Renewables to produce 85% of global electricity needs by 2050

65 Comments on "Renewables to produce 85% of global electricity needs by 2050"

Makati1 on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 5:27 pm 



More hopium and dreams of the techie class. LOL

Makati1 on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 6:01 pm 



In other news: China is buying the world with its almost worthless USDs. It takes its half trillion trade surplus and its many billions in interest from its holdings of USTs and ‘loans’ countries money to do things. Then is is repaid in resources like oil and minerals.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-06/china-loans-guinea-20-billion-exchange-minerals

No bombs involved.

Anonymouse1 on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 6:05 pm 



Naw, cloggen-fraud will be along any second to assert that this only WILL happen, but actually represents reality right now. He’ll employ sophisticated arguments, like “See, told you so”. Additionally,true to his cloggen-frauden roots, he wont even bother to actually, you know, read the report mentioned.

Ghung on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 6:34 pm 



So-called renewables produce about 99% of my electricity today if you don’t include the energy embodied in the consumer goods we use. Anyway ……..

Makati1 on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 7:17 pm 



Ghung, you are way ahead of us here in the Ps. The Philippines has about 29% ‘renewable’ electric production.

http://mecometer.com/whats/philippines/electricity-production-by-source/

But, they are adding to it all the time.

rockman on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 9:00 pm 



I don’t have a problem with such predictions. If the include at least a rough estimate of the cost to make such a transition and an idea of who will pay for it. If they can provide a credible answer to those questions it would add a lot more confidence in their prediction IMHO.

Jef on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 9:47 pm 



Ghung – 5 acres here, 3 solar set ups, wind and hydro, 5 species of livestock, 2 acres of vegetable garden, 70 fruit trees, black berry, blue berry, razz, 400′ of asparagus, two spring fed ponds, two wells, and still we are 100% reliant on a fully functioning FF derived societal system or else we would all die just like you.

P.S. I could buy all of what I produce on the open market, organic, non-gmo, natural (what ever the fuck that means) for about half or less than I spend producing all this stuff myself.

GregT on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 10:03 pm 



“we are 100% reliant on a fully functioning FF derived societal system or else we would all die just like you.”

Kind of makes one wonder, how mankind managed to survive for over 200,000 years without that fully functioning FF derived societal system, that’s only been around for less than 300 years.

Things that make you go hmmm?

And Jef, my great grandfather had far less going than what you say you do, and he managed to survive in a sod shack, through winter temperature extremes of -40C. With no electricity, no running water, and no FFs.

Strange that.

GregT on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 10:17 pm 



“P.S. I could buy all of what I produce on the open market, organic, non-gmo, natural (what ever the fuck that means) for about half or less than I spend producing all this stuff myself.”

Well it certainly is a good thing that the farmers supplying your local food mart, are more efficient at producing food than you are, or they would go broke, and everyone would starve to death.

antaris on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 10:55 pm 



Jef, my Mother (90 ) grew up on an ortchard with deer, elk and cattle close. My Father grew up hungry. One day you will be producing what is not for sale. Keep up the good work.

antaris on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 11:00 pm 



Mak. I have this vision of a very large needle in the hand of a grinning person looking at a very large balloon.
The caption above the picture ” I wonder what would happen”,

Antius on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 11:15 pm 



Same story as this one:

http://peakoil.com/consumption/gas-to-become-worlds-primary-energy-source-by-2035

Likely to be unrealistic (I responded to that post).

People making these predictions rarely appreciate the scale of the impending collapse of the global economy. We are facing an economic dislocation far more severe and protracted than the great depression of the 1930s. Huge investments in renewable energy are unlikely in that context. In fact, total investment in renewables has levelled off since 2007. When we hit the next financial crisis, they will tank altogether.

Apneaman on Wed, 6th Sep 2017 11:17 pm 



I can see it, but only because there are going to way less humans by 2050. Perhaps none at all.

Cloggie on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 1:57 am 



Another morning, another article. The good folks at DVL are basically saying that not only the EU, but also the rest of the world will succeed in getting rid of fossil fuel as far as electricity is concerned.

If you look at Europe, last year 21 GW worth of new renewable capacity was installed in Europe.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/09/new-energy-europe-renewable-sources-2016

Average electricity consumption Europe 342 GW. In other words, in merely 17 years the energy (electricity) transition could be completed. However, that 21 GW is nameplate capacity. Multiply that with a factor of 2 and you arrive at 34 years, or indeed 2050, as DVL says. By simply writing off old ff capacity in an economic fashion and replacing it with new renewable capacity.

