Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on March 1, 2017

Powerful 5.6 earthquake rocks Fukushima

More bad news for the beleaguered Japanese prefecture of Fukushima, as a powerful earthquake shook cities and halted train services. No damage or injuries were reported in the second major earthquake since November 2016, APA reports quoting Sputnik.

The undersea earthquake, 21 miles from the nearest settlement and striking at a depth of 26 miles beneath sea level, measured a magnitude 5.6 on the Richter Scale according to the US Geological Survey.

The quake was powerful enough to cause buildings to shake as far away as Tokyo, about 180 miles south. No damage was reported to any of Fukushima’s nuclear reactors.

US and Japanese authorities assuaged fears of another tsunami like the devastating one that struck Fukushima in March 2011 following a magnitude-9 quake. That disaster led to an estimated 18,500 fatalities and caused a meltdown of several nearby nuclear power reactors. The Japan Meteorological Agency reports that the new quake is an aftershock of the devastating one from 2011.

In November 2016, a 6.9-magnitude quake caused a much smaller tsunami in Fukushima. No damage was caused at the time.

Japan is located at the convergence of four tectonic plates, meaning the Land of the Rising Sun frequently contends with violent earthquakes. Some 20 percent of all the world’s quakes hit, or occur near, the island nation.

As a result of this pressure, buildings in Japan are built to resist earthquake damage. Buildings are laid with deep foundation and shock absorbers, and skyscrapers are built to sway rather than hold a rigid shape.

APA

56 Comments on "Powerful 5.6 earthquake rocks Fukushima"

Cloggie on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 5:37 am

The total cost of the Fukushima disaster so far is estimated to be $291 billion:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/11/28/national/cost-fukushima-disaster-expected-soar-%C2%A520-trillion/#.WLaxlvnyuUl

That figure alone was sufficient to replace for a large part the current energy infrastructure with alt-energy.

This earth quake isn’t going to make it any better.

Antius on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 5:41 am

‘That figure alone was sufficient to replace for a large part the current energy infrastructure with alt-energy.’

Or maybe just better nuclear reactors. When people die in car accidents, we don’t seriously consider replacing cars with horses or camels do we? The solution is better cars.

makati1 on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 6:09 am

Nuclear energy, the gift that keeps on giving.

Simon on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 7:41 am

When people die in car accidents, we don’t seriously consider replacing cars with horses or camels do we? The solution is better cars

We force cars to go slower, and generally increase safety legislation … I am all for that, like making sure NUKs are fully insured with no limits

makati1 on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 7:46 am

If The companies had to pay 100% for their safety, decommisioning and liability, you could not afford nuclear generated electric.

Simon on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 7:49 am

If we cannot afford it, lets not have it.
The latest big nuk requires 150EUR per Mwh for 30 years, and people complain about subsidising alts.

Antius on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 9:32 am

‘If The companies had to pay 100% for their safety, decommissioning and liability, you could not afford nuclear generated electric.’

I am not sure that is true. We are talking about a large cost with a very low return frequency. I think it is more the case that there are very few insurance companies with assets big enough to cover the claim, although the time averaged insurance cost may be small. Basically, government is the insurer and the company pays the premium in tax.

Simon on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 9:50 am

Antius, presumably you mean the potential payout is large ?

If that is the case, then surely the risk must be low, so a perfect gamble, so why not commercialise it, you would have takers

Antius on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 10:42 am

‘If we cannot afford it, lets not have it.
The latest big nuk requires 150EUR per Mwh for 30 years, and people complain about subsidising alts.’

Costs depend on discount rates. At the time the Hinkley nuclear power plant deal was struck, discount rates were relatively high. Factoring into that the long build time for a first of class reactor and the time lag needed to build up the skilled workforce needed and costs end up at £100/MWh. That isn’t a reliable figure for the general cost of nuclear new build from now to eternity. Rather like any other manufactured product, there are scale effects that come into play.

