with more free time and a better life. The 1% had conniption fits thinking about all those people out there having the time to sit, think and figure out how TBTB were gaming them. No, the elite developed a plan to "keep em' busy".

The guilt trip sermons from pulpits all over America went out after the Civil War to demonize leisure and glorify "nose to the grindstone" work as being "God's Will". BULLSHIT! The elite's "work ethic" includes years of "sabbaticals", "learning experiences", "naval gazing" and "introspection" that translate to long stretches of time doing absolutely nothing productive.

I think that's wonderful and should be available to all of us as a means to a healthier and happier mindset. That's why the elite do it. For them to then turn around and unleash their propaganda water carrying lackeys solemnly mouthing the "don't be lazy, work your fingers to the bone for us" bullshit on the populace is the epitome of duplicity.

It is said the word "saboteur" derives from the Netherlands in the 15th century when workers would throw their sabots (wooden shoes) into the wooden gears of the textile looms to break the cogs, fearing the automated machines would render the human workers obsolete.

Notice how the word "saboteur" has a negative connotation. This shows who controls the historical narrative. I believe the Dutch laborers weren't just concerned about obsolescence; they were concerned about controlling how much they got paid for their labor. Mass production was the beginning of a massive concentration of wealth by greedy machinery owners that refused to pay equitable wages.

This is what "Capitalism" is really all about. It is sold as free market this and that but, in practice, it is nothing but elite parasitism. When the English gentry wanted to corral the peasants into working in the factories, as well as use more of their land to grow sheep for fleece free from peasant interference, they came up with a pack of thinly justified herding mechanisms (Enclosure Laws)  that stripped the peasants of their ability to live off the land. The peasants were not buying the con that working in a factory was a better deal than living off the land. They had to be forced. 

They knew damned good and well that the factory owners were not going to pay decent wages or provide adequate working conditions. Today, all this disguised tyranny called capitalism is festooned with gobbledygook tems like competitive advantage and arbitrage along with a plethora of terms from the masturbatory imaginations of bored economists but it continues to be about elite parasitism. In the financial area the vampire proboscis is usury but that is not the whole story by a long shot. Patent law is another huge part of RHIP that was NOT put there to protect inventors UNLESS those inventors were from the upper class. The bottom line is the control of the populace for the power, profit and pleasure of the TPBT. 

In English social and economic history, enclosure or inclosure[1] is the process which ends traditional rights such as mowing meadows for hay, or grazing livestock on common land formerly held in the open field system. Once enclosed, these uses of the land become restricted to the owner, and it ceases to be common land. In England and Wales the term is also used for the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land is fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners. The process of enclosure began to be a widespread feature of the English agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th century, unenclosed commons had become largely restricted to rough pasture in mountainous areas and to relatively small parts of the lowlands.

The process of enclosure has sometimes been accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed, and remains among the most controversial areas of agricultural and economic history in England. Marxist and neo-Marxist historians argue that rich landowners used their control of state processes to appropriate public land for their private benefit. This created a landless working class that provided the labour required in the new industries developing in the north of England. For example: "In agriculture the years between 1760 and 1820 are the years of wholesale enclosure in which, in village after village, common rights are lost".[2] "Enclosure (when all the sophistications are allowed for) was a plain enough case of class robbery".[3][4] (

The following video tells the real story of capitalism's birth and growth through the power the elite obtained in the industrial revolution, how the poor were demonzed as being "lazy" for attempting to avoid the horrors of factory work by staying on, and living off, the land. They had to be forced, along with their children, to do so.

The only proper economic system that humans should engage in is the egalitarian socialism that the early Christians engaged in as shown in the Book of Acts in the New Testament (Somehow, I don't think Ashvin would go for this  ;D ). The Apostles were the top dogs but they received no special privileges and had to work as hard as anybody else. The elite despise egalitarianism so they invented all sorts of euphemisms for tyranny like capitalism, as well as 20th century Soviet Communism. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. They all end up with a few reptiles in the catbird seat making life miserable for the rest of us.

That is one of the reasons why, in my article on Renewables, I am adamantly opposed to scaling up renewable energy sources into centralized power generating facilities UNLESS they are nationalized. Privatization of centralized power leads to pollution and illicit profits which are then used to buy the government. The government then provides cover for pollution costs and guarantees more profits for the elite and so on and so forth.

This self reinforcing corruption destroys democracy as well as doing grievous harm to the environment. Decentralized renewable power generating facilities provide stable, secure and long term jobs free from the feast or famine fun and games so favored by predatory capitalism. Capitalism requires an insecure labor force so they can be fleeced and set to fight against each other for jobs. Sustainability eliminates all this tyranny and returns the proper view of human existence that everyone should be entitled to a decent lifestyle. The "cog in the wheels of industry" view of humans and their labor as commodities is wrong and has to be s h i t-canned.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 10:02:41 pm
If the fresh skin of an animal, cleaned and divested of all hair, fat and other extraneous matter is immersed in a dilute solution of tannic acid, a chemical combination ensues. The gelatinous skin is converted into a non putrescible substance impervious to, and insoluble in, water.
This, sir is leather.
 ( ;D ;)

Elementary, my dear Watson. See RE for a translation of the above quote from Bugle Notes, otherwise known as the plebe bible at West Point.

I see the trees have lots of cherries to pick from today. Make sure your selection fits in your Procrustean Bed. (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 10:04:31 pm
// But the industrial revolution and how the elite parasitic modus operandi called "capitalism" benefited massively from mass production is the main historical influence that led to our polluted world and pissant wage structure of today. The mass production factories created a new type of slavery without the pejorative connotation of being race linked but it was still slavery. //

It is said the word "saboteur" derives from the Netherlands in the 15th century when workers would throw their sabots (wooden shoes) into the wooden gears of the textile looms to break the cogs, fearing the automated machines would render the human workers obsolete.

Notice how the word "saboteur" has a negative connotation. This shows who controls the historical narrative. //When the English gentry wanted to corral the peasants into working in the factories, as well as use more of their land to grow sheep for fleece free from peasant interference, they came up with a pack of thinly justified herding mechanisms (Enclosure Laws)  that stripped the peasants of their ability to live off the land. //

The process of enclosure has sometimes been accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed, and remains among the most controversial areas of agricultural and economic history in England. Marxist and neo-Marxist historians argue that rich landowners used their control of state processes to appropriate public land for their private benefit. //

The only proper economic system that humans should engage in is the egalitarian socialism that the early Christians engaged in as shown in the Book of Acts in the New Testament.//

Sustainability eliminates all this tyranny and returns the proper view of human existence that everyone should be entitled to a decent lifestyle. The "cog in the wheels of industry" view of humans and their labor as commodities is wrong and has to be s h i t-canned.

This is a marvelous analysis worthy of Howard Zinn. My compliments.
And now, in the spirit of Jay Gould ("you can always hire half of the working class to kill the other half"), we have generations ready to fight one another for the last soul-crushing job, and to bid against one another for the privilege of working for the lowest wage. I hope Ayn Rand is roasting on a fresh spit in Hell.

Thanks for the  👍. Yes, the divide and conquer MO is still in full swing. Since learning about Hill & Knowlton propaganda efforts on behalf of fossil fuels and purposed to get the general populace to act against their better interests, I began to nose around and, low and behold, there's a game plan complete with a whisleblower publishing the complete procedure to undermine public support for renewables by publishing "scientific" (from purchased credentialed scientists willing to lie for a buck) studies claiming "evidence" that wind generators "cause global warming"! :o  >:( This malice and aforethought by these reptiles in the service of fossil fuels is targeting all renewables but has the biggest bullseye on wind generators because the Texans are happier than pigs in poop from 3 cents per kWh the generators are pumping out. Get a load of this:
Anti-Wind Propaganda Plot Exposed by DeSmogBlog (

Here's a pseudoscientific windbag trashing wind generators on the WSJ.
Don't miss the video of the fossil fuel tool working at the Wall Street Journal looking so serious and interested in preserving our environment and using the word "science", "scientists", "NASA space temperature studies", etc. to spin a most convincing, though totally false, argument. These bastards really know how to catapult the propaganda! The way they cherry pick random facts and weave tall tales would be amusing if it wasn't so deadly.

If Ashvin would wake up, he would realize that blogs like TAE would benefit from the knock down drag out sessions challenging the fossil fuel f u c k s on their lies and fabrications. His claim that readership goes up here exclusively because of the I, S, A controversy neglects the comments versus the count on the WBS comments forum. I've been watching the count as I'm sure RE has and I will wager the article links are spreading around and more people are coming here for them than for food fights. This is not about Ashvin, Ilargi, Stoneleigh or me; this is about corrupt energy corporation fascism and our struggle to replace their tyranny with renewables. Personalizing the issue is a time tested sophistic debating technique to draw attention from the core issues. You are clever but you still are a bad, bad boy, Ashvin  (

I'm glad you are calling out Ashvin on his hypocritical claim that he is "Mr. Scripture Quoter" here. I guess he missed my quote from Galatians as well as those of others like yourself or he is just continuing with his sophistic cherry picking debating crap.

But, since I have been a bit remiss in quoting scripture when I think it is appropriate  (, let me close with my view of how Jesus Christ will handle Ashvin's  claim to being a Christian:

Matthew 7:21-23

New King James Version (NKJV)
I Never Knew You

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 10:14:45 pm
If Ashvin would wake up, he would realize that blogs like TAE would benefit from the knock down drag out sessions challenging the fossil fuel fucks on their lies and fabrications. His claim that readership goes up here exclusively because of the I, S, A controversy neglects the comments versus the count on the WBS comments forum. I've been watching the count as I'm sure RE has and I will wager the article links are spreading around and more people are coming here for them than for food fights. This is not about Ashvin, Ilargi, Stoneleigh or me; this is about corrupt energy corporation fascism and our struggle to replace their tyranny with renewables. Personalizing the issue is a time tested sophistic debating technique to draw attention from the core issues. You are clever but you still are a bad, bad boy, Ashvin.  (

Sorry to break this to you, agelbert, but you're never going to get much exposure of your articles or your views. And I'm not really that sorry, because I suspect you already know this and don't care. You apparently have little interest in making the material easy to digest, available to wider audiences or convenient for discussion, which is why you casually dismissed my suggestions to you earlier on this thread. Who is coming here and commenting except the same people who have always been here? Now that you have become a bitter and hateful person like so many others here, you have are quickly ruining your chances of ever exposing the truth about renewables. Good job!

I'm glad you are calling out Ashvin on his hypocritical claim that he is "Mr. Scripture Quoter" here. I guess he missed my quote from Galatians as well as those of others like yourself or he is just continuing with his sophistic cherry picking debating crap.

Do you even think before you write anymore, or are you now fully a mindless drone of RE? YOU are the one who lambasted I, S and me for quoting scripture. I responded to set the facts straights. You weren't talking about people who quote scripture on DD and you know it, so please stop lying. Now, can you even answer the questions that I asked you about your views...?

But, since I have been a bit remiss in quoting scripture when I think it is appropriate  :icon_mrgreen:, let me close with my view of how Jesus Christ will handle Ashvin's  claim to being a Christian:

Sorry, buddy, but I'm not the one who is egoistic, bitter, hateful and judgmental towards others. I'm not the one here holding a continuous grudge to the point where I can't stop attacking another website every chance I get. The fact that you would even say the above means you are ignorant of a basic principle of being Faithful to Christ:

Quote from: Luke6
37“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. 38“Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure—pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.”


Now that you have become a bitter and hateful person like so many others here

37“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. 38“Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure—pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.”

  ( ( ( (
Well put!

We RE robots have to stick together. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 10:25:27 pm

Nice try, but that passage is clearly talking about judging the Faith of others in Christ and condemning them for what you perceive to be their lack of Faith, which is exactly what agelbert did.

It is not saying that a person should never state his/her opinion about the characteristics of other people...


The only person you're fooling is yourself.  You twist the meaning and interpretation from one post to the next to fit your POV.  Stop wasting my time with your BULLSHIT!

According to the following, Luke 6:37 refers to criticizing other people.  You've thrown around so much bullshit that you just stepped in some of your own. (


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 10:28:30 pm
I appreciate the compliments, but frankly I think your attitude towards blogging is one of the main reasons why DD will never really take off.

Ashvin, the Plane already left the Runway.  DD already gets far more Commentary every day than TAE does, so clearly the commentariat isn't all that bothered by my attitude.

I don't want to get into defending I or S here, or explain why no one is responding to agelbert's behemoth of an article, because it's really like arguing with a bunch of bitter old crabby women who don't want to hear what you're saying. For all the hate and disdain of TAE here, it's really surprising that every popular thread ends up being about Stoneleigh, Ilargi, me and TAE (not really surprising). You guys accuse it of being irrelevant, yet feel the need to attack it every chance you get. What's the deal with that? Jealousy perhaps? Or perhaps just bitter anger at the site that really helped get you going here, but then predictably decided to disassociate... either way, I don't care anymore.

The reason TAE topics get so much discussion over here is because people can't discuss them on TAE without being CENSORED or BANNED.  Hell, even YOU come over here to discuss RELIGION because you SELF CENSOR discussing it on TAE!

I feel like I get dumber, more frustrated and more bitter every time I try to delve into a discussion about anything here... so I'm going to stop for the most part, unless it's something I find to be very important, like misrepresentations of theological/spiritual issues, or someone responding reasonably and rationally to a comment I've made. This bitter environment just isn't conducive towards many meaningful discussions, even though I'll gladly admit that the Admins here pose very interesting thoughts and ideas in their articles. The only really productive discussion I've had here, though, was with Ka, and I actually learned a few things about my own Faith from him. Yes, that's right - I'm still learning, but I'm not sure that's true about a lot of other people here.

Your problem dude you already identified yourself which is your arrogance combined with judgementalism and a COMPLETE lack of a sense of humour.  You irritate people, and as a result you get a ton of negative feedback here.  You remember that FUBAR article of yours I cross posted?  If you posted more stuff like that and participated in the economics threads I drop on here instead of Holy Rolling Bible Thumping all the time you would have done a lot better.  You reap what you sow dude.


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2018, 10:44:06 pm
Now that you have become a bitter and hateful person like so many others here, you have are quickly ruining your chances of ever exposing the truth about renewables. Good job!


You appear here to believe that fossil fuels and the manner of their dissemination is a lie. Isn't the point of guys like agelbert to do the heavy lifting on such isssues, so the rest of us who are better at making it "digestible" will? Why is it all on him?

it has become even more clear that Eastern countries such as China and India will not only suffer from financial, energy and environmental collapse, but it will probably hit their populations just as hard as it hits Western populations, if not harder. And I dare say that the DD Admins, and especially RE, are even more extreme in their Doom on these issues than we are at TAE. Agelbert may be right about EROEI methodology and current developments in renewable energy, but I doubt even he believes that it will ultimately scale up and be a feasible alternative for global society. We don't have anywhere close to 50 years for this stuff to get going in earnest, let alone an entire century.

What does this have to do with telling the truth, that renewables would be better for the health of the earth and people, and fossil fuels and the monsters who control them are dragging us toward dystopia at least, even mass extinction? Why don't we have 50-100 years? Because good men and women won't stand up and say "enough".  Do you deny his numbers? Do you have any critique of them, or are you simply throwing them out, with a message precisely as the fossil fuel conglomerates would have it.

F u c k the "global society," if it can only come at the expense to destroying the biosphere. You know what the "global society" means to me? The Japanese beetles devouring my grape and bean leaves. The zebra mussels that have inundated the lake of my birth. The Asian carp that are soon to infest that lake, having been introduced into the lower Mississippi only a decade ago. To HELL with global society. Global domination, more like it. You want to travel around the world? Learn how to sail.

William Hunter Duncan,

I agree with your summation of our situation. Ashvin assumes that, lacking scalability, no Renewable energy system will replace the current system.


From the article Renewables, why they work and why fossil fuels never did:

I believe that scalability of an energy source, unless it is a government utility (i.e. fully socialized and nonprofit), will lead to unscrupulous short cuts and new externalized costs for the populace for the benefit of private power corporations. The promise of renewables must go hand in hand with decentralized power sources. The authors discarded alleged low EROI renewables for consideration because of their scalability bias. As I stated early in this article, biomass ethanol, if properly used, has an EROI of at least that of gasoline without the environmental baggage of gasoline. And other biomass products like Lemna minor (Duckweed), that grow eight times faster than corn without heavy industrial chemical fertilization or pesticides will certainly produce EROI numbers far above 10.0. Passive geothermal (also discarded by the authors because it isn't scalable) and other renewable heat sources such as e.g. placing mirrors a short distance from the north side of house in winter to reflect sun onto the north facing wall to  drastically lower heating costs will play a very important role in the picture of total sustainability. In addition, decentralized renewable energy infrastructure provides jobs, not in the feast or famine pattern of ethics free, dog eat dog, vicious predatory capitalist “business” model, but in a sustainable, predictable and humane way.

Scalability is NOT a desired outcome but Ashvin feels it is. I've gone to great lengths to explain why it's a bad deal. Tao Jonesing, in his posting on economics also pointed out that scalable manufacturing and "economies of scale" are not necessarily a valid model for improving the overall welfare of the populace. Alan agrees also that decentralization will be important in renewables. Ashvin is the guy that wrote the FUBAR article that I agreed with and now he doesn't want to admit just how FUBAR things are. (

I am writing this, even now, because I don't want anybody out there getting the idea that, if we could just scale up renewables, we would solve our energy problems. This is backwards thinking and I have explained why.

What Ashvin doesn't seem to get and you, myself and many others clearly see, is that when you are in a hole, you are supposed to stop digging! You don't need a degree in environmental engineering to see that what we are doing is killing us.

This is a matter of the heart. Thank you william, for expressing your passion and care for humanity. I get pretty damned depressed with the immense difficulty involved in convincing people out there that the paradigm must be changed, not tinkered with or fine tuned. Comments like yours and EndisNigh's straight talking honesty keep me motivated.

Here's a nice video for everyone here to watch. It explains much about how deep the level of dysfunction we are saddled with is in our economy and mindset. Even Ashvin might like it.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 06:08:20 pm


Phantom Eye hydrogen powered surveillance UAV

In the video at the link, Boeing OPENLY ADMITS that they took an off the shelf Ford Ranger Truck engine which Ford had converted to run on Hydrogen 10 YEARS AGO and made use of it for the Phantom Eye drone which can NOW stay aloft for 4 days and eventually will be able to fly continuously for 10 days. Boeing's contribution has been to perfect the fuel cell technology needed to provide the engine with hydrogen and oxygen at 65,000 feet.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? TEN YEARS AGO Ford had a RELIABLE engine that ran on hydrogen!

hydrogen Strato Engine

With a solar powered hydrolyzer at your home you would NEVER run out of fuel. Hydrogen tanks are EASY to build safely by engineering a water jacket around the tank. We've come a long way since the Hindenburg. You wouldn't need a fancy fuel cell because there is no oxygen deficiency at the elevations cars operate in.

YOU DO NOT NEED PETROLEUM TO RUN A CAR ICE (internal combustion engine) OR ANY OTHER ICE OUT THERE! It's ALL Big Oil Bullshit!

Lubricants and plastics also can be obtained from plant matter WITHOUT polluting the atmosphere.

