Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on November 18, 2020

Bookmark and Share

Peak Oil Never Went Away

Peak Oil Never Went Away thumbnail

Do you remember peak oil? It was all the rage a decade ago. Now, almost no one is talking about it. The funny thing is, the problem never went away. If anything, it’s gotten worse.

In this post, I take a deep dive into peak oil. I show you that the peak in the production of conventional crude oil isn’t some distant prospect. It’s already happened. What’s more, the model that correctly predicted this peak suggests that conventional oil production is about to collapse.

Yes, talk of peak oil went away. But the problem didn’t.

Peak oil — A brief history

If you use an exhaustible resource, you will eventually run out. This fact is so obvious that everyone understands it … at least in principle. But in practice, humans are shockingly bad at predicting resource exhaustion. Why? The reason, I believe, is that we don’t understand things that are big.

Here’s an example. Imagine you’re stuck on a desert island with a one-year supply of food. What would you do? You’d probably ration the food so it lasted as long as possible. Now imagine that you had 100-year’s worth of food? Now what would you do? To hell with rationing … you’d probably gorge yourself without worry. This change in behavior is important. Like the 1-year stock, the 100-year stock of food is still exhaustible. But it’s so large that it seems infinite. And so you behave like the resource is actually infinite.

When this behavior plays out in the real world, the results are always the same. We exhaust a seemingly inexhaustible resource — and we do so sooner than we expect. Here are a few examples. The bison of North American were once so plentiful that they seemed infinite. Yet by the end of the 19th century, only a few hundred were left. The passenger pigeon once flocked in numbers that darkened the sky. And so we harvested them by the train car … until they went extinct. Whales seemed an inexhaustible source of fuel oil. But soon their numbers were decimated. I could go on …

Luckily, the switch to fossil fuels saved whales from extinction. Still, we’re doing the same thing with fossil fuels as we did with whales — treating them as though they were infinite. The difference, though, is that the stock of fossil fuels is vastly larger than any fuel stock we’ve used before. That makes perceiving its finite nature even harder.

To give you a sense of the size of fossil fuel reserves, Figure 1 compares the cumulative US production of crude oil to the cumulative US production of whale oil. Here’s how to read the plot. Pick a year on the horizontal axis. The value on the vertical axis indicates the amount of the resource harvested up to that year. By 1880, for instance, the US had harvested about 0.05 EJ of whale oil. In the same year, it had already harvested about 10 EJ of crude oil. (Note that the vertical axis uses a log scale, so each tick mark indicates a factor of 10.) By 1880, whale-oil production had mostly stopped. But crude-oil production kept growing. Today, the US has harvested about 20,000 times more crude oil than whale oil.

 

Figure 1: The cumulative production of whale oil and crude oil in the United States. The vertical axis shows the cumulative production of energy up to the respective year (horizontal axis). So far, the total US production of crude oil dwarfs whale-oil production by a factor of about 20,000. [Sources and methods]

The immensity of this crude oil reserve is hard to fathom. Think of all the whales ever slaughtered. Put them in a pile … and then make it 20,000 times bigger. That’s the magnitude of the US stock of crude oil. It’s immense. But it’s not infinite.

In fact, the finite nature of US crude oil reserves is visible in Figure 1. When we plot cumulative production on a log scale, resource exhaustion appears as an f-curve. When the resource is first harvested, cumulative production grows rapidly. On the f-curve, this rapid harvest appears as a steep slope. From day one, though, the production growth rate actually declines. This gives rise to the upper part of the f-curve. Growth slows and eventually plateaus.

The f-curve shape is caused by a simple principle: when you harvest an exhaustible resource, you exploit the easy pickings first. Initial growth is therefore fast. But as you move on to resources that are harder to exploit, growth slows. Today, cumulative crude oil production is approaching a plateau similar to that reached by whale oil in the 1880s. It’s a foreshadow of resource exhaustion.

Despite the ominous trend, the scale of crude oil reserves misleads us. And so most people forget that these reserves are finite. Fortunately, not everyone is fooled. Back in 1956, US oil production was exploding. But the geologist M. King Hubbert was worried about a different trend. Yes, oil production was growing. But oil discovery was not. By 1956, the rate of US oil discovery was in steep decline. This fact led Hubbert to make a startling prediction: US oil production would soon peak.

