While I don't disagree with your well composed insights, there is one additional aspect that might be considered - reclamation/recycling of previously mined materials. Using lithium as a timely example, when lithium based batteries "wear out", the Li does not magically cease to exist. It remains and can be reconstituted back to its original pristine form for reuse. Granted, there would be an energy investment to accomplish this, but that investment would be orders of magnitude less than mining for virgin material. The same holds for all other elemental ores, precious or not. Until manufacturers have a profit motive to pursue actual recycling at an industrial scale, it seems that this logical approach doesn't enter the public conversation. There will come a time when, instead of slipping into another dark age, folks may actually come to realize that the local landfill is both figuratively and literally a potential gold mine. I would welcome any opinions on this point and thanks again for your thought-provoking works.
Recycling is not a panacea for our fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot of which planetary sink overloading due to pollutants/toxins from our extractive industries (including recycling) is but one aspect. In fact, it is another in a long line of bargaining ploys that attempt to kick-the-can-down-the-road and avoid some extremely difficult choices that need to be made by humans (but likely won't be). I discuss this aspect tangentially in my two-part post on the myths behind the EV revolution here: https://olduvai.ca/?p=66446
Thanks very much for your comment. I didn't mean to offer up recycling as any sort of panacea, as such a thing does not exist. I agree, as per your writings, that the EV "revolution" (a.k.a. "scam") is anything but. However, I cannot yet work from the same base premise as you: that "ecological overshoot" has already happened on a scale that is irreparable or irreversible. Like climate change, global warming, global boiling (the most recent iteration), and the other offshoot environmental propaganda topics, there is scant evidence to actually support the fear. As an off-grid homesteader, I can say that nature is truly remarkable in its ability for renewal and the impact of man's activities are, from my observations and in my opinion, likely much less significant than the alarmists would have us believe. Additionally, you make several assertions in your article (https://olduvai.ca/?p=66446) stated as facts that are debatable. For example, you mention briefly that recycling of plastics is essentially a greenwashed marketing ploy. I absolutely concur that the "Green Agenda" is a ploy to herd the masses into a fear based control grid. However, the several sources you offer to support your claims that recycling somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics and the universal trends towards entropy are unfortunately all mockingbird media sources (CBS, Forbes, Politico, etc.) and Wikipedia. In fact, the articles share so many similarities that I would perhaps question their authenticity. In any event, by that implied argument, photosynthesis should also not occur and, as a result, most life on earth dependent on photosynthesis directly and indirectly is also a thermodynamic impossibility. These sources offer the argument that recycling, in its current form, is a sham and produces vast amounts of toxic waste (like that horrible greenhouse carbon dioxide that sustains life on the planet). This is a flawed argument. Simply because many recycling operations currently choose to convert waste plastics into combustible fuel because it is cost effective for them, does not in any way prove that recycling methods at scale cannot be instituted that surmount these short-term profit motivated faults. If, instead, you might view the recycling question from a chemist's perspective, it is evident that recycling is the only logical option and that it is the natural way of all things. I have yet to find a valid argument that offers evidence as to why an element such as lithium or compounds like hydrocarbons cannot be purified/synthesized (as we currently do), utilized (as we currently do), and then reclaimed and purified again or re-synthesized, beginning the cycle anew. All arguments against this cyclic approach eventually boil down to the contrarians ultimate point - it would require too much energy input (a thermodynamic falsehood) or it would be too expensive. Thus far, the latter point seems to be the pivotal issue. Thanks again for the response and apologies if my reply here has anything other than a respectful and conversational tone.
Peter, you might like to take a look at the science behind ecological overshoot and its symptom predicaments such as climate change, energy and resource decline, pollution loading, biodiversity decline, extinction, etc. What you will discover is that precisely what Steve and B say is the truth. There are literally HUNDREDS of these studies here: https://problemspredicamentsandtechnology.blogspot.com/p/files.html
Umm...Hey Erik. Just an FYI. In trying to tear into these links, I find that they are all (?) from Phys.org, a subsidiary of the Science X parent company. As stated on their website, "Science X publications have a high factual reporting rating from Media Bias / Fact Check and a green rating from NewsGuard". These well known fact-checkers (can I say shills?) are funded by the same globalist organizations that have created our current predicament and are offering the lovely "Green" solution to said predicament. They are not a feather in the cap credential for any reputable information source, unfortunately. Am I missing something?