For anyone from The Anal Oil Drum that wants to claim hydrogen does this, that and the other damage to an engine, I have to ask how stupidly stubborn, mendacious, evasive and cravenly loyal to Big Oil do you have to be to believe an engine that RUNS CONTINUOUSLY for FOUR F U C K I N G DAYS in a surveillance drone is going to be allowed to run a fuel that ruins the engine!!?

If you try to get that Ford ICE converted to running on hydrogen for your vehicle, you will not be able to do so. Free country, MY ASS! Energy crisis, MY ASS! This is an Oil Oligarchy DICTATORSHIP!

Boeing unveiled its hydrogen-powered Phantom Eye unmanned airborne system during a ceremony in St. Louis on July 12. The demonstrator, which will stay aloft at 65,000 feet for up to four days, is powered by two 2-liter, four-cylinder engines that provide 150 horsepower each. It has a 150-foot wingspan, will cruise at approximately 150 knots and can carry up to a 450-pound payload.

Video at the link: (

We do not have an ENERGY crisis;   We have a GREED crisis.

Hope for a viable biosphere of Renewables, why they work and fossil and nuclear fuels never did (

The "Green Revolution' fossil fuel Industry LIE ('green-revolution'-fossil-duel-based-lie/msg325/#msg325)
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 06:14:27 pm

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Nuclear experimentation ( killed free power part II

Jimmy Midnight
Activist Post

Ethan Indigo Smith is my son, and I did help him with some scientific issues in the previously released, Nuclear Experimentation Killed Free Power Part I. I’m writing to defend on scientific, technical, statistical, rhetorical, and political grounds, his basic thesis. Allow me here to paraphrase: “To understand that nuclear experimentation is The Rabbit Hole of Death requires only minimal scientific knowledge.”

Thanks to Tom Bedlam for his attentive reply, and for pointing out that, as far as anyone knows, there are no magnetic field disruption issues peculiar to nukes. The name Bedlam serendipitously highlights the fact that nuclear experimentation has always been, is now, and will forever remain, a bedlamite way to boil water.

Bedlam attempts to quantify the accidents at Simi Valley, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Let’s step back just long enough to notice that the first three were meltdowns at large facilities while Fukushima is a meltdown of at least three such facilities, with the impending compromise of a spent fuel pool. So if Chernobyl, a nuke built with marvelous hubris but without secondary containment, really is worse than Fuku, it has to be with the modifier, “So far.”

The relative size of TMI in this regard is also problematic. In view of the secrecy inherent in nukes, and inconsistencies in measurement, a difference of at least five orders of magnitude in admitted total radio-releases would clearly be significant; of three or less, maybe not. The data from Simi Valley, about a 1959 mishap, is actually the most telling because it’s down the great American memory hole; for instance nowhere to be found in a list of “nuclear plant accidents” that contains incidents going back to 1957 in my 2002 World Almanac, a generally reliable source of factual information.

Which highlights the secrecy aspect of nuclear experimentation, spawned in secrecy, born in secrecy, (because it was nuclear weapons related) raised in secrecy, nurtured in secrecy, alive in secrecy, and really dependent on secrecy for its continued existence. An example is the continuing secret, (well, it’s public information, but de-emphasized until it functions as a secret) that, thanks to the good ol’ Price-Anderson Act, nuke operators don’t have to carry liability insurance, like ordinary Americans of modest means would have to in their businesses. Well, operators do have to have a not-adjusted-for-inflation-since-1957 $560 million dollars worth. Extrapolate what they’re paying for that coverage to what rendering a 10? 15? 30? 60?-mile radius of uninhabitable area would cost, and get an idea of the size of one form of nuclear subsidy.

Bedlam’s also partial to serving up figures for the release of Iodine-131 and Cesium-137, which symbolize the problem Ethan points up in The Matrix of Four. As two of the three known isotopes whose devastating health effects are well-documented (the other is Strontium-90) these are the known knowns of nuclear experimentation (well, some of them.) There are also known unknowns; for example, how much radioactive oxide dust is being plumed and blown around? How much steam? Cadmium 115? Tellurium 127, 129, 131, 132? Neobium, Molybdenum, Zirconium, Niobium 95? Barium 140? Etc. etc.?

Reactors operate on fissions that break Uranium down into myriad radioisotopes, most of which finally stop emitting their alphas, betas, gammas, neutrons, and occasional antineutrinos after at last becoming the stable Pb-208, Lead. What about the water/chemicals used to fight the meltdown fires? And of course there are unknown unknowns, a concept that speaks for itself in an industry run by people who think it’s all just dandy to use extremely dangerous metallic Sodium as a circulating coolant around superultrahyper dangerous nuclear fuel, and to place spent fuel pools on the roofs of reactors. (Talk about being analogous to a two- or three-story outhouse! ‘cept what’s likely to dump on you is more than just rather disgusting.) In response to Bedlam’s critique, I researched other industrial uses of metallic Sodium. All of those I could find take advantage of its chemical reactivity; only in nuclear experimentation is it used as a circulating coolant.

Which brings us, at last, to the unknown knowns. These are the secrets kept through conscious silence or obfuscation on the one hand, and the lies that people tell themselves about the secrets they possess, and the unexamined assumptions they carry around, on the other. Reactor operators are sure it’s safe, which is why I’m sure they’re insane. F’rinstance, Bedlam has somehow convinced himself that a nuclear experiment station is no worse than a fossil-fuel burner. But it is. Even in the case of a coal-burner, fueled by mountaintop removal, vile as that is, at least the greenhouse gasses and toxic ashes and immediate environmental damage are about the limit of its destructiveness. Choose a legacy of ashes, which can be stored safely on an indefinite basis given a watertight roof; or of spent fuel that will remain dangerously radioactive for a longer time, going forward, than from here back to the dawn of recorded history. Add that to the cumulative effects of ever-increasing levels of nuclear radiation.

Unknown knowns are also an important dynamic in the whole American political system. Any little group of people who get a certain level of public privilege will eventually become its own special interest group, with interest in preserving what’s already been gained. Part of what got the nuclear experimentation industry really going was the possibility of reprocessing spent fuel to make Plutonium, a better material for nuclear warheads than the “old fashioned” Uranium-235. Now, there are way too many warheads, but the spent-fuel headache just keeps growing—a disposal problem as insoluble as polyethylene in water. When the best available solution might be to put it aboard nearly useless ocean vessels and scuttle it in the Arctic, as the Russians are doing, the situation speaks for itself.

Another industry byproduct is “depleted Uranium,” some of which is used in munitions. These are pretty terrible weapons that burst into flame when penetrating armor, spewing oxide dust all around. And only about two-thirds of the original highly radioactive U-235 has been removed. Yet even this use leaves a huge surplus of U-238 and/or depleted yellowcake and/or Uranium hexafluoride that no one really knows what to do with. Some of the Fluoride, stripped of Uranium, ends up in municipal water supplies, so that two super privileged industries get to work together momentarily.

There are about 400 nukes in the world, and six of them (counting three at Fukushima) have already had disastrous accidents. Or maybe we should multiply by years of operation. Say they’ve been running for an average of 25 years. So that would be ten thousand reactor-years, and six major accidents. Not a terrible record for, say, an experimental aircraft, but imagine a passenger jet that crashed six one hundredths of one percent of the time. There’d be disasters every cussed day! And of course with these nukes, everyone within a radius of some double-digit number of miles is necessarily on board for rides with this six one hundredths of one percent chance of crashing.

Ethan’s piece had a secondary thesis, the idea that: “Nuclear experimentation also prevents the development of better, safer, cheaper, more sustainable alternatives.” Though I remain without an advanced academic degree, I am pretty fluent in the language of mathematics and the natural sciences. Areas in which I have more extensive knowledge are Chemistry, Molecular Biology, and maybe Statistics, rather than Nuclear Physics. In Chemistry, orbital electrons (which we now understand is a quaintly inaccurate term) are the only subatomic particles with which we generally are dealing. Also in Chemistry, we know that mass action really makes the wheels turn and the (chemical) world go around. The mass action concept is also a very useful notion in economic analysis. Applied in the field of energy production, it means that all subsidies to these dinosaur sources, these Eisenhower-era methodologies, because they are thus artificially cheapened, necessarily also suppress the renewables upon which all humanity must someday depend. Fossil fuels and nuclear plants also get a free ride on the environmental and health problems which their operations entail.

What’s clearly needed are the reggae song energy sources, “I and I and I and I,” in which imagination, invention, ingenuity, and innovation are unleashed to work with wind, solar, tidal, ocean current, cultivated diatoms, geothermal (and here I’m talking about drilling holes deep enough to get down to magma, to produce high-pressure steam for electric turbines) and also exotic, eccentric schemes, typified by various notions for Hydrogen generators. I came up with one of these myself, of course just at the imagination level, noting that if the Higgs boson had a wave nature, it might be possible to render large objects weightless, or drastically reduce their weight in some temporary way, by generating a counter-wave.

Yeah, I know there are possible conservation of energy problems with such a scheme, but there’s no thermodynamic difference between particle nature and wave nature as far as anyone knows, so if an anti-wave could be generated, there might be a way to get a net energy gain from this sort of method, just sayin’. In Chemistry, we imagine “energy hills,” which have to be climbed, to start certain reactions.Typically this is achieved by applying a lot of heat. But sometimes, instead of climbing the hill or tunneling through it, a way around it can be found. For example, some chemical processes can be catalyzed by light, using   less energy  than the heat that would otherwise be required, and in certain instances, just the addition of a catalyst can bring about spontaneous chemical changes, some even exothermic.

The poor Bedlamite also manages to repeat canards about how windmills will mess up migratory birds, or that ocean currents could be adversely affected by current power; and also casts doubt on the discovery of the Higgs boson. There is a chance that the recently-trumpeted data point isn’t Higgs. It is a chance in something like ten billion. Contrast this probability with the chance that all radio-release data from nuclear meltdowns are accurate and reliable.

Meanwhile, let’s get the rumor going that all these chain reactions are making fissures and fractures in the time/space continuum that are making the free power we could get from anti-Higgs wheels impossible to obtain. It’s no more dishonest than the idea that atomic energy can have peaceful uses. And you can’t prove it isn’t so, because you can’t prove a negative. Furthermore, we know that the law of energy conservation can be violated at sub-photon levels for very short periods of time, and this speculation is all about some sort of light beam or time beam. So if electromagnetic pulses from detonations also cause cracks in time/space, and controlled chain reactions little fissures, that could easily mess up such a beam. Just sayin’.

Jimmy Midnight is a blues musician and an organic farmer in Maine. Find out more about The Maine Blues Society HERE: ( (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 06:21:50 pm
How do you transition from a waste based society to a ZERO WASTE sustainable society?

I'm glad you asked.  ;D

Am glad you posted!

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 06:34:07 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Zach has been a guiding light for Renewable energy for many years, as you can see from this 2013 post. He used to live in Germany but moved to Florida this year.

His web site is, now more than ever, the Go To place for all things Renewable. He is a man of integrity and can be relied upon to tell the unvarnished truth.  👍

100%, 99%, 80%, 70% — How Much Can & Should The World Be Powered By Renewable Energy?
February 24, 2013 Zachary Shahan

How much can/should the world be powered by renewable energy? Or how about your country or region? A number of studies have tackled this question, and I recently realized that we hadn’t stuck them all together in one easy-to-find place.

So, I created this page specifically for that purpose: 70%, 80%, 99.9%, 100% Renewables — Study Central.

Keep that page bookmarked — it will be updated with new major studies on this topic as they are.

Full article here: (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 07:02:21 pm
Alexander Hamilton called government subsidies "bounties to support new industries". Thom Hartmann makes the case for government subsidies of renewables with quotes from Alexander Hamilton and informs us that George Washington, not only supported this view, but actually put the first government subsidies for new industries in place! (

Better yet, Thom repeats my argument (and Robert F. Kennedy Jr also called it a theft of the commons) that fossil fuel was never actually cheaper than renewables.  It's nice to have smart people agree with my analysis of fossil fuel versus renewable energy costs.

Just Say No to Subsidies!

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 07:05:23 pm

The era of energy dinosaurs 🦕🦖  is coming to an end

By David Roberts

Working in clean energy can be frustrating. Tons of exciting things are happening, but elite conventional wisdom isn’t keeping pace and nobody listens to bloggers like me shouting about it.
One of the few outlets in the mainstream energy world to consistently stay ahead of the curve is Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (I have interviewed its chief executive, Michael Liebreich, before.) As Exhibit A, I offer this new “VIP brief” written by Liebreich and his able colleague Nathaniel Bullard. It’s a big old chunk of brain food, slightly dense and buzzwordy in a few places but chock-full of insight about dynamics of the energy world in the coming decade. Let’s take a look, shall we?
Like too few writers and analysts in this area, Liebreich explicitly takes a systems approach:

What happens when you saturate the system with wind or solar depends on what you think is going to happen next with power storage, demand response, electric vehicles, mandated back-up and dozens of other factors. These are all highly dynamic because, of course, they are part of a complex system, and systems exhibit emergent behavior. You can spend a lifetime studying the construction of a single neuron, yet know little of what drives a nematode, let alone a human. Real-life systems exhibit unexpected population surges and crashes, periods of equilibrium punctuated by periods of shattering change, tipping points, phase changes, extinctions.
… The value of a solar rooftop in a world of electric vehicles is very different from the value of the same solar rooftop in a world without. The value of demand response is negligible in a world optimised around “baseload-plus-peak” generating capacity. The value of energy efficiency is negligible in a world of fuel subsidies. And so on.
You will note that this echoes, somewhat eerily, my widgets vs. systems language. Naturally I agree!
Here, in capsule form, is the shift in perspective Liebreich urges for those making decisions in today’s energy markets:

This is the reality of the world’s energy transition: it is dynamic, complex, unpredictable and fraught with risk. And it is among these shifting sands that energy decision-makers must plant their feet. Not surprisingly, perhaps, some choose to cling to old certainties, heuristics that worked fine during a long period of strategy stability: demand stimulation, baseload-plus-peak, centralisation, scale, vertical integration, dispatch management, control, confidentiality. But a shifting environment means increasingly replacing dinosaur heuristics with mammal heuristics: efficiency, flexibility, responsiveness, open data, transparency, coalitions.
I am stealing “mammal heuristics.”
Liebreich is describing the same trend I wrote about the other day: decentralization, the shift from a few big players and technologies (dinosaurs) to a profusion of small, networked ones (mammals).
Liebreich breaks this mammalian approach down into three “strategic elements.”
1. Resilience
The energy world is now subject to more shocks, from more directions, than ever before: “Technological change. Commodity price spikes. Climate-related extreme weather. Financial instability. Policy change.” And so on.
These kinds of changes can creep along for years and then suddenly become disruptive. So decisionmakers need to ask themselves not just about the desired or expected outcome of their choices, but about what can go wrong. (I wrote a post about risk management that is consonant with this theme.) From that point of view, certain kinds of solutions suggest themselves:

Distributed beats centralised. Diversity beats a mono-culture. Consensus beats confrontation. Local beats distant. Resilience means power storage, to build in tolerance. It means smart grids, to match supply and demand. It also means future-proofing the design and location of assets.
Where the old mentality was about optimization, the new one will be redundancy and fault-tolerance.
2. Optionality
This is about utilities hedging their bets, leaving themselves options rather than locking into a few huge, capital-intensive, one-way bets (like, say, a $6.85 billion nuclear plant). By diversifying investments and breaking them into smaller increments, they can hedge their bets against unexpected changes in “technology, policy, regulation, economics, or environment.”

… an electric utility or a fuels distribution company is fundamentally a provider of energy and related services, and not just a coal generator or a gas burner. Optionality allows a company to embrace new opportunities first at the margin, but eventually at the heart of operations. Most century-old firms know this already, as do all technology companies. Today, IBM is a services company; Apple a consumer devices and services company. Asking the counterfactual “what would they be if they still made only mainframes or iMacs?” gives a simple answer: they would be out of business. Energy is a service to meet a need. As technical and societal needs change, so must the service, and that means portfolio options.
As I’ve said before, this shift is going to unleash powerful market forces. One electron or gallon of fuel is like another; insofar as energy providers compete, it is purely on price. But when it comes to energy services (heat and cooling, emergency backup, transportation, etc.), there’s much more differentiation possible, and thus much more competition. Where there is more competition, there is more innovation.
3. Intelligence
This is not only about getting the best information — which is harder than you’d think for energy investors — but about the many ways now possible to get more information and pull meaning out of it.

Intelligence is also about collecting, analysing and harnessing data that is several orders of magnitude beyond what was available to energy companies in previous decades. GE chief executive Jeff Immelt recently referred to the emerging world of connected, sensor-imbedded machines and the processing power to analyse it as the “Industrial Internet”. Energy efficiency software applications are allowing building owners to optimise consumption and control costs with greater granularity than ever before. Smart meters make possible the use of detailed information on which consumers use electricity when, and offer the opportunity to shape their consumption habits over time. Smart grid sensors and analytics software allow utilities to pinpoint and correct faults, and optimise energy networks in response to real-time conditions. Opportunities for new intelligence range from managing grid losses to predicting renewable and distributed generation performance, from pricing strategies and maintenance schedules to arbitrage opportunities. Ultimately, new connected and intelligent capacities allow us to, in Immelt’s words, to “find meaning where it did not exist before”. And not only meaning: value.
That the key: To pull meaning from data, and value from meaning. I am reminded of something Bill Gross — inventor, entrepreneur, and head of eSolar among other companies — is fond of pointing out: The cost of almost every industrial commodity is rising. Copper, steel, aluminum, concrete, you name it. The one thing that’s steadily getting cheaper is computing power. So they key to getting ahead in the market is substituting computing power for other commodities by making systems smarter and leaner. The more you can do that, the more you can get off the downslope of the Hubbert curve and onto the upslope of Moore’s Law.
Anyway, to conclude: As we move from the era of dinosaurs to the era of mammals in the energy world, some players will cling to the old ways and perish; others will diversify, focus on resilience, keep their options open, gather intelligence, and thrive. One thing’s for sure: by the end of the century, there won’t be any dinosaurs left. These are exciting times.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 07:08:20 pm
After watching this you will see why Joe and Jane Sixpack ACTUALLY have a small carbon footprint and the USA's HUGE carbon footprint must be attributed to the wealthy and their biosphere destroying ejecutive jets, yachts, petrochemical corporations, factories, mines, utilities, weapons manufacturers and other properties.

This has gone from 80,000 hits yesterday or 800,000 today. Spreading quite nicely, and posted on the DD FB page-- of course.

Excellent!   (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 07:20:03 pm
The rare non-sucky infographic on climate change

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 07:22:31 pm
Coca-Cola, GE join push for electric vehicle charging stations
Hyosub Shin,

Electric charging stations — such as one at Lenox Square — are part of a push to ease pollution and reduce gasoline demand.

By Christopher Seward
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Co. and General Electric, which also has a major presence in metro Atlanta, are among a growing list of companies joining a federal effort to get more charging stations for electric vehicles at workplaces.

GE was among the first group of joining the Department of Energy’s Workplace Charging Challenge. The other original companies were Google, 3M, Siemens, Verizon, Duke Energy, Eli Lilly, Chrysler Group, Ford, GM, Nissan, San Diego Gas & Electric and Tesla.

