How will the rapidly declining birth rate factor in? The state where I live has already lost 10% of its elementary age children. I tell my company about this, la,la,la, la, I can’t hear you is what comes back at me.
Maybe less children present for the future chaos, civil war/violent upheaval, and abrupt die-off? Sarcasm aside, adding more children when global industrial civilization will not last another generation is pretty self-evident in case you’re planning to have children or planning their futures. We are living in pretty soft times with little to no consequence to unhinged population growth which is abnormal throughout human history.
In the short-term I guess it means less enrolment in schools and daycares (jobs); less sales of children’s goods than projected (economy); fewer people experiencing parenthood; less child directed state/federal social assistance than otherwise; fewer children suffering (versus a reckless baby boom and less attention/resources per additional child); and less competition for the shrinking energy, financial, and material resources against the other age demographics.
The places really popping out the kids globally are dirt poor, more ‘uneducated’, and with some of the births being unintended. In the West it’s more immigrants having children at or above replacement and there’s social welfare available for having more children. However, the costs of starting a married life in the West are too high; various things often delay marriage let alone childbirth for a decade or longer; raising children carries a far higher risk in the case of economic headwinds or divorce; and there’s much more collapse awareness (and poverty) among the younger generation of today. Honestly, the quality of life of children today is garbage, especially if you just go school (which is a sedentary indoctrination center) and right back to an apartment to stare at a digital screen for 13 years straight (with both parents working) while living in a exponentially worsening polycrisis. I guess some individuals or couples don’t want kids until things get better or after witnessing life after the collapse/reset.
Industrial civilization has created conditions for longer human lifespans, adding another generation or more to the average human lifespan around the world. Immigration and migratory flows from population growth countries have offset the decline in births in the West. Global population growth is still going up and countries will not limit human reproduction (asides from China) or stop social assistance for mothers and children, especially in the West. No country wants dying, starving, and abandoned children everywhere (like in places in Africa) as well as gruesome abortions where cheap or subsidized abortion clinics are not available.
With how fast energy or oil availability per capita is expected to exponentially go down, I assume everybody globally will eventually understand the material limits on how many children they can ultimately have or concurrently support. With the upcoming or ongoing global financial/economic collapse only making it much worse. At some point you’re going to reach a limiting factor. In the past that correction materialized as famines, war, migration, and or chaos killing millions abruptly and our growing polycrisis will exceed that.
Declining birth rates at the peak of industrial civilization or at the peak of our Seneca cliff (the drop in the roller-coaster going down shown in the limits to growth study or hubbert linearization of oil) has no significant impact on the ongoing collapse or its timeline. People and politicians care more for supporting the ‘useless’ old age or aging population (who can vote, hold assets, need pensions, require increasing social welfare, and more investment in medical care). The world of 15 years later will be a world engulfed in utter chaos and without rules or order if no globally acceptable emergency transition is available (it’s not) asides from temporarily utilizing war, pandemics, or economic/financial warfare to force austerity.
I must add that current and future children born before the total cascading collapse of global civilization do not have the adaption, skills, killer instinct, or critical thoughts needed for their survival in long term life-death situations. Maybe they have a chance in the third world but in the West they act and behave like domesticated and indoctrinated sheep. Like with the majority of the population they are living in Plato’s cave, blind and taking for granted (like their parents and mentors) that a total 180 degrees in lifestyle change is going to happen abruptly and be foisted onto them with no take backs. The children existing before the collapse will be positioned as more cognitively impaired, less physically capable (sedentary and increasingly poor diets), and have more accumulated pollution related sickness/damage. Unlike the children born to the successful survivors after the collapse and die-off. Quality is better than wanting mindless quantity (i.e., simply wanting increased birth rate/population growth) going forward.
It may not play out (or may not take hold quickly enough) but there is evidence all animals (including us) are facing a declining fertility rate. Our self-induced toxic environments seem to be playing a major role (microplastics, PFAS, and literally hundreds of chemicals with little to no regulation or understanding of their longterm effects). Thus Jeremy Granthem and others are pointing out the crisis (currently more visible in a few nations) will arrive within a generation as birth rates don’t keep up with death rates, (even as we may live longer than 50 years ago).
There are for sure a host of other ecological and economic issues as we “hover in mid-air” but this added a new spin to me, without judgment of it being “good or bad” — IE: one might conclude it’s “better for nonhumans” but since what we’ve wrought is also affecting most mammals and many other species, any moral assessments are vague.
Roger Boyd, in his latest Substack, "How I Came To Not Believe In Peak Oil & Peak Fossil Fuels (Production)", believes there will be no peak oil.
From his article -
"There will be no “peak oil production”, most especially with the rapid electrification of personal and commercial vehicles in China and the less rapid progress in Europe. Even with the US removing any fiscal support for electric vehicles. There will certainly be no “peak fossil fuels production”. There are a few still hanging on to this thesis (cognitive dissonance can be very hard to overcome) but in the end theory must comply with conflicting empirical evidence."
Maybe in a sense, he is right. If people are getting poorer, so unable to purchase as much, or take those holidays, or buy the big-ticket items, then there'll be less demand for oil.