A few amendments… we will need more electricity than the 342 GW because the transport sector will be “fueled” with electricity. That’s no problem since the speed of the transition is increasing as well and we can install much more than 21 GW per year, once the North Sea offshore wind business will really take off.

It is difficult to to keep an interest in this whole peak oil story since the die are cast already. If I would become as old as my father I will live to see the transition largely completed. Everything is in place now to get the job done, except the storage issue, that is still interesting to see what method will win: H2, NH3, pumped hydro, high pressure air in mines, methanol, formic acid, liquid electrolyte, batteries, the possibilities are endless.

The chances are good that we will have a smooth energy transition after all, certainly in Europe, that did and still does most of the pioneering work and will be rewarded with being the leader in the renewable energy field and will have corresponding geopolitical cloud it had for 500 years, until Americans and Soviets showed up. But the Soviets rolled over and died and the US empire will not exist past 2025.

Antius on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 5:56 am 



“Another morning, another article. The good folks at DVL are basically saying that not only the EU, but also the rest of the world will succeed in getting rid of fossil fuel as far as electricity is concerned.
If you look at Europe, last year 21 GW worth of new renewable capacity was installed in Europe.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/09/new-energy-europe-renewable-sources-2016
Average electricity consumption Europe 342 GW. In other words, in merely 17 years the energy (electricity) transition could be completed. However, that 21 GW is nameplate capacity. Multiply that with a factor of 2 and you arrive at 34 years, or indeed 2050, as DVL says. By simply writing off old ff capacity in an economic fashion and replacing it with new renewable capacity.”

Another morning, another slice of hopium from the Clogster. It always makes me feel better and it’s a nice little hobby shooting it all to pieces. Here is another article from the Guardian, a source of information that I would normally trust even less than the BBC:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/23/european-clean-tech-industry-falls-into-rapid-decline

Not quite so rosy is it. What the article misses is that competitive auctioning is right now forcing the European renewable energy industry into bankruptcy. The falling costs that they talk about do not exist. Falling prices are not sustainable. That is what is driving these folks out of the market. Chinese state owned industries do not need to generate profit – they are owned by the Chinese state. Most of them are ruinously uneconomic, but they will crank out subsidised exports just long enough to ruin the European renewable industry.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/12/europes-biggest-solar-company-goes-up-in-smoke/

“A few amendments… we will need more electricity than the 342 GW because the transport sector will be “fueled” with electricity. That’s no problem since the speed of the transition is increasing as well and we can install much more than 21 GW per year, once the North Sea offshore wind business will really take off.”

No it isn’t. Global and European investment in renewable energy has plateaued since 2007. The next financial crisis is not very far away. What do you think will happen when it hits?
http://euanmearns.com/worldwide-investment-in-renewable-energy-reaches-us-4-trillion-with-little-to-show-for-it/

“It is difficult to to keep an interest in this whole peak oil story since the die are cast already. If I would become as old as my father I will live to see the transition largely completed.”

I pray you are joking. The transition will be a sustained economic contraction that will see a very large drop in living standards and many millions of casualties. Take a look at Gail’s latest analysis and tell me you still feel rosy about the future:
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/09/06/why-oil-prices-cant-bounce-very-high-expect-deflation-instead/

“Everything is in place now to get the job done, except the storage issue, that is still interesting to see what method will win: H2, NH3, pumped hydro, high pressure air in mines, methanol, formic acid, liquid electrolyte, batteries, the possibilities are endless.”

Everything is most certainly not in place. To live off of renewable energy will require a complete change to the European way of life. In an ideal world, we would store as little energy as possible. One thing I have learned from energy analysis is that energy transitions are expensive – both financially and in terms of exergy. There will never be more than niche applications for energy storage systems that are capital intensive and lose most of the energy that is put into them. That includes most synthetic fuels that do not start with either hydrocarbons or biomass. You would store energy in ammonia and formic acid, only if you can use these chemicals as a final product or a feedstock for making something else. That way you can tolerate the inefficiency of storing energy in these chemicals. The same is true of hydrogen. Only a fool would make it with the intention of turning it back into electricity again. But it might be useful for upgrading biomass into higher value fuels or reducing metal oxides in an electric furnace. Hot and cold are probably our most practical means of storing large amounts of energy over long periods. Refrigeration can be accomplished in large, collective units containing phase change materials. That way, it can easily work using intermittent bursts of energy. Heat can be stored in molten phase change materials for application in industrial processes. Again, it makes more sense storing it and using it as heat, rather than converting it back into electricity. Low quality heat can be stored in liquid water and used for heating, but in most cases this would require a lot of new heat storage and distribution infrastructure in most cities.