The peak would come, Hubbert predicted, around 1970. And that’s exactly what happened. As Figure 2 shows, US oil production peaked in 1970 and then began to decline. True, Hubbert’s prediction wasn’t perfect. He got the height of the peak (and subsequent decline) wrong by about 30%. Still, we should give credit where it’s due. Before Hubbert, most people thought that the peak of US oil production was a problem for the distant future. It was not.

 

Figure 2: US oil production and Hubbert’s 1956 prediction. Hubbert assumed that the US would eventually harvest 200 billion barrels of oil, and that the peak of production would come in 1970. [Sources and methods].

Until the late 2000s, US oil production continued to decline as Hubbert predicted. Then in 2008, something changed. Oil production began to rise. Today, Hubbert’s prediction is flat out wrong. He predicted that by 2020, the US would produce 20% as much oil as it did in 1970. Instead, it produces 20% more oil. Why the reversal?

What you’re seeing after 2008 is the shale-oil boom. Unlike conventional crude oil, shale oil is found in solid form. It’s essentially oil trapped within sedimentary rock. Over the last decade, the US has exploited its shale-oil reserves, with dramatic results that Hubbert didn’t predict. To many people, this boom spells the end of Hubbert’s ‘doomism’.

I think this euphoria is unwarranted. Like conventional crude, shale oil is a finite resource that will eventually be exhausted. What’s more, none of the shale oil currently being harvested is a new discovery. In fact, Hubbert knew about it in 1956. He pegged US shale-oil reserves at about 1 trillion barrels of oil. (Modern estimates peg US shale reserves between 0.3 – 1.5 trillion barrels.) To give you some perspective, that’s about 5 times more shale oil than Hubbert’s estimate for the total US reserve of conventional crude oil (which he pegged at 200 billion barrels). But while he knew about shale reserves, Hubbert didn’t include them in his peak-oil prediction. Why?

His reason was simple — there was no commercially viable way to extract shale oil. Today, evidently, things have changed (although perhaps not as much as you might think.) In 2008, oil companies started to harvest shale oil using a process called hydraulic fracturing (i.e. fracking). This involves pumping high-pressure liquid into a wellbore, which then fractures the shale formation, causing oil to flow. It’s a technology that existed (experimentally) when Hubbert made his prediction. But he never foresaw its widespread use.

For many people, the shale-oil revolution spells the end of peak oil — pushing it into the indefinite future. The problem, though, is that it’s easy to be misled by big numbers. Yes, the US probably has some 1 trillion barrels of shale oil in its reserves. But that doesn’t mean that all of it — or even a significant fraction of it — will be harvested.

The reason is that when it comes to harvesting energy, quality is as important as quantity. Here’s a simple example. Every year the Earth releases about 1500 EJ (1018 Joules) of energy in the form of geothermal heat. To give you some perspective, that’s about 250% more energy than humanity used in 2019.1 Can this vast geothermal reserve solve our energy problems?

Not really.

The problem is that while the quantity of geothermal energy is enormous, its quality is poor. Most geothermal energy comes as low-temperature heat that’s spread across the Earth’s surface. This diffuseness makes geothermal energy difficult to harvest. Because of this poor quality, we’ll probably harvest only a minuscule fraction of the Earth’s geothermal energy.

The same is probably true of shale oil. Yes, there are potentially 1 trillion barrels of shale oil waiting to be harvested. But this oil is difficult to extract. And for that reason, my guess is that most of it will probably remain unused.

Although shale-oil production has exploded in the last decade, cracks in the euphoria are starting to appear. That’s because the shale boom has been driven largely by the promise of profit. Shale companies swallowed big losses while they ramped up production. The assumption was that windfall profits would eventually come. They haven’t. As Jed Graham observes, “Shale companies simply haven’t made much money from the fracking revolution.” In many ways, this lack of profit vindicates what many peak-oil theorists have been saying for years. Yes, the stock of shale oil is huge. But most of this stock, they say, is probably not worth harvesting.

What fraction of its shale oil will the US eventually exploit? That’s hard to know. But suppose it’s 20%. If Hubbert was correct to peg shale reserves at 1 trillion barrels, that means the US will eventually harvest 200 billion barrels of shale oil. That’s a lot of oil — about the same as Hubbert’s estimate for the entire US reserve of conventional crude oil. This plethora of oil should buy us a lot of time, right?