Roger, is of course, talking about his own, very limited world, whereas conventional oil production per capita peaked in the 1970s. Most people really don't give a seconds thought to anyone outside their own tiny little world and it seems to me one of the main reasons the population of the US is about to become really surprised at how quickly their country balkanises.
ChatGPT tells me Africa uses 1.5 barrels per head per year, Europe 7.0 and the US 19.3. Does that help put into context the current "war on narcotics" being planned against Venezuela?
Currently, green technologies (solar, wind, BEVs) are winning - oil demand in China is actually decreasing due to the EV rollout, but as the scale increases, the minerals challenge becomes more acute. Although China (it'a always China) seems to have the answer to the Lithium shortage with sodium ion batteries - there's no shortage of sodium, it has refining costs but the amount available on earth unrefined is an abundance. Plus the old saw about copper, as if aluminium (far more abundent) being only half as conductive really makes that much difference.
China is almost impossible to get a good read on. Much of it is propaganda. However, they absolutely have rolled out EVs like no one else, but that is a consumer item... which doesn't necessary buy anything for industrial advancement.
Sodium batteries so far have been underwhelming, and only work in ideal conditions. The same could be said about lithium, but its energy density makes it viable in colder weather. The number of car fires from lithium battery issues in China is deeply concerning. Neither technology is ready for prime time.
But, its not really about electric cars anyway. Its about diesel. Nothing gets grown, processed or delivered to cities without diesel. Electric cars do nothing to address this, and electric systems do not scale up for heavy vehicles with the possible exception of rail.
Anything in fields or dirt roads will sink into the ground from the weight of the batteries. Winter operations make it nearly impossible to imagine something viable.
Lithium vehicles are replacing ice vehicles, and neither has solved the car crash issue. (ie cars crash sometimes). They're both well within acceptable tolerances, and further advancement will be a benefit of high sales.
It is not possible to put out a lithium battery fire that has gone into thermal runaway, as the reaction generates its own oxygen. This poses a big problem when fire daisy chains from car to car in closely packed conditions such as an underground parking area or ferry.
When this happens, the fumes are deadly. Buildings can fail in the heat, and ferries will sink. We allowed electric cars onto the roads before we could created and test standards for safe operation. For example, accidents over 80 kph will often result it fires due to battery crash impact chambers failing.
EVs from China are especially suspect, as they seem to catch fire far more frequently. Quality control (and trust) in China are almost non-existent, and the consequences will be deadly far too frequently soon. It is essential to prevent dumping of EVs by China, as they have been doing in Australia. As these batteries get older, the more impossible to put out fires will occur.
Sodium batteries are intended to address this, but so far they lack several abilities of their lithium counterparts. Neither work well in cold weather, but sodium will not take a charge at a much warmer temperature than lithium.
Lithium batteries are fine in cold weather. Maybe a little lost range. Lithium fires are also a fossil industry talking point - they're a problem, but not nearly so common as is made out.
Lithium batteries are viable in most world cold weather in our current warmer than usual climate. Sodium are not (yet). That said, Lithium will not charge at -40. That takes out viability in many parts of the global north, for at least some of the years. You should NEVER charge or park an EV in an enclosed garage.
I happen to live in that part of the world, and own two electric cars. They are not good in the Winter. They loose 1/3 of their range when charging near freezing, and if you want to stay warm, thats another 1/3 loss. If you get into an accident in those circumstances.... it becomes even more tenuous.
That said, I bought them as a hedge against lose of fuel distribution. Its a fools errand I know... but, I figured why not. Plus, they are fun to drive.
As far as fires go check out the many videos on the Youtube Channel StasheD Training. The industry has not been remotely transparent about the dangers of lithium fires. They are high consequence when they occur because they are not possible to put out. They are also extremely dangerous with noxious fumes. Had there been testing prior to their release on the roads, EVs would have been designed differently to make fires addressable.
Well, as they say, the cats out the bag on that one.
Peak oil is a mathematical certainty. When it might happen depends on the rate of production and total amount of finite oil available to be produced, but unless no one ever uses any oil so that the production rate is always zero, there WILL be a peak of production.
Right. I don't understand how so many "experts" and people with multiple PHDs dismiss peak oil as crazy doomer talk. Its not a matter of if but when. Since oil is finite, any rate of drawdown will result in available quantities being eventually drawn down completely until the resource is exhausted. Lower rates of production will push out the completion date while increased rates of production will bring the completion date closer.
Modern industrial civilization has a life expectancy tied directly to the amount of VIABLE oil left for extraction. People always bang on about reserves and how there is still plenty of oil in the ground. Yes, most of it will remain in the ground because the cost of extraction exceeds the benefits. From a energy return energy invested perspective.
I think you are right. There is a very clued up lady named Gail Tverberg who has analysed this and explained why a lot of supposed as yet unused reserves of fossil fuels will remain in the ground once the percentage of income spent on "essentials" increases and the percentage of income available for "discretionaries" collapses. This is already happening right now for the bottom 50 percent of income earners in western countries.
“ Industrial capitalism is self-terminating in front of our eyes, just like communism did in the 1980’s. Not in a big bang, but bit by bit in a hyper-normalized fashion, until the Jenga tower finally falls. And while most watch in disbelief, those who were paying attention knew this all along. I know this sounds harsh, or outright “doomerish”, but those who think otherwise might want to at least play with this idea, before a major crisis puts everyone in emergency mode.”