“The chances are good that we will have a smooth energy transition after all, certainly in Europe, that did and still does most of the pioneering work and will be rewarded with being the leader in the renewable energy field and will have corresponding geopolitical cloud it had for 500 years, until Americans and Soviets showed up. But the Soviets rolled over and died and the US empire will not exist past 2025.”

The chances are virtually zero. The energy transition has been taking place since the 1970s. We are very close to a global economic depression on a scale that the world has never seen up to now. Trying to maintain an energy transition on the scale that you imagine in a world with collapsing GDP, will be a very challenging task.

Living on intermittent renewables would require not only that generation of energy shifts in that direction, but the way we use energy at every level in society needs to change as well. It means big changes to infrastructure at every level. Simple things like storing food, day-to-day transportation and heating your home will require solutions that make life radically different. You will need to make huge investments to achieve it over a short space of time, amid a climate in which global investment and free cash flows are actually shrinking.

Cloggie on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 6:25 am 



Another morning, another slice of hopium from the Clogster.

We have this discussed before, mr Plutonium. This “collapsing of investment” is mainly the result of price collapsing. I wasn’t talking growing investment, I was talking growing installed new renewable capacity.

See this link:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/renewable-energy-in-europe-2017

and click on the pdf report:

“Renewable energy in Europe 2017”

…and go to page 18 and study the graph.

THAT is what I am talking about, the growth of new installed renewable capacity in Europe. Linear growth from 22 GW in 2016 to 25 GW in 2020 and beyond. Paris is a done deal and there is no way back. And Harvey and Irma devastation are great boosters for this program.

We are very close to a global economic depression on a scale that the world has never seen up to now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM9_PrBoq9Q

In Anglosphere perhaps.

Look, I am not suggesting that between 2017-2050 everything will be a straight uninterrupted line towards a renewable energy future. It is very well possible or even likely that there will be temporary setbacks, like major financial crisis in the US, which will affect everybody. But the broad picture will be continued renewable energy penetrating, replacing fossil fuel.

And you can forget about your plutonium economy.

Cloggie on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 6:44 am 



N.B. the graph in p18 is not in GW; looking for a different graph…

Cloggie on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 6:56 am 



Yale:

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/as-prices-plunge-solar-power-expected-to-have-another-record-year-in-2017

As Prices Plunge, Solar Power Expected to Have Another Record Year in 2017

“New solar energy capacity worldwide increased by 50 percent in 2016 and may well surpass that growth this year, according to a new report from the trade group SolarPower Europe.”

Collapse?

You should quite reading frauds like Heinberg and Gail immediately.

Davy on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 7:03 am 



“One thing I have learned from energy analysis is that energy transitions are expensive – both financially and in terms of exergy. There will never be more than niche applications for energy storage systems that are capital intensive and lose most of the energy that is put into them.”

“Trying to maintain an energy transition on the scale that you imagine in a world with collapsing GDP, will be a very challenging task.”

“Living on intermittent renewables would require not only that generation of energy shifts in that direction, but the way we use energy at every level in society needs to change as well. It means big changes to infrastructure at every level. Simple things like storing food, day-to-day transportation and heating your home will require solutions that make life radically different. You will need to make huge investments to achieve it over a short space of time, amid a climate in which global investment and free cash flows are actually shrinking.”

Clog, you have met your match and it is Antius. He is presenting sobriety to your grandiosity. Your message is easy to see. It is a European energy revolution that dovetails with a new Euro superpowerdom. It is just a fantasy now. You can’t wait to get there but the reality is we are here and there is no way to know if we will make it to your selfish dream. Your dream is not inclusive. It is about a new Empire replacing an old one just like makat. It amazes me how you both feature this in your comments. Both die hard Empire in waiting proponents.

What you are preaching is important. It is likely our only hope. A hope to make thing less bad and maybe to lower pain and suffering through new energy sources. Renewables are not going to save climate. They are not going to drive growth. They may reduce the pressure on climate and they may help maintain the economy. They have exciting potentials but Antius appears to be on the right track. No one can know for sure where the right way forward is but a sober one with such daunting challenges seems more apt to succeed. It will take a generation of shifts both mental, physical, and a lot of luck. This world will not look like todays. It will not be affluent like todays. It will be a brave new hostile world of marginal living.