Peter, focus on the actual studies rather than who published a link to it - the material itself is the important factor. I published it from that provider because they provide decent articles that accompany each study explaining what the study is about.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree over recycling. I would argue that the impossibility of recycling to help us out of our dilemma is one mostly of scale, particularly for 8+ billion and to the extent required to sustain our current complexities (which is the expectation by most in so-called 'advanced' economies). And the economics of all this plays a hugely significant role, particularly in a credit-/debt-based fiat currency world awash in quadrillions of dollars in potential claims on future energy/resources--neither of which exist in the quantities required, to say little of the ecological systems destruction that would result from the extraction and production of them. These claims cannot be met and will, eventually, lead to an implosion of what has become for all intents and purposes a gargantuan Ponzi scheme pulling growth/resources from our future to keep it from imploding. We cannot continue to pursue the infinite growth chalice on a finite planet already experiencing the broaching of planetary limits, regardless of our wishes to do so. Yes, nature recycles, but it does so in a very energy-efficient way and without the creation of mass quantities of pollutants/toxins that our processes result in. There's much possible 'in theory', but 'in reality' I'm doubtful any of it will help.
Amen brother on your characterization of the many layered Ponzi scheme and your vision that the mass consumption, never-ending growth absurdity cannot continue on in its present form. Nor should it. I do have a grasp of the inefficiencies inherent in all energy conversion, but I find hope in the recognition of the countless stabilizing and negentropic natural processes that occur without and within us that the corporate world has not yet been financially motivated to embrace. Soon, they will have no other option. Thanks for sharing your stimulating thoughts and I'm definitely going to check out your website more thoroughly. Appreciate it very much.
Did you know that when we recycle a plastic bottle ... the quality of the plastic degrades with each cycle... that's because it is not possible to separate the component materials.
Therefore a clear plastic bottle cannot be recycled into clear plastic
If we cannot do this... then we will never be able to separate the component materials of a battery.
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
Conventional Oil Sources peaked in 2008 and the Shale binge has now spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
I agree that oil reserves are finite, however, that does not render recycling irrelevant. What your post is referencing are statistics and projections focusing on petroleum extraction for virgin plastic production. This does not address the feasibility and future necessity of true recycling. I simply contend that, chemically, plastic and other materials are entirely recyclable back to original condition. It is disheartening that so many folks are caught up in the doomsday projections of dystopian life after peak oil production. It's also convenient that the perception in the public mind that we are desperate to access new oil reserves makes it much easier for oil companies to gain access to pristine areas for new drilling operations. I appreciate your thoughtful post and the number of sources you provided.
Peter Petrosino: "I simply contend that, chemically, plastic and other materials are entirely recyclable back to original condition."
Then let's see you references to pilot projects and scale up plans, obviously they'll have to be published by non- "shills" i.e. not funded by the "same globalist organizations that have created our current predicament" i.e. we need to read about your "reputable information source[s]"?
Meanwhile, I contend that if it were possible set up such supply chains for "materials [that] are entirely recyclable back to [their] original condition" then why haven't we seen them built and selling their outputs already?
Perhaps "the contrarians ultimate point - it would require too much energy input (a thermodynamic falsehood) or it would be too expensive" is in fact your good self trying to some how banish the said laws of physics from applying?
Typing "(a thermodynamic falsehood)" without any references or example calculations is simply waving a wand and then expecting re-cycling to magically just happen!
Great writing as per usual. I do find the co2/rising sea level stuff hard to stomach. Not that it really matters because the energy concerns will hit first.
To my mind the climate propaganda/green agenda/great reset is the cover story to manage degrowth (while continuing to make money for the 'stakeholder capitalists' as we slide down the Seneca cliff). After all you can't tell people civilization is ending.
96℅ of NOAA weather stations in urban heat islands..
The purpose of Global Warming is to vilify fossil fuels ... so that instead of them running out ... they can tell us we are transitioning off them to renewables.
Telling us that we are running out would cause mass panic and despair...
It is extremely important that the masses of MOREONS believe that we are transitioning....
Notice how we are told that all ICE vehicles will be banned in less than a decade?
Obviously not possible ... but countries have passed laws of this nature... again it convinces the MOREONS that we are progressing towards a clean green world.
A very sobering analysis and perspective on future prospects for human societies in a resource depleted world. The forming bottleneck for human population sustainability is not an everyday consideration currently. But as you predict, it’s a process that seems inevitable.
