[AdamB]

I found this from Bloomberg, 6 days ago. Lies lies lies, that's all the legacy media promulgates. They truly are the Fake News.
BRICS Bank CFO Sees No Move Any Time Soon Toward Common Currency
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -bank-says

The source for the information provided were the VP and chief financial official of the New Development Bank....created by the BRIICs to do their bidding.

Do you understand the difference between the MSM reporting something, and the actual BRIIC representatives themselves saying it? Why do you believe what the BRIIC nations are saying is a lie? Do you get special reports from the Illuminati with pictures and small words in the title for those who didn't graduate high school claiming something different?

[Subjectivist]

Politics aside this is interesting.

On Energy, Finally Some Good News

I see that everything I have written today is about energy, which makes sense given that, along with general civilizational collapse, it is the defining issue of our time. So let’s finally have some good news: Duke Energy, one of America’s largest utilities, has announced that it has shifted course and will replace a retiring coal-fired power plant in North Carolina with nuclear energy rather than expensive and unreliable wind turbines. American Experiment’s Isaac Orr has the story:
Duke Energy recently made a smart announcement, outlining plans to replace one of the company’s coal-fired power plants with new small modular reactors at the Belews Creek Steam Station. In doing so, Duke is taking a “replace the existing coal plants with nuclear before retiring them” approach to ensure reliability is maintained or improved as required by [North Carolina statute] HB 951.

This is the exact strategy American Experiment and the John Locke Foundation have suggested for North Carolina and Duke Energy over the last three years, and it is a major win for our organizations.

John Locke and American Experiment collaborated on three reports on energy policy in North Carolina. American Experiment furnished the technical analysis. It is good to see that sometimes, at least, facts and logic can prevail.

Among these reports was our analysis of Duke Energy’s Carbon Plans, a report in which the utility laid out four different ways to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions in compliance with the state’s 100 percent carbon-free mandate, HB 951. Our modeling found the plans that relied heavily on wind and solar would be expensive and result in capacity shortfalls, i.e., rolling blackouts.

We also presented an alternative plan, which we called the “Least Cost Decarbonization” scenario, that relied extensively on the idea that existing coal plants should not be retired until there is a suitable, reliable nuclear plant built to replace them, as we wrote in our 2022 report:

The LCD [scenario] would utilize existing coal plants to mitigate rising natural gas prices and keep these units online until the mid-2030s, when new nuclear power plants would be brought online to replace them. This strategy is consistent with the letter — and the spirit — of HB 951, which seeks to optimize low costs and reliability by providing flexibility on the timeline for coal unit retirements. This approach would also minimize fuel supply risks for natural gas, which could be constrained by a lack of pipeline capacity.

Gradually replacing coal plants with new nuclear facilities will save hundreds of billions of dollars compared to attempting to replace them with wind, solar, and battery storage and provide a superior reliability value to North Carolinians.
Emphasis added. It is a big win, and I hope many more will follow.

Still, one has to wonder: why are these victories so hard to achieve? Why would utilities and politicians not want to save hundreds of billions of dollars? And why would they not want an electric grid that can keep the lights on?

Of course I understand the financial motive: the Democratic Party is trying to shift trillions of dollars into industries that reliably support that party’s politicians, including utilities that dance to the “green” tune. But I think the truth is darker than that. I think the Democratic Party is trying to destroy the middle class, an idea first brought to my mind by Glenn Reynolds.

Energy costs account for around 8% of the average American family’s budget, but that doesn’t include the energy costs incorporated into every good and service that we buy. And of course, it is an average. If you are a limousine liberal, the percentage is probably negligible. Whereas, if your family is living on the edge, it is much higher. But take the average: what will happen to a typical middle-class family if energy costs triple or quadruple, as current policies imply? Middle-class families will be struggling to stay viable.

I think this is not a bug, but a feature–the main feature–of liberal energy policies. For most of human history, societies have consisted of a small oligarchy at the top, a middling group–doctors, lawyers and such–scrambling to curry favor with the oligarchs, and a vast peonage struggling to get by. For a brief shining moment, America left this pattern behind, and our country consisted mostly of a prosperous and independent middle class. That situation is intolerable to liberals, and they are trying to bring it to an end, and to restore the historic, oligarchic norm. Energy policy driven by “climate change” hysteria is how they plan to get there.

So we need many more victories like the one in North Carolina.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/08/on-energy-finally-some-good-news.php? https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ ... d-news.php?

[Plantagenet]

.... one has to wonder: why are these victories so hard to achieve? Why would utilities and politicians not want to save hundreds of billions of dollars? And why would they not want an electric grid that can keep the lights on?