Actually, no. Figure 3 shows what happens when we add 200 billion barrels of shale oil to Hubbert’s original peak-oil prediction. What it gets us is a second peak … today. If this guess is correct, what’s ahead is not the euphoric growth of oil production, but steep decline.

 

Figure 3: US oil production and a revised Hubbert prediction. I’ve assumed here that the US will eventually harvest 200 billion barrels of shale oil. Adding this value to Hubbert’s original estimate of 200 billion barrels of recoverable US crude gives the red curve for future oil production. [Sources and methods].

Time will tell if this prediction is correct. (If you’re reading this post in 2030, remind me to revisit my prediction.)

Peak oil goes away

After Hubbert’s 1956 prediction, the idea of peak oil went largely undiscussed for the rest of the 20th century. The reason was familiar — the peak of global oil production was a problem for the distant future.

Hubbert predicted that global oil production would peak at the turn of the 21st century. Unsurprisingly, it was around this time that interest in peak oil was revived. In 2005, The Oil Drum was born, sparking much peak-oil commentary. At the same time, geologists like Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrère revisited Hubbert’s predictions for global oil production and found that the timing was on track. Conventional oil production, they argued, would soon peak.

Then came the US shale-oil boom. It’s no exaggeration to say that the shale boom killed talk of peak oil. Figure 4 tells the story. I’ve plotted here the frequency of the phrase ‘peak oil’ in the Google books corpus. Its popularity exploded in the early 2000s. But after 2008 — the year that the shale boom began — talk of peak oil plummeted.

 

Figure 4: The rise and fall of peak oil discussion. I’ve plotted here the frequency of the phrase ‘peak oil’ in the Google books corpus. [Sources and methods].

Today, peak oil is again a fringe idea. But while discussion went away, the problem didn’t. In fact, the peak of conventional crude oil is already behind us.

The peak of conventional oil

In 1956, M. King Hubbert predicted that the global production of oil would peak around the year 2000. Looking only at conventional crude oil, it turns out that Hubbert got the timing right. As Figure 5 shows, the global peak of conventional crude production came in 2005. But despite getting the timing right, Hubbert got the height of the peak wrong by a factor of 2.

 

Figure 5: Global production of conventional crude oil. I compare here the the global production of conventional crude oil to predictions by Hubbert and Hallock et al. Hubbert got the timing right, but the height of the peak wrong. Hallock’s prediction (which is based on far better data) remains on track. [Sources and methods].

It may just be luck that Hubbert got the height of the peak wrong but the timing right. But this luck still illustrates an important principle: exponential growth can quickly eat away at any resource. Hubbert underestimated the amount of crude oil we would discover. But we exploited this larger reserve faster than he anticipated. So his timing remained correct.

To be fair to Hubbert, when he made his prediction, the size of the crude oil stock was uncertain. Today there is less uncertainty, which makes modeling easier.

Perhaps the most rigorous prediction (to date) for conventional oil production comes from John Hallock Jr. and colleagues. In 2004, Hallock estimated the conventional oil reserves in all of the major oil-producing countries. Based on the range of these estimates, Hallock then created different scenarios for future oil production. In 2014, Hallock and colleagues revisited these scenarios to see which one was correct. Global oil production, they found, was following the low-end estimate. Figure 5 shows Hallock’s low-end model. It’s shockingly accurate. For the last 20 years, the model has predicted the global production of conventional oil to within 2%.

The real test for Hallock’s prediction will come in the next few decades. If the model is correct, we’re on the precipice of an oil-production collapse. By 2040, the model predicts that we’ll be back to 1960-levels of oil production. But by then, the oil will be used by 3 times the population.

If you’re reading this post in 2040 (and I haven’t kicked the bucket), remind me to revisit Hallock’s prediction.

The path ahead

Predicting the peak of global oil production has always involved a large dose of uncertainty. To predict peak oil, you must estimate 3 things:

  1. The size of oil reserves that will be discovered in the (indefinite) future
  2. The portion of these reserves we will exploit
  3. How rapidly we will exploit these reserves

Needless to say, estimating these 3 quantities is not easy. That’s why peak oil predictions are often wrong. Imagine at the beginning of the industrial revolution trying to predict the amount of crude oil humanity would eventually discover. You’d be lucky to get within a factor of 10.