In addition to Coca-Cola, the latest group to sign up includes Dell, Facebook, Hertz, AVL, Bentley Systems, Biogen Idec, Bloomberg, Hartford Financial Services Group, National Grid, NRG Energy, Osram Sylvania, Raytheon and Southern California Edison.

According to, electric vehicle sales accounted for 3 percent of total vehicle sales last year, up from 2 percent in 2011.

The goal is to make workplace charging easily accessible so more people will consider buying electric vehicles, which cost less to power than gasoline vehicles. The Energy Department estimates driving on electricity is generally comparable to roughly $1 per gallon of gasoline equivalent.

The companies have committed to installing a charging infrastructure at a minimum of one major worksite location.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 07:24:02 pm
Walgreens Building First Self-Powered Store (

Mar 14, 2013 09:24 AM ET // by Nic Halverson

Walgreens — the largest pharmacy retail chain in the United States — has announced plans to reduce its carbon footprint by building a store that generates all of its required electricity on site.

As part of the company’s Net Zero campaign, Walgreens’ green initiative to reduce energy usage by 20 percent across all of its locations by 2020, the new self-sustaining store will be built in Evanston, Illinois, just north of Chicago. To generate power, the store will include geothermal generators, two wind turbines and more than 800 solar panels. Energy-efficient building materials, LED lighting and ultra high-efficiency refrigeration will also be used to to help conserve wattage.

According to estimations, engineers expect the the store to generate around 265,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. Store operation will only require 200,000 kWh, so perhaps that extra wattage could be pumped back into the grid or used to power nearby utilities.

“We are committed to reducing our carbon footprint and leading the retail industry in use of green technology,” Thomas Connolly, Walgreens vice president of facilities development, said in a company statement. “We are investing in developing a net-zero store so we can learn the best way to bring these features to our other stores. Because we operate 8,000 stores, we believe our pursuit of green technology can have a significant positive impact on the nation’s environment.”

Credit: Walgreens, Business Wire (

To generate power, the store will include geothermal generators, two wind turbines and more than 800 solar panels. Energy-efficient building materials, LED lighting and ultra high-efficiency refrigeration will also be used to to help conserve wattage.

According to estimations, engineers expect the the store to generate around 265,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. Store operation will only require 200,000 kWh, so perhaps that extra wattage could be pumped back into the grid or used to power nearby utilities.

Seriously worth paying attention to. Thanks for posting, AG.

Sir, you are always welcome. I hope I am not publishing too much hopium for some of the more apocalyptically minded diners.  (

It ain't over yet.

Evidence trumps belief in every instance.

Even if too little too late, study of the techniques employed will be of benefit to all of us down the road. I am pretty "apocalyptically minded" myself, but I think we may hit Gaia's kill point or The Great Culling before we round Hubbert's curve.

If this is hopium, let's fire up another bowl.

Roger, wilco! (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 07:38:35 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Solar grew way beyond all the pessimistic predictions of the hydrocarbon 🦖 propagandist hellspawn claiming PV simply 'was not ready for prime time, too costly, yada-yada-yada'. PV continues to grow exponentially to this day in 2018 with no sign of stopping. (

Solar power set to shine in 2013 (

By John Upton
This year is shaping up to be a bright one for solar power.
New solar generating capacity expected to be installed around the world in 2013 will be capable of producing almost as much electricity as eight nuclear reactors, according to Bloomberg, which interviewed seven analysts and averaged their forecasts.

Full story here:]

Renewable Energy Clean Energy tech cost reductions up to and including 2017

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 07:51:49 pm
Hi Golden Oxen,
Wish I was a kid again because I still have that same idea, but think investments in that area might really pay off big in the coming decades this time around, and not just in a financial sense but in a bonanza for the environment as well. It sure could use a break.

I think you are right! I've got a few posts I will now share that indicate solar is finally catching that break.  (

9 out of 10 Americans Think Solar Has Increased Role to Play in US Energy Mix

A new poll suggests nearly 9 out of 10 American adults think solar energy should play a bigger role in the energy supply mix.

The Ipsos-Reid Poll done for Sungevity recognized 89% of respondents favor more solar power in the US energy supply.

Meanwhile, 81% of those surveyed (see infograph) said that, despite whatever political stripe is in power, solar energy should be used in state and federal residences


U.S. Solar PV Market Grew 76% In 2012

March 14, 2013 Adam Johnston
Last year was a record-breaking year for U.S. solar energy, as the PV industry grew by 76% in 2012 compared to 2011.

The U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: Year In Review, co-authored by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association, said that 2012 PV solar installations were 3.31 GW, more than 40% all previous U.S. solar online capacity.
Last year’s strong installation numbers provided a value of $11.5 billion in solar PV, $2.9 billion more than in 2011 ($8.6 billion), and almost double new installations’ value in 2010 ($5.6 billion).

Much of the firmness in the U.S. solar market is attributed to continuing falling costs. For example, the blended average price in the fourth quarter of 2012 for PV modules was $0.68/watt, a sharp decline of 41% compared to the fourth quarter of 2011 when it was $1.15/watt.

Factor retail electricity prices skyrocketing by 35% since the start of 2000, and the average price of solar systems dropping by 70% in the same period, and it’s quite obvious why solar is growing so rapidly in the 21st century.

While last year was very strong, the fourth quarter blew out all the others, with 1.3 GW of new solar PV systems coming online that quarter, far surpassing the 684 MW in the third quarter.

All of these factors help to boost the U.S. solar market, which is producing 11% of all solar installations globally.

Besides strong growth being a key highlight of the solar energy industry in 2012, other market events shaping the industry included: consolidation of manufacturers, trade dispute resolutions, third-party solar leasing becoming a popular choice, and large-scale solar projects starting to take shape.

At the domestic level, California again led all states in PV installations, followed by Arizona, New Jersey, Nevada, and North Carolina (see graphic below).


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 07:59:20 pm
Debunking The Myth Of The Inadequacy Of ‘Current Renewables’

March 13, 2013 Guest Contributor
This article was originally published on Climate Progress.

Snippet 1: Last month, I was on a panel with someone who kept kept saying “current renewables” were inadequate to address the climate problem and what we needed to do is invest in ”future renewables.” By that he meant increased research and development, of course, and not continued aggressive deployment.

I began my comments with this metaphor:

“There’s no useful intellectual distinction between ‘current’ and ‘future’ renewables. It’s like saying my daughter, who’s six, is not the same person once she becomes an adult. The only way she won’t grow is if I don’t feed her.”

The point is that continuing the amazing price drops and learning curves for renewables requires that we keep feeding them and help them keep learning – by expanding production, as the International Energy Agency has explained (see “The breakthrough technology illusion“). Many other studies back this up (see “Study Confirms Optimal Climate Strategy: Deploy, Deploy, Deploy, R&D, Deploy, Deploy, Deploy“).

[In fairness to renewables, solar power is at least a junior in college, and wind power has already graduated. My daughter just happens to be six.]

Snippet 2:If you’d like to see a study of how New York could go 100% renewable in two decades, see ”Examining the Feasibility of Converting New York State’s All-Purpose Energy Infrastructure to One Using Wind, Water and Sunlight” by Stanford’s Marc Jacobson et al.

As for the U.S. as a whole, here are the key points to needed the 450 ppm pathway:

1. We don’t need to be 100% carbon-free by 2030 — though that would be a good idea.

2. We can keep nuclear for baseload and yes we can even keep much of current gas power through 2030 — we just shouldn’t build a lot of new gas-fired plants.

3. We could easily keep demand flat using the most cost-effective source of energy there is — efficiency.

4. New renewables can back out coal over the next couple of decades (assuming the coal industry continues to commit suicide by failing to develop carbon capture and storage)

5. Our renewable penetration rate is considerably lower than that of many European countries, so we have a long way to go before increased renewables would cause us problems.

6. As we get to higher and higher levels of renewable penetration, we deal with intermittency through a combination of demand response, grid storage (which is steadily improving and dropping in price), and plugged in elective vehicles (whose already paid-for batteries are not being used >90% of the time).

7. Half or more of the “intermittency problem” is really a “predictability problem” — that is, if we could predict with high accuracy wind availability and solar availability 24 to 36 hours in advance, then we can use demand response (aggregated demand reductions by commercial, industrial, and even residential customers, see “Top 5 Coolest Ways Companies are Integrating Renewable Energy into the Grid“). Fortunately, such prediction capability is already beginning developed (see, for instance, here).

I have discussed these with leading energy analysts and electric grid experts, and they agree this is all doable with existing and near-term technology, assuming we keep feeding our renewable children — and would go even faster if we had a stiff carbon price.

As for why folks don’t get this, Jigar Shah says:

For some people, technology is not their sweet spot. They have other skills. And so when someone tells them, “technology is not ready,” they just eat up those words … hook, line and sinker and then decide that’s what their talking points are going to be. And with those people it’s just sad that they don’t read more.

A major 2000 report by the International Energy Agency, Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy, analyzed a variety of experience curves for various energy technologies. Their key conclusion has already been demonstrated, in part, by the massive investment in renewables we’ve seen in the past decade, but it bears repeating:

A general message to policy makers comes from the basic philosophy of the experience curve. Learning requires continuous action, and future opportunities are therefore strongly coupled to present activities.

If we want cost-efficient, CO2-mitigation technologies available during the first decades of the new century, these technologies must be given the opportunity to learn in the current marketplace. Deferring decisions on deployment will risk lock-out of these technologies, i.e., lack of opportunities to learn will foreclose these options making them unavailable to the energy system.

Don’t lock our growing kids out of the job market by depriving them of food and learning. Deployment must be ramped up again and again and again (and yes, R&D, too).


Agelbert NOTE: I would add that the author is too kind with those that "don't get it". The fossil fuel lobby ( is expert at buying foot dragging prevaricators always claiming renewables aren't ready for prime time with the continual and duplicitous reference to the "real world". They will go down lying and dissembling all the way but big oil, coal and gas WILL GO DOWN.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 08:06:49 pm
Agelebert NOTE: Robert F. Kennedy Jr was absolutely prophetic 5 years ago. (  We ARE in an Armageddon level existential fight with the polluters hell bent to keep us burning hydrocarbon poisons.  (

In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other. And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves. If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.

Interview With Robert F Kennedy Jr On Environmental Activism, Democratization Of Energy, & More

February 6, 2013 Giles Parkinson
This article was originally published on RenewEconomy:

In January, RenewEconomy (RE) had the opportunity to do an exclusive interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr – son of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy, veteran environmental activist, lawyer, and renewable energy advocate.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr is head of the Riverkeepers (which has 17 groups in Australia), is the senior counsel for the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and is an appointee as director of Australian renewable energy group CBD Energy, currently in the process of merging with Westinghouse Solar. As a partner in VantagePoint, he has been involved in green technology investments for more than a decade, including as an investor in electric car manufacturer Tesla and the 2.7GW solar PV power plant in the Mojave Desert.

You can read our report on the interview here. Bobby Kennedy is typically robust, and touches on his environmental summit with JFK (his uncle), the disparity in subsidies, the desperation of the fossil fuel industries to burn their “unburnable carbon”, how solar and other renewables can help “democratise” both politics and the energy industry, and his own renewable investments.

Here is an edited transcript.

RE: How did you first get involved in environmental activism?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I was interested in it from when I was little. When I was eight years old, I wrote my uncle (John F Kennedy), who was in the White House. I wanted to talk to him about pollution and he invited me into the Oval Office. I spent part of the morning with him – I brought him a salamander as a present, which actually died, and we spent a lot of the meeting talking about the salamander’s health, with him saying it doesn’t look well, and me insisting he was just sleeping. I told him then I wanted to write a book about pollution, and he sent me to Stewart Udall (then Secretary of Interior), and (conservationist) Rachel Carson. I interviewed them both and took a tape recorder. But I didn’t get around to writing the book until I was 29 years old. I have also been kayaking since the same age, training and racing homing pigeons from when I was seven, and training hawks, which I continue to do.

So, I have been involved in the outdoors and always seen pollution as a theft of the commons. It’s always a subsidy, always somebody stealing part of the commons to enrich themselves by disposing of their waste into the public waterways and the public air. I believe in free market capitalism, and I believe in democracy, and pollution is an affront to both of those things. It’s inconsistent with free markets because pollution itself is a subsidy, an externality – it’s a way that corporations can eliminate the cost by putting it on to the public. In a true free market a company has to pay for the cost of bringing a product to market and that includes the cost of cleaning up after itself.

 RE: But so much of the push back against environmental legislation is that it interferes with the free market.

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I think the opposite is true. First of all, the incumbents are the most heavily subsidised industries in the world. Coal is by far the most heavily subsidised industry, and oil, and if you look at their externalities, if you force them to pay for mercury discharges, for acidification, for acid rain, for ozone particulates, which in the US alone kills 60,000 a year – 20 times the number of people killed in the World Trade Centre – to say nothing of carbon, which is threatening the globe. The (IEA) recently identified that the global subsidies, the direct subsidies from governments to the fossil fuel industry, stood at more than $585 billion a year, whereas the subsidies to renewables are a less than $80 billion.

Why should the oil industry, the most profitable industry in the history of the planet, be getting half a trillion in subsidies a year? A country may want to support an immature industry, some nascent industry they are trying to grow, or for some other national security regions, or cultural reasons, to support, to give subsidies to maybe small farmers, as we did in our country – to grow the auto industry, the steel industry. When they first started we used them to build railroads, canals, but at some point those subsidies stopped.
But the rules by which energy is regulated were written to favour the most poisonous, destructive and addictive fuels from hell, rather than cheap, clean, green, safe, abundant and patriotic fuels from heaven. We need to reverse that dynamic, it’s in our national interest to do so – of Australia and the US. It’s in the global interest of humanity to do so.
RE: But that is a very hard thing to do, because the incumbent industry that will protect itself and seems to have political support, particularly in the Conservative camp.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: That is the problem. I always say wherever you see large-scale pollution, you will also see the subversion of democracy, you will see the compromise of public officials, the capture of the agencies they are supposed to protect, they become sock puppets of the industries they are supposed to regulate. You see that in the political system, the kowtowing of the politicians who become indentured servants in the US and in Canada. The industry is the biggest contributor to political parties, they are able to raise an argument that they are somehow necessary to national security, and economic security, but the opposite is true.

 RE: David Crane (CEO of NRG, the large US generation company) and you wrote a letter to the editor about the democratisation of energy, and the desire to put a solar panel on every rooftop. What is democratisation of energy and why is it important?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: From a reliability standpoint – it’s much more resilient. It’s easier for a terrorist to blow up a single power plant, or a coal-burning power plant but it’s really hard to blow up a million houses with solar panels on their roof. It is a more resilient source of energy because it is diverse.
It also tends to democratise – the political system tends to reflect the organisation of the financial systems it governs. So if you have a financial system that is controlled by a few large players, you’re going to tend to see the political systems will devolve into plutocracy, away from democracy. But if you have an economic system in which there are millions of participants, the political system will reflect that.

In the case of coal and oil, we see in our country the Koch brothers, the largest privately controlled oil company in the world, contribute something like $200 million to the recent election campaigns – they didn’t do that because they love the US of A, they did that because they believed that capturing and making indentured servants of our political representatives would make them wealthier.

Thomas Jefferson, who was the iconic figure in American democracy, he warned against large aggregations of wealth. He said that was inconsistent with democracy. He opposed industrialisation, because he thought it would create concentrations of wealth and power that would be inconsistent with democracy. And he wanted to spread out the economic wealth, to give American a vested interest in the economic system, so we would all have a vested interest in democracy.

 RE: So you see parallels of that with the energy industry?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Right now the energy industry is controlled by a handful of global players, global multinationals. They control the oil fields and the coal fields. If, instead, we said we are not going to have a system like that, but we are going to be powered by the sun, or the wind, it is hard for a single corporation to control that. It is in the hands of everyone.

 RE: It is interesting that David Crane shares those views, wouldn’t he benefit from the status quo?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: David Crane is energy agnostic. As a CEO in the service of shareholders, he’s agnostic as to where he gets his energy. NRG controls nuclear plants, coal plants, a lot of gas, as well as wind and solar. What he has said is that the price of solar has come down so far that it is cheaper than even gas – in the US we have $2 gas – so if he has $100 million to spend, in at least 20 states the best investment he would make is in solar, because it is the cheapest way of providing electrons to his clients.

 RE: You work with Vantagepoint, which has invested in BrightSource and Tesla – both disruptive energy technologies. When will the tide turn for clean energy investments, because it’s been a brave person to put their money there?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Governments have got to get it right. A lot of people have hopes in Australia for Prime Minister Gillard – that she will give us the kind of dependability that we need. One of the problems with wind and solar is that we need market certainty, like any business in the nursery stage that has relatively small margins. If you’re going to have a business plan, you need reliability.
In the US we have some of the same problems that you have in Australia, but much worse. We have renewable energy credits, but we don’t get certainty with them. The incumbents know they can’t publicly come out against wind and solar, because that’s unpopular, but they can undermine wind and solar by undermining business reliability. What we really need is long-term faith in some of these government programs. And the incumbents have their subsidies, we are just trying to level the playing field.
If we could get rid of all subsidies, I would do it in a second. If the subsidies for the incumbents disappeared, we would drown them in a marketplace with a level playing field. They have the advantage of incumbency, the advantage of political control, and they are able to regulate the political system, to continue to externalise their cost and get huge subsidies from the government. Even in Australia, which has much a better program than the United States, it’s unclear whether your renewable energy standards will stay in place. Our industry, like any industry, needs certainty.

 RE: You have accepted the offer of a board seat with CBD Energy/Westinghouse Solar. What is the attraction?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I’ve been associated with Westinghouse for a while. I think the merger makes sense because of the synergies. Westinghouse has got an inventory of technology and patents that will make solar installation safer and quicker to install, and make it more efficient and more reliable. Westinghouse will profit from the diversity that CBD has. Having a much larger customer base, synergistic diversification across geographic lines is the place that renewable energy industry has to go if it is to survive. We are seeing global consolidation in both the solar and the wind industry – companies that can bridge national borders and can share technology and diversify themselves will come out of this current ferment.
RE: It is, though, a very tough industry.

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: If you look at the automobile industry in the US – in early 20th Century there were hundreds of hundreds of companies making automobiles. Within a few years they would consolidate, eventually into the big four. You will see a lot of the same consolidation with wind and solar – particularly with globalisation, as we face austerity budgets throughout Europe. It’s the companies that are able to diversify and consolidate that are the ones that will survive.

 RE: Won’t we then face the same problems we have now, of an industry dominated by a few companies, just a different group of companies?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: It’s a different kind of industry than coal or oil. You are going to see a lot of large-scale solar and large-scale wind, but it is not susceptible to the kind of unique control that oil and gas are. Rockefeller owned 80 per cent of the world’s (oil resources) at one point – you won’t be able to do that now because people will be able to source solar on their own roofs. Everybody has access to it. Not everyone has an oil well in their backyard and not everyone has a coal field in their backyard. It is, fundamentally, a more democratic industry.

