Worshipping False Gods

Sarah Halimi was thrown out of her apartment window in Paris. French prosecutors decided to drop murder charges against her killer, who had shouted “Allahu Akbar” and who had told them: “When I saw the Torah and a chandelier in her home, I felt oppressed,” because, those prosecutors said, he had smoked weed.

***
Socialism for capitalists is no better than other forms of socialism, and few reforms could be more important than once again making capitalism a system of profit and loss. The market-liberal logic is merciless: either a business is competitive and so does not need support, or it is not competitive and so doesn’t deserve support.--Norberg

***

Worshipping False Gods

Devotion to concepts and notions is not its own reward. There are many religions and all can not be right. Being wrong has consequences. One does not want to offer one's daughter to the volcano without having some confidence in the value of her sacrifice.

This does not seem to be of much concern in faith-based environmentalism. A teaching case is Africa.

An essential element of commerce of any type is availability. Scarcity. Ignoring this basic quality makes any action whimsical and its aim a forgone failure. It's a common problem for adolescents and governments.

Hydropower is the world’s most widely used form of renewable energy, propelling development in South America, parts of China and India, and much of sub-Saharan Africa. But over the past two years, extreme droughts have made this critical energy supply less reliable. Growing populations have exaggerated the problem, leading to desperation and potential political instability.

Hydropower — which makes up about half of the world’s clean energy supply — saw a record decline last year. As a consequence, Beijing fired up more coal plants. India increased coal imports. The International Energy Agency says that global emissions from electricity generation would have fallen last year, instead of rising to another record high, had it not been for unexpected, drought-related hydropower failures on multiple continents — and the policy decisions that followed. In other words, everything was going fine, until it wasn't.

This year, the extreme shortages have shifted to other parts of the world. Amid a historic South American drought, Ecuador is contending with daily blackouts, and its government leased a Turkish barge-mounted power plant as an emergency measure.

Hydropower plays a major role in almost any scenario where the planet meets its climate goals. But one 2022 study, led by researchers at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), found that 26 percent of existing dams are located where there’s a medium to very high risk of water scarcity. By 2050, the study projects, climate change will push that figure up to 32 percent.

The International Energy Agency has singled out Africa’s vulnerability, noting its high dependence on hydropower and the “increased risk of water stress due to changing and erratic precipitation patterns” as the planet warms.

“Of all the different climate solutions — wind, solar — it’s definitely the one that is the most vulnerable to the climate itself,” said Jeff Opperman, the global freshwater lead scientist at the WWF.

Right now, Zambia’s Kariba hydro plant — the country’s single biggest source of power — is operating at one-tenth of its capacity.

Zambia has moved quickly to double the capacity of an existing coal-fired power plant that, when the expansion is completed in two years, will give the country a modest energy boost. It has also rush-ordered diesel generators, distributing them in markets across the capital of Lusaka. But in the meantime, there’s an even dirtier fuel that is booming in demand: charcoal, a carbon residue produced by strongly heating wood (or other animal and plant materials) in minimal oxygen to remove all water and volatile constituents.

The coal plant would stave off an even worse scenario that’s unfolding now. As Zambians seek out charcoal, they are cutting down forests that absorb carbon dioxide if they are left standing.

Charcoal production is decimating Zambia’s forests so coal would be a superior alternative.

Zambia doesn’t have oil or gas, but it sits on large reserves of coal. It operated a 300-megawatt coal-fired power plant before the hydropower shortfall; its capacity will rise to 600 megawatts. Because many international lenders had sworn off funding coal, Zambia tapped its national pension fund to help finance the work.

Sometimes the rain dance doesn't fall on the right ears. So we dance faster, harder, and louder.
 

What Subsidies Say

I'm genuinely stunned at how good OpenAI's Sora AI video previews are. It makes existing video models look like silly toys. Everyone will be a filmmaker.--De Kraker

***

The Coke and Pepsi pricing strategies are being scrutinized under an obscure law known as the Robinson-Patman Act. The law prohibits suppliers from offering better prices to large retailers at the expense of their smaller competitors. The largely dormant 1936 law is aimed at promoting a level playing field between small retailers and large chain stores.