As time goes by, though, the future becomes easier to see. That’s because fewer and fewer oil reserves remain undiscovered. In 1956, Hubbert guessed that humanity would eventually harvest 1.25 trillion barrels of (conventional) oil. How close was he? We won’t know until we’ve exhausted all our oil. But if Hallock’s model is correct, humanity will eventually harvest 1.9 trillion barrels of conventional crude. So Hubbert may have gotten it right to within a factor of 2. That’s not bad.

When it comes to unconventional oil, estimates become even harder. For one thing, the size of these reserves are poorly known. Worse still, we have no idea what portion of these reserves we will eventually exploit. (With conventional crude, we know that we’ll exploit almost everything we discover.) So the future of total oil production (both conventional and unconventional) remains uncertain.

Technological optimists think that unconventional oil will push the peak of total oil production into the distant future. I’m more skeptical. Assuming Hallock’s model is right, I doubt that unconventional oil sources will offset the coming collapse of conventional crude production. In fact, I’d go a step further and say that we’re able to harvest low-quality shale oil precisely because we’re producing so much conventional crude. Take away the conventional crude, and I’d guess that harvesting low-quality shale oil will become unfeasible.

Whatever happens, it’s clear that the future will be unlike the past. Every living human has known nothing but energy boom. But when you harvest an exhaustible resource, the bust always comes. It’s just a matter of when.

Top Down



33 Comments on "Peak Oil Never Went Away"

  1. Roger on Wed, 18th Nov 2020 7:45 pm 

    Yep.

  2. Theedrich on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 4:18 am 

    Yes, the end IS nigh. With no new energy source. There has been an exponential increase in human population, most of it ThirdWorldesque and barely literate, but all of it demanding lots of energy.  From Whitey.  White genosuicidism has assisted the demand at the same time that exploding world population as a whole has squandered planetary resources and caused incalculable pollution of all sorts.

    Westerners — especially the elites — generally do not understand that there are non-Westerners with completely different, non-postChristian mindsets and behavioral patterns.  The rulers interpret everything in terms of Marxist economics:  lack of money makes people primitive, so dropping money on them from helicopters will solve the problem.  Western overlords also force darkies into immediate proximity with Whites, encourage interracial marriage, and allow psychotropic drugs to poison millions of people under their control.  That will make everyone “equal” — everyone, that is, except the rulers themselves.

    As the oil dearth becomes more evident and the Leftist destruction of Western economies proceeds, the American military will be called upon to take oil from anywhere it can be found.  That is the greatest threat posed by the Democrat usurpation of power in the U.S.  This is no longer 1941, when the U.S. can ensnare a naïve country into attacking it as an excuse for war.  We are facing nuclear obliteration if the Dems have their way.

    Peak oil is a reality, and we are at that peak right now, as the Hallock diagram shows.  Given traditional Yankee arrogance, we can expect the traitor who has won the popular vote to invade Venezuela “to re-establish democracy,” of course.  The land of the freebie and home of the knave has already robbed a shipload of Iranian oil bound for that country, so invasion is a logical next step.

    For, as the potentates will discover, renewables cannot save us.

  3. Cloggie on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 5:07 am 

    “Yes, the end IS nigh. With no new energy source.”

    Get yourself a physics degree and immerse yourself for a decade in scanning the internet for renewable energy news and you know for a fact that in the long term (2100) there is no energy problem whatsoever.

    https://deepresource.wordpress.com/

    Solar, wind, biomass, hydro, hydrogen, redox-flow, metal fuels, heat pumps, seasonal storage of heat in large water volumes, massive pumped hydro-storage, autonomous driving (eliminating the need for toxic private car ownership), virtual workplace (eliminating commuting and enabling rural retreat), etc., etc., are standing by to take over from fossil.

    More pressing problems are: climate, non-energy related resource depletion, overpopulation, pollution, oceans, nuclear proliferation, mass migration.

    But not energy production. Non-issue. Paradise for creative techies.