 RE: But what about the costs?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: You are going to see the kind of technology growth curves that you saw in the computer industry. Not so much in wind, because wind relies more on big infrastructure, lots of steel and poured concrete – those will have stable costs but they are just not going to drop so much. But solar panels are much more akin to computer chips: the more we make, the cheaper they will get. The more technological innovation, the more they will integrate with the industry. And costs will drop further. Those are drops that we see now. But those drops will continue, we will be seeing drops of over 30 per cent. Even if the Chinese slow down production, you will see that continue.
RE: Are you optimistic about the world’s environmental outcomes?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I think anyone who is a realist will say that the planet… we’re on a trajectory to creating a planet that is a science fiction nightmare. I would urge you to read Bill McKibben’s article in Rolling Stone on the arithmetic behind global warming. It’s one of the best articles ever done. It simplifies it. One of the principal points he makes is that two degrees is what all scientists agree is the maximum we can endure for a world that is roughly recognisable. And that in order to stay in 2°C, the maximum carbon we can add to atmosphere is 500 gigatonnes of CO2. However, the oil industry and coal industry have on their books proven reserves five times that amount – the value of those companies that has already been paid for by investors, that has been traded, borrowed on and mortgaged, etc, is based on the assumption that all of those reserves are going to get burned. If they do that the planet will heat by 11°(F) which will make most of it uninhabitable. If you look at it that way, it’s hard to imagine them as anything other than criminal enterprises willing to destroy the globe for their own greed. It is not radical stuff that I am talking about, it is proven science. It’s math. That’s what we are fighting, that’s what we are up against.

 RE: OK, so how do we get there?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I believe we have the technology, if we can rationalise our free market economy, so that we have truly free market capitalism, where everyone is forced to internalise their costs. The market place decides what the cheapest form of energy is. Then we can quickly eliminate coal and oil, because they are so much more expensive than any other fuel. We only have the illusion that they are cheap because they have garnered, through their political clout, so many subsidies.

Is it best to use mechanisms like a carbon price, or other means?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: We need to price carbon. Australian does have a carbon tax which we do not have in the US. And we also have to give incentive for good behaviour by utilities. Utilities make money by burning oil and gas, and as much as possible to create electrons from that, so the CEO from that utility has to make a decision every morning about whether he is going to serve the interests of his shareholders or serve the interests of humanity and civilisation. We shouldn’t be be putting CEOs in that position. We should be able to say to them, we are going to design free market rules that allow you to make money by doing good things, rather than forcing you to make money by doing bad things. We did that in California, and there the utilities are make money by installing renewables, and being energy efficient. As a result of that, Californians use half the energy than other Americans use. They use 6,000kWh per year, the rest of America average about 13,000kWh. You can rationalise the system by helping people make money by doing good things, rather than making money doing bad things.

 RE: So how is this going to end up?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other. And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves. If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.
RE: One last thing that I forgot to ask before, do you have solar at your home?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: My home is a power plant – it produces more energy than it uses – virtually every day of the year. I have a geothermal system, and I have two state-of-the-art solar systems. We get a lot of sunlight in New York (state), not as much as in Australia, but two out of three days it is sunny. There is a book about it – The Kennedy Green House. It was designed by my late wife, who was a green architect.
RE: Mr Kennedy, thanks very much for your time today.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: It’s been a pleasure.


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 08:14:58 pm

Agelbert NOTE: More Textbook Disinformation from the WSJ Propaganda Pushers. Max Baumhener takes them to task for 'too clever by a half' distortions, exaggerations and downright mendacious bullshit.   (   

Bjorn Lomborg’s 😈 Dirty Little Math
March 17, 2013 NRDC
 By Max Baumhefner

A Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Bjorn Lomborg, “Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret,” argues that even though driving on electricity emits half as much pollution as driving on gasoline, it never makes up for the additional energy it takes to build electric cars.

How does Lomborg do the math?

First, he picks an estimate for electric car manufacturing emissions that’s three times higher than conventional estimates.

Second, he imagines electric cars will be prematurely sent to the junkyard, well before they’re even out of warranty.

Everyone likes exposing a fake, but if there’s a hoax here, it’s not the electric car.
Lomborg’s argument rests on the reasoning included in this sentence: “If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles.”

The premise that the typical electric car will only be driven 50,000 miles is fanciful. Both the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf electric powertrains are backed by 100,000-mile warranties and there’s little reason to believe they won’t be driven much further. In fact, many drivers of the electric RAV4 Toyota produced in limited numbers between 1997 and 2003 have logged well over 100,000 miles. Below is a photo (follow thw link at the end for the photos) taken by one such proud owner when his odometer hit six figures in 2009. Today’s much more capable and advanced electric cars will go at least as far.

Turning to the question of “huge initial emissions” from manufacturing, most researchers agree that building electric cars today requires more energy than building gasoline vehicles, but estimates for production emissions from Argonne National Laboratory are roughly three times less than those used by Lomborg. It should also be noted that conventional automobile manufacturing has benefited from over a century of learning-by-doing and economies of scale. Ford plants today bear little resemblance to those that built the first Model-Ts. We should expect and demand similar improvements in the mass production of electric vehicles.

Lomborg also claims that cars charged with electricity made from coal are dirtier than gasoline vehicles. The environmental benefits of driving on electricity do depend on where you plug in and there are a few very coal-dependent states in which the most efficient gasoline hybrid is the better environmental choice. However, there is no region of the United States where driving an electric car is not cleaner than driving the average gasoline vehicle and almost half of Americans live in states where electric cars are by far the best option available today.

And that’s today. The benefits of driving on electricity will only increase in the future as more and more old coal plants are retired and replaced by cleaner and renewable resources. Twenty-nine states have renewable energy procurement targets and coal is increasingly becoming economically unattractive. In other words, electricity will become cleaner over time, while gasoline will only get dirtier as oil companies look to unconventional resources such as tar sands.

Lomborg’s statement that the “current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5,” is also misleading. He cherry picks the lowest of four values the government uses for such calculations ($5, $21, $35, and $65). By most accounts, the “best” estimate is at least four times higher than Lomborg’s figure.

The Wall Street Journal would do a better service to its audience by reality checking its opinion writers’ facts and asking its readers if they would prefer to remain addicted to oil in perpetuity. I’m guessing most of them would like the idea of driving on a cleaner, domestic fuel at a price that’s equivalent to driving on buck-a-gallon gasoline for life.

Max Baumhefner is an attorney, outdoor enthusiast, and a bread baker. My focus is the juncture of the electricity and transportation sectors. I work on policies designed to integrate electric vehicles into the grid and maximize their environmental benefits. I’m an environmentalist because my parents taught me to be responsible and clean up after myself, and I always do what my parents tell me.


The dinosaur is thrashing around using its full grab bag of media disinfo experts to tank the popularity and interest in the EV. Don't swallow the iies. Remember, these guys are good at lying. They are expert in conning the American public. Big Oil dropped the price of oil to peanuts in the 1980s for only one reason; to kill renewables using the "they are too expensive" argument. Don't let them do it again. Fact check everything you read. I recently watched a film from 1976 showing CSP technology and solar towers in development. Those technologies were throttled so thoroughly that they didn't resurface until this past decade. That wasn't an accident or a "free market" function; it was disinformation, monopoly power and bribed government officials that pulled the rug out from under the huge promise of renewables back then to the planet's detriment.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 08:19:09 pm
Snippet 1:
“Transportation accounts for 71 percent of total US petroleum consumption and 33 percent of our nation’s total carbon emissions. It presents significant opportunities to cut oil dependence while taking a bite out of greenhouse gas emissions. The finding that there are many options increases our confidence that a clean transportation solution is possible in the long term.”

Snippet 2:
"Pushing the limits of energy-efficient vehicles and switching to cleaner fuels, particularly in the non-LDV (Light Duty Vehicle) segment – truck, marine, pipeline, rail, and off-road equipment – are seen as key to averting projected increases in energy consumption and GHG emissions."

80% Cuts In Transportation Sector Petroleum And Emissions: How Do We Get There?

March 19, 2013 Andrew

The Dept. of Energy’s “Transportation Energy Futures” study provides a template for Pres. Obama’s vision of reducing US transportation sector petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050.

1. Realizing gains in vehicle energy efficiency and fostering shifts in demand for different modes of transport,

2. growing use of biomass biofuels,

3. and transitioning to hydrogen and electric vehicles are the three main facets of the TEF strategy.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 08:23:08 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Norway started early. That is why now most of their cars are EVs and a lot of their ferries are electric powered.

World’s First Electric Ferry — With 10-Minute Recharge

January 12, 2013 Chelsea

The days of stinky, oil-burning, black smoke–producing ferry boats will be the days of yore if Norway has anything to say about it. The world’s first electric ferry will hit the open seas (well, not exactly) in 2015.

The 360-passenger, 120-car electric ferry will be operated by shipping company Norled and traverse the Sognefjord fjord.

To allow for battery power, the ferry was made much lighter with aluminum hulls. The battery charges in 10 minutes, and can propel the ferry at 10 knots in normal weather conditions.

So, what’s the big deal about electric ferries? Well, there’s the possibility of easing parking and traffic via waterways and aqua-buses like those at the University of New England.

Electric ferries aren’t Norway’s only bread and butter: strong incentives have propelled EV sales to 5.2% in 2012.

Source: Inhabit

(photo at link)

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 08:26:44 pm
Some REALITY about the cost of fossil fuels (always conveniently absent from EROEI fossil fuel energy "expert's" calculations (

"According to its authors, the study is the first to factor in the cost of air pollution mortality and morbidity impacts from burning fossil fuels, in tandem with a comprehensive plan for developing enough renewable energy to meet the demands of all sectors of an entire state."

New York State Could Run On Wind, Water, & Sunlight

March 13, 2013 Tina Casey

Lower fuel costs, predictable fuel prices and green jobs are the main factors that make the straight economic case for investing massive amounts of money in new clean power facilities. Now a new report suggests that health care costs are an equally if not more important factor than the other three.

Using New York green energy as a case study for eliminating fossil fuels in favor of building new clean energy facilities, a research team has calculated that the state could save enough money on health care alone to result in a payback period of only 17 years.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 08:32:37 pm
Ohio fracking boom has not brought jobs

By John Upton

Did you hear the joke about how fracking creates jobs?

We heard it, too. We heard it from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. We heard it from the fracking industry. We heard it from the press.

Well here comes a punchline that’s darker than a fracker’s heart: In northeastern Ohio, where a fracking boom kicked off 2011, there was no more jobs growth last year than there was in the state’s unfracked western and southern regions.

That’s the conclusion of a new report [PDF] published by Cleveland State University’s Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs. The report was not peer-reviewed.

Article here:


The lack of jobs growth for Ohioans living on fracked (and now polluted) land appears to be yet another sad case of communities getting sucker punched after selling out to fossil fuel companies.   (

There’s your punchline.

"Ethical behavior among fossil fuel companies is inversely proportional to the economic power they have."
A. G. Gelbert
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 08:51:47 pm
Big Oil pulling out all the stops to strangle renewables by hook or by crook  (


Desperate Times for Big Oil

Full Story here:

Snippet 1:

But here is the nightmare. What would really put a permanent thumb down on oil prices, creating a new era of energy abundance? Renewable energy. The sun shines, the wind blows, the tides roll, the crops grow and we live on a molten rock. It's the pressure of that rock that turned dinosaur bones into gas and oil in the first place -- what if we could speed up the process?

We can. We are. Solar energy already costs less than what comes from the electrical grid in many places, and that reach will only grow because solar's costs are declining. But it's still hard to put the Sun in your gas tank, no matter what the old Sunoco ads said.

Snippet 2:

New catalysts, and catalyst research, are driving the ethanol business forward. The response by the oil industry 🐉🦕🦖 is an increased focus on strangling biofuels in their crib, as reported in Scientific American. The difference between citizen activists and professionals, after all, is that the professionals ( are relentless.

But here's the thing. New supplies are coming. New supplies of oil, of gas and of ever-cheaper biofuels. New supplies of solar power and new ways to make that power useful. It's the big story of the decade and we're still missing it.

Scientific American blogger tells it like it is:   (  (

Priceless  Snippet:

Anyhow, the NC legislators also made sure that wind power was removed from the “renewable energy resource” list. Not terribly surprising from North Carolina, where our secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources believes that oil might be a renewable energy resource. Seriously — he said he believed that, and North Carolina is sponsoring legislation that removes wind from the list of renewable energy sources.

In other North Carolina news, down is now up, black is now white, and I’m drinking again. One of those is true. Also: ignorance is strength. Szdly that’s true too.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 09:07:54 pm
Some news from the REAL "real world" of Energy and Renewables 👍👍👍 :emthup: 

"This is an exceptionally smart piece--and Rosenthal's piece was exactly the breakthrough Roberts describes. Every time we get another piece of data ("SomeEuropeanCountry generates 40% of its power with renewables")
 it helps make the 'sound, mature, realistic' projections of the Exxons of the world seem like the self-serving stuff it really is."

Bill McKibben

Can we shift to renewable energy? Yes. As to how …

By David Roberts

We will need fossil fuels like oil and gas for the foreseeable future. So there’s really little choice (sigh). We have to press ahead with fracking for natural gas. We must approve the Keystone XL pipeline to get Canadian oil. (


This mantra, repeated on TV ads and in political debates, is punctuated with a tinge of inevitability and regret. But, increasingly, scientific research and the experience of other countries should prompt us to ask: To what extent will we really “need” fossil fuel in the years to come? To what extent is it a choice?

Full Article here:


What reports like Jacobson and Delucchi’s show is that it would be possible to achieve a fully renewable system without substantial technological change, as long as there is substantial social, economic, and political change. In other words, they show how you can hold one lever steady and still achieve your goals by pulling harder on the other ones.

That’s what Jacobson means when he tells Rosenthal, “You could power America with renewables from a technical and economic standpoint.
The biggest obstacles are social and political — what you need is the will to do it.” (More on the “and economic” part of that in my nerdy addendum at the bottom.)

"Those who say, "It CAN be done!" and those who say, "It CAN'T be done!" are both right"
                                                                                                                         Henry Ford
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 09:15:36 pm
Another Nail in the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) COFFIN

For illustration purposes only. As far as I know the above colorful coffin does not contain an ICE.  (  (

Lithium-Ion Battery that Charges 120 Times Faster than Normal Developed

September 11, 2012 Nathan

A super fast-charging lithium-ion battery capable of being recharged 30 to 120 times faster than conventional li-ion batteries has been developed by researchers.

The researchers think that they can use this technology to create a battery pack for electric vehicles that will fully charge in less than a minute.

The primary issue with rechargeable batteries is the increased charging time that results as their volume grows. Since batteries charge from the outside towards the inside, the thicker the battery becomes the longer it will takes to charge. This is solvable to a degree by breaking the larger battery into smaller individual cells, but there are limits to that.


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2018, 09:36:41 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Robert Scheer passed away years ago, but he is the key person on this planet who, if we survive, will always be remembered in history as the David of Renewable Energy ( that put the Renewable Revolution in high gear that slew the hydrocarbon hellspawn 😈 👹 Goliath 🦖.

In this documentary video now over two years old, every single myth used to claim solar energy technology is

not competitive with,

capable of replacing fossil nukes,

uses more energy to make PV than generates, etc., ad nauseum

 is calmly, analytically and, with energy mathematics, exposed as inaccurate propaganda from Big Oil 🦖 and the nuclear power plant  ( lobbies.

Robert Scheer, a solar pioneer in Germany mainly responsible for getting the laws passed to usher in the German Renewable Energy Revolution, tells how the energy "experts", because of their extreme bias or cowardice, have ALWAYS been the main obstacle to solar power renewable energy development, NOT ENERGY MATHEMATICS.

Solar Energy takes fossil and nuclear fuel suppliers out of the profit loop as the middleman between you and the energy. They can't come out and say that so they ( invent all kinds of propaganda to slow the transition.

I was flabbergasted to learn that a TINY portion of one area in North Africa could provide enough solar energy for the ENTIRE PLANET!  :o You will see plans for a massive DC solar electrical power grid in North Africa to provide power for Europe.

Since this video, solar energy costs have gotten even cheaper and the CSP (concentrated solar power)  plants being built have been completed and many more are being built. The Solar Revolution is in FULL SWING! One unforeseen boost to the industry has been the cheapening of solar panel construction due to advances in flat panel (for TV and computer screens) technology being used in PV manufacturing. The electronics industry is going head to head with the fossil nukes dinosaur because they see this as a new boom like the one that came when ICs began replacing vacuum tubes. This is one of several Innovation synergies that accelerate the transition to renewables.  (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2018, 02:45:21 pm
Americans want more renewable energy
and more climate-change prep  (

By John Upton

This is how the typical American thinks in 2013, according to a couple of new polls: “More solar power, please. No more nuclear, thanks though. And let’s get ready for this crazy climate-change thing.”

A Gallup poll of 1,022 people revealed that a whopping 76 percent of Americans think the U.S. should put more emphasis on developing solar power.

Full article here:

The times are a-changin' FINALLY!    ( (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2018, 02:58:45 pm

News Corp. Outlets Fail to Disclose Big Oil Ties of Their Commentators

Fox News and WSJ full of pundits on Petro Payroll. 8)

April 3, 2013 

News Corp. properties Fox News  ( and The Wall Street Journal  ( failed to disclose the fossil fuel industry ties 🐉🦕 🦖 of commentators  ( who used the media outlets to advocate pro-fossil fuel industry positions.

On April 3, Fox & Friends hosted Competitive Enterprise Institute's 🦖 Myron Ebell 👹, who accused New York Governor Andrew Cuomo of delaying a decision to allow for fossil fuel extraction via hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, to keep Republican areas of the state from becoming richer and wielding more political influence.

Ebell dismissed the real concerns regarding fracking as political posturing when in fact, injection wells that store used fracking fluids have been linked to earthquakes, and drinking water contamination has been correlated with the drilling activity employed in fracking.

The Wall Street Journal 😈 print edition published an op-ed piece by the Institute for Policy Innovation's Merrill Matthews 👹 on the same day, where he denied that the fossil fuel industry receives tax breaks specific to the industry: (

Rest of article here:

Mendacity for Money brought to you by the fossil fuel loving F U C K S !  (


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2018, 10:06:28 pm
GWEC and Greenpeace International project at least 425,000 megawatts of wind capacity worldwide by 2015—enough to generate electricity for all of Central and South America. The world is starting to realize that wind’s potential is almost without limit.

After Record 2012, World Wind Power Set to Top 300,000 Megawatts in 2013

By: Earth Policy Institute

By J. Matthew Roney

Even amid policy uncertainty in major wind power markets, wind developers still managed to set a new record for installations in 2012, with 44,000 megawatts of new wind capacity worldwide. With total capacity exceeding 280,000 megawatts, wind farms generate carbon-free electricity in more than 80 countries, 24 of which have at least 1,000 megawatts.
At the European level of consumption, the world’s operating wind turbines could satisfy the residential electricity needs of 450 million people.

Full Story with charts here: ( (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2018, 10:15:57 pm
Global Solar Photovoltaic Industry Is Likely Now A Net Energy ⚡ Producer (

April 3, 2013 Stanford University

For the first time since the boom started, the electricity generated by all the world’s installed solar photovoltaic (PV) panels last year probably surpassed the amount of energy going into fabricating more modules, according to Michael Dale, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford’s Global Climate & Energy Project (GCEP).
With continued technological advances, the global PV industry is poised to pay off its debt of energy as early as 2015, and no later than 2020.