Of course I understand the financial motive: the Democratic Party is trying to shift trillions of dollars into industries that reliably support that party’s politicians, including utilities that dance to the “green” tune. But I think the truth is darker than that. I think the Democratic Party is trying to destroy the middle class, an idea first brought to my mind by Glenn Reynolds.

I don't think the D party is consciously trying to destroy the middle class.

I think destroying the middle class is an accidental by-product of current D liberal policies.

There's an old saying.....the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The Ds have the best of intentions.....

The Ds think it's "racist" that many people of color get arrested for minor crimes like shoplifting......so they decriminalize shoplifting. But this has the accidental side effect of normalizing shoplifting and making it rampant in cities, which in turn destroys middle class businesses and jobs.

The Ds think the police are "racist" so they defund the police, which has the effect of vastly increasing drug use and other criminal activity especially in poor areas.

The Ds think migrants should be freely allowed to cross the border into the USA, which is great for the penniless migrants but tends to depress wages for poor Americans by flooding the labor force with untrained workers.

AND

The Ds think nuclear power is evil, so they do everything they can to obstruct and block nuclear power construction, which in turn forces more use of coal and NG and results in higher CO2 emissions and increased global warming.


the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Cheers!

[theluckycountry]

You guys love your politics don't you. But remember, these "processes" these "policies" are happening all over the world at the same time, in lockstep, where the Democratic party of America is of no influence.

What the leaders of the world are pretending to do today it to transfer the world from cheap coal and oil infrastructure to very expensive renewable types at a time in history when we are struggling to simply maintain the infrastructure we have now. I say "pretending" because I don't believe for a minute that the people in power actually believe this transition is possible. Many of us here know that of course, the numbers have been run, there will be no transition to the EV simply due to the cost and the cost of replacement. Solar is the same. It may seem cheap but it needs constant replacement and it's all made from OIL.

The Great Transition to rebuildables is simply a way of making more money out of oil and coal (China) and a way of keeping the masses from asking the only question that matters. "What is going to happen to us and out 21st century lifestyles when there is no oil and Gas left?" Think of all the oil currently being redirected from consumers to build and transport all this stuff?

[theluckycountry]

If you can see past your Russophobia and the constant programming by the western media that Putin is dying of cancer and their economy is in ruins, you begin to see some interesting facts.

Renewable energy in Russia mainly consists of hydroelectric energy. In 2010, the country was the sixth largest producer of renewable energy in the world, although it was 56th when hydroelectric energy was not taken into account.

Now there's a typical bit of western Russia bashing, 56th when hydro is exclude. By why exclude it? Well obviously because it shows how advanced Russia is in the area of renewables. "Practical Renewables" that is. Just like Norway.

Some 179 TWh of Russia's energy production came from renewable energy sources, out of a total economically feasible potential of 1823 TWh. 16% of Russia's electricity was generated from hydropower, and less than 1% was generated from all other renewable energy sources combined. Roughly 68% of Russia's electricity was generated from thermal power and 16% from nuclear power.

While most of the large hydropower plants in Russia date from the Soviet era, the abundance of fossil fuels in the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation has resulted in little need for the development of other renewable energy sources. By 2020, wind and solar only account to 0.2% of electricity generation, compared to the world average of 10%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable ... _in_Russia

So basically Russia hasn't devoted much capital to these other renewables. And why should it? It doesn't need to pretend it's running low on fossil fuels because it isn't running low on fossil fuels. Sure it's general population doesn't enjoy the lavish lifestyle of us in the West. And that is probably a big part of why they have so much energy still.

Every dollar the Western world spends on electric vehicles and rebuildable energy machines is a dollar they could have redirected to mass transit and energy efficient homes and appliances.

But that is not the Western way. The western way is Big Bigger and Biggest.

[Plantagenet]

What the leaders of the world are pretending to do today it to transfer the world from cheap coal and oil infrastructure to very expensive renewable types

Not really.

As I'm sure you know, Lucky, that is true in the USA and the EU, but in China and India they don't even pretend that there is an end to the use of coal and a transition to renewable....CHina and India and some other 3drd world countries are actually doubling down on coal-fired power.. The Chinese, for instance, are currently in the process of building TWO NEW COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS every week.

china-two-new-coal-power-plants-per-week-in-2022

The Great Transition to rebuildables is simply a way of making more money out of oil and coal (China) and a way of keeping the masses from asking the only question that matters. "What is going to happen to us and out 21st century lifestyles when there is no oil and Gas left?" Think of all the oil currently being redirected from consumers to build and transport all this stuff?

The masses will find out soon enough about the limits to oil production because global oil production is going to peak in the 2020s.

But by then there will be a bigger problem......a lack of food due to global warming and climate disrupting global food supplies. You can see it happening right now during 2023's jump to a hotter climate.