One of the reasons offshore wind has fallen in price as far as it has is the availability of low discount loans covering build & capital costs. I have heard one estimate via Euan Mearns that the same discount rate applied to Hinkley would have reduced MWh cost to £30-50. Some food for thought.

Antius on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 10:44 am

‘Antius, presumably you mean the potential payout is large ?

If that is the case, then surely the risk must be low, so a perfect gamble, so why not commercialise it, you would have takers’

An insurance company has to have the capital to pay out a potential claim. Very few insurance companies have assets reaching £100billion.

Davy on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 11:06 am

At this point we can’t afford not to have NUK power since it represents such a large percentage of global energy delivered. It is a huge built out cost so we need to use it and phase some of it out wisely. We are stuck with its consequences we will need NUK personnel to manage what we got and what we need to phase out.

It is possible we will be in an economic crisis before long. At that point new construction of any energy system will be prohibitive. We will be using what is available because that will be lowest cost. Demand destruction could mean current power supply will be a surplus. A bad economy will likely severely handicaps alternative energy growth.

Antius on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 11:09 am

‘That disaster led to an estimated 18,500 fatalities and caused a meltdown of several nearby nuclear power reactors.’

This sounds like a high estimate to me. I calculated a similar figure for caesium ground-shine, but it was an unmitigated figure, i.e. the number of additional cancer mortalities expected over 60 years if no one living in contaminated zones chose to evacuate and life continued as normal. With evacuation of the most heavily contaminated zones, the figure is more like 2000 over the next 60 years. It will be difficult to measure the effect against the tens of millions of cancer deaths that would be expected in Japan due to other causes over the same timeframe.

None the less, the 18,500 mortality figure provides an interesting basis for comparison. Consider the United States, with an average population density about one fifth that of Japan. On this basis, an equivalent radioactive pollution level there would lead to 3700 additional mortalities over 60 years, without countermeasures. Almost all of this would be due to caesium ground shine.

Now consider that fossil fuel air pollution in the US causes 200,000 mortalities each year. To cause as many fatalities as air pollution, every nuclear reactor in the US would need to melt down with containment failure every single year. That’s about the same effect you would see if no attempt were made to contain radioactive products at all – i.e. they were just pumped into the atmosphere. The reason is simple – fission products are a million times more toxic than fossil fuel emissions, but are produced in one-millionth the quantity. The fact that new reactors are equipped with passive safety features and have fuel damage frequency of 1 in 1million reactor-years, puts the real danger into perspective.

Sissyfuss on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 1:24 pm

“No damage was reported to any of the Fukushima reactors.” See, Tepco has it under control. No worries mate. The reactors continue on in pristine fashion. Oh look, another 300 ton snail!

twocats on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 1:44 pm

A neighbor (father) of a friend of mine just died at 36. He was so healthy two months ago that when my friend was told that one of the parents was dying she just assumed it was the mother, who is a bit more frail. But then my friend saw him a couple weeks later and he could barely move around and looked dead already. Ukranian. Born within 200 miles of Chernobyl. Do you think his death is going on the “list” of risks? Don’t hold your cesium-laced breath.

twocats on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 1:44 pm

***this is in northeast Ohio

Hairless Monkey on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 1:57 pm

“No damage was reported to any of Fukushima’s nuclear reactors.” Ha ha ha.

Cloggie on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 2:31 pm

Fukushima damage: $269 billion.

That’s 50,000 wind turbine of 5 MW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtDlrhFly0w

onlooker on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 5:34 pm

Not sure if this is really going on but if it is just the culmination of the noe desperate and losing battle to save ourselves
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/global-weather-modification-assault-causing-climate-chaos-and-environmental-catastrophe-2/

Apneaman on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 6:52 pm

omlooker that guy, Dane Wiginton is a fraud. He has no qualifications and no evidence. Almost all his stupid disciples are Anglo white males and deniers. A familiar profile with a twist.