Cloggie on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 7:04 am 



About lower renewable energy investment in Europe (which is true):

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/05/european-wind-power-investments-expected-to-slow-in-2017.html

The European wind market will slow significantly in 2017 because governments are embracing energy auctions to attract developers and are shifting away from feed-in tariffs. Germany announced its auction results in April, while the U.K. opened its tender for offshore wind. The Netherlands, France and Spain will also host them in the coming months. Investment is also coming down because prices are falling, said Joel Meggelaars, a WindEurope spokesman.

2017 is a special year because large auctions for multiple-GW offshore projects are being prepared for the coming years.

There is no way that the renewable energy transition is being called-off in Europe. It will come in leaps and bounds though.

Cloggie on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 7:11 am 



Clog, you have met your match and it is Antius.

Antius has indeed a broad view regarding energy, but his proposal from hell, a world running on plutionium, has zero chance of becoming reality, thank God.

I can’t imagine that you are falling for that, a complete ecological nightmare. That’s not sobriety, that’s a technological dystopia, with zero significance for the third world.

Good luck with your nuclear future, I’m staying with renewable energy as I have been for the past 40 years.

He is presenting sobriety to your grandiosity.

I’m merely in line with boring EU bureaucrats & technocrats for a change, nothing beyond what they are proposing and pursuing.

Davy on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 7:35 am 



Clog, please reference where I said anything about
Antius and plutonium. Geeze you are are good at making up positions for others when cornered. This is about you clog and your future fantasy world.

Sure clog, what about Paris Berlin Moscow empire of whites in a recolonization of the world. Lol. Show me that one in the EU codex.

Cloggie on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 7:48 am 



Antius and plutonium. Geeze you are are good at making up positions for others when cornered.

You have not been paying attention then, he has repeatedly said he is advocating a 100% nuclear energy future based on plutonium, produced in nuclear fuel reprocessing and nuclear decommissioning sites like this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

Don’t believe me, ask him yourself.

Sure clog, what about Paris Berlin Moscow empire of whites in a recolonization of the world. Lol. Show me that one in the EU codex.

I never said that Europe is going to be like before 1940. After the American era…

https://www.amazon.com/End-American-Era-Geopolitics-Twenty-first-ebook/dp/B000XUDGTY/ref=sr_1_1

… we are going to have a multi-polar world, which btw IS in the EU codex and in everybody else, except Washington, but then Washington is exceptional.lol

What I did say is that Greater Europe and China will be the carrying pillars of that multi-polar world and that they together should develop a program for the third world (read Africa) and implement it in a scheme that could be called colonialism lite or “adoption”. For that purpose we can use African-Americans (like 2 on this board) as proxies.

Davy on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 8:42 am 



Clog, no, you don’t determine what I say. I referred to Antius in the above context of renewable energy. I know what he says and what you say. Stay focused I know inconvenience of reality is tough to stomach. Don’t cloud the subject.

Good luck in that fantasy Chinese/Euro multipolar world. You left out a lot of the puzzle by collapsing the US out of the equation. It is entirely possible the US will have to save your ass a third time. There is a lot of circumstances yet to coalesce. You just jump to your comfortable conclusions of pride and prejudice. Nothing about greater Europe or China is showing optimism except if you are in denial of broad based decline and fake growth.

twocats on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 9:14 am 



Jef “Ghung – 5 acres here, 3 solar set ups, wind and hydro, 5 species of livestock, 2 acres of vegetable garden, 70 fruit trees, black berry, blue berry, razz, 400′ of asparagus, two spring fed ponds, two wells, and still we are 100% reliant on a fully functioning FF derived societal system or else we would all die just like you.
P.S. I could buy all of what I produce on the open market, organic, non-gmo, natural (what ever the fuck that means) for about half or less than I spend producing all this stuff myself.”

good post jef. i know that a lot of indigenous tribes come from a very select few that were able / managed to survive major die-off style winters. one key is being able to function really really well on low blood sugar levels – i.e. not produce a lot of insulin – which is why first nations people get diabetes relatively easily.

twocats on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 9:17 am 



Headline should read “Renewables absolutely have to produce close to 85% of global electricity needs by 2050” with a subheadline, “But Climate Change to obliterate most of renewable infrastructure by 2040.”

GregT on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 9:24 am 



“Good luck in that fantasy Chinese/Euro multipolar world. You left out a lot of the puzzle by collapsing the US out of the equation.”

The U.S. is collapsing itself out of the equation. Washington has made it crystal clear that it wants a U.S. dominated world. That is simply not going to happen.