I am aware of that argument and I would point out the difference between "can't" and "don't". Chemically, any compound that can be synthesized can be decomposed back to its component elements/compounds. Utilizing that logic, it should be impossible for plants to synthesize sugars and complex carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water and then aerobically respire these products back to water and carbon dioxide (yes folks, plants aerobically respire just like us). Industry currently views the separation of plastic components as economically unfavorable and doesn't care about the ecological cost. If you don't believe that plastic can be broken down and re-manufactured back you can get a glimpse of partial decomposition by leaving your plastic bottle out in the sun for a string of days. I have 5 gallon buckets that crumble in your bare hands after UV exposure of a couple of years and disintegrate further with longer periods. Atoms and molecules are nature's Lego pieces and if something can be made, it can be unmade.
I watched Stargate, and Star Trek and both shows indicate that all advanced mining is done with a pickax, and basket. Where do all these trucks and stuff come into the picture??
Hi Natasha and thank you for taking the time to comment. At no point did I contend that there have been "pilot projects and scale up plans" to my knowledge. I would be thrilled to find out there there are, but do you really believe that "obviously they'll have to be published"? Have you not perceived how published material masquerading as actual science tends to follow the money? As an example, consider the ubiquitous "safe and effective" mantra that was entirely based on bastardized pseudo-science and statistical manipulation. But how could so many people have fallen for such a ruse, conveniently wrapped in the trapping of what they believe science should be? Or maybe the declaration of "global boiling" by the UN Secretary General based on obviously undeniable "science". I see no reason to agree with your use of the term "obviously" in order to bolster your point. With regards to the "laws of physics", I would direct your attention to what would be more accurately known as the first law of thermodynamics - that energy is neither created or destroyed, but only changes forms. I am unaware of any law of thermodynamics (or physics) that explains why any chemical synthesis process (such as hydrocarbon polymerization of plastics) would be irreversible. Can you provide an example of an irreversible chemical process, please? When you next look at yourself in the mirror, take a moment to appreciate the fact that your physical existence is a beautiful and miraculous result of ongoing bidirectional chemical processes. If these processes were not reversible and reproducible, we (and all other life) would not exist. The universe and our earth, by my limited estimation (very limited, I grant), functions on countless cyclic, reversible processes on the smallest to the grandest scale. I cannot find any evidence, as of yet, that can illustrate how the predicament faced by our allegiances to modernity, cannot be addressed effectively by emulating what the natural world illustrates so vividly for us. I understand that everyone is justifiably concerned about our current societal condition, but growing afraid, angry, and despondent over it all is a sure way to be drawn into the control grid that impairs our ability to think critically. If you look at one of my earlier exchanges here with a couple of other readers regarding their conception of "ecological overshoot" and related concepts, no one has spoken to my contention of the reversibility of all chemical processes and, when source information was offered to me, it was all from a single source that publishes such rigorous and important "scientific" findings as "How A City Is Designed Can Create Less Biased Citizens" which elaborates on how the physical design of cities has a large impact on the "obvious" widespread "systemic racism" from which our nation suffers (https://phys.org/news/2024-02-city-biased-citizens.html#google_vignette). I suppose my main message in response to your comment is this - have hope for the future and rest assured that, although the path ahead may seem dark, keep your spirits high and together we will find the light. Kind regards.
Including recycling in this equation that B presents to us to make complexity sustainable only increases energy-material cannibalism. Optimal, non-ruinous recycling requires cooperation (not capitalist competition) and simple technology. Living organisms cooperating manage to recycle at rates of 99%, while humans in their complex and competitive industrial system do not exceed the rate of 50%... Recycling metals at the trace level in complex devices requires a lot of energy and materials, a cost that a company that is forced to compete in the market cannot afford... Recycling, sustainability and low complexity go together.. when we simplify (a.k.a. collapse) we will be able to recycle and be sustainable... again.
A few months ago I listened to a 'Mining and Metals' forum put on by one of the big accounting/consulting firms. Industry leaders seem to think they are going to use hydrogen to power the mining vehicles.
While I don't disagree with your well composed insights, there is one additional aspect that might be considered - reclamation/recycling of previously mined materials. Using lithium as a timely example, when lithium based batteries "wear out", the Li does not magically cease to exist. It remains and can be reconstituted back to its original pristine form for reuse. Granted, there would be an energy investment to accomplish this, but that investment would be orders of magnitude less than mining for virgin material. The same holds for all other elemental ores, precious or not. Until manufacturers have a profit motive to pursue actual recycling at an industrial scale, it seems that this logical approach doesn't enter the public conversation. There will come a time when, instead of slipping into another dark age, folks may actually come to realize that the local landfill is both figuratively and literally a potential gold mine. I would welcome any opinions on this point and thanks again for your thought-provoking works.