Breakeven Breakthrough For Solar Power (

Read more at (


The achievement is largely due to steadily declining energy inputs required to manufacture and install PV systems, according to co-author Sally Benson, GCEP’s director. The new study, Benson said, indicates that the amount of energy going into the industry should continue to decline, while the issue remains an important focus of research.

“GCEP is focused on developing game-changing energy technologies that can be deployed broadly. If we can continue to drive down the energy inputs, we will derive greater benefits from PV,” she said. “Developing new technologies with lower energy requirements will allow us to grow the industry at a faster rate.”

The energy used to produce solar panels is intense. The first step in producing the silicon at the heart of most panels is to melt silica rock at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit using electricity, commonly from coal-fired power plants.

As investment and technological development have risen sharply with the number of installed panels, the energetic costs of new PV modules have declined. Thinner silicon wafers are now used to make solar cells, less highly refined materials are now used as the silicon feed stock, and less of the costly material is lost in the manufacturing process.
Increasingly, the efficiency of solar cells using thin-film technologies that rely on earth-abundant materials such as copper, zinc, tin, and carbon have the potential for even greater improvements.

To be considered a success – or simply a positive energy technology – PV panels must ultimately pay back all the energy that went into them, said Dale. The PV industry ran an energy deficit from 2000 to now, consuming 75 percent more energy than it produced just five years ago. The researchers the industry to pay off this energy debt as early as 2015, thanks to declining energy inputs, more durable panels and more efficient conversion of sunlight into electricity.


When you think about this, always remember that fossil  ( and nuclear  ( fuels have NEVER "paid us back" with anything but poison and pollution.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2018, 10:20:59 pm
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”   ( (

R. Buckminster Fuller
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2018, 10:30:20 pm
1,000,000 Solar PV Systems Installed In Australia! (

April 5, 2013 Guest Contributor

By Sophie Vorrath

Reposted from RenewEconomy.

The number of Australian homes with rooftop solar power systems has passed the magic one million mark, according to figures from the Clean Energy Regulator, confirming that the milestone was reached in March.

SunWiz analysis of the REC Registry contained within PV market insights
With Queensland leading the charge – it now has more than 300,000 rooftop PV systems installed, NSW comes in second with just under 230,000 – the one millionth PV system was registered in Australia on March 12; a number the industry says translates to around 2.5 million Australians now living in a home with a set of solar panels on the roof – more than the entire population of Western Australia.

“It is remarkable when you think that just five years ago in 2008 there were only about 20,000 systems installed across the entire country,”   :o   ( Clean Energy Council chief executive David Green said.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2018, 10:34:59 pm
Remember when you read this that EVs, unlike ICE cars, have a "gas" station at home so the on-the-road "gas" charge stations are an added plus.

Making Gasoline Stations Obsolete One Charge Station at a Time...  ( 

]180 More EV Charging Stations Each Month In US
(& Other EV Charging Station News) (

Posted on March 13, 2013 by Zach

There’s a lot of hype (overhype, in my opinion*) about the need for more public EV charging stations. But I don’t think anyone realizes just how fast these charging stations are rolling out. AutoblogGreen reports that “US public and private entities are adding publicly accessible electric-vehicle charging stations at a clip of about 180 units a month, which would put the country’s total at about 7,400 by year end, according to US Department of Energy figures.” That’s pretty impressive. Much faster than I realized.

The total number of publicly accessible charging stations is at 5,548 as I’m writing this, according to the DOE. The number of charging stations per state follows population pretty well — #1 is California, #2 Texas, #3 Florida. (California and Texas are also #1 & #2 in population, while Florida is barely #4, just below New York — but is much more auto-centric than New York.)

AutoBlogGreen also notes that, through February 28, “Walgreens hosted 365 stations, Kohl’s had 55 and Whole Foods boasted 39 stations open to the public.”

EV Charging Activity In New York

As the charging network grows and expands, there’s also a bit of consolidation going on. Up in New York, for example, CarCharging recently announced that it is about to acquire EVPass (of Central New York) and has just acquired Beam Charging (of New York City), as well as their EV chargers/networks, of course.

“Bottom line, EV sales are growing. EV sales in January 2013 were more than 300% greater than January 2012, and EV sales in February 2013 were nearly 330% greater than February 2012. To support the increasing EV market, it is our intent to expand our EV charging infrastructure through organic growth and acquisitions of other EV service providers,” said Michael D. Farkas, CEO of CarCharging, in a statement published yesterday. “With our recent acquisition of Beam Charging and the pending acquisition of the CNY Network, CarCharging will expand its footprint throughout New York State and gain additional strategic property partners.”

Regarding some of the locations of the EVPass charging stations, CarCharging writes: “These destination locations are comprised of: New York shopping malls, including Pyramid, one of the largest shopping mall operators in the Northeast; higher education institutions such as SUNY-ESF and Syracuse University; entertainment venues such as the JFK Arena in Rome, NY and the Oncenter Convention Center in Syracuse, NY; and 39 downtown commuter parking locations in Syracuse, NY. Additionally, CarCharging will administer the pending NYSERDA grant awarded to EVPass, which includes installing EV charging stations throughout Upstate New York.”

Beam, meanwhile, was the largest EV charging service provider in the New York City metro area. In a statement from late February, CarCharging wrote: “Together, CarCharging and Beam operate the majority of all EV charging points throughout New York City, and have existing agreements with Central Parking, and Icon Parking, as well as Simon Properties. Beam’s partnerships with additional garage companies, such as Garage Management Company, Sylvan Parking, and Imperial Parking, expands CarCharging’s current list of more than 45 strategic partnerships including retail, multifamily residential and commercial property owners, municipalities, and parking garage management companies. Beam provides CarCharging with over 400 additional parking garages under contract in New York City, and the combined entity is positioned to provide the largest EV charging infrastructure to EV drivers in New York and beyond. In addition to CarCharging’s nationwide network of EV charging stations, CarCharging and Beam overlap in areas, such as Boston, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., and are now jointly expanding into Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.”

With New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s strong push for electric vehicles, it looks like the region will be an exciting place for the industry. Congrats to CarCharging for its quick expansion.

CarCharging uses ChargePoint’s EV charging stations. Here’s a bit more on on what CarCharging offers, and how to sign up:

EV drivers can easily request CarCharging’s evCharge card online to initiate use and payment at any intelligent CarCharging station. The CarCharging card also allows drivers to use charging locations on the ChargePoint® Network, the largest national online network connecting EV drivers to EV charging stations.

Users can pinpoint EV charging station locations using the CarCharging map at ( The ChargePoint® mobile application for iPhone, Android, and Blackberry phones also provides real-time charging station location information with turn-by-turn directions.

ECOtality & ChargePoint Team Up

One more piece of big news this month related to EV charging stations is that ChargePoint and ECOtality have teamed up. They announced on March 7 that they have formed Collaboratev, LLC. What is Collaboratev? I think they can best describe it:
“Collaboratev will enable charging network interoperability, exchange session data and allow financial billing reconciliation services among electric vehicle charging networks. The new company will actively encourage other charging network providers to join as affiliates and enable EV drivers throughout the United States to seamlessly charge among all affiliated charging networks. ChargePoint and ECOtality will connect the ChargePoint and Blink networks to Collaboratev later this year.”

In other words, Collaboratev is increasing access to public charging stations, streamlining the payment process, and providing EV drivers with more data.

“This is a clear sign of market maturation by establishing a seamless process for EV drivers to charge across networks,” stated Ravi Brar, CEO of ECOtality. “As industry leaders, we want to ensure we are always putting the needs of our customers first. We are fostering an open ecosystem and invite others to join us in making it easy for EV drivers nationwide to get the charge they need whenever and wherever they are.”

*Don’t get me wrong, I know they are a big help, but I think that EVs would work well for most people today already, and that there’s a misconception that most people wouldn’t be able to comfortably own an EV until more charging stations rolled out. Basically, I think the whole thing has been overhyped by the media and some car companies and politicians, artificially limiting consumer demand for electric vehicles. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2018, 10:38:50 pm
Next time you hear that responding to climate change is too expensive, ask, compared to what?  (

For the price of the Iraq War, the U.S. could have gotten halfway to a renewable power system  :o
By David Roberts

Discussions of how to respond to climate change often involve Very Large Numbers — the needed investments to transition to a fully renewable energy system are in the hundreds of billions. The brain sort of shuts down when it encounters numbers like that. They are too big to fathom. The one thing that does seem true about them is that nobody’s ever going to spend that kind of money on anything. Right? It seems hopeless.

So I always enjoy it when someone comes along to provide some perspective, a comparison that can give us context and help us see the numbers afresh. Today, wind analyst Paul Gipe asks, how much renewable energy could we have gotten from what we spent on the Iraq War?

The total cost of the Iraq War, including future costs to care for veterans, is $2.2 trillion. If we include the interest we have to pay on the debt we used to finance the war, that figure rises to $3.9 trillion by 2053. (See Gipe’s article for sources and details.)

So what could that get us? Gipe gets deep into the weeds on renewables cost and yields, but here’s the top-line conclusion:

If we had invested the $2.2 trillion in wind and solar, the US would be generating 21% of its electricity with renewable energy. If we had invested the $3.9 trillion that the war in Iraq will ultimately cost, we would generate nearly 40% of our electricity with new renewables. Combined with the 10% of supply from existing hydroelectricity, the US could have surpassed 50% of total renewables in supply.

He notes that his estimates are extremely conservative, and with some reasonable amendments, that 40 percent figure could easily become 60 percent.

So, let’s call it half. For the price of the Iraq War, the U.S. could have gotten halfway to a fully renewable power supply.

Full Story here: 👍👍👍 😎 (

So much for the BULLSHIT and LIES from the fossil fuel energy "experts" about renewable energy implementation timelines!
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2018, 10:45:13 pm
Portugal Hit 70% Renewable Electricity In Q1 2013

April 9, 2013 Karl-Friedrich Lenz

Reposted from Lenz Blog:

Portugal is the newest country to make the list of over 60% renewable electricity. According to this report by the network operator REN, it got 70% in quarter one of this year. The largest part (37%) comes from hydro, which had excellent weather conditions, leading to a 312% increase over last year’s figures. But wind also contributed 27%, with a 60% increase, also primarily due to favorable weather conditions.   (

As expected, generation from coal was down by 29%, and from gas was down by 44% (please cheer and applaud for Portugal now).   (

Thanks to this tweet by ekopolitan for the link to this piece of very welcome good news.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2018, 11:07:03 pm
Solar = 100%  Of New Power Capacity In March, Renewables = 82% In Q1  (

April 12, 2013 Tim Tyler

Editor’s note: I write about solar and wind power obsessively, almost every day. Still, FERC’s recent numbers came as a bit of a surprise to me. Over 28% of new US power capacity in Q1 was from large-scale solar installations (small- and medium-scale installations would actually boost solar’s percentage of the pie considerably, but they’re harder to track and count). Wind power accounted for nearly 51% of new power capacity (and this is just after the rush to get projects completed before the wind power production tax credit expired). More details in the post below from Solar Love:

Renewables are leading again. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office of Energy Projects has just released a report for the first three months of 2013.

The report is called the “Energy Infrastructure Update” and it shows that renewable energy sources (biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind) have accounted for 82% of all new domestic electrical generating capacity installed for the first quarter of 2013. The total amount of the combined renewables came in at 1,546 MW.

So far this year, coal, nuclear, and oil have provided no new generating capacity,  (  ( which is good news to say the least. Natural gas came in with 340 MW of electrical generating capacity installed for the first quarter of 2013.

The breakdown of the report put wind energy in the lead for quarter one, with 6 new “units” totaling 958 MW. Second place went to solar, with 38 units totaling 537 MW accounting for over 28% of new power capacity in Q1. (Obviously, this doesn’t include small- or medium-scale solar installations, which account for about half of all US solar power capacity.) During the first quarter of 2012, solar only installed 264 MW, so this year solar has more than doubled its newly installed capacity (537 MW).

The big winner in renewables for the month of March was solar, which produced 100% of the new electrical generation capacity, with 7 new units with a combined capacity of 44 MW in California, Nevada, New Jersey, Hawaii, Arizona, and North Carolina.

In the past couple of years, the installed price of solar has dropped about 40%. This has certainly spurred on a good portion of the growth, but the price is projected to fall much more in the coming years. So what lies ahead?

One of the other key players in the renewable mix in quarter one was biomass, with 28 units that totaled 46 MW. And even water was in the picture for the first quarter, with 4 new units with an installed capacity of 5.4 MW. Geothermal is lagging behind so far this year with no

new capacity reported. Here’s a full table: (go to article at the link for the full table 8))

Nearly 16% of total installed US generating capacity now goes to renewable energy sources.

Here’s a break down of the current installed generating capacity from the report:

Water — 8.53%
Wind — 5.18%
Biomass— 1.3%
Solar — 0.44%
Geothermal — 0.32%
For a comparison, that is more than these combined:
Nuclear — 9.15%
Oil — 3.54%

According to the US Energy Information Administration, the actual net electrical generation from renewable energy sources in the United States now totals a bit more than 13%. (Just a note since generating capacity is not the same as actual generation.)

It is clear, however, that renewable energy sources continue to dominate the new electrical generating capacity being brought on-line in the United States. It seems like with every one of these reports it becomes clearer that coal is slowly fading away and a cleaner future is on its way with renewables 👍👍 👍  😎

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2018, 11:20:39 pm
Is Renewable Energy's Biggest Problem Solved?

German researchers have found a way to overcome one of the problems with renewable energy -- the fact that it is not always available -- by linking different options in a unified system. (

April 5, 2013 

Critics of renewables have always claimed that sun and wind are only intermittent producers of electricity and need fossil fuel plants as back-up to make them viable. But German engineers have proved this is not so. (

full story here:
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 01:16:48 pm
Largest Wind Farm In Southern Hemisphere Opens Down Under 👍👍👍 (

April 15, 2013 Ronald Brakels

The 420 megawatt Macarthur wind farm was opened in the state of Victoria on Friday. It is the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere and its 3 megawatt Vestas turbines are the largest in Australia. The Mcarthur Wind Farm is actually the first project to use Vestas’ V112-3.0 MW wind turbines. The project’s expected operating capacity is 35% and its cost was almost exactly one billion dollars.

One billion dollars may sound like a lot of money, probably because it is, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good deal. The wind farm has an operating life of 25 years and if a 5% discount rate is used for the cost of money, it will generate electricity at about 6 cents a kilowatt-hour. While this is slightly higher than the average price of electricity generated from coal in Australia, it does have the very large advantage of being non-fatal on both the personal and planetary scales. It’s also cheaper than electricity from new coal plants and is a major reason why Australia is extremely unlikely to ever build any new coal capacity.   👍 👍👍 😎


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 01:22:39 pm
( Sweden’s Quest To Be The First Oil-Free Nation  ( 

April 15, 2013 Guest Contributor

This post first appeared on Fuel Freedom

By Zana Nesheiwat

Famous for Volvo, Ikea and Absolut Vodka, Sweden is now on a new pursuit to become the first completely oil-free economy in the world by 2020.

The oil crisis in the early 1970s forced Sweden to embark on a quest for alternative energy sources. Its phasing out of oil has proceeded smoothly; in 1970, oil accounted for 77% of Sweden’s energy, but by 2003 that figure fell to 32%. (


International oil dependency is one of the world’s biggest problems and as Sahlin notes, a Sweden free of fossil fuels would give the country enormous advantages, “not least by reducing the impact from fluctuations in oil prices. The price of oil has tripled since 1996.” Sweden’s investments, actions and laws are no accident, and although Sweden’s goal of eliminating oil consumption is seen as ambitious by the rest of the world, their attention to the detrimental effects of this dependence is worth noting. As Nelson Mandela reminds us “it seems impossible until it is done.” (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 01:31:38 pm

Mark Fiore gives it to oil lovers with both (shotgun NOT oil!) barrels! (

WATCH: Tar Sands Timmy Needs a Pipeline Cartoon  (

The Keystone XL is our ticket to energy independence! 🦖😈

—By Mark Fiore


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 01:44:38 pm
None of the world’s top industries would be profitable if they paid for the natural capital they use

By David Roberts

The notion of “externalities” has become familiar in environmental circles. It refers to costs imposed by businesses that are not paid for by those businesses.
For instance, industrial processes can put pollutants in the air that increase public health costs, but the public, not the polluting businesses, picks up the tab. In this way, businesses privatize profits and publicize costs.
While the notion is incredibly useful, especially in folding ecological concerns into economics, I’ve always had my reservations about it. Environmentalists these days love speaking in the language of economics — it makes them sound Serious — but I worry that wrapping this notion in a bloodless technical term tends to have a narcotizing effect. It brings to mind incrementalism: boost a few taxes here, tighten a regulation there, and the industrial juggernaut can keep right on chugging. However, if we take the idea seriously, not just as an accounting phenomenon but as a deep description of current human practices, its implications are positively revolutionary.
To see what I mean, check out a recent report [PDF] done by environmental consultancy Trucost on behalf of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) program sponsored by United Nations Environmental Program. TEEB asked Trucost to tally up the total “unpriced natural capital” consumed by the world’s top industrial sectors. (“Natural capital” refers to ecological materials and services like, say, clean water or a stable atmosphere; “unpriced” means that businesses don’t pay to consume them.)
It’s a huge task; obviously, doing it required a specific methodology that built in a series of assumptions. (Plenty of details in the report.) But it serves as an important signpost pointing the way to the truth about externalities.

Here’s how those costs break down:
The majority of unpriced natural capital costs are from

greenhouse gas emissions (38%),
followed by water use (25%),
land use (24%),
air pollution (7%),
land and water pollution (5%),
and waste (1%).

So how much is that costing us? Trucost’s headline results are fairly stunning.
First, the total unpriced natural capital consumed by the more than 1,000 “global primary production and primary processing region-sectors” amounts to $7.3 trillion dollars a year — 13 percent of 2009 global GDP. :o (

Full Story with charts here:

I'm happy to see the theme of the article I wrote some time ago is gathering traction.  I love it when they start talking about REAL WORLD COSTS, not industry's convenient EROEI happy numbers. (

For those who who haven't read it and want the down and dirty details of the fossil and nuclear fuel scam, go here: (

Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables: Why They Work and Fossil & Nuclear Fuels Never Did (

The Fossil Fuelers 🦖  DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 02:04:30 pm
Solar Power Record In Germany — 22.68 GW — Infographic

April 16, 2013 Thomas

On Monday, the 15th of April, 2013, the approximate 1.3 million solar power systems in Germany set a new domestic/world record by reaching a peak power output of 22.68 GW at noon.

The New Normal

This new record is almost 0.5 GW above the “old” record of 22.2 GW, which was set on May 25th, 2012. Allthough I love celebrating all solar records, the biggest news might be that “just” 22.68 GW is apparently no longer newsworthy in Germany, because above 15-20 GW of solar have become a regularity.

During the first two weeks of April, solar surpassed the 20 GW mark on several occasions and made a meaningful contribution to the domestic power supply on every single day. For everybody remotely familiar with German or Central European weather conditions, it’s needless to say that it wasn’t all sunshine & cloudless skies in April.