It’s time to “embrace the doom” and get into action building a local set of friends. Friends that grow and share food. Friends that build and share skills and capabilities essential in that kind of world. All while participating in BAU because we’re trapped in that reality.
This all seems entirely plausible if not likely. Failure of government will be disastrous as and when this happens and lead to a bloody free for all.
In the somewhat unlikely event we have a government of some integrity rationing and coupons would be the only way to equalise distribution of scarce resources.
When it comes down to it shelter, food and water are the essentials so these need to be safeguarded and managed through devolved authorities and the growing of food be a national priority.
While this sounds a little apocalyptic planning for such a scenario will still put us in a much stronger position for anything less dire.
From what I have read (a long time ago), rationing seemed to work pretty well in Australia during WW2 when people had to live simply while a larger share of the products of their labour were devoted to the "war effort". Am I correct here?
What comes next is a complete digital banking operation and the withdrawal of all money, the banks close and are removed, as are the machines which provide you with money from your accounts - my country adopted a digital system some years ago and where the banks once were, there are now coffee shops or some other form of retailing - everything is digital and nobody has money anymore and nowhere to bank it, as the banks have all gone.
You obtain a digital account with your bank, then you provide them with your mobile phone number, then when you make an online transaction, your bank sends you a verification number to your mobile phone, which you have to manually put into your new purchase, as verification the purchase was from you and that you verified the payment for it.
Personally I like the new system, as long as my access to my money is not withdrawn, when I refuse to cooperate with anything to do with my health - like refusing all vaccines and refusing to wear a wearable which monitors my health and an AI decides what medication I must take and probably predetermines a euthanasia program for me, when it decides I am too old to be allowed to live anymore - which I already am, but I'll cross the bridge, when I come to it.
My guess is that he wants to keep his social credit score up there as a "person of good standing" according to the arbitrary, likely somewhat green/globalist, standards that apply. Everything is traced and tracked - even comments on substack!
Well, so far as I am aware I can't be traced or tracked as long as I have my Cookies disabled which I do with everything internet related including my email provider and yes, a person of good standing who relies on their Government to provide the pension, on which I manage to survive as my only form of income, makes every sort of common sense to me - or if you like, put another way, I don't shit in my own nest, only yours when the opportunity presents itself...........
Well, you're strategy would have worked somewhat well in 1997. Today, every item of data is related to every other item of data. No matter what you do, unless it is from a computer that is burned down every time you use it.... everything you state or say .... is all attributed to you.
That said, I do think it is important to be careful about making statements that could draw the ire of some yet to be created AI super beast... such as Roko's Basilisk.
All good - I am about to transition to pensionable age. Not sure I want to subject myself to the Digital ID the Australian government wants to inflict on me when I have been able to avoid it so far and I am probably really only going to get a small part pension anyway. I respect whatever choices anyone makes. I personally want to avoid being traced and tracked every which way as long as possible because I want to be a free man and not end up a slave. I see it coming.
Very well thought out! I do think you need to think through rationing systems a little more though:
Rationing can work within countries, or perhaps a trading bloc like the EU, but can't work for international trade. Who would issue countries their ration tickets for Saudi oil or Ukrainian wheat? Without global governance, international rationing is impossible. In a world of economic collapse, creating a world government is very unlikely.
In a world without currencies and Forex, international trade could only be undertaken within a barter system, which means countries that need to buy food would have to have something of value to trade to a country that has a food surplus.
But many countries don't have anything (that others consider essential) to trade. If they can't produce all their own food, their people will starve.
Since energy is the source of all economic activity, it will be the most valuable item for international barter, but only energy sources that can travel internationally will do. Oil, coal, and natural gas (where international pipelines or LNG terminals exist) will be easy to barter with, but countries that don't have them will be destitute. Countries that have some surplus energy supply will be in the proverbial "catbird seat" and will be able to barter for anything they want.
In energy poor countries, with no way to keep their people fed on their own, the popular pressure for trying to take essential resources from other countries will be extreme. A world without money will have so many severe barter dislocations that it is likely to become a world with an immense amount of war. Desperate times will produce desperate measures.
As per my comment on an earlier post, relatively little anthracite is mined. It worries me that your previous post on coal indicates you don’t know a lot about coal and you weren’t interested in updating your knowledge when I commented on it. I have been reading your posts with interest but, if I know they aren’t well founded when I’m knowledgeable about a topic, I’m wondering if your posts are poorly founded in other areas. I would welcome a comment from the writer rather than other commentators.
Many science fiction and alternate history novels have dealt with these issues and the likely future of civilization...I wrote a primitive computer program 50 years ago, which predicted that resource scarcity would start to bite about 2014...Amazingly, the West's attempt to grab Russia's vast resources started in earnest in 2014, with the overthrow of Ukraine's elected government...If we look back brgotr 1700, what do we find for energy sources? Essentially, wood for heat and cooking, wind and water for some agricultural tasks, and animal or human power for everything else, along with limited coal use where it could be obtained close to the surface....But even with the small population of about 4 million, England was running out of wood, and needed imports from Scandinavia and North America...the World in 2150 will be a vastly smaller one, reverting to historic population density....Africa, for example, will probably revert to its historic population of 15-20 million...