***

What Subsidies Say

Subsidies are supports outside of normal analysis. Sometimes subsidies just jump-start something before its time. Create a foundation for a new structure, large or small. Clean energy is not a "transition," it is a destructive overturning of the present without a real vision of what is to come.

If the “clean energy transition” were economically efficient, financial support would be available. Market forces would affect the “transition” without Beltway interference. But unconventional energy is very far from efficient. It needs all the help it can get. So its devotees take money from the productive and efficient part of the economy and underwrite the inefficient 'new energy' economy with the diverted money.
 

An honest cost analysis of these policies will not be forthcoming because this is not a matter of commerce or economics but rather of ideology. And ideology--while passionate --generally has long escaped the intellect.

Evil Incantations from The Climate Book

Communism failed and is bound to fail for at least two reasons: one, that to enforce equality, its principal objective, it is necessary to create a coercive apparatus that demands privileges and thereby negates equality; and two, that ethnic and territorial loyalties, when in conflict with class allegiances, everywhere and at all times overwhelm them, dissolving Communism in nationalism, which is why socialism so easily combines with “Fascism.”---Pipes

***

The cost of operating many British pubs has already doubled in recent months, and the government plans very modest assistance to country pubs that use heating oil and liquefied natural gas.

***

On the eve of the Civil War, there’s a figure by the name of George Fitzhugh who’s considered probably the most prominent pro-slavery theorist in the United States. Fitzhugh opens his book, not by attacking the abolitionists outright, but by attacking the doctrine of free trade and laissez-faire economics. Fitzhugh declares that free-market capitalism is “at war with slavery” by introducing a free-labor system and styles of production that he sees as unsuited to the agrarian slave economy.--magness

***

The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to wade into the so-called fetal personhood debate, deciding not to take up a case out of Rhode Island over whether fetuses should have constitutional rights.

***

Evil Incantations from The Climate Book

An article called "...an edited extract from The Climate Book created by Greta Thunberg" has appeared in The Guardian. Here are some interesting notions, with comments.

"The fact that 3 billion people use less energy, on an annual per capita basis, than a standard American refrigerator gives you an idea of how far away from global equity and climate justice we currently are."

---Here is a new, at least to me, element in the climate change catechism: climate justice and global equity. While the concepts are ephemeral, we know what it means: someone is going to pay for their success. And there are some practical questions. 14% of Irish households heat the home with peat. Under the new Equity created by the Global Warming Giant Brains, with those households be elevated to join the rest of the West, or will the rest of the West decline to theirs? They'll probably use their EVs to power their homes.

"Beyoncé was wrong. It is not girls who run the world. It is run by politicians, corporations and financial interests – mainly represented by white, privileged, middle-aged, straight cis men. And it turns out most of them are terribly ill-suited for the job. This may not come as a big surprise. After all, the purpose of a company is not to save the world – it is to make a profit. Or, rather, it is to make as much profit as it possibly can in order to keep shareholders and market interests happy."

---Ah! The white, privileged, middle-aged, straight cis men are integral to global warming. But race-baiters, Leftists, and professional apocolypsettes are immune to charges of thoughtless bias. And they can insult their moneyed friends with impunity because the gravy train is sumptuous and never-ending. White, privileged, middle-aged, straight cis men invited to the banquet will put up with a lot in order to finance and supply a revolution, even one that threatens their own.

"Journalist Alexandra Urisman Otto describes how she started investigating Swedish climate policies and found that only a third of our actual emissions of greenhouse gases were included in our climate targets and the official national statistics. The rest were either outsourced or hidden in the loopholes of international climate accounting frameworks. So whenever the climate crisis is debated in my “progressive” home country, we conveniently leave out two-thirds of the problem. An investigation by the Washington Post in November 2021 has shown that this phenomenon is far from unique to Sweden. Though the figures vary from case to case, this process and the overall mentality of constantly trying to sweep things under the carpet and blame others is the international norm."