Graphs: Bruno Burger, Fraunhofer ISE

Since solar panels last for 25+ years and have almost no marginal costs, I like to use the opportunity to mention the fact that whatever might happen in policy in the coming years, those yellow areas of the electricity market will remain liberated* from the external effects caused by conventional electricity production for at least one generation. (*To use a slightly more energy revolutionary sort of language).

So, lets celebrate the new solar world record of 22.68 GW of solar power on a national grid, despite its relative “mediocrity,” with a little infographic!


In case you are wondering: The equivalents mentioned in the infographic were chosen for the Japanese “market” (for solar and ideas).

The 167 GWh of solar electricity provided a little more than 12% of the total German electricity consumption on a typical Monday in April (presuming that consumption hasn’t changed too much since last year).

The 34,000 tons of oil are calculated by considering a thermal power plant efficency of 42%, meaning that for each kWh of electricity you got to burn 2.4 kWh of oil. (42% is the average for Japanese oil-fired power stations that usually provided peakload electricity before, and now even more so after, the Fukushima nuclear accident.)

The number of nuclear reactors refers to each one running for 24 hours straight. The comparison is intended to show that distributed solar can make a big impact and doesn’t need years to build. I am aware that comparing clean peak-load solar operating in the renewable energy paradigm with old-school baseload nuclear is relatively pointless.


Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 02:13:14 pm
Great Discussion of how big oil makes WE-THE-PEOPLE pay for pollution from Big Oil!  (  More proof this S H I T was NEVER cost effective! :o

By the way, Thom comes up with a PRICELESS quote by John kenneth Galbraith at the start of the discussion.  (



Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 02:25:01 pm
Agelbert NOTE: This is an investment bet that ABB made 5 years ago that continues to pay off very well. ABB was, and still is, smart. (
ABB bets on solar power with $1 billion takeover. (

Credit: Reuters/Michael Buholzer

By Silke Koltrowitz

ZURICH | Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:07am EDT

ZURICH (Reuters) - Swiss industrial group ABB (ABBN.VX) is to buy U.S. solar energy company Power-One Inc (PWER.O) for about $1 billion, betting that growth in emerging markets will revive a sector ravaged by overcapacity and weakening demand in recession-hit Europe.

The world's biggest supplier of industrial motors and power grids said on Monday it had agreed to pay $6.35 per share in cash for Power-One, the second-largest maker of solar inverters that allow solar power to be fed into grids.

The offer price is 57 percent above Power-One's closing price on Friday, boosted by $266 million in net cash held by debt-free Power-One. Stripping out its cash pile, Power-One's enterprise value stands at $762 million, valuing the bid at a more modest 6.4 times 2012 core earnings.

As solar power gets closer to competing with conventional forms of energy such as gas and coal, demand for solar panels that harness the sun's energy is rising.

The same goes for solar inverters, which are needed to feed that power into large electricity grids from commercial solar panel installations and smaller units on factories and homes.

"We consider the acquisition of Power-One as a smart strategic move for ABB to broaden its solar product portfolio at the right time," Vontobel analysts said.

The solar inverters business is one of the last profitable parts of the solar value chain - mainly due to its relatively complex technology - while makers of cells and panels have suffered massively from the fact that their products are easy to replicate.

Peers like Germany's Siemens (SIEGn.DE) and Bosch ROBG.UL recently ended ventures in the solar industry after oversupply, weak economies and a cut in government subsidies triggered a collapse in demand for solar panels and prices slumped, leading to a wave of insolvencies in the industry.

Even makers of the solar inverters have suffered.

Germany's SMA Solar (S92G.DE), the world's biggest maker of the components, reported a 58-percent drop in 2012 operating earnings last month and said sustained lower prices from competitors could severely impair its business.

However, ABB believes the solar market is set to grow its way out of overcapacity as electricity costs rise and falling prices of solar power systems make it a more competitive source of energy.

ABB is buying into solar energy now because it sees a shift in demand towards emerging markets such as China and the Middle East, said Ulrich Spiesshofer, head of ABB Discrete and Motion, the business that includes ABB's solar activities.

The company took a 35 percent stake in Germany's Novatec Solar in 2011.
"Solar is, long-term, the fastest-growing renewable generation market in the world. ABB believes in this market," Spiesshofer said in a company video.

At 7:52 a.m. EDT, ABB shares were up 0.9 percent at 20.11 Swiss francs, outperforming an almost flat European industrial sector index .SXNP. SMA Solar shares were up almost 9 percent.


The solar inverters market is forecast to grow by more than 10 percent per year until 2021, ABB said. Solar inverter industry revenues reached $7 billion last year, according to research firm IHS.

Camarillo, California-based Power-One's market share in the inverter industry has doubled to 10 percent since 2009, while SMA Solar's has dropped to 25 percent from 38 percent, ABB said in a presentation.

ABB Chief Executive Joe Hogan said the deal should boost net income within a year. He said the company had no interest in buying solar panel or machinery makers.

Sarasin analyst Martin Schwab said the bid price for Power-One seemed high, but that the deal might pay off. Vontobel analysts called the price reasonable, given the target's net cash position and positive operating cash flow.

ABB said it would pay for the transaction from its own funds and that it included Power-One's net cash of $266 million.

Subject to shareholder and regulatory approval, the deal is expected to close in the second half of 2013.

Power-One employs almost 3,300 people, mainly in China, Italy, the United States and Slovakia and had sales of around $1 billion in 2012. The firm posted a fourth-quarter loss per share in January.

Credit Suisse (CSGN.VX) acted as financial adviser to ABB, and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP acted as legal adviser. Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS.N) acted as financial adviser to Power-One, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as legal adviser.

(Additional reporting by Katharina Bart and Christoph Steitz; Editing by Mark Potter and Tom Pfeiffer) (

NOTE: ABB operates in over 100 countries and is into just about everything to do with the electrical grid, it's power sources and smart grid energy management.

Product guide for ABB in the USA: (

I do believe ABB KNOWS how to make a GOOD BET on the future of Energy Sources! (

Latest from ABB U.S.

ABB named Top 10 Smart Grid Vendor by GTM Research
2013-03-25 - ABB recognized for its ongoing contributions to transmission and distribution grid management, to OT/IT convergence with Ventyx and to communications with Tropos Networks.

ABB reports record U.S. revenues, rising 26 percent to $6.7 billion U.S. revenues and employment doubled since 2007

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 02:32:38 pm
High-Concentration Photovoltaic Thermal System From IBM Promises 80% Efficiency, Potable Water, And Air Conditioning

April 24, 2013 Nathan

This article was originally published on Solar Love.

How does a cost-competitive photovoltaic system that is able to concentrate sunlight 2000 times and then capture 80% of the concentrated energy sound? Pretty good, right? Such a system is currently being developed by researchers at IBM Research, Airlight Energy, ETH Zurich, and Interstate University of Applied Sciences Buchs NTB, after winning a three-year $2.4 million grant from the Swiss Commission for Technology and Innovation.

Image Credit: © IBM

And in addition to generating electricity, the system can itself desalinate water and provide air-conditioning, useful features for the sunny and remote regions that the system is designed for.

An economical High Concentration Photovoltaic Thermal (HCPVT) system, that in addition to supplying electricity can desalinate water and provide air conditioning, is the complete package as far as many regions of the world are concerned.

The prototype system makes use of a large parabolic dish, composed of a number of mirror facets, which are coordinated to a sun tracking system. The system automatically repositions itself to the optimum angle for power generation. The sunlight that hits the mirrors is reflected off of them onto a number of microchannel-liquid cooled receivers with triple junction photovoltaic chips. Every one of these 1×1 centimeter chips “can convert 200-250 watts, on average, over a typical eight hour day in a sunny region.” And there are hundreds of these chips in the design, providing a total of about 25 kilowatts of electrical power.

Read more at (

As noted in the video below, we only need about 0.4% of the solar energy arriving on the Earth to supply ALL of our ENERGY NEEDS!

We DON'T NEED FOSSIL FUELS! We DO NEED to stop using them. The claim 😈 that we MUST rely on fossil fuels 🦖 for now because they are "cheap" is inaccurate, erroneous and outdated information.  Watch this video for PROOF!
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 04:31:57 pm
Agelbert NOTE: It is no surprise to me that the link to the Scientific American Article which described the path to 100% Renewable Energy by 2030 is dead. The Hydrocarbom Hellspawn ( ( never stop their skullduggery.  (

The link to the Budischak, et al study at the end of the article is still good. 🕵️

It's more than clear that we could supply 100% of our energy needs from renewable sources. Jacobson and Delucchi did that bit of math in 2009. (

Solar, alone, provides far more harvest-able energy than we can conceive of using. (

We know that we can run major grids using nothing but renewable energy. Budischak, et al. ran the numbers for the largest wholesale grid in the world. Diensendorf, et al. did the same for all of Australia.

While Jacobson and Delucchi showed that the energy was available and we have the technology needed to harvest it, these other studies have shown that it would be practical to use renewables for our energy needs. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 04:58:40 pm
Baseload power is a myth: even intermittent renewables will work

By Mark Diesendorf on 10 April 2013

The future of civilisation and much biodiversity hangs to a large degree on whether we can replace fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – with clean, safe and affordable energy within several decades. The good news is that renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures have advanced with extraordinary speed over the past decade.
Energy efficient buildings and appliances, solar hot water, on-shore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV) modules, concentrated solar thermal (CST) power with thermal storage and gas turbines burning a wide range of renewable liquid and gaseous fuels are commercially available on a large scale. The costs of these technologies have declined substantially, especially those of solar PV. In 2012, despite the global financial crisis, global investment in these clean, safe and healthy technologies amounted to US $269 billion. Denmark, Scotland and Germany and several states/provinces around the world have official targets of around 100% renewable electricity and are implementing policies to achieve them.
The principal barrier is resistance from vested interests and their supporters in the big greenhouse gas polluting industries and from an unsafe, expensive, polluting, would-be competitor to a renewable energy future, nuclear power. These powerful interests are running a campaign of renewable energy denial that is almost as fierce as the long-running campaign of climate change denial. Both campaigns are particularly noisy in the Murdoch press. So far the anti-renewables campaign, with its misinformation and gross exaggerations, has received little critical examination in the mainstream media.
The renewable energy deniers rehash, among others, the old myth that renewable energy is unreliable in supplying base-load demand.

Renewable electricity is reliable

In a previous article for The Conversation I reported on the initial results of computer simulations by a research team at the University of New South Wales that busted the myth that renewable energy cannot supply base-load demand. However at the time of the article I was still under the misconception that some base-load renewable energy supply may be needed to be part of the renewable energy mix.
Since then Ben Elliston, Iain MacGill and I have performed thousands of computer simulations of 100% renewable electricity in the National Electricity Market (NEM), using actual hourly data on electricity demand, wind and solar power for 2010. Our latest research, available here and reported here, finds that generating systems comprising a mix of different commercially available renewable energy technologies, located on geographically dispersed sites, do not need base-load power stations to achieve the same reliability as fossil-fuelled systems.
The old myth was based on the incorrect assumption that base-load demand can only be supplied by base-load power stations; for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy technologies in our computer model, which has no base-load power stations, easily supplies base-load demand. Our optimal mix comprises wind 50-60%; solar PV 15-20%; concentrated solar thermal with 15 hours of thermal storage 15-20%; and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids. (Contrary to some claims, concentrated solar with thermal storage does not behave as base-load in winter; however, that doesn’t matter.)
The real challenge is to supply peaks in demand on calm winter evenings following overcast days. That’s when the peak-load power stations, that is, hydro and gas turbines, make vital contributions by filling gaps in wind and solar generation.

Renewable electricity is affordable

Our latest peer-reviewed paper, currently in press in Energy Policy journal, compares the economics of two new alternative hypothetical generation systems for 2030: 100% renewable electricity versus an “efficient” fossil-fuelled system. Both systems have commercially available technologies and both satisfy the NEM reliability criterion. However, the renewable energy system has zero greenhouse gas emissions while the efficient fossil scenario has high emissions and water use and so would be unacceptable in environmental terms.
We used the technology costs projected to 2030 in the conservative 2012 study by the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE). (In my personal view, future solar PV and wind costs are likely to be lower than the BREE projections, and future fossil fuel and nuclear costs are likely to be higher.) Then, we did thousands of hourly simulations of supply and demand over 2010, until we found the mix of renewable energy sources that gave the minimum annual cost.
Under transparent assumptions, we found that the total annualised cost (including capital, operation, maintenance and fuel where relevant) of the least-cost renewable energy system is $7-10 billion per year higher than that of the “efficient” fossil scenario. For comparison, the subsidies to the production and use of all fossil fuels in Australia are at least $10 billion per year. So, if governments shifted the fossil subsidies to renewable electricity, we could easily pay for the latter’s additional costs.

Thus 100% renewable electricity would be affordable under sensible government policy, busting another myth.   (

All we need are effective policies to drive the transition.

This article was first published in The Conversation. It was reproduced with permission. It is an update of an earlier article written by Diesendorf for RenewEconomy, published last week. (


Note: I am guilty as SIN of putting ALL the HTML FONT exaggerations in the above. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 05:22:57 pm
Agelbert NOTE: A warning from 2012 about what was coming now (and getting worse each year) that has been mostly ignored by TPTB.  :(

Why climate change is not an environmental problem (




Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 05:52:27 pm
Fossil fuels are "CHEAP", have a "HIGH EROEI", nuclear fuels are "too cheap to meter" and I sell bridges in Brooklyn and used cars on the side! (
Surly said,

Got a source for thsi graphic AG?

If a picture is worth ten thousand words . . . that is worth many more. Have never seen the case made so clearly and simply.

RE answered,
I sourced it. Comes from Clean Technica.

Thanks RE. (

I have a small confession to make. (  I added the "too cheap to meter" and "High EROEI" print along with WTF!? ( It is factual and accurate to equate the two claims as part of a deliberate con to make those poisonous technologies appealing to WE-THE-PEOPLE. The $$$ subsidiy numbers are bona fide.

I'll dig up the whole story with more graphs and "fun" details from the Union of concerned Scientists about how "versatile" hydrocarbons are in finding new and imaginative ways to make people sick and post it on my news channel.

If you find it convincing enough, you may want to send it the the Diner FB page. People need to have their noses rubbed in this every now and then in order to stop lamenting the coming demise of Big Oil and, instead, START LOOKING FORWARD TO IT!  ;D

I just LOVE to expose Big Boyz Mendacity, Propaganda and Too-clever-by-a-half BULLSHIT!  ;D
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 06:07:34 pm

Solar — A Disruptive Technology (Graph)(
May 6, 2013 Zachary Shahan
Read more at (

Agelbert NOTE: As you can see below, this great trend continues to this day: 

Renewable Energy Clean Energy tech cost reductions up to and including 2017
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 06:18:01 pm
Learn EXACTLY where your processed food like corn flakes or treats like oreo cookies and m&ms, etc. come from, who works the supply chain and how they are treated all along the way. Ben & Jerry's is one of the top scorers but the "competition" among processed food giants is mostly for LOW scores. (

Behind the Brands is part of Oxfam’s GROW campaign to help create a world where everyone has enough to eat. Right now, nearly one in eight people on earth go to bed hungry. Sadly, the majority of these people are farmers or farm workers supplying the very food system that is failing them.  Yet there is enough food for everyone. That’s an outrage – but we can be the generation that ends this crazy situation.

While the food system is complex and its problems multi-faceted, we know that the world’s largest food and beverage companies have enormous influence. Their policies drive how food is produced, the way resources are used and the extent to which the benefits trickle down to the marginalised millions at the bottom of their supply chains.

Oxfam’s Behind the Brands campaign aims to provide people who buy and enjoy these products with the information they need to hold the Big 10 to account for what happens in their supply chains. In putting together a scorecard based entirely on publicly available information on company policies, we posed the question “what are they doing to clean up their supply chains”?
The companies

The Behind the Brands Scorecard assesses the agricultural sourcing policies of the world's 10 largest food and beverage companies. It exclusively focuses on publicly available information that relates to the policies of these companies on their sourcing of agricultural commodities from developing countries.

We based our selection on companies with the largest overall revenues globally, as well as their position in the Forbes 2000 annual ranking, which measures companies on the basis of composite sales, assets, profits and market value.

The ten companies ("the Big Ten") assessed in the Scorecard (in order of company size) are:
 Associated British Foods (ABF)
 General Mills

The issues

The Scorecard looks at seven themes, weighing each theme equally. The seven themes are:

1.Transparency at a corporate level

2.Women farm workers and small-scale producers in the supply chain

3.Workers on farms in the supply chain

4.Farmers (small-scale) growing the commodities

5.Land, both rights and access to land and sustainable use of it

6.Water, both rights and access to water resources and sustainable use of it

7.Climate, both relating to reducing green house gas emissions and helping farmers adapt to climate change
The indicators

The Scorecard approaches six of the seven themes (all except transparency) in a similar way. Within these six themes, the indicators are grouped into four indicator categories (each worth one quarter of the score available for that theme): (i) awareness; (ii) knowledge; (iii) commitments; and (iv)supply chain management. These indicator categories rely on publicly available documents to address the following questions:

 1.Awareness: Does the company demonstrate general awareness of key issues relating to that theme and does it conduct projects to understand and address these key issues?

2.Knowledge: Does the company demonstrate it measures, assesses and reports key issues and facts specifically in its supply chains that relate to that theme?

3.Commitments: Does the company commit to addressing the key issues relating to that theme in its supply chains?

4.Supply chain management: Does the company require its suppliers to meet relevant standards related to that theme?

The transparency theme is structured differently. It has a broader focus and rewards companies for disclosure on cross-cutting and corporate level issues.

What we did not assess
Across the Scorecard, some important issues that relate to the policies and practices of companies are not assessed.  The scorecard is focused on the agricultural sourcing operations of the Big 10 companies so issues that do not relate to these “upstream” activities were not included.  This includes critical issues such as nutrition, some of which are covered by other initiatives. Other issues we could not assess include actual practices on farms and exactly how the Big 10, in practice, use their power to shape the behavior of their suppliers. Such issues were not included for the following reasons:
a) we decided that a particular issue was not linked closely enough to the lives of small-scale farmers, farm workers and communities in the supply chains of the Big 10;

b) we were unable to find indicators that could assess the issue adequately through use of publically available information; or

c) public information available was not of adequate quality and accuracy for us to assess companies.
Where to from here?

This is not a short term challenge, and we’re committed to sticking with it. We will update the scorecard regularly and will continue to improve and strengthen it over time.  The index tackles some cutting edge issues that will require rigorous debate and dialogue between companies, civil society and industry experts. For this reason, Oxfam will work with a range of stakeholders to improve how it assesses the companies, paying particular attention to new approaches to addressing supply chain issues. Through the life of the Behind the Brands campaign, Oxfam will conduct a yearly process of reviewing and improving the indicators that make up the scorecard and will be updating the data as it arises. We’ll also be looking and listening for specific cases where action can make an immediate difference.