We have been unintentionally geo engineering since we first harnessed fire and burnt down prairie and forests for hunting purposes. Then it was for farming and when we started using coal industrially it’s been the biggest geo engineering experiment in the history of this planet. Our machines have puked out greenhouse gasses thousands of times faster than any volcanic traps ever did. We still have a ways to go to match the amount, but it’s not a problem since we have triggered many carbon spewing positive self reinforcing feedback. The volcanic trigger them too and lead to at least 10 known greenhouse gas extinctions. The current extinction rate and greenhouse gas accumulations are so fucking fast it’s ridiculous.

This is just one year from the US

In 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,870 million metric tons (15.1 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Now add in the rest of the world. Now add up the years and decade after decade.

You don’t need a Phd in atmospheric chemistry to figure it out. Paying attention in grade 8 chemistry class should suffice.

It’s simple chemistry. What the fuck would one expect to happen when we puke out that many gasses into our closed system atmosphere for that length of time?

You know how Kunstler always says that Suburbia is the biggest misallocation of resources in history? Well I would like to nominate the public education system instead. What the fuck did all these fucking retards do in class for all those years? What a huge waste of money and time. Tens of millions of semi literate, semi numerate know it all morons. It’s not that there is stupid people, there’s always been stupid people. It’s now the majority that are total helpless idiots. When you study collapsed societies that there is documentation for the dumbing down and decadence is more often than not there. Dunning–Kruger writ large.

Apneaman on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 6:55 pm

AGW is even fucking with dead people.

Caskets remain unearthed at cemetery months after flooding

http://www.wbrz.com/news/caskets-remain-unearthed-at-cemetery-months-after-flooding/

No rest for the weary.

Apneaman on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 6:58 pm

San Jose Ratifies Emergency Proclamation in Response to Historic Flooding

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Jose-Ratifies-Emergency-Proclamation-In-Response-to-Historic-Flooding-415030603.html

If it was me, I would take the money, sell and move to high ground. They ain’t going to be bailing out folks forever.

Apneaman on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 7:05 pm

And dying and dying.

Extreme Heat Threatens Desert Songbirds With Death By Dehydration

“A recent study of songbird survival during heat waves in America’s desert Southwest finds that birds are at greater risk of lethal dehydration and mass die-offs when water is scarce, and this risk is predicted to worsen as climate change progresses.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2017/02/28/extreme-heat-threatens-desert-songbirds-with-death-by-dehydration/#610ad72c2d26

Apneaman on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 7:10 pm

I’ve been fantasising that the big NSA data centre (so much data it’s almost incomprehensible) in Utah will melt down in a heatwave and power outage some day soon.

Spy agency Australian Signals Directorate forced to operate on generators during heatwave

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/spy-agency-australian-signals-directorate-forced-to-operate-on-generators-during-heatwave-20170301-guo7ep.html

I just clicked on “post comment”, that means another of my comments just went into the NSA data base. They’ll need it for my trial.

makati1 on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 7:40 pm

Ap, if the programs to store and retrieve the quadrillions of grains of info are like most American tech, it will fail. How do you find a particular grain of sand in the desert? Every day adds more billions of grains of sand to the pile. Maybe it will just just explode from info obesity? We can only hope.

twocats on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 7:49 pm

most people don’t even know there was a meltdown at Fuke. they certainly don’t understand runaway nuclear reactions and how fukushima could be registering the highest radiation readings to date. antius meanwhile isn’t just whistling past the graveyard he’s giving a Mardi Gras jazz band concert in the middle of it:

article: ‘That disaster led to an estimated 18,500 fatalities and caused a meltdown of several nearby nuclear power reactors.’