Antius on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 9:47 am 



“Antius and plutonium. Geeze you are are good at making up positions for others when cornered.
You have not been paying attention then, he has repeatedly said he is advocating a 100% nuclear energy future based on plutonium, produced in nuclear fuel reprocessing and nuclear decommissioning sites like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield
Don’t believe me, ask him yourself.”

Cloggie, Apologies for being a wind-up merchant before. It was uncalled for.

I do advocate nuclear power as part of the solution and I do believe that we should develop a closed fuel cycle. Sellafield is not a good example of what a closed fuel cycle reprocessing facility would look like. It contains hundreds of legacy facilities, most of them dating back to the 1950s and associated with the UK’s nuclear weapons programme. It represents 60 years of first-generation learning with technologies that were new and untestyed anywhere in the world at that time.

A new generation reprocessing plant would be built on the site of the nuclear power plant. It will not extract actinides from the fuel; it would remove fission products, recasting fuel into fresh pellets that are returned directly to the reactor. This is likely to use techniques like electrorefining, which requires orders of magnitude less space than traditional reprocessing.

Incidentally, the ‘Third World’ (India and China) are much further along with both goals than we are in the West. Both countries have plans for hundreds of reactors, with dozens under construction. They will do it regardless of what we in Europe and the US decide to do. Our choices will determine our own prosperity in the future. Gone are the days when the ‘Third World’ lookup to the West in any way. Makati’s posts should make that abundantly clear to everyone.

You talk of closed-cycle reactors being an ecological disaster. In what way? No human technology is benevolent to the environment. Fossil fuels have definitely been an ecological disaster for the planet and their pollution kills millions of people every year. It would take a lot of nuclear meltdowns to get to even 1% of that casualty rate. And more recent reactor designs tend to emphasise passive safety. There is always the possibility that a nation with nuclear science will divert that capability towards nuclear weapons production. But as we can see in the example of North Korea, any nation sufficiently determined to do this can achieve it, even if it is impoverished with no economy or nuclear power industry. Unless you remove all nuclear knowledge from the Earth, it is difficult to completely prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. It should be obvious that Europe’s wind farms do not reduce the danger of nuclear proliferation.

Our choice is whether we wish to postpone collapse or not, by developing a concentrated, high-EROI energy source. Note – I say postpone, not prevent, but more on that later. Collapse would presumably result millions of casualties. I doubt that it would be much consolation to them that their deaths preventing the splitting of a few atoms.

Davy on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 9:48 am 



the US is here to stay in a status quo world, period. If the US collapses likely so will the rest of you, period. IMA many will starve. Further many could start glowing or be fried in a big flash. Any sporting a story of a friendly American crash is deep into denial. Sounds great for the anti-Americans here but reality says it will likely not be survivable.

Antius on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 10:05 am 



What I have repeatedly said is that there is NO energy solution of any kind that will allow technological civilisation to continue in even a steady state on the surface of the Earth, far less grow in any way. This is because civilisation is an entropic structure. We take high grade energy, both in the form of fuels, concentrated minerals, biomass, etc. and ultimately excrete it as low grade heat and degraded resources.

Over the past few hundred years, we have been using high-EROI stored energy from various fuels to process materials dug out of the Earth into the stuff that we need. These materials are typically ores or biomass, that nature has already invested energy in concentrating. So by using high grade fuels to process high-grade resources, we have achieved an embarrassment of riches. The problem with this tidy little arrangement is that we live on a ball of rock 8000 miles wide. Eventually, those resources run out, like agar in a petri dish and we literally drown in our own crap (global warming). We are now in the situation where the high-EROI fuels are running out, we cannot use what is left because it is cooking the planet, whilst at the same time more and more energy is needed each year to produce products from material resources, as the grade of those resources declines. It’s like a pincer movement and there is no way that it can end well. No technology of any kind can change the eventual outcome as long as we remain trapped on this finite ball of rock.

Renewable energy requires huge amounts of capital infrastructure compared to nuclear power or fossil fuels.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/519e/a5c55a312f3f45ccfcc4a093a941366c6658.pdf

For this reason, EROI will always be lower, though it would appear to remain tolerable so long as natural gas CCGT plants are available for back-up. If we do away with fossil fuels altogether and rely on renewable energy with storage, the situation gets much worse, as storage requires energy investment of its own and because it is inefficient, more renewable energy is needed to produce the same amount of buffered energy. This is why it will be very difficult and expensive to ‘replace’ fossil fuels with renewable energy, though they may augment fossil fuels to a limited extent, for a limited time. Within these limitations, they may be part of a short term solution.