 Right across the world, consumers are seeking to make choices in line with their values and are also looking to find out more about the companies whose brands they buy. Oxfam will keep working with people around the world – on Facebook, on Twitter and in person, to push those companies to do more to ensure we all have enough to eat, today and in the future. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 06:23:53 pm
The Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity just released a new video depicting destruction by Border Patrol vehicles driving through Organ Pipe National Monument and the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge -- both designated wilderness areas in Arizona, along the U.S.-Mexico border. Cyndi Tuell, a Tucson-based conservation advocate with the Center, is featured in the video, called Too Many Tracks.
The ruts, tracks and new roads slicing through once-pristine wilderness are in areas where motorized vehicle travel is prohibited by law. In 2011 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documented more than 8,000 miles of vehicle tracks and roads in the refuge and linked much of that disturbance to U.S Border Patrol operations.
"These roads and vehicle tracks cause tremendous damage to some of America's wildest public lands," says Cyndi. "These are beautiful, fragile desert ecosystems that will take decades or even centuries to recover."


Link to vimeo video here: (

No doubt the meatheads get off on it too. Is there any more destructive entity on earth, in the history of the earth, than our Federal Government? Nope. (Unless you count a few meteorites, like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.)
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 06:30:25 pm
Cork flooring: one of nature’s best building materials

By Janice Howell

For the AJC

Cork flooring is enjoying a resurgence in popularity. Although many people think cork is a relatively new and possibly unreliable flooring option, you can find examples of cork floors that were installed in buildings over 100 years ago.

Cork is an environmentally sound product and a rapidly renewable resource.

Many types of trees derive their value from the lumber in the trunk. Cork, however, comes from the bark of the cork oak, which grows primarily in Portugal. Cork is only harvested by hand to prevent harming the tree. Portuguese conservation legislation dates back to 1209, which is only a few decades after the country was formed.

No trees are cut down to harvest the bark, and cork trees produce new cork for re-harvest every nine years. A single cork tree can be harvested more than 20 times during its 250- to 300-year lifespan.

Cork has many attractive qualities. In your home, cork floors create a warm, comfortable, resilient surface that is gentle underfoot and quiet to walk on. Unlike harder surfaces, cork flooring reduces stress on the lower back, feet and joints.

Cork is a healthy floor choice due to its natural ability to repel dust, germs and mold.

Cork flooring is durable and requires no more maintenance than a prefinished hardwood floor. It’s maintained without any harsh chemicals or cleaners, making it the practical choice for any room, especially bathrooms, kitchens and kids’ rooms.

Most cork flooring products now utilize the floating method for installation. This method allows the product to “click” together and float over your sub-floor, which eliminates the need for adhesives.

It’s important, however, to have a flat and dry sub floor. That’s why we recommend that consumers hire a professional installer to ensure the best installation.

Cork flooring design options have exploded in recent years. Products are available in tile to hardwood plank shapes. Colors range from the traditional cork look to vibrant and bold colors. The wide range of colors and styles allow cork to be utilized in all types of decorating styles, from traditional to contemporary.

So check out the new looks of cork, one of nature’s best building materials. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Janice Howell is vice president of MODA Floors & Interiors, a flooring and window coverings resource in Atlanta’s West Midtown Design District. ( (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 06:43:04 pm
Now here's something good and wild that you CAN eat!


Daylillies are known as the poor man's asparagus. A nice seasonal summer treat!

Cooking with wild edibles

Please Do Eat the Daylilies
Both the buds and the blossoms of daylilies are edible, a fact I regrettably learned only after I had dug out numerous flowering clusters encroaching on my lawn. But now I get a kick out of astonishing friends when I casually pluck a daylily "bean" from their backyard patch, and take a bite. Next thing you know, they're inviting me to gather a handful, which I'm happy to add to my next stir-fry. And they're happy to know that when the vivid flowers bloom, they will make a sweet-spicy bonus in the kitchen.
Daylilies are a common garden plant that have "gone wild." They're found throughout most parts of the United States from late spring through summer, often near sunny fields, roadsides and empty lots.   
Buds are distinguished from the plant's non-edible fruits by their layered interiors. Choose smallish buds that are just beginning to open and cook them as you would beans: boil and serve them with butter or add chilled, tender-cooked buds to salads. Or, if you happen upon a spicy batch (they're typically mild-flavored, like beans or zucchini), stir-fry them with Asian flavors.
Daylily buds will keep in the refrigerator for several days, but the delicate flowers (trumpet-shaped blooms that grow in multiples on a leafless stalk) should be consumed the same day they are picked; they are very short-lived. You can add the petals to egg dishes, soups and salads, or dip whole flowers in batter and deep-fry them, as you would squash blossoms. (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 06:48:06 pm
( (

Dear Mr. Gelbert,
Today marks a historic moment as today is the first day that the marketing, import, and sale of animal-tested cosmetics and their ingredients are no longer legal in the European Union (EU). The Physicians Committee spent years rallying support for this ban that will save the lives of countless rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, and rats who suffer and die each year for cosmetics testing.
Two years ago, the Physicians Committee delivered nearly 25,000 letters from EU residents and people around the world to the European Commission (EC). The letters called on the EC to maintain its 2013 deadline for a ban on the marketing of cosmetic products tested on animals. Physicians Committee supporters Alicia Silverstone and True Blood’s Kristin Bauer also wrote letters calling for the ban.
This ban follows Israel’s Jan. 1 ban that no longer allows the import and marketing of cosmetics, toiletries, or household cleaners that were tested on animals. Earlier this year—encouraged by the EU’s approaching ban—India announced that it is also planning to impose a ban on testing cosmetics on animals.
But we’re not resting until the United States joins the EU and Israel. We’re talking with U.S. lawmakers, cosmetics manufacturers, and ingredient suppliers. Our new Come Clean campaign is working to end excruciating skin irritation and corrosion tests on animals. Come Clean asks cosmetics companies to reveal whether they perform these tests, so Physicians Committee scientists can help them transition to superior, cruelty-free test methods.
If the people of the EU, Israel, and India can safely use cruelty-free cosmetics, it’s time for the United States to join them and for all cosmetics companies to come clean.

Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H.
Director of Regulatory Testing Issues

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
PCRM's Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H. (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 07:00:35 pm
Will the real Agelbert please stand up!

One of the reasons I chose the Bot Blogger alias, was from the back n forth with a certain poster called Cheryl on the Auto Earth. There was no doubt that 'she' (turned out to be a he) was provoking people to disrupt conversation, just at the time that news came out about the tendering of contracts by the US military for multiple online personality(avatar) management software, up to 20 identities at a time, by one person. If you aren't paranoid yet, it's time.

This is my take.

When this-shizz-got-real, not so long ago, with the development of the foxstead, the roller coaster took off and a bunch of people got alternately euphoric and queasy. Myself included. (Apologies if I offended you GO. Glad you're back. Love your posts.  (

This brings up feelings of security naturally, cause this all seems like a dream when you get right down to it, and who wants that to end? So people start to draw their lines of involvement. How deep could this go? Well, we just don't know. Are there threats from people of dubious identity? Sure. Are there people listening? Sure.

RE is proving himself to be a very competent manager of the ride, so far, and has established an inside and an outside. This doesn't happen magically, like taking the red pill, and we all don't have to become the Borg in the process...sorry for mixing my sci-fi metaphors.

In defense of Bob, I can imagine that he's just trying to protect y'all from the threats. And doing it from the outside ironically. LOL

Agelbert, took a break right after a big show down with Ashvin, saying he'd had enough of the style/tone/tendencies of the conversation. It only makes sense to me he would come back with a fresh approach to posts. I'm enjoying them all. I was grateful for the cat video right after the photo put up by Gypsy M, of the walk in the woods of SC. Brought a tear and a laugh, and I hate cats. Thanks GM and AG.

BTW go see Sugar Man, the documentary. It's is freakin' amazing and will make you hopeful for all of us. Needed that after reading about the scum Jim Steele (

Well done, AG.

My goodness, I seem to have created a fuss with my low stress hopium newfound posting style. I admit I am somewhat more laconic and controversy avoiding than before. A couple of visits to the ER will do wonders to get a person to modify his behavior in order to keep the blood pressure under control and possibly live a little longer.  (

Thanks Surly, RE and Golden Oxen for recognizing it is really me that has returned from the dead (not literally but it was pretty damned close! :o). I have also been through a family tragedy. Last September my brother in law, ten years younger than me, was diagnosed with stage IV colorectal cancer with mets to the liver. You can imagine all the internet research on cancer that followed in search of some therapy that would extend his life. He died Sunday, February 24, 2013.  :emthdown:

For those others who didn't recognize my writing style because it avoids controversy and a lot of back and forth fireworks, I wish to explain that my views on renewables, the biosphere and energy have not changed and I continue to plug my articles and comment posts on energy in the Waste Based Society Series that are parked here thanks to RE all over the web. I was gratified to see that Robert F. Kennedy Jr shares my views about fossil fuels (he calls them a theft of the commons).

Thom Hartmann has also come out plainly stating that fossil fuels were never cheap or cost effective so I am in good company. It was Grand Biosphere Poisoning and Robbery combined.  As time goes by I hope more will share this view and BYPASS the RULING CLASS with decentralization of energy use and distribution for a more democratic , equitable society that respects and blends in harmoniously with the biosphere for a truly livable planet. Until then I will continue my upbeat style of finding information and news to lift your spirits a bit along with some hard truths sprinkled in.

For those such as luciddreams that haven't read my stuff, the whole Waste Based Society Series, which includes  important historical articles by RE as well as my screeds, is an excellent big picture view of how we got to this clusterfuck and possibly how we can get out of it.

Everybody just do your thing because I am certainly going to do mine!  ;D


Thanks for understanding why I raised the uncomfortable question virtual pat down, and explaining the different online persona from last year. The post above was indubitably yours and not a Gitmo guard's while the real agb is cuffed and hooded in orange overalls. I never read your stressful stoush with ash, cant follow every thread in this multiplex, but it seemed then you were saying risky things about 911 radar when you suddenly dropped off the radar after being outspoken, and now saying very little, which I see is wise. Were meant to be crazy conspiracy theorists after all  :o 8).

Surly & GO
You were right this time, but what if you were not. According to Sophie Posel of Occupy Corporatism, Occupy mostly lost mojo because of cointelpro infiltrators, and others either calling out vs vouching for. Vetting for would have been better IMO, however awkward.

2 olympic athletes, swimmers Nick Darcy and another were severely reprimanded and almost dropped from the team for visiting a gun shop and posing with guns and getting their picture taken, putting the pic on facebook. I dont own the computer Im on, a govt and private funded organizn does. I walk a fine line between standing tall and speaking up in the truth movement and being told to STFU, see, hear and speak no evil. Suppose some IT investigation pulls up me visiting pics of little girls with guns, it would be worse than getting caught surfing p o r n which would be reassurance im another typical sleeping sheep. You have my good will at DD because you proved for me how money will be worthless soon and just how many people are probably going to die, and convincing me to bug out instead of in. Ill keep you all posted how that goes, but create less work for you all for now. (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2018, 07:07:01 pm

Surly & GO
You were right this time, but what if you were not. According to Sophie Posel of Occupy Corporatism, Occupy mostly lost mojo because of cointelpro infiltrators, and others either calling out vs vouching for. Vetting for would have been better IMO, however awkward.

NOBODY has to tell me about Occupy and infiltrators. You are correct. (

Just suffice it to say, in this case, we stand by our earlier statement.

Discretion is 100% of valor for me now.

Now back to some more strange stuff to keep everyone interested. (

Full Agelbert disclosure: I am a cat lover. My avatar is a Lemon Catnip leaf. I eat Lemon Catnip but I've never smoked it!

What Effect Does Catnip Have On Humans?
By: Tracy Hall

Have you ever watched a cat playing with a catnip toy and wondered what the experience was like? An estimated 70-90% of domestic cats have some reaction to this member of the mint family, and it's hard not to be curious. After all, who wouldn't want to share in the giddy frenzy or blissful relaxation of a playtime session with their feline friend? Throughout history many cultures have experimented with Nepeta cataria, commonly known as catnip, the extent of which might surprise you.

For felines, the main attractant in catnip is a chemical called nepetalactone. This oil is metabolized in the cat's body and passes harmlessly through urine. How humans discovered the effect that the herb had on animals is unclear. It is also unclear when humans began using it for themselves. However, there are countless records of humans using catnip for medicinal purposes. Its use in the treatment of illnesses was prominent enough for catnip to be included in the United States Pharmacopeia from 1840-1890. Catnip has been used to treat nervousness, menstrual cramps, digestive tract irritation, colds, and the flu. It was only a matter of time before curiosity got the best of people and they decided to explore even more applications. Eventually there surfaced yet another potential use of catnip: as an intoxicant.

The intoxicating effect of catnip has long since been the stuff of urban legends. According to one paper on catnip, it was used as a "filler" in (or even in place of) marijuana in the 1960's. Today, an Internet search for "catnip human intoxicant" yields more than 10,000 results. Despite this number, the vast majority of published experiences have come from individuals, not research groups. Most indicate the ingestion of catnip via drinking tea or smoking, either by itself or mixed with tobacco. And the effects are...reportedly, nothing like Fluffy's.

Most people indicate mild feelings of relaxation or drowsiness, coupled with complaints of foul taste or smell. At higher doses, some users feel nauseous. Some have suggested that the lightheaded feeling sometimes caused by smoking catnip is due to simple lack of oxygen in the body. Notably lacking are the euphoric or hallucinogenic experiences suggested by feline reactions to the herb.

In short, catnip has a long history of human use and is still included today in many natural remedy compendiums. Although it might help quell a stomachache or calm frazzled nerves, humans experience few, if any, intoxicating effects from catnip. So when it comes to "feelin' groovy", it's best to leave the toy mice to the cats.

Resources: ( ( ( (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 20, 2018, 01:56:50 pm
How Does a Photo Influence Perceived Veracity of a Statement?

If only pictures were as informative as the one above.  ;D

Images that can set you up to believe a lie
Image on left warns of you of deceit (when there may not be any in order to undermine someone's credibility  ;)). Image on the right is a spoof on a misleading newspaper story (with the possible intention to inform you of a truth OR set you up to believe a true newspaper article was false!   :o

A truthful image from the UCS about Media propaganda. NOTE: Propagandists use an apparently truthful image (which is actually misleading and confusing) to set you up to believe a lie. SEE NEXT IMAGE BELOW: >:(

You would be amazed at how many people are fooled because they can't figure out the nonsense pie chart above and then swallow a lie of some sort (don't want to be accused of being "stupid").

Grossly Misleading IMPLIED promises for a PRO-Nuclear Power Propaganda Film marketed by Billionaire Paul Allen and investor in "future" nuclear power, Bill Gates.( 

1. A clean area (nuclear power plants are highly toxic with continual risk of meltdown as well as radioactive waste storing dangers to the biosphere in general and humans in particular).

2. A cube/box promising pie in the sky unlimited energy (Clearly VIOLATING the laws of thermodynamics - they've done it before - in the 1950s with the "too cheap to meter" LIE).

3. A SINGLE cube/box, not many (implying a SINGLE - i.e. nuclear power -  SIMPLE (A Nuclear power plant is extremely complex) "Energy Solution" LIE.

All the above totally avoids the discussion of WHO WILL FINANCE AND INSURE (we-the-people) the nukes and WHO WILL PROFIT FROM THEM "private" investor one percenters connected to the government (Fascists' 'R' US) guarantees and land they are given for pennies. :P >:(

Yeah, it's funny! But imagine that you have never heard of photoshop or seen a cat before...
As ridiculous as it sounds, people exposed to enough photos of some animal doing unusually smart things will begin to unconsciously believe the animals in question are much smarter than they are. This technique is used in presidential photo ops quite effectively.  ;D REMEMBER, the image is a lead in to reinforce whatever the article or ad below the image says.  ;)

Impossible fruit Sometimes, in devious marketing, they will use an OBVIOUSLY false image as an attention getter; a sort of visual non sequitur to get you to turn your head. I say DEVIOUS because, depending on the location on the page, they may not want you looking too hard at something they HAD to print so they distract you with a strategically placed image.

There are many ways to use the above, including making the fruit look quite believable and nutritious prior to a pitch for some processed product like vitamins that are made from a tiny bit of some fruit extract and 47 other totally artificial ingredients, some of them carcinogenic!  ???

It's a jungle out there! >:(

Here's WHY propagandists can fool us easier with images/photos before an article than without them.

When a photo is added along with a statement, it tends to make a person more likely to believe the statement to be true. Research has found that when study participants are given a photo statement, they are more likely to believe the statement than when it is printed alone. This is thought to be the result of fluency, which means that the brain is more able to recall things if there are more items — such as pictures — associated with it. The more fluent an item, the more likely the brain might be to recall it and thus judge it as being true.   :o

More about truth:

•"Truthiness," a word coined by American comedian Stephen Colbert that means the intuitive feeling of truth without necessarily having evidence, was Merriam-Webster's word of the year in 2006.

•When a person has been in a relationship for an extended period of time, he or she is more likely to use the part of the brain responsible for habitual decisions and thus more likely to quickly believe his or her partner.

•People typically do not perceive strangers as being truthful. In one study, half of the people believed that a fellow participant would help them as promised, when the actual number was closer to 80%.

Agelbert NOTE: The last bit of info helps explain why a real con artist will NEVER expect you to trust him when he begins his approach, whether in his capacity as a government brainwasher or a corporate brainwasher (the common street con artist is much less a threat because they are not as informed on your habits and personality).
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 23, 2018, 01:40:04 pm



'Wool': Why all the hype?

Hugh Howey and 'Wool' represent a story-book story about getting a book into print.

By Ben Frederick, Contributor / March 15, 2013

"Wool" was a New York Times bestseller before it was even released in print form.

It reads like the collective dream of authors everywhere. A writer closing in on middle age self-publishes a serial novel. The book slowly gains traction in the underground of the writerly world, selling for only $1 on e-readers.

Within a year, the writer has already made a million dollars all by himself. That's when the big publishing houses close in on him, trying to buy digital and print rights to the book with big seven-figure deals. But the author is making around $120,000 a month from book sales, so he turns them all down.

Until Simon & Schuster comes along and offers to buy just the print rights – leaving digital sales to the writer – for a six-figure sum.

Hugh Howey, author of the incredibly popular e-book "Wool" is the man who got to live this story. (A much more detailed version in the author's own words is available on

"Wool" is the story of the last remnant of humanity all living together in an underground silo. The only contact they have with the desiccated outside world is through cameras that transmit back to the silo. Sometimes, a member of the community will be sent to his or her death by cleaning the lenses of the cameras. According to the The Wall Street Journal Howey says he got the idea for "a future where people get all of their information from a single, unreliable screen" when he was watching cable news.

Howey seems to be the modern-day William Wallace of the self-publishing world. He refused "life-altering" sums of money in favor of a contract that, in his words, "when read, made [him] feel like a human being." His cry of "freedom" is being closely watched by publishers and authors alike. He has stated that he made a stand on the details of his contract to pave the way for other self-publishers, but that he didn't think any publisher would go along with the idea.

Simon & Schuster released the hardcover and the paperback editions at the same time and positive reviews are coming in from mainstream venues like The Washington Post and The Guardian, perhaps opening the door to a whole new wave of readers.