But it will be a cold day in hell before this likelihood is believed by anyone currently alive..
Richard Douthwaite predicted that local currencies backed by local electricity production from renewables will emerge. If somebody produces energy and provides it a local microgrid, they would be issued tokens by the community. The tokens circle around the community. At any point someone can exchange a token for electricity.
Interesting idea. I mentioned somewhere a few months ago that there will need to be two harvests: One from your garden/chicken coop and the other when you harvest/store electricity from solar panels to run a few convenience items. (Gasoline/diesel will be a short term backup only). But the big problem will be theft, which is why I consider purchasing only portable solar panels that I will have to bring in at the end of every day. As for food, that too presents a problem which is why perfecting the art of dry storage and pressure canning (with a shelf life of two years for meat which I have confirmed doing my own canning) will be of paramount importance, just like our grand and great grandparents recognized. With canning, you will have "prepaid" for the food, the container, and the energy to cook it.
I absolutely love this idea. I also believe that it would be considered subversive, and any success in this regard would be immediately obliterate... much in the same way a former US president was.
Since you work in the oilfield then what has happened to onshore U.S. conventional oil production since the 1970s smart guy? If you want to talk about shale oil then there’s plenty left if the world can afford to pay $100-$200/barrel by 2035. However, the drilling area inside the core will be scant by 2030. You’d be lucky if the productivity declines outside the core per well are only half the current rate and they’re also more technically challenging to drill. America is not doubling shale oil drilling in future to stay flat nor tripling drilling to grow production. There won’t be any good rock left by 2035 to produce any economic oil. A 75% decline in shale oil by 2035 looks to be the current modelled trend with the peak in production in the rear view mirror and URR reaching nothing left by 2040. Total U.S. shale oil production currently declines 45% in a single year if no new production is added, its downside is much faster than the historical decline in U.S. lower 48 onshore conventional oil. Deepwater will never scale enough and both the decline rate and growing cost is too high. Countries with large or giant conventional oilfields like Saudi Arabia are injecting millions of barrels of water every day just to maintain production, with an exponentially increasing average water cut and decline rate. Discoveries of new cheap to produce, onshore/near-offshore, quick to get online, and abundant oil are non-existent. This party cannot go on forever and won’t.
Industry experts? Like, for instance, maybe someone who spent 15 years collecting data straight off the wellhead to calculate the royalties oil companies pay to the government? Certainly you're familiar with this aspect of the industry, correct?
You didn't answer the question. Can you alone disprove everything from Rystad Energy? Or are you ready to admit you are a troll with nothing to provide? What are you implying? That there is a glut of new oil just waiting to be tapped? Infinite oil?
Certainly you are familiar with the concept of people dismissing you out of hand because of you're failure to engage with any comments or refute anything said expect with
"Trust me bro. The author is wrong and I am right"
I notice you are completely unaware of any oilfield activity whatsoever outside of Texas and Arabia.
Why dont you do a little homework?
“The most notable change came in early 2025, following a new study commissioned by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).
Massive increase: The new assessment found Alberta's proven natural gas reserves to be 130 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), a substantial increase from the previous estimate of 24 Tcf.
Revised total: Including probable reserves, the total estimate is 144 Tcf.
Global ranking: This re-evaluation more than doubled Canada's total natural gas reserves, moving the country from 15th to 9th in the world.”
The current US administration is giving us a head start on collapse, taking the economy apart brick by brick. Maybe when the full effects make themselves felt, some change will begin.
How will the rapidly declining birth rate factor in? The state where I live has already lost 10% of its elementary age children. I tell my company about this, la,la,la, la, I can’t hear you is what comes back at me.
Maybe less children present for the future chaos, civil war/violent upheaval, and abrupt die-off? Sarcasm aside, adding more children when global industrial civilization will not last another generation is pretty self-evident in case you’re planning to have children or planning their futures. We are living in pretty soft times with little to no consequence to unhinged population growth which is abnormal throughout human history.
In the short-term I guess it means less enrolment in schools and daycares (jobs); less sales of children’s goods than projected (economy); fewer people experiencing parenthood; less child directed state/federal social assistance than otherwise; fewer children suffering (versus a reckless baby boom and less attention/resources per additional child); and less competition for the shrinking energy, financial, and material resources against the other age demographics.
The places really popping out the kids globally are dirt poor, more ‘uneducated’, and with some of the births being unintended. In the West it’s more immigrants having children at or above replacement and there’s social welfare available for having more children. However, the costs of starting a married life in the West are too high; various things often delay marriage let alone childbirth for a decade or longer; raising children carries a far higher risk in the case of economic headwinds or divorce; and there’s much more collapse awareness (and poverty) among the younger generation of today. Honestly, the quality of life of children today is garbage, especially if you just go school (which is a sedentary indoctrination center) and right back to an apartment to stare at a digital screen for 13 years straight (with both parents working) while living in a exponentially worsening polycrisis. I guess some individuals or couples don’t want kids until things get better or after witnessing life after the collapse/reset.