Nuclear power is about the most concentrated (high EROI) energy source that we have. Only hydropower does better. As you have pointed out, it is not without its problems. But the barriers preventing its mass utilisation are more institutional than physical. The basic build costs are no greater than any other thermal plant. Fuel costs are close to zero. The real costs come from institutional delays to build, active safety systems added to the design and the need for intense quality control in components. For this reason, I believe that a modular, passively safe nuclear power reactor, which can be mass-produced under factory conditions, could be expanded rapidly enough to replace the high-EROI energy from fossil fuels.

This could postpone collapse. Ultimately, it will not prevent it, because all of the other resources on Earth are depleting as well. It adds more agars to our little petri dish. Hopefully, it will buy us enough time to get off of this burned out, depleted ball of rock, develop space manufacturing and start exploiting the virtually inexhaustible resources of the solar system. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are working on that one – they are both the richest and far sited men in the world, a combination that probably isn’t a coincidence. I don’t necessarily think it’s likely; I think it is the only possible happy ending to our situation here on Earth. If we want anything above a Stone Age existence, eventually we will have to leave.

Cloggie on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 10:56 am 



Good luck in that fantasy Chinese/Euro multipolar world. You left out a lot of the puzzle by collapsing the US out of the equation.

European-America is in the process of rediscovering the value of its European (“white”) identity. Everybody on this planet wants to live in white society (if they get the chance), now even the European-Americans discovered that they want that as well (Americans can be a little slow at times). That will be the end of the US in its present shape. #CW2.0

It is entirely possible the US will have to save your ass a third time.

You will always avoid discussing history as it is “no longer relevant” (read: you know you can’t win that fight). But when it suits you, you will gladly insert your falsehoods anyway, even if you know deep inside very well that they are falsehoods. You never saved our asses, not twice, not once, but never.

In both cases (WW1 & WW2) you served as the servants of international kosherdom and that’s what you are today, to the dismay of the rest of the planet, that is getting more angry with ZOG-USA with every passing day.

In WW1 you were used, not to save our ass, but to collect Palestine for international kosherdom from the British imperial stock (“Balfour deal”).

In WW2 you were used, not to save our ass, but to add Europe to the US and Soviet empires respectively, again for international kosherdom (although in the USSR, after 1938, uncle Joe was busy sidelining the koshers, with great success, Hail Joe.lol).

America is the greatest disaster in the history of the white race. European-Americans were unable to generate an elite to withstand that other financial and media elite and between 1912 (Fed) – 1933 (Roosevelt Gov) the takeover was complete.

Together Anglo-Zionism went on a conquest spree, to begin with with Europe, later the Middle-East and hundreds of other military bases, but after 2003 it was all downhill, as even you will admit.

America never saved our asses. Instead it will be Europe who will need to save your sorry asses for a second time, because if we don’t, you will end up in the kosher-Gulag, just like that other slow-lane types, the Soviet-Russians.

The first time we saved your asses was in the “American war of independence”, in reality a fight between Britain and France/Holland, after Britain had kicked out everybody from America, except themselves. The American insurgents were going nowhere, absolutely nowhere…

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/the-second-american-revolution/

In hindsight it would have been better if the British had not done that, so that America would have been divided in many pieces, each with its own motherland in Europe, so that the only real enemy we all have (yes you, George Soros) would not have been able to get a hold over the joint.

But that’s ok, it is all going to be reversed now, not only 1940 but also 1776.

Cloggie on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 11:06 am 



What I have repeatedly said is that there is NO energy solution of any kind that will allow technological civilisation to continue in even a steady state on the surface of the Earth, far less grow in any way. This is because civilisation is an entropic structure. We take high grade energy, both in the form of fuels, concentrated minerals, biomass, etc. and ultimately excrete it as low grade heat and degraded resources.

That “high grade fuel” has found its match in technology. Renewable technology is yet another “excrement” of the past few centuries of fossil fuel, to the tune that we now can leave fossil fuel behind us.

Renewable energy requires huge amounts of capital infrastructure compared to nuclear power or fossil fuels.

Countries like Denmark, Germany and Scotland have already a large chunk of the required effort behind them and are still doing fine.

Renewable energy requires huge amounts of capital infrastructure compared to nuclear power or fossil fuels.