Antius: “This sounds like a high estimate to me. I calculated a similar figure for caesium ground-shine,” blah blah blah. what the fuck are you talking about? these aren’t radioactive deaths, but tsunami related deaths. the Japan’s National Police Agency reported 15,891 confirmed deaths as of 2015, and 2,500 or so missing.

makati1 on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 8:22 pm

twocats, the lingering radiation will kill for the next 20+ years. Ant is in denial of the dangers all around him. 100,000+ died at Hiroshima. Another 100,000+ over the next decade or two. Cancer is the slow killer but there is no cure. Only slow death.

makati1 on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 9:57 pm

Ap, in reply to your previous comment that got bumped off the front page: Yes, it does not matter where you live. Pollution is everywhere, but it is not as concentrated as in cities and near chemical plants, nuclear facilities, even farms, etc. There is no pure water anymore, anywhere. The air is polluted. The soil.

Our bodies have more heavy metals and carcinogens in them than at any time in history and they are being added to every day. Those born now have zero chance of ever living to the ages we enjoy. Maybe half, if they are lucky and careful. A fifty year old will be rare by 2100, IF we are still here as a species. I’m still 50:50 on that.

Apneaman on Wed, 1st Mar 2017 10:28 pm

The humans seem to be able to come up with an infinite number of ways to poison themselves and others.

City of burning lakes: experts fear Bangalore will be uninhabitable by 2025

The illegal dumping of waste mixed with mass untreated sewage in India’s Silicon Valley is creating a water crisis which threatens residents’ health – and is causing the city’s famous lakes to catch fire

“A lethal mix of factors create an environment that merely requires the slightest of triggers for lakes to go up in flames. Untreated effluents pour into the waters from the many industries and homes on its banks, illegal waste disposal takes place on a large scale – often including rubbish which is set on fire – and invasive weeds cover large swathes of the lake in a thick green canopy.

The latest incident is not the first time the lake has caught fire; it happened in May 2015. A few days later, it was in the news again for being covered in snow-like froth, which began to swirl up in the summer wind, engulfing passers-by. The froth was the result of chemical waste dumped in the lake, and was toxic enough to crack windshields, wear the paint off car hoods and exacerbate the severe respiratory issues that have plagued citizens in recent years.”

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/mar/01/burning-lakes-experts-fear-bangalore-uninhabitable-2025

This is what you get with no agency like the EPA. There were rivers that caught on fire in the US in the 70’s for the same reasons. That’s why the Republicans created the EPA.

There is no room for the EPA in the endtimes.

Simon on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 12:34 am

Antius, you are mistaken about insurance rules, they operate much like banks its a ‘mortality reserve’ figure that needs to be met, and this is minus the re-insurance possibilities, so if as you said the return was guaranteed as your investment would never be called, we would all be rushing to Lloyds to put up our houses as collateral for insuring nukes … but we are not, gotta wonder why.

As for the loans, the loan rate is also predicated on chance of being paid back, and a Nuk is a lot longer to build than a wind turbine, so a lot more can go wrong (just ask areva) and then you could lose capital, and governments cannot now be guaranteed to back the promises of the previous administration, once again more risk.

Dave, I do not agree that we have to have nuks for baseline power, what we need (and will have) is a shed load more alts, and baseload being provided by fewer and fewer FF plants, I believe coal should be phased out as its ramp rates are ridiculously SLOWWWWWWW, but we need more alts and storage before we can mothball them.

long post short, if nuk was so safe, and cheap, actuaries and investors would be piling into that opportunity.

makati1 on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 12:48 am

Simon, alts are already dying out. Coal is coming back. The demand will shrink as the ability to purchase it shrinks. We are in a contracting world, not a growing one. Everything is going to go away in the next few years.

Simon on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 12:57 am

Cheer up Mak. temporary political blip, gas is cheaper than coal, there is a question if the donalds plans will come off in the market, alts are now cheap enough to stand on their own as long as they are playing on a level field.

http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Market-Forecast-for-2016-2020-1.jpg

China and india are coal crazy agreed, but I am more concerned with us lot in the EU, and we are constantly building alts, exception being the English, but that’s only one small island.

makati1 on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 1:46 am

Simon. Today maybe, but tomorrow? Not guaranteed. Alts are a sick joke being played on the less educated. Less than 1% of world ENERGY is from “Alts”. That stat will never be in the double digits. Never. Alts will not power even a ghost of today’s economy. We are heading for the 17th century or worse.