Industrial civilization has created conditions for longer human lifespans, adding another generation or more to the average human lifespan around the world. Immigration and migratory flows from population growth countries have offset the decline in births in the West. Global population growth is still going up and countries will not limit human reproduction (asides from China) or stop social assistance for mothers and children, especially in the West. No country wants dying, starving, and abandoned children everywhere (like in places in Africa) as well as gruesome abortions where cheap or subsidized abortion clinics are not available.
With how fast energy or oil availability per capita is expected to exponentially go down, I assume everybody globally will eventually understand the material limits on how many children they can ultimately have or concurrently support. With the upcoming or ongoing global financial/economic collapse only making it much worse. At some point you’re going to reach a limiting factor. In the past that correction materialized as famines, war, migration, and or chaos killing millions abruptly and our growing polycrisis will exceed that.
Declining birth rates at the peak of industrial civilization or at the peak of our Seneca cliff (the drop in the roller-coaster going down shown in the limits to growth study or hubbert linearization of oil) has no significant impact on the ongoing collapse or its timeline. People and politicians care more for supporting the ‘useless’ old age or aging population (who can vote, hold assets, need pensions, require increasing social welfare, and more investment in medical care). The world of 15 years later will be a world engulfed in utter chaos and without rules or order if no globally acceptable emergency transition is available (it’s not) asides from temporarily utilizing war, pandemics, or economic/financial warfare to force austerity.
I must add that current and future children born before the total cascading collapse of global civilization do not have the adaption, skills, killer instinct, or critical thoughts needed for their survival in long term life-death situations. Maybe they have a chance in the third world but in the West they act and behave like domesticated and indoctrinated sheep. Like with the majority of the population they are living in Plato’s cave, blind and taking for granted (like their parents and mentors) that a total 180 degrees in lifestyle change is going to happen abruptly and be foisted onto them with no take backs. The children existing before the collapse will be positioned as more cognitively impaired, less physically capable (sedentary and increasingly poor diets), and have more accumulated pollution related sickness/damage. Unlike the children born to the successful survivors after the collapse and die-off. Quality is better than wanting mindless quantity (i.e., simply wanting increased birth rate/population growth) going forward.
It may not play out (or may not take hold quickly enough) but there is evidence all animals (including us) are facing a declining fertility rate. Our self-induced toxic environments seem to be playing a major role (microplastics, PFAS, and literally hundreds of chemicals with little to no regulation or understanding of their longterm effects). Thus Jeremy Granthem and others are pointing out the crisis (currently more visible in a few nations) will arrive within a generation as birth rates don’t keep up with death rates, (even as we may live longer than 50 years ago).
There are for sure a host of other ecological and economic issues as we “hover in mid-air” but this added a new spin to me, without judgment of it being “good or bad” — IE: one might conclude it’s “better for nonhumans” but since what we’ve wrought is also affecting most mammals and many other species, any moral assessments are vague.
Roger Boyd, in his latest Substack, "How I Came To Not Believe In Peak Oil & Peak Fossil Fuels (Production)", believes there will be no peak oil.
From his article -
"There will be no “peak oil production”, most especially with the rapid electrification of personal and commercial vehicles in China and the less rapid progress in Europe. Even with the US removing any fiscal support for electric vehicles. There will certainly be no “peak fossil fuels production”. There are a few still hanging on to this thesis (cognitive dissonance can be very hard to overcome) but in the end theory must comply with conflicting empirical evidence."
Maybe in a sense, he is right. If people are getting poorer, so unable to purchase as much, or take those holidays, or buy the big-ticket items, then there'll be less demand for oil.
Who knows!
Roger, is of course, talking about his own, very limited world, whereas conventional oil production per capita peaked in the 1970s. Most people really don't give a seconds thought to anyone outside their own tiny little world and it seems to me one of the main reasons the population of the US is about to become really surprised at how quickly their country balkanises.
ChatGPT tells me Africa uses 1.5 barrels per head per year, Europe 7.0 and the US 19.3. Does that help put into context the current "war on narcotics" being planned against Venezuela?
Currently, green technologies (solar, wind, BEVs) are winning - oil demand in China is actually decreasing due to the EV rollout, but as the scale increases, the minerals challenge becomes more acute. Although China (it'a always China) seems to have the answer to the Lithium shortage with sodium ion batteries - there's no shortage of sodium, it has refining costs but the amount available on earth unrefined is an abundance. Plus the old saw about copper, as if aluminium (far more abundent) being only half as conductive really makes that much difference.
China is almost impossible to get a good read on. Much of it is propaganda. However, they absolutely have rolled out EVs like no one else, but that is a consumer item... which doesn't necessary buy anything for industrial advancement.
Sodium batteries so far have been underwhelming, and only work in ideal conditions. The same could be said about lithium, but its energy density makes it viable in colder weather. The number of car fires from lithium battery issues in China is deeply concerning. Neither technology is ready for prime time.
But, its not really about electric cars anyway. Its about diesel. Nothing gets grown, processed or delivered to cities without diesel. Electric cars do nothing to address this, and electric systems do not scale up for heavy vehicles with the possible exception of rail.
Anything in fields or dirt roads will sink into the ground from the weight of the batteries. Winter operations make it nearly impossible to imagine something viable.