Only initially. Once you have iron ore converted in a steel windtower, you can renew that steel wind tower at 10% of the original energy cost, ad infinitum:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/05/eroi-of-offshore-wind-power-continued/

For this reason, EROI will always be lower, though it would appear to remain tolerable so long as natural gas CCGT plants are available for back-up.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. In the real long term, offshore wind energy has an EROI of several hundreds, see link above.

But the barriers preventing its mass utilisation are more institutional than physical.

And image. Boy does nuclear have a bad image, after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Terminally bad. Good luck with repairing that. In the mean time we continue to create renewable faits accomplis.

Cloggie on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 11:16 am 



Despite its huge effort in renewable energy transition, Germany will in 2017 once again break all records in export surplus:

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutschland-verteidigt-umstrittenen-ueberschussrekord-a-1166634.html

Germany: $285B
China: $190B
Japan: $170B

Renewable energy is absolutely not a hindrance. Germany and China are the biggest pushers for renewable energy.

GregT on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 11:40 am 



“the US is here to stay in a status quo world, period. If the US collapses likely so will the rest of you, period.”

What is status quo for the U.S., is not status quo for the rest of the world, period.

“IMA many will starve.”

Billions are already starving.

“Further many could start glowing or be fried in a big flash. Any sporting a story of a friendly American crash is deep into denial. Sounds great for the anti-Americans here but reality says it will likely not be survivable.”

No arguments there. If you had of been paying attention, that is exactly what I have been saying for years. The Empire is not at all likely to go out with a whimper, but rather in a blaze of glory. Fortunately so far, cooler heads have prevailed, and American attempts at drawing others into an all out conflict, have been countered with measured strategies. I seriously doubt that Washigton is going to stop anytime soon, and will eventually drag others into a conflict, who are far more than capable of fighting back. North Korea could very well be that red line. This would be the first time that Washington has directly poked the Dragon.

GregT on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 11:41 am 



Lately.

Antius on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 11:41 am 



“Despite its huge effort in renewable energy transition, Germany will in 2017 once again break all records in export surplus:

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutschland-verteidigt-umstrittenen-ueberschussrekord-a-1166634.html

Germany: $285B
China: $190B
Japan: $170B

Renewable energy is absolutely not a hindrance. Germany and China are the biggest pushers for renewable energy.”

Germany is a world leading high-tech manufacturer, making products using commercially protected processes that it would be difficult for any other manufacturer to break into. This means excellent export earnings and high pay for people doing relatively unskilled jobs. This means that domestic customers are in a better position than most to afford expensive electricity. And at nearly 30 cents per kWh it is just as well.

For countries with more service oriented economies, it won’t be as easy. And it is worth remembering that renewable energy production in Germany is equivalent to only about one third of electricity consumption. Much of this is dumped into the grids of surrounding nations. To power Germany using renewable electricity alone, would require between 6-10 times as much renewable generation. That’s even more difficult than it sounds, when you take into account the fact that 12.8% of Germany’s electricity production is biomass and hydro, which will be difficult to increase much more. So a 100% renewable Germany must produce something like 10-15 times more wind and solar power as it does now. A tall order to be sure.

Antius on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 11:57 am 



“Wrong, wrong, wrong. In the real long term, offshore wind energy has an EROI of several hundreds, see link above.”

I guess I just don’t believe it Cloggie. My own analysis, for a buffered electricity supply from offshore wind energy, told me that the embodied energy of the raw steel (20.1MJ/kg for 60% recycled steel) would be equivalent to 5% of lifetime energy from the system. That doesn’t include other manufacturing energy costs or those from installation and maintenance. An EROI in the hundreds is not realistic.

“And image. Boy does nuclear have a bad image, after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Terminally bad. Good luck with repairing that. In the mean time we continue to create renewable faits accomplis.”

The Chinese and Indians are doing this on a large scale. They obviously aren’t concerned about image. They know only too well what it is like to be poor and go hungry.

Davy on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 12:07 pm 



“If you had of been paying attention, that is exactly what I have been saying for years.”
Why would I pay attention to a flaming anti-American who finds relevance and pleasure in attacking anything American. The problem with many anti-American Canadians is they act like they are not part of the problem. Their comments are primarily directed at anything Americans which is a dead giveaway for a focused agenda of emotional contempt for the generalized American. Canadians like you want to talk down to Americans. They want to make sure everyone knows how peace loving and rational they are when the reality is quite different. Ultimately they want unconditional surrender which is Americans admitting Americans are bad and the binary center of all the world’s problems. They want penance for those sins except if you are an American who hates America well that is groovy. I am not going to pay any attention to you now or likely ever except to return your attacks. You are one of the primary reasons this site is polarized.