I don’t have to “cheer up”. I am not down. I accept the coming future and am preparing for it. It may even be nicer than the one we have today. Slower, quieter, more … human. Are you prepared?

Simon on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 2:01 am

Mak. actually alts where I am make up 27% of the mix, up to 40% sometimes.
There is no guarantee of anything for building out any power source, but in a time of decline, a smaller capex for a faster return (alts) is more likely than a big huge throbbing penis thermal.

ps. Totally prepared

makati1 on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 4:32 am

Simon. “Totally” is a BIG word. lol

As for your percentages … bullshit! You mean ALL of the gasoline, fuel oil, and NG energy use is less then 60% of your total ENERGY use? Or are you talking just electric use? HUGE difference!

Your street/road repairs are made with alt energy sourced materials and placed with alt powered equipment? You mean ALL of the construction in your country is made with alt energy sourced materials and placement? Food? Clothes? Vehicles? Meds? Weapons systems? Etc? Now would you like to detail how at least 27% of these come from alts?

Antius on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 5:36 am

My mistake. I misread the article.

Davy on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 5:40 am

If anyone on this board is sober and objective about new energy sources it is Simon. He works in a position that sees what is going on. In the same way it is hard to argue with Rock with the oil patch issues. Just because you work there does not mean you have all the answers especially on the mixing of other knowledge related to the subject but it does mean actual nuts and bolts experience. That is a no brainer but today in the world of fake news, fake credentials journalism and dime a dozen internet boards this is forgotten. No brainers are lost in the noise until what we have is unreality of too much information and a significant amount of which is not accurate or applicable.

Simon, I agree with your alternative energy future view with one caveat and that is the economy. The degree and duration of an economic decline will determine how far places like northern Europe achieve transformation. Northern Europe is among the most exposed in the world economically because of an unworkable union and its reliance on exports of goods and imports of essential resources. The global economy is clearly under threat from nationalism and bad debt dynamics. We are habituated to a steady state economy especially over the last decade of repression and easing.

I am still on the fence with an energy transition. I would consider an energy transition beyond 75% renewable with robust storage. I don’t see it happening. I see an energy transformation which is my definition of alternatives becoming another leg among others supporting global civilization. This would mean in the 40% range. 40% would mean for me an extension of the status quo out further maybe allowing time to adapt to a lower complexity civilization. We are going to have regions higher but overall nations or continent size locations will lag behind a transition.

The problem is we are too far past a point for transition. The economy is not substantial enough. There is entirely too much that must be maintained and at the same time phased out and built new. There is not enough resources and capital to build out another China. People would agree with that statement but if you say the equivalent which is a global alternative energy transition they are cheering and clapping. This is the disconnect with reality and why this world is in trouble. Realism says we should try because it is important we transform our global energy systems. Realism also says a transition is likely more than a civilization in our condition can do. I want alternatives to dominate but I also want to be realistic because we are out of second chances. We need to be building lifeboats and hospices for a coming rebalance of population and consumption.

If you see a transition coming then you still believe in the techno optimism of the status quo of progress. It is an attitude of more of the same just adapted. If you only see a transformation then you understand the status quo is still over it is just we bought some time to make other arrangements. This is profoundly important for our future. It is the delusional greens who are generally affluent and cannot allow themselves to recognize that affluence is over. It is also the case they are bought into the status quo because their lives are status quo. It is hard to argue against something that someone is supported by.

Cloggie on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 5:59 am

If you see a transition coming then you still believe in the techno optimism of the status quo of progress. It is an attitude of more of the same just adapted.