Recycling is not a panacea for our fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot of which planetary sink overloading due to pollutants/toxins from our extractive industries (including recycling) is but one aspect. In fact, it is another in a long line of bargaining ploys that attempt to kick-the-can-down-the-road and avoid some extremely difficult choices that need to be made by humans (but likely won't be). I discuss this aspect tangentially in my two-part post on the myths behind the EV revolution here: https://olduvai.ca/?p=66446
Thanks very much for your comment. I didn't mean to offer up recycling as any sort of panacea, as such a thing does not exist. I agree, as per your writings, that the EV "revolution" (a.k.a. "scam") is anything but. However, I cannot yet work from the same base premise as you: that "ecological overshoot" has already happened on a scale that is irreparable or irreversible. Like climate change, global warming, global boiling (the most recent iteration), and the other offshoot environmental propaganda topics, there is scant evidence to actually support the fear. As an off-grid homesteader, I can say that nature is truly remarkable in its ability for renewal and the impact of man's activities are, from my observations and in my opinion, likely much less significant than the alarmists would have us believe. Additionally, you make several assertions in your article (https://olduvai.ca/?p=66446) stated as facts that are debatable. For example, you mention briefly that recycling of plastics is essentially a greenwashed marketing ploy. I absolutely concur that the "Green Agenda" is a ploy to herd the masses into a fear based control grid. However, the several sources you offer to support your claims that recycling somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics and the universal trends towards entropy are unfortunately all mockingbird media sources (CBS, Forbes, Politico, etc.) and Wikipedia. In fact, the articles share so many similarities that I would perhaps question their authenticity. In any event, by that implied argument, photosynthesis should also not occur and, as a result, most life on earth dependent on photosynthesis directly and indirectly is also a thermodynamic impossibility. These sources offer the argument that recycling, in its current form, is a sham and produces vast amounts of toxic waste (like that horrible greenhouse carbon dioxide that sustains life on the planet). This is a flawed argument. Simply because many recycling operations currently choose to convert waste plastics into combustible fuel because it is cost effective for them, does not in any way prove that recycling methods at scale cannot be instituted that surmount these short-term profit motivated faults. If, instead, you might view the recycling question from a chemist's perspective, it is evident that recycling is the only logical option and that it is the natural way of all things. I have yet to find a valid argument that offers evidence as to why an element such as lithium or compounds like hydrocarbons cannot be purified/synthesized (as we currently do), utilized (as we currently do), and then reclaimed and purified again or re-synthesized, beginning the cycle anew. All arguments against this cyclic approach eventually boil down to the contrarians ultimate point - it would require too much energy input (a thermodynamic falsehood) or it would be too expensive. Thus far, the latter point seems to be the pivotal issue. Thanks again for the response and apologies if my reply here has anything other than a respectful and conversational tone.
Peter, you might like to take a look at the science behind ecological overshoot and its symptom predicaments such as climate change, energy and resource decline, pollution loading, biodiversity decline, extinction, etc. What you will discover is that precisely what Steve and B say is the truth. There are literally HUNDREDS of these studies here: https://problemspredicamentsandtechnology.blogspot.com/p/files.html
Thanks very much Erik! I'll have a look at these. Much appreciated.
Umm...Hey Erik. Just an FYI. In trying to tear into these links, I find that they are all (?) from Phys.org, a subsidiary of the Science X parent company. As stated on their website, "Science X publications have a high factual reporting rating from Media Bias / Fact Check and a green rating from NewsGuard". These well known fact-checkers (can I say shills?) are funded by the same globalist organizations that have created our current predicament and are offering the lovely "Green" solution to said predicament. They are not a feather in the cap credential for any reputable information source, unfortunately. Am I missing something?
Peter, focus on the actual studies rather than who published a link to it - the material itself is the important factor. I published it from that provider because they provide decent articles that accompany each study explaining what the study is about.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree over recycling. I would argue that the impossibility of recycling to help us out of our dilemma is one mostly of scale, particularly for 8+ billion and to the extent required to sustain our current complexities (which is the expectation by most in so-called 'advanced' economies). And the economics of all this plays a hugely significant role, particularly in a credit-/debt-based fiat currency world awash in quadrillions of dollars in potential claims on future energy/resources--neither of which exist in the quantities required, to say little of the ecological systems destruction that would result from the extraction and production of them. These claims cannot be met and will, eventually, lead to an implosion of what has become for all intents and purposes a gargantuan Ponzi scheme pulling growth/resources from our future to keep it from imploding. We cannot continue to pursue the infinite growth chalice on a finite planet already experiencing the broaching of planetary limits, regardless of our wishes to do so. Yes, nature recycles, but it does so in a very energy-efficient way and without the creation of mass quantities of pollutants/toxins that our processes result in. There's much possible 'in theory', but 'in reality' I'm doubtful any of it will help.