Neither technology is ready for prime time.
??
Lithium vehicles are replacing ice vehicles, and neither has solved the car crash issue. (ie cars crash sometimes). They're both well within acceptable tolerances, and further advancement will be a benefit of high sales.
It is not possible to put out a lithium battery fire that has gone into thermal runaway, as the reaction generates its own oxygen. This poses a big problem when fire daisy chains from car to car in closely packed conditions such as an underground parking area or ferry.
When this happens, the fumes are deadly. Buildings can fail in the heat, and ferries will sink. We allowed electric cars onto the roads before we could created and test standards for safe operation. For example, accidents over 80 kph will often result it fires due to battery crash impact chambers failing.
EVs from China are especially suspect, as they seem to catch fire far more frequently. Quality control (and trust) in China are almost non-existent, and the consequences will be deadly far too frequently soon. It is essential to prevent dumping of EVs by China, as they have been doing in Australia. As these batteries get older, the more impossible to put out fires will occur.
Sodium batteries are intended to address this, but so far they lack several abilities of their lithium counterparts. Neither work well in cold weather, but sodium will not take a charge at a much warmer temperature than lithium.
Lithium batteries are fine in cold weather. Maybe a little lost range. Lithium fires are also a fossil industry talking point - they're a problem, but not nearly so common as is made out.
Lithium batteries are viable in most world cold weather in our current warmer than usual climate. Sodium are not (yet). That said, Lithium will not charge at -40. That takes out viability in many parts of the global north, for at least some of the years. You should NEVER charge or park an EV in an enclosed garage.
I happen to live in that part of the world, and own two electric cars. They are not good in the Winter. They loose 1/3 of their range when charging near freezing, and if you want to stay warm, thats another 1/3 loss. If you get into an accident in those circumstances.... it becomes even more tenuous.
That said, I bought them as a hedge against lose of fuel distribution. Its a fools errand I know... but, I figured why not. Plus, they are fun to drive.
As far as fires go check out the many videos on the Youtube Channel StasheD Training. The industry has not been remotely transparent about the dangers of lithium fires. They are high consequence when they occur because they are not possible to put out. They are also extremely dangerous with noxious fumes. Had there been testing prior to their release on the roads, EVs would have been designed differently to make fires addressable.
Well, as they say, the cats out the bag on that one.
False statement.
Solar, wind, BEV, etc. are not green.
All are made with finite reserves of minerals dug from the ground at great environmental cost.
All of this mining is made possible with fossil fuels powering the process.
Its amazing how people can read something and filter it out subconsciously if it doesn't fit into their world view.
Read Bright Green Lies and watch the accompanying documentary of the same name.
Nothing green about any of the "green" technologies.
So, from your point of view, it's just a name, and it's only value is the ability to refer to the group of technologies usually refered to as green?
I would go further as to say its nothing more than good PR and marketing. Makes people feel good to buy something that is "good for the planet".
To answer your question. Yes.
Peak oil is a mathematical certainty. When it might happen depends on the rate of production and total amount of finite oil available to be produced, but unless no one ever uses any oil so that the production rate is always zero, there WILL be a peak of production.
Right. I don't understand how so many "experts" and people with multiple PHDs dismiss peak oil as crazy doomer talk. Its not a matter of if but when. Since oil is finite, any rate of drawdown will result in available quantities being eventually drawn down completely until the resource is exhausted. Lower rates of production will push out the completion date while increased rates of production will bring the completion date closer.
Modern industrial civilization has a life expectancy tied directly to the amount of VIABLE oil left for extraction. People always bang on about reserves and how there is still plenty of oil in the ground. Yes, most of it will remain in the ground because the cost of extraction exceeds the benefits. From a energy return energy invested perspective.
I think you are right. There is a very clued up lady named Gail Tverberg who has analysed this and explained why a lot of supposed as yet unused reserves of fossil fuels will remain in the ground once the percentage of income spent on "essentials" increases and the percentage of income available for "discretionaries" collapses. This is already happening right now for the bottom 50 percent of income earners in western countries.
Really fine article, thank you! A perfect summary of our predicament.
“ Industrial capitalism is self-terminating in front of our eyes, just like communism did in the 1980’s. Not in a big bang, but bit by bit in a hyper-normalized fashion, until the Jenga tower finally falls. And while most watch in disbelief, those who were paying attention knew this all along. I know this sounds harsh, or outright “doomerish”, but those who think otherwise might want to at least play with this idea, before a major crisis puts everyone in emergency mode.”
It’s time to “embrace the doom” and get into action building a local set of friends. Friends that grow and share food. Friends that build and share skills and capabilities essential in that kind of world. All while participating in BAU because we’re trapped in that reality.
This all seems entirely plausible if not likely. Failure of government will be disastrous as and when this happens and lead to a bloody free for all.
In the somewhat unlikely event we have a government of some integrity rationing and coupons would be the only way to equalise distribution of scarce resources.
When it comes down to it shelter, food and water are the essentials so these need to be safeguarded and managed through devolved authorities and the growing of food be a national priority.
While this sounds a little apocalyptic planning for such a scenario will still put us in a much stronger position for anything less dire.