GregT on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 12:21 pm 



Canada is nothing more than a U.S. vassal state Davy.

As goes the U.S., so goes Canada. Take your red, white, and blue blinders off.

GregT on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 12:38 pm 



” I am not going to pay any attention to you now or likely ever except to return your attacks.”

The two are not mutually exclusive Davy.

” You are one of the primary reasons this site is polarized.”

The world is polarized Davy. Your attacks against anybody who correctly points that out, are futile. The primary reason for your attacks is that you have an identity problem. You are incapable of distinguishing yourself, from a flag.

GregT on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 1:04 pm 



I might add, even America is polarized. Not all Americans think like you do Davy. Not by a long shot. You may very well even be, in the minority.

onlooker on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 1:18 pm 



Guys did you notice the way Americans helped each other during Harvey. My problem is not with Americans, or Chinese or Russians etc, it is with the idiots and crazies who are steering us along this suicidal path. Yes all humans have issues but those wealthy ruling elites have more haha.

Apneaman on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 1:24 pm 



Greg, not vassal. Vassal traditionally means mandatory military obligation – or else. Canada refused Iraq 2003 and did not go to Vietnam and even gave comfort [unofficially] to their deserters which is a criminal offense in the US.

How about silent partner in crime? Ally? Partial client state?

For the most part, the countries interests align economically.

Korean war, Gulf war, Kosovo Afghanistan were all UN or Nato. That’s when Canada goes, right or wrong. That’s the agreement they have entered.

Don’t mean they could not have gone to Iraq, but it was all too obvious that it was a hoax. Chrétien literally laughed when asked about the evidence for going to war against Iraq. There are cultural differences and attitudes among western nations who are all aligned for economic reasons. Almost no one in Canada fell for that dog and pony show with Colin Powell holding up a little vial of Tang orange drink crystals as the reason for Americans to send their kids off to war. Canada is dumbed down and getting worse, just not that dumbed down.

Canada will collapse, but it won’t look the same as US collapse. Canadians are by and large orderly, fair minded, excessively polite and and will collapse in a manner fitting with their cultural peculiarities. It won’t be pretty, just less ugliness.

Davy on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 1:31 pm 



“Canada is nothing more than a U.S. vassal state Davy. As goes the U.S., so goes Canada. Take your red, white, and blue blinders off.”
Just a cover for extreme west coast Canadian anti-Americanism. You are so hyper nationalistic you can’t even see how deep your attitudes of blame and complain are. This extremism is now going on for several generations as we witness with the fruit cake millennial west coast Canadian anymouse1. Spare me your condescension you are nothing special. That condescension is one of the reason you are such a revolting person to me. These poor attitudes have not changed for years now. At least the worst of your prejudices have lessened because now I call you out on them.

Davy on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 1:41 pm 



“I might add, even America is polarized. Not all Americans think like you do Davy. Not by a long shot. You may very well even be, in the minority.”

You know very little about the US that is why you think you know so much. You have convinced yourself you know every nook and cranny. It is pathetic how you west Coast Canadians act like the USA experts. I guess I need to call you all for advice on anything American. I would call you if I want to know a particular American hatred de jour. You would have a laundry list of them memorized and referenced. I challenge you to find anything positive or kind from you other than disguised backstabbing. Well, I take that back you love the Americans that hate America. You are best friends with them. They justify your hatred. That is what it is about for you the ends justifies the means. America is bad so I attack all Americans except those who are on their knees begging for forgiveness. Pathetic.

GregT on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 1:53 pm 



I have American friends, and relatives Davy. Most of them think that you are an extremist, and do not subscribe to your points of view. Just sayin…..

GregT on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 1:59 pm 



Apnea,

Maybe tributary state would have been a better term? I haven’t really been paying much attention to Trudeau, can’t stand the guy actually, so I’m not sure what his stance is on another pre-emotive war on North Korea. Let’s all hope he doesn’t get Canada involved.

GregT on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 2:01 pm 



Preemptive. Sorry.

Davy on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 3:05 pm 



Grehg, don’t you think I know that. Geeze, you have whined about that for years now a out how many dear American friends you have. It almost makes me weepy.

Antius on Thu, 7th Sep 2017 3:30 pm 



The American government is corrupt and inefficient and at the mercy of the media and lobbyists. A bit like every other government, the Canadian one included. Canada like the UK, is a country where you can be arrested and sent to prison just for saying the wrong thing. You cannot call a country a democracy when it does things like that. The US has a constitution that protects freedom of speech. God bless America.