    The coming decades will be for energy technology what the period 1980-2020 was for IT. One innovation after another.

  4. Get HaPpY on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 7:46 am 

    OK burn it and see the world get hotter..

  5. dratrepus tak people are getting high IQ because theyre nourished by muzzie coq milk on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 8:13 am 

    it’s an uphill battle for me being a tard and former paultard, my IQ started out nothing and hardly increases if ever.

    when i say things about ww2 they accuse me of history revisionism. but they don’t argue because they look down on people like me who speak low english. you would think high IQ people who suckle on muzz coq would be a bit more deference to the low IQ low english speakers who include whitey supertard president trump

    they say WW2 was faught with only a couple of prop planes is revisionism. i said once the planes sight the enemies the battles are over. low enlish is simple and this is what i learned

    but unexpectedly they agree with me that muzz-19 – or any muzz really – operates similarly to ww2 battels. the muzz-19 vaxx aids in the sighting of convict-19 or any convict really and the battle is over, convict-19 is elimiated

    please speak low english

  6. Antius on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 9:02 am 

    It is a false assumption that peak oil does not matter just because wind and solar power exist and can theoretically provide energy. The transition ahead, if it occurs at all, will be enormously costly and difficult. As a minimum, a huge amount of new infrastructure is going to be needed for these things to power civilisation. And the investment volumes are not there at present, given the rapid rate of decline in EROI of oil and the impending production decline rate.

    More significantly, the sort of systems that we have built up to work with fossil fuels, don’t work well with renewable energy. Road based haulage and car based personal transport, are cumbersome and energy intensive solutions that don’t work well on a renewable energy base. The price of electric cars is testament to that. Generally, people are trying to fit renewable energy to the existing way of doing things, rather than coming up with new ways of living that actually fit the characteristics of the energy. We are trying to prop up lifestyles that really only made sense when we had access to the abundant stored energy of oil.

    A civilisation that was serious about leaving fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy, would not be building electric cars or wasting money on their charging infrastructure. It would be extending railways and tramlines and (maybe) building hydraulic pipe networks and developing short-range transportation around that. It would be building compact and walkable towns and cities, or at least moving in that direction. It would be rolling out infrastructure for velomobiles, which are human powered vehicles as fast as cars. No one wants to drive those things with SUVs, cars and HGVs rolling past them at 50mph. But if the SUVs, cars and HGVs went, velomobiles and bikes would replace them for human transport and no one would look back. Likewise homes and industry. There needs to be an intensive effort for industry to transition to renewable electricity (and compressed air and heat) as its primary source of energy. But in reality, it is just business as usual. A renewable energy base will be intermittent; there will be interruptions to power supply and there is only so much that be affordable done using energy storage. The Germans have learned that the hard way. Where are the task forces that work with industry to help manage that problem? Where is the drive to relocate industry around rail freight hubs that would allow them to transport goods by electric railways?

    I am confident that a high civilisation could be built on a renewable energy base, though income levels will be lower. I am less confident that people will actually do it, or that they even understand what they would need to do in order to achieve it.

  7. Adriano on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 12:38 pm 

    Cloggie:https://crashoil.blogspot.com/2020/11/la-fiebre-del-hidrogeno-20-i.html?m=1
    hydrogen no good.

  8. dratrepus tak But in practice, humans are shockingly bad at predicting resource exhaustion. Why? The reason, I believe, is that we don’t understand things that are big. on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 12:47 pm 

    the mechanistic aspect of ww2 just involve a couple of scouting planes

    the academic aspect involves corpious analyses, documentary, historian studies into the structure, political climate, and world events that prompted WW2

    an equally valid explanation of WW2 involves just two characters fuhrer and stalin acting out personal ambitions, nothing more.

  9. Antius on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 1:34 pm 

    “hydrogen no good.”

    Hydrogen will likely have niche applications as a fuel, chemical feedstock, as a reducing agent in metal production and of course, biomass upgrading.

    The problem is that people expect more than is realistic – for hydrogen to replace gasoline and diesel in a way that allows our fossil fuel lifestyle with all of the enormous energy consumption that that implies. The fact that hydrogen cannot do that does not mean it is useless. Iypt means our expectations need to be more realistic.