Amen brother on your characterization of the many layered Ponzi scheme and your vision that the mass consumption, never-ending growth absurdity cannot continue on in its present form. Nor should it. I do have a grasp of the inefficiencies inherent in all energy conversion, but I find hope in the recognition of the countless stabilizing and negentropic natural processes that occur without and within us that the corporate world has not yet been financially motivated to embrace. Soon, they will have no other option. Thanks for sharing your stimulating thoughts and I'm definitely going to check out your website more thoroughly. Appreciate it very much.
Did you know that when we recycle a plastic bottle ... the quality of the plastic degrades with each cycle... that's because it is not possible to separate the component materials.
Therefore a clear plastic bottle cannot be recycled into clear plastic
If we cannot do this... then we will never be able to separate the component materials of a battery.
Recycling is irrelevant:
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Biggest-Oil-Gas-Discoveries-Of-2019.html
Conventional Oil Sources peaked in 2008 and the Shale binge has now spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
Some key points from this Financial Times article: https://energyskeptic.com/2021/the-end-of-fracked-shale-oil/
Shale boss says US has passed peak oil | Financial Times https://archive.ph/tjl6J
I agree that oil reserves are finite, however, that does not render recycling irrelevant. What your post is referencing are statistics and projections focusing on petroleum extraction for virgin plastic production. This does not address the feasibility and future necessity of true recycling. I simply contend that, chemically, plastic and other materials are entirely recyclable back to original condition. It is disheartening that so many folks are caught up in the doomsday projections of dystopian life after peak oil production. It's also convenient that the perception in the public mind that we are desperate to access new oil reserves makes it much easier for oil companies to gain access to pristine areas for new drilling operations. I appreciate your thoughtful post and the number of sources you provided.
Peter Petrosino: "I simply contend that, chemically, plastic and other materials are entirely recyclable back to original condition."
Then let's see you references to pilot projects and scale up plans, obviously they'll have to be published by non- "shills" i.e. not funded by the "same globalist organizations that have created our current predicament" i.e. we need to read about your "reputable information source[s]"?
Meanwhile, I contend that if it were possible set up such supply chains for "materials [that] are entirely recyclable back to [their] original condition" then why haven't we seen them built and selling their outputs already?
Perhaps "the contrarians ultimate point - it would require too much energy input (a thermodynamic falsehood) or it would be too expensive" is in fact your good self trying to some how banish the said laws of physics from applying?
Typing "(a thermodynamic falsehood)" without any references or example calculations is simply waving a wand and then expecting re-cycling to magically just happen!
Thank you B🙏
Great writing as per usual. I do find the co2/rising sea level stuff hard to stomach. Not that it really matters because the energy concerns will hit first.
To my mind the climate propaganda/green agenda/great reset is the cover story to manage degrowth (while continuing to make money for the 'stakeholder capitalists' as we slide down the Seneca cliff). After all you can't tell people civilization is ending.
96℅ of NOAA weather stations in urban heat islands..
https://heartland.org/opinion/media-advisory-96-of-us-climate-data-is-corrupted/
UK Channel 4 documentary from 2007 (when investigative reporting was still a thing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY-gRFSaP7o
The purpose of Global Warming is to vilify fossil fuels ... so that instead of them running out ... they can tell us we are transitioning off them to renewables.
Telling us that we are running out would cause mass panic and despair...
It is extremely important that the masses of MOREONS believe that we are transitioning....
Notice how we are told that all ICE vehicles will be banned in less than a decade?
Obviously not possible ... but countries have passed laws of this nature... again it convinces the MOREONS that we are progressing towards a clean green world.
All lies. Of course. But necessary lies
A very sobering analysis and perspective on future prospects for human societies in a resource depleted world. The forming bottleneck for human population sustainability is not an everyday consideration currently. But as you predict, it’s a process that seems inevitable.
Thanks B. I'll include this in my next blog post.