Howey's taken an unprecedented stand on his contract – refusing to sign the digital rights to his book over to a company that wouldn't necessarily be able to do much more for him than he had done for himself. "In the end," says Howey on IndieReader, "it turned out that it was easier for the publishing industry to change just a little bit, just a smidgeon, in order to accept me just the way I am." (

Good for Howey!   (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 23, 2018, 01:43:32 pm
The changing face of landscape photography - in pictures

As the Earth's landscapes rapidly change, so landscape photography embarks on a new era. Our changing environment provides the focal point for an exhibition at Somerset House in London, of 130 original photographic works taken around the world, from Mitch Epstein's image of an American oil refinery to Nadav Kander's smog-filled vision of the Yangtze river in China (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 23, 2018, 01:47:40 pm

Yes, I know Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar is no angel but what he did here was GOOD!

World’s Largest Solar Power Towers To Rise In California

March 15, 2013 Tina Casey
Two leading solar innovators have teamed up to build the world’s largest solar power towers in California, and we can all thank Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar for that. Abengoa and BrightSource Energy are the two companies involved in the project, a 500 MW (megawatt) utility scale behemoth called the Palen Solar Electric Generating System. Consisting of two 250-MW units, it will be located in a federally designated Solar Energy Zone in Riverside County, on public land administered by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management. It is expected to create 2,000 construction jobs (Keystone who?) when work starts at the end of this year, and it will generate enough clean energy to power 200,000 homes. Wait for it…Hey, we built this!

What Is A Solar Energy Zone? ( (

We also got word today that Secretary Salazar has approved another 900 MW in new solar projects in the same Solar Energy Zone, so this is a good time to go over the whole concept of a Solar Energy Zone.

President Obama’s Solar Energy Zone initiative was finalized just last October. The intent is to streamline the process for approving utility-scale solar projects on public lands. In the context of a long history of leasing public land for fossil fuel and mining operations, there’s nothing new to see here.

The Riverside zone is one of 17 initial Solar Energy Zones located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.

The selection of the zones is based on solar potential, environmental impact and the availability of existing or planned transmission lines among other factors.

All together, the first 17 zones encompass a total of 285,000 acres of public land. To give you an idea of how pared-down that figure is from the amount of public land out there, another 19 million acres are potentially available for solar projects but were not included in the streamlined umbrella, and almost 79 million acres have been identified as “inappropriate for solar development” altogether.

World’s Largest Solar Power Tower

The Palen Solar Electric Generating System is one fruit of the Concentrating Solar Power Alliance, which Abengoa and BrightSource launched last year along with Torresol Energy. The aim was to put concentrating solar power front and center in the U.S. energy market, and it seems to have worked.

Concentrating solar power systems basically consist of a field of specialized mirrors called heliostats which aim reflected sunlight onto a relatively small central collector. The concentrated solar energy creates steam that powers a turbine.

The highlight of the Palen system is a pair of 750-foot tall towers. The heliostats are pole-mounted directly into the ground, which eliminates the need to level the ground to install concrete bases.

As a sustainability bonus, the Palen project was initially approved as a facility covering 4,366 acres. The tech partnership between Abengoa and BrightSource resulted in an improved design that shrank the footprint down to 3,800 acres. The new design will also use half the water needed under the original plan (for those of you new to the topic, conventional solar arrays use water as a coolant).

Oh Snap, Google!

Err…by the way, if that thing about “world’s largest solar power tower” rings a bell, you’re probably thinking about a Google solar energy investment of $168 million back in 2011 for the Ivanpah Solar Generating System in the Mohave Desert.

Ivanpah is another BrightSource Energy project. It includes 173,000 heliostats, which sounds pretty impressive. However, the Ivanpah solar tower is “only” 450 feet tall, which was apparently a record back in 2011. Sorry, Google.

Interior Department Steps Up

Under the Obama Administration, the Interior Department has been transitioning federal land use goals from straight-up fossil fuel and mining development to include alternative energy on the same footing.

Read more at (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 23, 2018, 01:51:32 pm

Third closest star system to Sun discovered

by phenomenica on March 12, 2013

in Space

Scientists have discovered two new stars that are said to be the third-closest star system to the Sun.

The duo is the closest star system discovered since 1916.

The discovery was made by Kevin Luhman, an associate professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State University and a researcher in Penn State’s Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds.

Both stars in the new binary system are “brown dwarfs,” which are stars that are too small in mass to ever become hot enough to ignite hydrogen fusion.

As a result, they are very cool and dim, resembling a giant planet like Jupiter more than a bright star like the Sun.

“The distance to this brown dwarf pair is 6.5 light years, so close that Earth’s television transmissions from 2006 are now arriving there,” Luhman said.

“It will be an excellent hunting ground for planets because it is very close to Earth, which makes it a lot easier to see any planets orbiting either of the brown dwarfs,” he said.

Since it is the third-closest star system, in the distant future it might be one of the first destinations for manned expeditions outside our solar system, Luhman said.

The star system is named “WISE J104915.57-531906″ because it was discovered in a map of the entire sky obtained by the NASA-funded Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) satellite.

It is only slightly farther away than the second-closest star, Barnard’s star, which was discovered 6.0 light years from the Sun in 1916.

The closest star system consists of Alpha Centauri, found to be a neighbor of the Sun in 1839 at 4.4 light years, and the fainter Proxima Centauri, discovered in 1917 at 4.2 light years.

The findings are set to be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on July 31, 2018, 11:28:09 pm
Excellent source of complex carbohydrates, manganese, Beta carotene and anti-oxidants!

Sweet Potatoes: History & Nutrition

Superstars of Nutrition... and More!

I once met a woman in her mid 70s who looked 35 and enjoyed a very active sex life. She was happy to share her secret: "I eat a sweet potato every single day," she said.

Sweet potatoes are superstars of not only nutrition, but some of the fun stuff too--giving a super boost to your libido, erasing PMS, making your skin younger and smoother, and (if we shift to the purple variety) possibly helping you live to well over 100 years old.

These foods, which are not potatoes at all actually, but belong to the Morning Glory family, are possibly THE most super of the super foods, if all is tallied.

Including but not limited to:

Beta carotene (vision, skin health, bone health and more)

Manganese (brain function, wound healing, balancing mood swings)

Hyluronic acid levels (keeps skin moist and joints lubricated)

Anti-oxidants (150% more than blueberries)

DHEA (young, vigor, hormone balancing)

Start eating both orange, yellow and purple sweet potatoes today and change everything for the better.

The video is about orange sweet potatoes but please also read this article at the website below about the Okinawa purple variety that is eaten by the longest living youngest looking people on the planet, the Okinawans! (

--Celia Farber

Celia Farber is the author of "Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS" (Melville House Press/2006) and her website is (

This video was produced by Superfoods

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on August 12, 2018, 12:58:09 pm
AAG, Ray Kurzweil would tell you The Singularity Is Near.
It would be quite an experience to live through that! (

Here's some news that proves some wealthy folks have their thinking cap on. 👍

A Tesla in every driveway?


A look at wealthy towns in California reveals that the luxury electric-car maker is selling Model S's as fast as it can make them.

By TheStreet Staff Mar 12, 2013 11:27AM (

Here I am struggling to prep for Armageddon, and I coulda had an electric Porsche for the same money.


Perhaps there is a place for an EV in your prepping plans. Consider that an EV motor pumps out about 80 kw. An average house never needs more than 15 kw to run everything normally. If you can keep the EV charged with solar panels, you've got an auxiliary power plant to easily run your refrigerator for a couple of days in an emergency plus a mode of transportation that never needs fossil fuel. 👍 (

At any rate, as this quote from the MSN money article on the Tesla points out, more EVs (and more reasonably priced!) are coming.

The point here is this: Tesla cars are, of course, not yet commonplace all over the country. However, at ground zero, in its home market, the luxury-sedan market share has already hit 100% based on my personal observations. Given how many cars are sold every year in the major California coast cities -- San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego -- Tesla may not need to sell a single car anywhere else in the world, ever. It can easily sell the 20,000 to 30,000 cars it has planned to sell every year in California coastal cities alone.

Other carmakers are taking note of this steep adoption curve in Silicon Valley. The major carmakers are spending billions of dollars preparing their answers to Tesla, Chevy Volt and Nissan LEAF.
There will be an onslaught of models from all carmakers entering production starting already this year and accelerating all the way to 2018.
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on August 12, 2018, 01:17:52 pm
Senator Elizabeth Warren gives 'em "what fer!". (

Elizabeth Warren - Senate HELP Committee - Minimum Wage

[b]Elizabeth Warren Debunks GOP Talking Points on Minimum Wage[/b]
Posted on Mar 18, 2013[/i]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., continues her crusade against big financial institutions and businesses, this time tearing apart an argument by a restaurant owner who testified before a Senate panel Thursday that raising the minimum wage would force businesses like his to fire employees. Much like former Labor Secretary Robert Reich did in this video, Warren dismantled that popular right-wing talking point on why the minimum wage should not be increased.

When Warren pointed out during the hearing that McDonald’s could raise its wages to $10.10 an hour simply by increasing the cost of its meals 4 cents, David Rutigliano tried to argue that his full service restaurant doesn’t run the same way.

“McDonald’s has efficiencies and they operate completely differently than I do. I have many jobs, many jobs that pay well above minimum wage,” Rutigliano said. “We have a retirement plan. We offer health insurance to our salaried employees. So my business is a little different. I can’t raise a 4 cent price. I mean I don’t have, I don’t operate like a fast food restaurant. I would hope you appreciate the distinction.”

But Warren wasn’t having any of that. “I do appreciate the distinction and I’m not going to be in the business of being a McDonald’s representative but they would talk about having some higher paid jobs and some opportunities for management and advancement as well,” she responded. “But I get your point, maybe it’s only 4 cents on $7.19. But if your entrees are $14.40 we’ll see how fast I can do the math—are you telling me you can’t raise your prices by 8 cents?”

Warren also noted that wages have not been keeping up with productivity, and if they had, the minimum wage would be about $22 today. That’s $14.75 higher than the actual federal minimum wage.

(h/t BoldProgressives) (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on August 12, 2018, 01:37:55 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Eddie did follow through with his plan to buy an EV (I still can't afford one  :() and now drives a Volt ⚡. (

That said, he was totally wrong about Tesla, which is now making more excellent EVs than ever. (  (

I fully support development of electric cars and feel that eventually they will be commonplace, if not the primary means of transport. But right now, we have a situation where the owners of such vehicles get a number of tax breaks that are of debatable value to the country as a whole. We're talking about fairly affluent people here (ones who can afford a 100K+ car).

They get a $7500 tax credit (equivalent to more than a 20K tax deduction for those in a high marginal rate tax bracket). They also get to NOT pay the fuel tax we pay at the pump for gas (in most places about 50 cents a gallon). At the same time they are driving a car that very well might gets its energy indirectly from a coal-fired power plant. ( Last I checked, I think 60% of our electricity comes from coal.)

I think Tesla will likely not make it as a going concern due not to anything having to do with their cars, but simply because they are unaffordable to most Americans. I know they say they're doing okay right now. Let's see where they are in five years.They were always a niche market rich man's car.

(Unless the government gives them more money. They already have been the recipient of 465 million in government loans, which to their credit, they are paying back early at the moment.)

I intend to buy an electric car in the next two years myself, but not a Tesla. Most likely I'll go with the plug-in Prius or even a Volt(if those are still in production). I drive too many long commutes to depend on a completely electric car unless battery breakthroughs change the game. I had a regular Prius, which I gave to my daughter. I liked that one.

I intend to buy an electric car in the next two years myself, but not a Tesla. Most likely I'll go with the plug-in Prius or even a Volt(if those are still in production).

This is my plan as well. As to the rebates for EV purchases, when compared to the massive hidden subsidy to big oil that ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) type cars are getting along with Government bailouts whenever they get squeezed, it is small potatoes. Considering what is coming out of ICE car tailpipes, we are being robbed by these supposedly "cheap" cars (see the interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.).

Now here's some food for thought about what it means to be a productive (i.e. fullfilled AND happy) human being.

Virtues Of The 21 Hour Work Week‏

British economist John Maynard Keynes wrote an essay in 1913 in which he predicted that by this time, we'd work an average of about 15 hours a week and we'd be 4 to 5 times richer.
That famously did not happen (See my post on "what happened to the $14.75?").

We are working more, earning less, and the whole culture is greedier, more exhausted, and much more damaging to the environment.

Meet some people who say that 21 hours is the ideal work week, that can reintroduce balance, sanity, health, ecological benefits, employment for all, and yes even increased prosperity into the equation.

About Time - 21 hours

Somehow, my favorite all-time economist, Scott Nearing, was able to run his subsistence farm with everyone involved working four hours a day. And he was so healthy he had to stop eating to be able to die when he was 100 years old and ready to depart this mortal coil.

He always said you have to be vegetarian to do that, because it takes too much work to raise animals. Maybe he was right.

Me, I will work for bacon.

Eddie, this one's for you.


Where's the Scallops??   :D

That is just beautiful. Who says Americans have no high culture?

Are there teeny tiny filet mignon inside those bacon rolls? ( And how do they do that without toothpicks?  (  ;D
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on August 12, 2018, 02:04:18 pm
Martian Badlands

Mars rover Curiosity sends images of Mount Sharp

by phenomenica on March 18, 2013

in Mars, Solar System, Space, Videos

Curiosity Rover Beams Back Hi-Res Mt. Sharp Images And A Human Voice

NASA’s Mars rover Curiosity has sent new images of Mount Sharp from the red planet, which is said to be higher than any mountain in the 48 contiguous states of the United States.

A pair of mosaics assembled from dozens of telephoto images shows Mount Sharp in dramatic detail.

The layered mound, also called Aeolis Mons, in the center of Gale Crater rises more than 3 miles (5 kilometers) above the crater floor location of Curiosity.

Lower slopes of Mount Sharp remain a destination for the mission, though the rover will first spend many more weeks around a location called “Yellowknife Bay,” where it has found evidence of a past environment favorable for microbial life.

A version of the mosaic has been white-balanced to show the terrain as if under Earthlike lighting, which makes the sky look overly blue.

White-balanced versions help scientists recognize rock materials based on their terrestrial experience.

The Martian sky would look like more of a butterscotch color to the human eye.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on August 12, 2018, 02:22:25 pm

Handyman Corner "Heater Snowmobile"

( (

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on August 12, 2018, 02:31:44 pm
Agelbert Lament: How times have changed. :( Gevo had a recent pop but has struggled all along, thanks to the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn 🦕🦖 that want to destroy all things related to Renewable Energy. With the Trump 🦀 tool of Big Oil 🦖 in power, it doesn't look good at all for Gevo.  (

Gevo: An Undervalued Spec Play With Large Short Interest And Trading Below Cash Value
Feb 27 2013, 13:24  | 2 commentsby: bsiflingtrades  |  about: GEVO, includes: TOT Disclosure: I am long GEVO. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

The S&P 500 Index ETF (SPY) has had a little pull back over the last week, and when the macro market starts to sell off, money usually tends to flood into spec plays. We are now down trending under the 9 EMA on the daily chart, and will soon be confirming the move this week in my opinion.

The Background:

Now, as I was looking for new opportunities, I came across a speculative small cap company called Gevo Inc (GEVO). The business summary of the company is found below..

"Gevo, Inc., a development stage renewable chemicals and biofuels company, focuses on the development and commercialization of alternatives to petroleum-based products based on isobutanol produced from renewable feedstocks. The company develops Gevo Integrated Fermentation Technology, an integrated technology platform for the production and separation of isobutanol. Isobutanol is a four carbon alcohol for use as a specialty chemical or a value-added fuel blendstock, as well as could be converted into butenes, which are primary hydrocarbon building blocks used in the production of lubricants, rubber, plastics, fibers, other polymers, and hydrocarbon fuels. It also produces and sells ethanol and related products. Gevo, Inc. has a development agreement with BioFuel Energy Corp for production of isobutanol. The company was formerly known as Methanotech, Inc. and changed its name to Gevo, Inc. in March 2006. Gevo, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado."

There are many spec plays going around, but this is one that I think could eventually be bought out. However, on their own they can license production technique as well as sell a product directly to the market. The current administration in Washington has emphasized the importance of renewable energies and are creating a climate for companies like this to thrive. I detail many reasons below on why I think this could be the next big runner. (
Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on August 12, 2018, 02:40:22 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Surly is the most principled person at the Doomstead Diner. He is a man of integrity and good will. However, his diet choices worked against his health. He had heart surgery (though not a bypass - it had to do with Arrhythmia) in 2017. May his experience teach anyone reading this to eat a healthy diet. (

That's not a BLT!

That's a B-L-B-T-B heart attack cafe special!   (

My dear fellow,

I suspect you of exerting undue influence in getting Eddie to "pig out"! ;D

No such thing as too much bacon.

Of course, I am saying this PRE-bypass.

Title: Re: Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟
Post by: AGelbert on August 12, 2018, 02:49:15 pm
ONVO 3D tissue printing has potential to do away with "animal model" testing by scientists. 👍👍 👍  (

Checking In On Organovo

Mar 20 2013, 07:38  | 5 commentsby: Jason Napodano  |  about: ONVO.PK, includes: PFE, UTHR Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)

By Jason Napodano, CFA

On March 15, 2013, Organovo Holdings (ONVO.PK) reported financial results for 2012 and provided insight into the business plan for 2013. By all measure, 2012 was a banner year for the company, kicking off with the reverse merger late 2011 and financings to fund operations that took place in February and March 2012 and culminating with the highly successful warrant tender started late December 2012 and just recently completed earlier this month. In between, the company continues to operate on its business plan, which includes delivering on, expanding, and signing new business collaborations. Total revenues in 2012 were $1.197 million, consisting of recognition under agreements with United Therapeutics, Pfizer, and the NIH.

…Existing Collaborations…

In December 2010, Organovo entered into a $600,000 collaborative research agreement with Pfizer (PFE) to develop specific three-dimensional tissue based drug discovery assays in two therapeutic areas utilizing the NovoGen MMX Bioprinter technology. Pfizer has paid the company all $600,000 under the agreement, as Organovo delivered the constructs to Pfizer during the fourth quarter 2012. Constructs delivered by Organovo are currently being evaluated in Pfizer's laboratory. No specific timeframe has been given, but we suspect that Pfizer will come back to Organovo in the next six to twelve months. Ideally, Pfizer and Organovo will sign an additional agreement that expands the relationship at that time. We anticipate any new deal signed will provide an upfront payment, as well as the potential to earn development, regulatory, and sales-related milestones, as well as royalties on commercialized products.

In October 2011, Organovo entered into a $1,365,000 research agreement with United Therapeutics (UTHR) to establish and conduct a research program to discover treatments for pulmonary hypertension using the NovoGen MMX Bioprinter technology. The initial term of the collaboration was for 30 months. However, in November 2012, Organovo and United Therapeutics executed an amendment to the agreement adding additional research scope and providing for additional collaborative research funding. This new expansion of the agreement added $150,000 to the contract. To date, Organovo has recognized a total of $1,100,000 in payments from United Therapeutics. Based on the existing contract, $400,000 remains to be recognized in 2013.

…New Collaborations…

In December 2012, Organovo announced it started working together with Autodesk, Inc (ADSK) to create the first 3D design software for bioprinting. The software, which will be used to control the company's NovoGen MMX bioprinter, aims to represent a major step forward in usability and functionality for designing three-dimensional human tissues, and has the potential to open up bioprinting to a broader group of users.

Full article here: (