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

I
So basically Russia hasn't devoted much capital to these other renewables. And why should it? It doesn't need to pretend it's running low on fossil fuels because it isn't running low on fossil fuels.

It's foolish for Russia to burn all their fossil fuels. Just like other countries, Russia should stop using fossil fuels and shift to renewables because global warming is going to incinerate every tree in Siberia if they don't.


Siberia is the site of the some of the largest forest fires in the world and its just going to get worse.....if we don't stop putting CO2 into the air global warming is going to incinerate every tree in Siberia

Cheers!

[theluckycountry]

...a lack of food due to global warming and climate disrupting global food supplies. You can see it happening right now during 2023's jump to a hotter climate.

Cheers!

A large part of that is the sanctions against Russia, which is the largest exporter of fertilizer on the planet (it's made from natural gas)

The Global Implications of Fertilizer Shortages
https://www.agricultureportal.co.za/ind ... -shortages

Fertilizer Shortage in the US and Canada Expected to Drive Down Yields

But the USA isn’t the one facing the worst of the fertilizer shortage. Europe has curtailed fertilizer production immensely because natural gas prices saw meteoric increases.

https://www.iamm.green/fertilizer-shortage/

At a certain price point farmers simply cannot afford it and curtail sales. That is what is happening across much of the world. Food is fossil fuels basically.

[theluckycountry]

It's foolish for Russia to burn all their fossil fuels. Just like other countries, Russia should stop using fossil fuels and shift to renewables because global warming is going to incinerate every tree in Siberia if they don't.

Nonsense. By that logic America is foolish for continuing to burn all it's oil coal and gas. Besides, a lot of russian energy goes into China and India to fuel the building and export of rebuildable alternate energy stuff. Should they stop that? That's the great hope remember.

If I was running Russia I'd curtail ALL exports to non-friendly nations and Shepard the reserves left. It's clear the Western world hates the Russians, I don't know why they continue to aid those feckless turds in the EU. I'd let them starve, let them Freeze. Perhaps that's what's now happening? Perhaps Russia is happy with sanctions, with being kicked out of SWIFT. Now they can deal directly with the friendly nations, China, India and SA etc and turn their back on the old European empires that have stabbed them in the back for so long.

[Newfie]

Lucky,
Actually that would be a great strategy to stop climate change. Stop ALL international trade, NONE, period. Let each country live or die on their own merits. But that also means that each country has to have infinite respect for national borders.

Let Russia live inside Russias borders, and Ukraine inside Ukraines. And the same for USA, UK China and all the rest.Dissolve the EU, all separate countries. Then let each country live or die by what is within their borders. No trade, no aide.

Of course the rather quick outcome of this would be mass star²vation and civil war and rapid deportation. Think of Saudi Arabia, how many can they support themselves without oil trade? Or Oz, NZ, China, all would be very hard hit.

Russia, relative to most countries would likely do well. Ironically the USA would probably see the least impact.

I bet we would be under a billion by 2070. And after an initial burst of emissions climate gasses would start to go down fast.

[mousepad]

Lucky,
Actually that would be a great strategy to stop climate change. Stop ALL international trade,

So trucking tomatoes from california to boston (3000 miles) is ok, but shipping asparagus from southern germany into switzerland (100 miles) would not be ok because it crosses a border?

Passenger transport (car) accounts for the big chunk of about 50% of all transportation energy used.
The funny thing is reducing energy use in transport only makes this energy available for other uses. And the 3rd world is eager to gobble up any energy the West don't use.

[Newfie]

OK, so now you see the connectedness of the world.

[theluckycountry]

Unfortunately you can't stop trade. As soon as goods stop crossing borders armies do, goes the old saw, and we have seen that time and again. I have no doubt once oil is gone for personal use we will see a big reduction but it will continue. Just imagine if all the easily accessible oil we have today was reserved exclusively for cargo trains transporting from mines and farms and manufacturing hubs and then for ocean going ships onto trains for distribution. How long would it last? 1000 years? 10,000 years? Certainly a lot longer than our current usage where nearly every individual in the western world has a personal automobile to use every day of the year.

This is why "running out of oil" is not a problem as many see it. The real problem will be you and me losing access to it either due to price or government mandate. Why this process hasn't been initiated formally yet I don't know but it tells me we are not in any real trouble yet. In London and China and Japan they restrict personal passenger travel by various legal means now. It will happen, soon too probably...

If you like podcasts here is a good one I think. I listen to them as I work around the house and yard on an iriver T30. The T30 is small and uses a AAA battery, very resiliant, I have several bought back in the days when you could find them on eBay.

https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/ ... -jancovici right-click the cloud icon and "save as" to grab a copy