Only in your imagination. People who advocate alt-energy do in general NOT believe in BAU or eternal progress or “techno-optimism”. Both Simon and I do expect a crash of sorts and have prepared for it.

But there will be life after the crash/geopolitical polarity reversal. The economy will not mysteriously die but carry on, albeit in a lower gear with substantial less wealth for all.

Antius on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 6:08 am

My figures are probably out of date. But in terms of end energy use for UK: Electricity: 380TWh/year; Heat (~80% low quality for space heating): 650TWh; Transport (90% road): 650TWh.

Lets say we can replace these with alt-electricity? 130TWh of high quality heat = an extra 130TWh of electricity. 520TWh of low quality heat = 173TWh of electricity (in heat pumps). 650TWh of transport gasoline energy = 260TWh of electricity (assuming we switch to electric vehicles). Total = 943TWh.

Now lets assume that roughly half that electricity requires storage with an efficiency of 50% (i.e. high temperature thermal storage. That takes the grand total to 1250TWh.

Land wind power has a maximum power density of 2W/m2. It may be a little higher at sea, but for very large wind farms (i.e. country sized wind farms) wind shadowing would start to become a serious issue, so lets go with 2. To produce the required power, wind turbines must cover an area of 72,000 square kilometres (at maximum plausible density). That’s about the size of Scotland. And that’s for the UK alone.

makati1 on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 6:23 am

Electricity will NOT keep the system going at any level without FF. You are too involved with the possibilities to see the realities.

Davy on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 6:29 am

You are deceiving yourself because affluence is BAU and you are advocating an alternative affluence. There is likely no adapted affluence now there is only decline. It is difficult to see what is occurring now because we are within it and these current times are a zone of change. Both destructive and constructive change is occurring but it is clear there is more destructive than constructive and the constructive forces depend on what is being destroyed. Technology is not something we dig out of the earth it is a human construction from what we dig out of the earth and systematically arrange. There is only one point in today’s world to be optimistic about and that is technology. Everything else looks bad to horrible.

You are like the rich man who can talk about the financial crash coming because he thinks he can survive it just fine. The crash is going to get the other guy not me. You live in an unreality of affluence and progress and when you talk about an inevitable crash you discount and dismiss its dangers. Who are you to know what the economy will do? Where is it said the economy will carry on. The economy is not a given like the sun coming up or the progression of the seasons. Your projections are hopium and nothing more. Everything you preach and stand for revolves around human productive capacity which is anything from certain. The burden of a creation is on you not me. I am saying and seeing a decay and decline. You are projecting growth and disguising it with a bogus acknowledgment of a possible economic crash. This crash is just a bump in your road to progress for you.

Europeans have this issue because they have such a long history of ups and downs it is a habituation. This time it is different and your history revisions won’t make it different. This time Europe is just a cog in a greater cog and it will be swept away no different than all other regions that fall into decay and decline. Your affluence and productive abilities will stop on a dime when global trade drops.

Simon on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 7:16 am

Mak. I was talking about Electricity Generation, no idea about the best, but with EV’s there will in the future be some bleed through.

Dave, I agree, all things seem to revolve around economics, and we are living in interesting times. As Cloggie would say, don’t be so quick to write off the EU, we are having economically and diplomatically what the US had militarily in 1860. Our biggest problem is the fact that Italy has a historical debt mountain, Spain thought they could just keep riding a building/debt bubble and Greece went on a spending spree.

What we do in the future I will leave to Mr Juncker.

Our biggest problem is that if the UK doesn’t destroy the EU within two years, they are screwed and they know it, bear that in mind when you hear any English speaking news broadcast.
Austria – Far Right Failed
Holland – Wilders will get between 20 & 30% of the vote only
France – Macron is probably (80%) gonna win, and he is pro france and pro European

reports of our demise have been exaggerated 🙂

Cloggie on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 7:20 am

That’s about the size of Scotland. And that’s for the UK alone.

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/?s=gold+mine#jp-carousel-60622

You have that area. Count your blessings.