From what I have read (a long time ago), rationing seemed to work pretty well in Australia during WW2 when people had to live simply while a larger share of the products of their labour were devoted to the "war effort". Am I correct here?
Can’t claim first hand experience but that’s my understanding and also the general health of the population was far better than today.
What comes next is a complete digital banking operation and the withdrawal of all money, the banks close and are removed, as are the machines which provide you with money from your accounts - my country adopted a digital system some years ago and where the banks once were, there are now coffee shops or some other form of retailing - everything is digital and nobody has money anymore and nowhere to bank it, as the banks have all gone.
You obtain a digital account with your bank, then you provide them with your mobile phone number, then when you make an online transaction, your bank sends you a verification number to your mobile phone, which you have to manually put into your new purchase, as verification the purchase was from you and that you verified the payment for it.
Personally I like the new system, as long as my access to my money is not withdrawn, when I refuse to cooperate with anything to do with my health - like refusing all vaccines and refusing to wear a wearable which monitors my health and an AI decides what medication I must take and probably predetermines a euthanasia program for me, when it decides I am too old to be allowed to live anymore - which I already am, but I'll cross the bridge, when I come to it.
What country is this?
Ask me no questions and I'll tell ee (you) no lies, that I don't want to answer.
Why not?
My guess is that he wants to keep his social credit score up there as a "person of good standing" according to the arbitrary, likely somewhat green/globalist, standards that apply. Everything is traced and tracked - even comments on substack!
Well, so far as I am aware I can't be traced or tracked as long as I have my Cookies disabled which I do with everything internet related including my email provider and yes, a person of good standing who relies on their Government to provide the pension, on which I manage to survive as my only form of income, makes every sort of common sense to me - or if you like, put another way, I don't shit in my own nest, only yours when the opportunity presents itself...........
Well, you're strategy would have worked somewhat well in 1997. Today, every item of data is related to every other item of data. No matter what you do, unless it is from a computer that is burned down every time you use it.... everything you state or say .... is all attributed to you.
That said, I do think it is important to be careful about making statements that could draw the ire of some yet to be created AI super beast... such as Roko's Basilisk.
All good - I am about to transition to pensionable age. Not sure I want to subject myself to the Digital ID the Australian government wants to inflict on me when I have been able to avoid it so far and I am probably really only going to get a small part pension anyway. I respect whatever choices anyone makes. I personally want to avoid being traced and tracked every which way as long as possible because I want to be a free man and not end up a slave. I see it coming.
Likely Sweden. Possibly Denmark or Norway, Netherlands, or Estonia.
How about-
- repudiate all debt
- start a new currency
- ban usury (borrowing and lending)
I take your point about using gold or BTC just exacerbating wealth inequality.
Maybe the new currency is your “ration coupons” 🙁
Very well thought out! I do think you need to think through rationing systems a little more though:
Rationing can work within countries, or perhaps a trading bloc like the EU, but can't work for international trade. Who would issue countries their ration tickets for Saudi oil or Ukrainian wheat? Without global governance, international rationing is impossible. In a world of economic collapse, creating a world government is very unlikely.
In a world without currencies and Forex, international trade could only be undertaken within a barter system, which means countries that need to buy food would have to have something of value to trade to a country that has a food surplus.
But many countries don't have anything (that others consider essential) to trade. If they can't produce all their own food, their people will starve.
Since energy is the source of all economic activity, it will be the most valuable item for international barter, but only energy sources that can travel internationally will do. Oil, coal, and natural gas (where international pipelines or LNG terminals exist) will be easy to barter with, but countries that don't have them will be destitute. Countries that have some surplus energy supply will be in the proverbial "catbird seat" and will be able to barter for anything they want.
In energy poor countries, with no way to keep their people fed on their own, the popular pressure for trying to take essential resources from other countries will be extreme. A world without money will have so many severe barter dislocations that it is likely to become a world with an immense amount of war. Desperate times will produce desperate measures.
As per my comment on an earlier post, relatively little anthracite is mined. It worries me that your previous post on coal indicates you don’t know a lot about coal and you weren’t interested in updating your knowledge when I commented on it. I have been reading your posts with interest but, if I know they aren’t well founded when I’m knowledgeable about a topic, I’m wondering if your posts are poorly founded in other areas. I would welcome a comment from the writer rather than other commentators.
Thanks for this, it merits re-reading for sure. In the meantime have you come across this proposal:
https://open.substack.com/pub/clairejhartnell/p/7-project-2029?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=e5s3t
Many science fiction and alternate history novels have dealt with these issues and the likely future of civilization...I wrote a primitive computer program 50 years ago, which predicted that resource scarcity would start to bite about 2014...Amazingly, the West's attempt to grab Russia's vast resources started in earnest in 2014, with the overthrow of Ukraine's elected government...If we look back brgotr 1700, what do we find for energy sources? Essentially, wood for heat and cooking, wind and water for some agricultural tasks, and animal or human power for everything else, along with limited coal use where it could be obtained close to the surface....But even with the small population of about 4 million, England was running out of wood, and needed imports from Scandinavia and North America...the World in 2150 will be a vastly smaller one, reverting to historic population density....Africa, for example, will probably revert to its historic population of 15-20 million...