What does diesel do? Well lets take a look:
https://energyskeptic.com/2024/off-road-vehicles-and-equipment-need-diesel-fueled-engines-for-power-mobility-and-efficiency/
One might argue that civilization and 'intelligence' are the two worst things to every happen to a species
I am aware of that argument and I would point out the difference between "can't" and "don't". Chemically, any compound that can be synthesized can be decomposed back to its component elements/compounds. Utilizing that logic, it should be impossible for plants to synthesize sugars and complex carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water and then aerobically respire these products back to water and carbon dioxide (yes folks, plants aerobically respire just like us). Industry currently views the separation of plastic components as economically unfavorable and doesn't care about the ecological cost. If you don't believe that plastic can be broken down and re-manufactured back you can get a glimpse of partial decomposition by leaving your plastic bottle out in the sun for a string of days. I have 5 gallon buckets that crumble in your bare hands after UV exposure of a couple of years and disintegrate further with longer periods. Atoms and molecules are nature's Lego pieces and if something can be made, it can be unmade.
Hey! Hold on there!!
I watched Stargate, and Star Trek and both shows indicate that all advanced mining is done with a pickax, and basket. Where do all these trucks and stuff come into the picture??
Or is that just dilithium?
Hi Natasha and thank you for taking the time to comment. At no point did I contend that there have been "pilot projects and scale up plans" to my knowledge. I would be thrilled to find out there there are, but do you really believe that "obviously they'll have to be published"? Have you not perceived how published material masquerading as actual science tends to follow the money? As an example, consider the ubiquitous "safe and effective" mantra that was entirely based on bastardized pseudo-science and statistical manipulation. But how could so many people have fallen for such a ruse, conveniently wrapped in the trapping of what they believe science should be? Or maybe the declaration of "global boiling" by the UN Secretary General based on obviously undeniable "science". I see no reason to agree with your use of the term "obviously" in order to bolster your point. With regards to the "laws of physics", I would direct your attention to what would be more accurately known as the first law of thermodynamics - that energy is neither created or destroyed, but only changes forms. I am unaware of any law of thermodynamics (or physics) that explains why any chemical synthesis process (such as hydrocarbon polymerization of plastics) would be irreversible. Can you provide an example of an irreversible chemical process, please? When you next look at yourself in the mirror, take a moment to appreciate the fact that your physical existence is a beautiful and miraculous result of ongoing bidirectional chemical processes. If these processes were not reversible and reproducible, we (and all other life) would not exist. The universe and our earth, by my limited estimation (very limited, I grant), functions on countless cyclic, reversible processes on the smallest to the grandest scale. I cannot find any evidence, as of yet, that can illustrate how the predicament faced by our allegiances to modernity, cannot be addressed effectively by emulating what the natural world illustrates so vividly for us. I understand that everyone is justifiably concerned about our current societal condition, but growing afraid, angry, and despondent over it all is a sure way to be drawn into the control grid that impairs our ability to think critically. If you look at one of my earlier exchanges here with a couple of other readers regarding their conception of "ecological overshoot" and related concepts, no one has spoken to my contention of the reversibility of all chemical processes and, when source information was offered to me, it was all from a single source that publishes such rigorous and important "scientific" findings as "How A City Is Designed Can Create Less Biased Citizens" which elaborates on how the physical design of cities has a large impact on the "obvious" widespread "systemic racism" from which our nation suffers (https://phys.org/news/2024-02-city-biased-citizens.html#google_vignette). I suppose my main message in response to your comment is this - have hope for the future and rest assured that, although the path ahead may seem dark, keep your spirits high and together we will find the light. Kind regards.
Fantastic description of the reality we're in. Now,.can anyone but a tiny minority of people accept this?
Including recycling in this equation that B presents to us to make complexity sustainable only increases energy-material cannibalism. Optimal, non-ruinous recycling requires cooperation (not capitalist competition) and simple technology. Living organisms cooperating manage to recycle at rates of 99%, while humans in their complex and competitive industrial system do not exceed the rate of 50%... Recycling metals at the trace level in complex devices requires a lot of energy and materials, a cost that a company that is forced to compete in the market cannot afford... Recycling, sustainability and low complexity go together.. when we simplify (a.k.a. collapse) we will be able to recycle and be sustainable... again.
A few months ago I listened to a 'Mining and Metals' forum put on by one of the big accounting/consulting firms. Industry leaders seem to think they are going to use hydrogen to power the mining vehicles.
Thank you. Fine article.
Another great piece of insight