Assuming your figures are correct…

…space heating can be 100% covered with geothermal, that’s what the Dutch are going to do anyway and we have even less land than Britain per capita.

You can save a lot on transport by forbidding private car ownership and augment the public transport system with self-driving cars, saving a lot on embodied energy of far less cars delivering the same transportation output. Furthermore, a large chunk of commuting energy costs can be replaced by remote working for in principle every bureau-worker. Say 50%? In addition, there is an enormous potential for domestic energy saving, if push comes to shove: my old 20 year old fridge consumed 200 kwh/year, my new A+++ energy label fridge 60 kwh/year. Old light bulbs of say 70 Watt (1000 hours) are replaced by LED of 6 Watt (30,000 hours). You can watch television on a 13 inch iPad pro-like tablet of 10 Watt rather than a Samsung TV of 135 Watt.

And the list goes on.

Davy on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 7:36 am

“reports of our demise have been exaggerated”
Simon, when I talk of demise I talk about us together not separate. This is global not parochial as Europeans tend to view themselves when discussing the world. Europeans are quite global in their thinking until it becomes a matter of survival then they are parochial. It will be our demise and yours. If it sounds like I am pointing fingers at Europe it is because we have characters like clog that see a new world order revolving around Europe. Clog is Eurocentrism at its extreme. Europe is greatly exposed to the winds of change and Europeans discount it.

Simon on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 7:39 am

Antius, so you are saying you could power the whole of the UK with wind and energy storage just by planting windmills all over Scotland, I will take some of that.

Cloggie on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 7:40 am

Our biggest problem is the fact that Italy has a historical debt mountain

That’s because everybody focuses on public debt. In reality Italy is the financially most stable country in Europe, even more than Germany… because everybody owns his house without mortgage:

http://www.welt.de/img/wirtschaft/origs111865855/4259728-w900-h600/DWO-EU-27Nachhaltigkeitsran.jpg

…much in contrast to Netherlands and UK, because they have high mortgages (which of course is not really debt because matched by the house that can be sold).

It remains to be seen if Wilders will receive 20% of the votes, I doubt it. Polls are one, elections are different:

http://frontbencher.nl/peilingen/

Wilders could even become 3rd, behind Green-Left. On the other hand, people love to remain quiet about right-wing preferences while still living in the (racial) commie US empire.

There is not going to be a right-wing revolution in Europe via the ballot-box, where people not just vote for identity but for money as well. It is going to happen on the street level, Eastern Europe 1989-style:

http://tinyurl.com/h9jzs7l

France – Macron is probably (80%) gonna win, and he is pro france and pro European

The French leftist deep state has pulled a master coup against Fillon, the most likely winner before the scandal was launched. Here the correct analysis of French New Right Guillaume Faye:

http://www.gfaye.com/affaire-fillon-le-tueur-sappelle-macron/

(Google Chrome browser right-click > translate in English)

It is likely that Marine le Pen will win the first and lose the second round (although we have seen Brexit and Trump). The problem with Fillon for the pro-US deep state was that he likes Russia too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kfhU5vGdQs

He is an old-school Gaullist who wants to trade l’Amerique for Russie. Can’t have that. For the French deep state, right-wing policies are fine, but please not over the lungs.

For the rest what Simon sez: reports of our demise have been exaggerated.

Simon on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 8:12 am

interesting to checkout Macron, whilst being left of centre (for us) he is making quite aggressive noises about eviscerating the city of London and poaching the work for paris, I guess he will have to get in line though 🙂

Cloggie on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 8:52 am

I’ll believe Brexit if I see it happening. The UK elite was caught wrong-footed by its own population and clumsy maneuvering by Cameron and Johnson. The UK elite doesn’t want to be in Europe either, provided the EU can be turned into a smoldering pile of ash. Until that glorious moment arrives, it is “join ’em if you can’t beat ’em”. And now the UK government is outmaneuvered by is own population. This could be costly, since Brussels is going to make an example of Britain of what happens to you if you leave the Club. Because if they don’t, others could follow. So expect no cherry picking for Britain and the loss of the City is not fictitious at all.