  10. zero juan on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 1:40 pm 

    Stupid fuck, juanP

    dratrepus tak But in practice, humans are shockingly bad at predicting resource exhaustion. Why? The reason, I believe, is that we don’t understand things that are big. said the mechanistic aspect of ww2 just involve a coupl…

  11. Antius on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 1:52 pm 

    Clogiie wrote: “Experts blow up Boris’s hydrogen pipe dream: PM’s plan to replace gas boilers by 2023 is ‘impossible’ because only TWO hydrogen prototypes exist, a fifth of gas network will need to be relaid and EVERY engineer retrained”

    Hydrogen has only one third of the energy density of methane, it is therefore incompatible with existing appliances. Though it could be blended with natural gas in say a 50-50 mix without the need for new appliances.

  12. zero davy on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 1:57 pm 

    Stupid fuck, Davy

    zero juan on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 1:40 pm

  13. zero juan on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 2:54 pm 

    Ppee, is the depression catching up with you, Fuck? Good I enjoy when you are in pain.

    zero davy said Stupid fuck, Davy zero juan on Thu, 19th Nov 2020…

  14. Melania on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 3:42 pm 

    Ha ha your fuck nuckle orange god that you morons worship is so desperate that his minions are asking convicted criminal Steve banon for advice. Fuck you just can’t make this shit up of you tried.

  15. Duncan Idaho on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 3:52 pm 

    “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/11/19/dear-joe-biden-are-you-kidding-me

    Corporate whores in both “parties”

  16. Duncan Idaho on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 3:59 pm 

    Rabid GOP base now too delusional to be useful in battling incoming Biden administration

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/11/19/1996897/-Rabid-GOP-delusions-of-a-Trump-win-kneecap-efforts-to-combat-incoming-Biden-administration

    While our repug friends were never the brightest porch lights on the block, they seemed to have fallen further.

  17. Duncan Idaho on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 4:03 pm 

    TRUMP’S LAWYER: He’s an ‘Idiot’ Whose Supporters ‘Don’t Care that He’s a Lying, Criminal Dirtbag’

    They like criminal dirtbags!

    Of course, idiots stick together.

  18. Duncan Idaho on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 4:16 pm 

    Rudy Giuliani’s hair dye drips down head during press conference
    (Take a look)

    https://mondrian.mashable.com/lead-img-rudy-giuliani-hair-dye-sweat-press-conference.jpg

  19. JuanP on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 4:52 pm 

    You are going down dumbcan. You had your couple of weeks to gloat over your steal but soon your ilk will be locked up!

  20. zero davy on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 4:55 pm 

    DaVvee, is the depression catching up with you, Fuck? Good! we all enjoy when you are in pain.

    zero davy said: You are going down dumbcan. You had your couple of weeks to gloat over your steal but soon your ilk will be locked up!

  21. Melania on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 5:35 pm 

    Coved deaths are like a 9/11 every second day but el presidente has more important things to think about like which of his resorts should he have his next round of golf

  22. zero juan on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 5:37 pm 

    Ppeeee, what is a dratrepus tak, fuck face?

    Melania said Coved deaths are like a 9/11 every second day but…

    dratrepus tak doug nicodemus i appoint you supertard your title is the lover of supremacist muzzies said congratuations on your apppointment. please change…

  23. JuanP on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 5:47 pm 

    This is for dumbcan the idaho:

    https://rumble.com/vb8hvx-breaking-down-wisconsins-recount.html

  24. dratrepus tak convict-19 was invented to diversify crutiny of election theft for whitey supertard president biden on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 6:20 pm 

    release the cranken

    please change ur unddies after 5 days supertard
    please love supremacit muzzies more

    ‘lo allah told the pedifiler muhammad that muzz are best of humanity, kafir are worse of animals. this is the birth of supremacist muzzies

    btw, supremacist muzzies bag day feb12021

  25. makati1 on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 6:39 pm 

    JuanP, what is a dratrepus tak?

    dratrepus tak convict-19 was invented to diversify crutiny of election theft for whitey supertard president biden said release the cranken please change ur unddies after…

    dratrepus tak dough nicodemus the list of convict-19 promoters and hoaxers who flaunt the rule keep increasing the intardweb preserves information in easily and fast accessible way said but first we still need to amputate whitey superta…