---Dangerous waters, here, but they clearly don't care. Not only does she disparage the companies who are much of the driving force of climate change--and profits to be made thereby--she also disparages the accuracy of the climate studies on which all of her assumptions are based. She says those inaccuracies are underestimating the problem. But why so? Why are inaccuracies limited to her view? Maybe the whole concept is flawed.

"Our politicians do not need to wait for anyone else in order to start taking action. Nor do they need conferences, treaties, international agreements or outside pressure. They could start right away. They also have – and have had for a long time – endless opportunities to speak up and send a clear message about the fact that we must fundamentally change our societies. And yet, with very few exceptions, they actively choose not to."

---Now, something subtle. Our leaders can move quickly, without approval. Who's delaying? International groups are the presumed procrastinators. But one group unmentioned is the citizen, the guy who will finance this seppuku and then suffer it. His approval is not necessary. Leaders have their own criteria, listen to their own inner voice. Their own vision is all that is necessary. We don't have names for these new enlightened ones yet. But we know their citizen-victims by many names: serf, villein, liegeman, vassal, helot, thrall, slave, peon, servant. It's hard to imagine that any of these people have ever read a history book.

"We cannot live sustainably within today’s economic system....Even if we carried out all of our climate action plans, we’d still be in trouble. Net zero by 2050 is simply too little, too late. There is just too much at stake for us to place our destiny in the hands of undeveloped technologies. We need real zero."

---This, amigos, is staggering. The climate cherub is saying that the substitute technologies of wind and solar are undeveloped and unreliable. Instead, we should not aim so high or promise so much as to try to recreate the modern world with alternative energy sources. We must face the music and turn the entire energy spigot off. Cultural Luddism. The damage and human misery she casually ordains is simply beyond calculation. Which power source will be regression enough? Are we talking pre-steam here?

Peat?

The Transition

 

The Transition

“[When] it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over,” Biden said during a press conference in Japan following his meeting with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

I'm unsure where he sees this 'transition.' Fossil fuel consumption has increased significantly over the past half-century, around eight-fold since 1950, and roughly doubling since 1980.

True, the types of fuel we rely on have shifted, from solely coal towards a combination with oil, and then gas. Today, coal consumption is falling in many parts of the world. But oil and gas are still growing quickly.

Global energy consumption will grow by 56 percent by 2040 with fossil fuels remaining the dominant energy sources. Of the renewable energy sources, the EIA projects that wind and hydropower will see the fastest growth, with wind dominating in developed nations, and hydropower projects more limited to developing countries. By 2040, the report projects, renewables’ share of world energy use will be 15 percent, up from 11 percent in 2010. Yet 85% of energy will be generated by fossil fuels.

Which is to say, there is no electricity tree.

But our government, which should be on our side, continues to insist we suffer in this symbolic effort.
Or, as Obama said, "The price of electricity will necessarily skyrocket."

“Keep this in mind next time you fill up,” Boston radio host Gerry Callahan tweeted. “THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT. The pain is the point. The beatings will continue until all the intransigent rabble comply. Shut up and trade your F-150 for a Prius.”

The Spectrum Within Green

 

The Spectrum Within Green

An internet review by a bright guy of the Brightline rail service from Miami to West Palm Beach for $42:

"A Brightline car picked me up at my door and drove me to the station.
The airy, modern first-class* lounge was filled with snacks.
The train arrived made it to West Palm in 67 minutes, 5 minutes early.
A waiting car took me to my destination.
All that for $42. (And $42 again back home.)
Later this year the line extends to Orlando.
I assume the Brightline is losing money, but am told the real play here, for the financiers, was buying up land around the proposed stations, knowing it would become more valuable.
Whatever — the Brightline is great and will take a lot of cars off the interstate.
Green, green, green."

Clearly a great little thing. But it seems to be achievable only by a strange distortion of economics and motive.

Accords

The Paris Accords

Trump is said to be considering leaving the Paris Climate Accords. I do not know his reasons but reasons are often foreign to him. The main American objection to the Treaty has been that it was negotiated and signed outside of established Constitutional Law: The Congress, not the Administrative Branch, confirms treaties. The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2).
The international reaction to the recent Trump rumor has been quite negative, as if a great and noble thing will be lost if the U.S. indeed leaves.
Here is a summary of several points of the Treaty:

In 2009, in Copenhagen, the world’s nations agreed: The global temperature average should not be allowed to rise more than two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels. This is a difficult demand because the very nature of the mechanism and degree of global warming is in dispute. The data has been criticized and the models based upon that data have not been accurate. Nonetheless, in 2015, the Paris climate deal agreed to limit the rise of global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius in this century. To bell the cat, the agreement also directed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the climate-science arm of the UN—to draw up a report by 2018 on how to reach that 1.5 degrees Celsius target.

 

The mechanisms of this rise is assumed to be carbon fuel. If humanity hopes to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100, it must essentially stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by 2060, according to a recent study from Nature Climate Change. Their estimates come from the same unfulfilled models mentioned above. The Paris meeting could not agree on this crucial concept because the world runs on carbon and replacing it implies relying on technology we do not yet use.

If nations eliminate carbon fuel which is cheap and efficient for another energy source we do not have or use, changes will be necessary. Alternative power sources must be made available. Growing nations will be especially stressed it is said, but it is difficult to imagine how established economic powers like the U.S., China, Russia and India will manage such a conversion. This energy gap is not filled by the Paris Accords but it seems that money will solve the question. As usual, as it is assumed that someone will have to pay and, unsurprisingly, it seems that the Americans are most likely to be the ones. Mrs. Clinton, in Copenhagen, volunteered $100 billion that the rich world would “mobilize." But "mobilize" is different from "pay."  And the Paris agreement includes no new specific commitments to finance the change. But item 115 of the Paris decision says that more than that $100 billion will be needed.

How will the progress of this vision be assessed? The Paris agreement deals with both "stocktaking" and "ratcheting." It announced that the first  taking stock will occur in 2023, then every five years, and that countries should “update and enhance” individual plans at that and future meetings, those innovations presumably the ideas the aforementioned  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will bring forth in 2018.

No outside agency will approve and oversee whether nations are keeping their words—this was a red line for China and India. But under Article 13, nations will be subject to a common framework of transparency, though it will recognize that developing countries may need more help reaching their goal.

According to the U.N.’s website on climate change, the agreement has a “hybrid of legally binding and nonbinding provisions.”

But there’s no clear cut consequence or penalty for countries that fall short of their pledged goals.

 

So we have a presumed climate problem, for which we apparently have no definitive solution. If we assume carbon fuel is the problem and we eliminate it, that elimination will cause untold economic problems for which we have no solution as we do not have a substitute energy source. We agree to start the process but defer the means to do so. There is no money for the project and there is no process for the enforcement of any of the Agreement's notions.

Do I have that right? Is that the great international achievement we should defend?

Wind Factories

“I once believed in the Sierra Club, until the CLUB ( an insular bunch of activists who aren’t looking at the entire picture but only at their own agendas) started fully supporting [windpower] …. Everything the environmentalists (including myself for 20 years) have worked so hard to protect, is now being destroyed or in jeopardy. Wind factories are industrial projects.”
- Jen Gilbert

This public letter of resignation from the Sierra Club is worth an extra moment. Her complaint is over the support of the Sierra Club for wind turbines, understandably called called "cuisinarts" by their opponents. There is more than the loss of protection for birds the writer is lamenting; she objects to the nature of the industry, its mechanics and capital structure. The turbines are not just dangerous to birds, they are an esthetic and philosophical challenge. They might replace coal fired plants which is essential to her, but these turbines, which use no carbon and produce no CO2, are an  inadequate revolution. Indeed this is a technological and capitalistic affront to her completely unrelated to energy and that is a deal-breaker, worse than her perceived warming.

A Surprise: The Cost of Backing Up Renewables

Lux Research reports that wind farm output can fluctuate up or down by 3% over a ten-minute interval, 10% over a one-hour interval and 16% over a two-hour interval. Similarly solar panel output can plunge by 50% or more in a few minutes.

As stability in the grid is crucial, this means that some backup energy source, currently estimated at .5% of production, will be needed. As renewable (wind and solar) sources take up more of the burden of electric generation, so the need for backup sources will increase proportionately. In 2009 over 20,132,212 GWh of electricity was produced throughout the world. If renewable sources approach 30% production as planned, the backup storage requirements would be over 100,000 GWh.  Now for the shocker: Typical manufactured energy storage systems cost several million dollars per MWh. That is several billion dollars per GWh.

Per GWh. These are astronomical numbers.

And...AND...unlike the grid sources which can last for a couple of decades, the backup sources have to be replaced every three to seven years. Three to seven years!

Have these numbers been calculated in to the cost of renewables? And who is going to pay it?

The Difference Between the Visionary and the Wishful

Toyota Motor Corp has scrapped plans for widespread sales of a new all-electric minicar, saying it had misread the market and the ability of still-emerging battery technology to meet consumer demands. (from Reuters) Much of Tesla's presumed sales came from partnership with Toyota.

Toyota continues with its hybrid plans.

President Barack Obama has set a goal of getting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. That is clearly impossible now and shows the inherent disconnection between political wishing and the real world, a lesson that should be applied more widely.

Alternative Energy Souces and the IEA

The International Energy Agency in Paris estimates that world GDP will grow at an annual average of 3.1% through the year 2030. (How they estimate these things I do not know.) Such a growth would result in an increase in oil demand from 84 million barrels a day to 103 barrels a day. 39% of this demand will come from China, 15% from India. The cost increase would be in the area of 160 dollars a barrel. (Charles Maxwell has been saying it will be double that for years.)

Another way of looking at this question in that 600 million people are responsible for most of the world's petroleum and non-ferrous metal consumption now; if 10% of the emerging nation population joins them, that is another 600 million people. That is a lot more demand.

So these scenarios should this should be a powerful incentive for alternative energy and petroleum conservation. But non-ferrous metals are integral to alternative energy. The question is, what constraints do non-ferrous metals--in cost and availability--provide alternative energy growth?

Will Work for Tax Breaks!

Saft Corporation received a $95.5 million grant from the Department of Energy to open a 235,000 square foot lithium battery plant in Jacksonville, FL.. Saft got economic incentives from the state of Florida and the city of Jacksonville to build the plant, and construction of the 235,000-square-foot facility was further funded by a $95.5 million federal grant from the Department of Energy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, i.e. TARP!

Now here is a French company expected to create 300 jobs at $318,333.33 of taxpayer money per job...to make lithium-ion batteries for cars. This is, by most assessments, a dead end and the government looks foolish.

But, wait. It is actually more complicated. These batteries also have a U.S. Department of Defense application. The Defense Department can not rely on domestic American production for their needed products. So the government may have another motive and may have made a decision based on weakness and need.

What a mess.

Marcellus #2

According to Pennlive.com this year, geologists at Penn State and the University of Wyoming released an petroleum industry-funded report on Marcellus Shale projections and economic impacts. It contained a disclaimer that none of the scientists or institutions “makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in the report."

What could this possibly mean? It means the good professors do not want an opponent of their opinion harassing their children in school or firebombing their garage. What it means is that even in academia honest debate and discussion are over. What it means is that scientific publications have become informational and nothing more. Concepts and hypotheses have become musings. And why not? What scientist in his right mind would want to put his name on a paper at Oral Roberts University that supports evolution? Does Obama's former economic advisor, Christina Romer, want to talk to the press about her concept of the tax multiplier when Obama is raising taxes? If you had a grant from NASA, would you argue with global warming?

What is happening in science is a microcosm if what is happening in the culture: Every single thing has become a singularity, a tiny individual black hole of self-righteous animosity. Everything that is done is done in isolation. Nothing has a connection to anything else. Global warming is not an interesting question or a possible problem that needs evaluated; it is a life threatening disaster of impending extinction or it is an academic scam created for the benefit of carbon credit traders. Fracking is a solution to our economic problems or a self-destructive act of mindless greed.

Amazingly in a postmodern world where nothing is felt to be clear or true, we are strangling ourselves with absolutes.

Marcellus #1

Marcellus Shale is not a college point guard, it is a huge petroleum deposit extending from western New York to West Virginia estimated from between 85 trillion to 480 trillion cubic feet, at least the second largest in the world. The implications, locally and nationally, are staggering. Richard Heckmann, the CEO of of the drilling service company Heckmann Corp. and who turned U.S.Filter from a multimillion dollar company into a multibillion dollar one, estimates that if liquid natural gas processed from this site could be used nationally by tractor trailers--which he estimates could be done in 5 years-- our dependence on Middle East oil would be over. Over.

And the spillover, if you will excuse me, would be unbelievable. On a single wellpad in western Pennsylvania 115 companies are involved in servicing it. Shell Corp. is considering a processing plant that will make the composite chemicals for plastic, tires and the like with the attendant growth of those industries around it. The growth of businesses and jobs would be enormous.

Yet there are nonprofit groups, politicians and anti growth groups that are rising to oppose this industry. They do not say "Let's figure out how to do this", they say "No."

I have a better idea: Let's put our money into Solyndra, solar companies and lithium battery companies and hope for the best.

Should Caesar's Wife Have Taken the Fifth?

Solyndra. LightSquared. There have been a lot of mistakes by this administration but that is common enough. Some, like the Cash for Clunkers, were just stupid. Some, like the Guns for Cartels, were malignant. But supporting these companies, with administration financial ties and ownership, is the worst. It makes important leaders look sleazy. It makes them look petty. They are more than wrong; they are unworthy.

Caesar's first wife, Cornelia, died in childbirth delivering Julia who would later marry Pompey. Caesar then married Pompeia, Pompey's cousin. Caesar became Pontifex Maximus so the sacred rites of Bona Dea for "The Great Goddess" (whose name could not be spoken and whose rites are to this day obscure) were held in his house under the direction of his wife and his mother. (The rite was for women only, men forbidden.) Clodius, a famous rake and political leader, crashed the event dressed as a woman. He was discovered (and eventually tried in court which he bribed) It was felt by one and all that Pompeia had aided his entrance, likely because they were lovers. Caesar divorced her and, when pressed why, never gave his wife up as unfaithful. Instead he said "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."

There is real nobility here in Caesar's protecting his wife. And the whole story is fascinating. But Caesar's statement is profound and should be basic for leaders.

But maybe Obama's above it.

Solyndra and the Positives of Failure

Solyndra, the solar energy company, filled for bankruptcy this week and with it went the over half a billion dollars in U.S. taxpayers' subsidies. Those subsidies were subordinate to most debt, amazingly. Government officials apparently sat on the company board right through the protests of good financial health to the bankruptcy itself. The FBI is now going through the company's papers and through the homes of several company employees.

This will be a mess. The company was close to Obama and company officials visited the White House often over the last few years. More, a number of White House emails raised questions as to the wisdom of this support. This failure and Obama's proximity to it will make for mouthwatering Republican politics. Honest appearing questions will be followed by some committee with subpoena power. But what's the fuss? The government made their investment. It didn't work but it will show up in the GDP as a positive contribution for the year. It can honestly be counted as a stimulus of the economy.

Isn't that the idea? Isn't that what we want?

Solyndra and the Creativity of Need

Solyndra, a green company that develops solar power sources, has gone bankrupt and taken with it 500 million dollars in government subsidies.

Certainly there must be examples of government funding a successful business or technology before it was successful. But generally these decisions are distorted by favors owed, loyalties established and hope. The green energy problem is a wonderful example. We want to decrease our dependence on foreign energy. But we want at least the appearance of cleaner sources. So we create ethanol subsidies where we burn food for petroleum; even though it is more energy expensive, it satisfies some requirements as it gets farmer votes and it appears domestic. We are actually burning food for fuel and less efficiently than if we did nothing. Yet imagine trying to reverse that now.

Next is the electric vehicle. Again it sounds nice as there are no ugly fumes at the tailpipe--although there are plenty at the coal plant that charges the batteries. The problem is we do not have an electric system that actually is competitive. The cars are expensive, limited in range, don't run in the cold and tend to explode. But at its heart, the electric vehicle plan depends on hope, the hope the technology will catch up with our dreams. The hope that something will evolve.

Darwin and Marx have been very bad for these planners; they believe there is an improved endpoint towards which we, nations, leaders, batteries, ethnic groups, religions are progressing. In essence they believe in the inherent creativity of time. Not of us, but of time. If necessity is the mother of invention, the whole world must be pregnant with solutions.

We are cursed with misapplied or outmoded philosophies poorly understood by bureaucrats who were exposed to them in introductory humanities courses.

Alternative Logic

A recent article by Peterson in Seeking Alpha raises an interesting and rarely discussed point: non-ferrous metals are crucial in alternative energy projects. And non-ferrous metals are rising in cost faster than petroleum. The average person in the world uses 4200 pounds hydrocarbons and 35 pounds of non-ferrous industrial metals.

How will the non-ferrous metals be substituted economically for the hydrocarbons?

And where will we get these newly needed metals?

Teaching the Baby to Swim by Throwing Him in the Pool

American energy comes from oil (40%), coal (23%), natural gas (23%), nuclear (8%), renewable--really hydroelectric with a percent or two of solar and wind-- (7%).

The Americans have just promised 2 billion dollars (as a loan, no equity) to Petrobras, the Brazilian national oil exploration company, to drill deep--really deep--off the coast of Brazil. There are 5 to 8 billion barrels of oil 4.48 miles down, in 7000 feet of water, 50 miles off the coast of Rio. Drilling at this depth has never been done before and likely will require new technology. This financial support is difficult to explain on two levels: One, there appears to be a general disapproval of the use of fossil fuels in this country (although they make up 85% of our energy) and, two, the government has banned American deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico so only foreigners do it.

As mysterious as the United States' decisions are, one thing is certain: There are no accidents in planning, only in execution. They want the Brazilians to drill for oil and do not want us to. Why? They have not given us the slightest clue. But it is no accident. Regulatory agencies are waging a virtual war against domestic energy exploration as America's reliance on foreign production grows in relative and absolute terms. In 2009 American oil production increased in absolute terms for the first time in 20 years. 20 years! That is no accident.

There hasn't been a new nuclear reactor built in this country for 23 years and it would take twenty years to build one. Nor is that an accident. The efficiency of nuclear power and our expertise at it will not be a factor here. They have not allowed us to build and the recent disaster in Japan will only solidify their position.

Somehow and for some reason the powers that be want us to shift to less efficient and more expensive fuels regardless of the negative impact. The fact that those fuels do not actually exist on any practical scale does not seem to matter.

There may be a new phenomenon afoot here. Many religions require a leap of faith in initial belief. Once the initial premise is accepted--that difficult step--then everything else is easy. These people seem to have a leap of faith in their vision of the endpoint. It is as if a religion believed in heaven and worked backwards. They finesse the difficult process part of the thesis, the creation of alternative energy sources. Each of the believers have a credo--global warming, CO2 production, unequal distribution of energy use, unfriendly oil producers, unreliable oil producers, etc., etc, etc. Some have saints. All want to use solar power, geothermal power, biofuels and wind power now despite the fact there are no ways to do that now. The process to that holy place does not exist.

Sometimes being a visionary is not enough.