I think 60/40 that Brexit is NOT going to happen (in a BAU situation) and that the UK elite will find a way to torpedo it.

Britain wants Anglosphere to remain on top and not continental Europe. The UK is merely in Europe as a stadholder for the US and keep Europe as a vassal for the US.

– And then Trump arrived and European-American nationalism and a turning away from globalism/exceptionalism towards identitarianism (“Americana”).
– And communism fell in 1989-1991, making – Russia acceptable for the European Right.
– And then there is the long term demographic threat from China and Islam and becoming overrun by the third world.
– Increased Russian prestige after Syria.

All these vectors point to a shift from Anglo-Zionism towards Eurasia, with continental Europe as the successor of America, representing the core of white Christian European civilization.

Brexit result was very thin (52/48). Continental European countries will not follow this example. The result is that with the UK in Brexit negotiations, the UK can no longer block the formation of a continental European army:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4273544/Brussels-chief-s-vision-Euro-army.html

Trump already boasted that “money is flowing for NATO”, meaning EU promises of meeting 2% GDP defense targets.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/1/nato-defense-funds-not-pouring-in-as-donald-trump-/

President Trump may have pleased European allies with a full-throated defense of NATO in his speech to Congress on Tuesday night, but he also raised eyebrows by claiming his own criticism of the alliance has paid off because money is now “pouring in” from member nations to increase their own military budgets.

Exactly. Money will go to increase the military might of Europe and shift the balance of power within NATO. The time that 220 million aging US whites and 110 million US non-whites can dominate 500 million aging European whites, are coming to an end. Wait what happens if 200 million Slavs and their thousands of nukes are going to be added to the mix.

So what’s the purpose of this new European military might? Intervention in North-America 1776-style, but 10 times more massive. This time it won’t be the British who need to be removed from power, but a different group. The situation we are living in is that hundreds of millions of non-whites would love to live in the West, because life is much better there. The astonishing thing is that Americans would love to live in the third world. Or so we are told by the globalists, who keep promoting mass immigration from the third world. November 8, 2016 has exposed this as a lie. Meanwhile, during the Trump presidency the demographic steam roller will continue and when Trump goes, vertically or horizontally, the demographic balance in America will be even worse. That could be the tipping point for America. And the chance for Europe to take over.

Joe on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 10:27 am

Sadly cloggie is right. Importing the third world will result in the creation of more third world, not some alt/post white hybrid wealthy future. There is a reason that black and Muslim countries are poor, and it’s nothing to do with colonialism which ended in the last century. Europe prospered post ww2 because Churchill and Stalin and Roosevelt separated all the races of Europe each race to its own land and wisdom is being totally undone by the liberal elites like Soros et al. The alt/post white hopes of South Africa have delivered greater poverty and more corruption. Welcome to the vision of the liberal future.

Antius on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 11:58 am

This article provides a succinct explanation as to why nuclear power plant construction costs have skyrocketed in the US since the early 1970s and much of Europe excluding France. It also discusses how this can be remedied and provides links to other studies. For those interested in reading:

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea

simon on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 3:26 pm

Hi Antius
Not That impressed. Seems the post repeated message is let us build loads of thèse things and it Will Be grand.
It seems a tad disengenuous (sp) to say That safety regulations for a unit That can cause 100 billion of damage should ne frozen,when knowledge of thèse issues can advance.

I am not convinced, however i Can see how This technology would seem to Be the answer to our problème. As long as we deregulate and refuse to allow them pesny 3rd world guys a look in.
Sadly i believe the ansxer is a lot harder but ultimately more resilient

Simon

Powerful 5.6 earthquake rocks Fukushima

Leave a Reply Cancel reply