But it will be a cold day in hell before this likelihood is believed by anyone currently alive..
Barter will become the new economy.
Barter depends upon honesty and integrity. I don't see much of that right now. Do you?
It's no different than $ in the end.
Money is simply a Medium of exchange !!!!!
Not when it's produced by debt it isn't, which is the point of the article.
Richard Douthwaite predicted that local currencies backed by local electricity production from renewables will emerge. If somebody produces energy and provides it a local microgrid, they would be issued tokens by the community. The tokens circle around the community. At any point someone can exchange a token for electricity.
This seems the most likely outcome.
Interesting idea. I mentioned somewhere a few months ago that there will need to be two harvests: One from your garden/chicken coop and the other when you harvest/store electricity from solar panels to run a few convenience items. (Gasoline/diesel will be a short term backup only). But the big problem will be theft, which is why I consider purchasing only portable solar panels that I will have to bring in at the end of every day. As for food, that too presents a problem which is why perfecting the art of dry storage and pressure canning (with a shelf life of two years for meat which I have confirmed doing my own canning) will be of paramount importance, just like our grand and great grandparents recognized. With canning, you will have "prepaid" for the food, the container, and the energy to cook it.
I absolutely love this idea. I also believe that it would be considered subversive, and any success in this regard would be immediately obliterate... much in the same way a former US president was.
Im going to read up on Douthwaite
I work in the oilfield and you are so hilariously wrong about literally everything to do with it I couldn't even finish the article.
Queue Upton Sinclair quote.
Would you mind expanding on your comment? I'm curious.
Would you mind expanding on your comment? I'm curious.
Since you work in the oilfield then what has happened to onshore U.S. conventional oil production since the 1970s smart guy? If you want to talk about shale oil then there’s plenty left if the world can afford to pay $100-$200/barrel by 2035. However, the drilling area inside the core will be scant by 2030. You’d be lucky if the productivity declines outside the core per well are only half the current rate and they’re also more technically challenging to drill. America is not doubling shale oil drilling in future to stay flat nor tripling drilling to grow production. There won’t be any good rock left by 2035 to produce any economic oil. A 75% decline in shale oil by 2035 looks to be the current modelled trend with the peak in production in the rear view mirror and URR reaching nothing left by 2040. Total U.S. shale oil production currently declines 45% in a single year if no new production is added, its downside is much faster than the historical decline in U.S. lower 48 onshore conventional oil. Deepwater will never scale enough and both the decline rate and growing cost is too high. Countries with large or giant conventional oilfields like Saudi Arabia are injecting millions of barrels of water every day just to maintain production, with an exponentially increasing average water cut and decline rate. Discoveries of new cheap to produce, onshore/near-offshore, quick to get online, and abundant oil are non-existent. This party cannot go on forever and won’t.
Notice that our friend Dan doesn't reply to someone else with knowledge about "the oilfield."
He'd rather take shots at the author's post than respond directly to someone who can respond factually to his drive-by trolling.
Not for long
I'm only out of a job if we ever get around to being serious about nuclear again. And then I'd go work there.
Nuclear is also fully dependent on fossil fuels. Or do you think steel and concrete are willed into existence by the fair folk?
Wait until you find out theres places to drill that aren't in Texas!
B only ever quotes from industry experts and oil sites.
So oilprice is wrong about everything they post?
Rystad Energy is wrong about all the analysis they perform?
This comment is hilariously wrong.
Industry experts? Like, for instance, maybe someone who spent 15 years collecting data straight off the wellhead to calculate the royalties oil companies pay to the government? Certainly you're familiar with this aspect of the industry, correct?
You didn't answer the question. Can you alone disprove everything from Rystad Energy? Or are you ready to admit you are a troll with nothing to provide? What are you implying? That there is a glut of new oil just waiting to be tapped? Infinite oil?
Certainly you are familiar with the concept of people dismissing you out of hand because of you're failure to engage with any comments or refute anything said expect with
"Trust me bro. The author is wrong and I am right"
I notice you are completely unaware of any oilfield activity whatsoever outside of Texas and Arabia.
Why dont you do a little homework?
“The most notable change came in early 2025, following a new study commissioned by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).
Massive increase: The new assessment found Alberta's proven natural gas reserves to be 130 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), a substantial increase from the previous estimate of 24 Tcf.
Revised total: Including probable reserves, the total estimate is 144 Tcf.
Global ranking: This re-evaluation more than doubled Canada's total natural gas reserves, moving the country from 15th to 9th in the world.”
Just a little whoopsie in the numbers!
The romans made better concrete and steel than us without oil. It's just more efficient to use oil for literally everything.
Have you ever built anything, or worked anything even remotely connected to the trades?
You've said nothing to refute. You're simply appealing to the authority of some marketing firm.
Rystad was founded in 2004 by Jarand Rystad, a Norwegian physicist and earlier consultancy partner for McKinsey.
So before he was your sacred Infallible "expert" source, he was advising Purdue pharma about how to market opioids? How did those lawsuits go again?
May I suggest you register to Fast Eddy substack? Ooh, you really have the perfect profile, don't you? 😈
The current US administration is giving us a head start on collapse, taking the economy apart brick by brick. Maybe when the full effects make themselves felt, some change will begin.