  26. supertard makati1 on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 7:27 pm 

    people are getting high IQ because theyre nourished by muzzie coq milk

    when i say things about ww2 they accuse me of history revisionism. but they don’t argue because they look down on people like me who speak low english. you would think high IQ people who suckle on muzz coq would be a bit more deference to the low IQ low english speakers who include whitey supertard president trump

    they say WW2 was faught with only a couple of prop planes is revisionism. i said once the planes sight the enemies the battles are over. low enlish is simple and this is what i learned

    but unexpectedly they agree with me that muzz-19 – or any muzz really – operates similarly to ww2 battels. the muzz-19 vaxx aids in the sighting of convict-19 or any convict really and the battle is over, convict-19 is elimiated

    please speak low english

  27. peakyeast on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 7:57 pm 

    We have waited with the transition until it has become a choice between significant disruptions – probably a lot of hardship – and not doing anything and crash.

    The choice is not getting easier.

  28. Steve Bannon on Thu, 19th Nov 2020 8:19 pm 

    Repugs are so fucked in the head they believe covid is fake but Qanon is real . And there limp wristed chicken shit senators are too scared to say anything negative about an elderly obese cry baby

  29. Antius on Fri, 20th Nov 2020 6:02 am 

    You have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the British government.
    https://tinyurl.com/y2ubkj8u

    To ‘Defend Free and Open Societies’. Is that the freedom to be arrested and sent to prison for 6 months, whenever you dare to say something they don’t like?

    Britain has become a bad joke. It’s people have no more freedom than the average Chinese. So where exactly are these ‘free and open societies’?

  30. Antius on Fri, 20th Nov 2020 7:04 am 

    “Towards a continental European hydrogen backbone:

    https://www.neweurope.eu/article/clean-hydrogen-needs-its-own-infrastructure/

    “Clean hydrogen needs its own infrastructure””

    I can see a lot of benefit from combining energy storage options. For example, we could build a combined cycle gas turbine plant that nominally runs off of an underground LNG tank.

    Then we build a hydrogen electrolysis plant with a huge gasometer tank next to it. We could put biogas into the same tank as a supplemental energy source. For most of its operating life, the CCGT would simply run off of a mix of hydrogen and biogas, since it would be used for backup power for a predominantly wind / solar electrical grid. Only during exceptionally long lulls in renewable energy output, would the LNG tank need to be relied upon.

    There are things that could be done to eliminate the use of LNG entirely. We could keep biomass on site and convert it into syngas when hydrogen levels in the gasometer started to get low.

    An interesting option is to combine hydrogen energy storage and liquid air energy storage on the same site. A CCGT burning hydrogen, would produce waste heat with a temperature of 30C. This can be used as the heat source for liquid air energy storage. Combining the two storage mechanisms on one site, boosts the efficiency of liquid air energy storage, whilst at the same time eliminating the need for cooling towers for the CCGT.

    If high pressure air is provided to the CCGT, it will greatly reduce or eliminate the energy requirement of the compressor.

    There are huge opportunities available if liquid air, biomass and hydrogen energy storage can be combined in a hybrid approach.

  31. dissident on Fri, 20th Nov 2020 9:58 am 

    At the rate that the magic alternatives (not nuclear, of course) are being deployed, they will remain a boutique irrelevance even after the oil dregs from tight formations are in full decline.

    Energy is not optional for the economy and this includes fiat or money. So expensive, needing lots of energy alternatives are going to be deployed when the global economy is in full collapse? Keep dreaming in technicolor.

  32. Antius on Fri, 20th Nov 2020 11:35 am 

    John Kerry Says ‘Great Reset’ Is Needed To Stop Rise Of Populism.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/john-kerry-says-great-reset-needed-stop-rise-populism

    So basically, the elites are saying that the proles need to be fully enslaved before they decide to get rid of the elites.

    The far left tend to view democracy like a train. Something they ride only as long as goes the way they want. Allowing people choice over anything, only allows them to reject what you have already decided for them. So why allow them choice at all? Typical far-left thinking. It always leads to brutal oppression, murder and outright slavery if allowed to run its course.

  33. flo604 on Sat, 21st Nov 2020 3:30 pm 

    But it sure didn’t happen when you all “wise minds” predicted it…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *