Forum problems

[Biggie Smiles]

How so many companies have been seduced by this idea of operating vs capital expenditures for resources that you will never truly own defies belief.

I literally know of customers paying upwards of 400K a year to consume Azure resources on a month to month basis in perpetuity for systems that would litterally have a one time cost of 150K and maybe 20% of that per anum in support fees.

With technology and senior business leaders becoming this mind numbingly stupid is it any wonder the elites prefer a world with less than 5% of it's current population?

This is exactly why it is equally baffling when elite puppet masters parade some celebrity like Taylor Swift or Megan the Sasquatch in front of gullible voters to sway their voting preferences. Do these common folks have ANYTHING in common with said elites? Anything at all?

Ever seen one on a cruise? A resort you can afford to stay at? In a seat next to yours at a sporting event?

These people have NOTHING in common with your average plebs yet the average plebs go right on supporting whatever narrative they are fed by these elites to their own detriment.

[MrNiceGuy]

The few available options that are environmentally friendly is the production of energy via nuclear energy, solar and wind power.

Sooner or later the oil's going to run out anyway. 

I think big oil played up the nuclear scare and frankly set us the fuck backwards.  We should have pushed nuclear fission until we achieve nuclear fusion full throttle.

And now Bill Gates realizes AI needs power so he's okay with flipping on climate change.

[Thiel]

The few available options that are environmentally friendly is the production of energy via nuclear energy, solar and wind power.

Sooner or later the oil's going to run out anyway.

Nuclear is environmentally friendly and it won't run out. Natural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.

Solar and wind power are the least environmentally friendly sources. They have a massive environmental cost because the rare earth minerals needed for wind turbines and solar panels come from mines in developing countries. They are very very non renewable.

Wind and solar use up more of another important finite resources too - land. They require a lot more land than wind or solar to provide less energy than natural gas nuclear or hydroelectric.

[MrNiceGuy]

Nuclear is environmentally friendly and it won't run out. Natural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.

Solar and wind power are the least environmentally friendly sources. They also have a massive environmental cost because the rare earth minerals needs for wind turbines and solar panels come from developing countries. They are non renewable.

Wind and solar use up more of another important finite resources too - land. They require a lot more land than wind or solar to provide less energy than natural gas nuclear or hydroelectric.

Capturing methane from landfills is a far better use of a land for power tradeoff than wind farms.  And landfills are a necessity... windfarms are not.

[Lokmar]

Coal is perfectly fine to use as well. Coal fired powerplants built in the last 20 years have catalysts and scrubbers just like cars and trucks. What about the waste? Put it back where you got it from ITFP!

We have such a coal fired power plant right here in Springfield, IL.

[.]

I don't get why C02 is driving white people to antidepressants. We see it as a problem and not an imminent armageddon if we don't lower our emissions. However, every problem is a crisis to whites.

Much of it is out of the left and there are plenty of studies to support this. And the left has much to fear, particularly as their more extreme elements are getting booted out of their Soros-funded safe spaces and on to the street where there isn't anywhere near the amount of access to the 24/7 fear-porn getting pumped out on the regular from CNN, MSN and the like.

I'm not saying the problem is unique to the left, though they did already account for the lions share of mental illness. Now they understand their status as a relatively protected class is under imminent threat and their already overstressed cranial porridge is going into meltdown. And getting pilled up is easier than drinking a bag of cement and hardening the fuck up.

Fuck 'em, they're losers. If they could catch a clue and make an effort to actually better themselves, I might offer a few of them a hand up.

[.]

In 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years.

The coral has increased, though has on and off been subject to bleaching. The cause of which has been attributed to fertilizer runoff and rising ocean temperatures. That may or may not be the case of course, "experts" have been wrong about shit in the past and the same might be true here.

Practical upshot; Australia's reef is still there and still supporting an abundance of marine ecosystems, much as the Arctic polar icecap has increased 25% in size since its 2012 lull and polar bears are obstinately increasing their population in spite of the gloomy pictures environmental scientists have been banging on about for decades.

I reckon if you're going to go to the mat on a topic, you should at least do some research on it first. Part of the problem with the environmentalists is they prefer FUD to fact. And part of our problem is that we don't make enough fun of them when they get it wrong.

[Shen Li]

Natural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.

Back in Canada I know people with post grad degrees who don't know oil and natural gas come from marine sediment made of the remains of algae and plankton. They think it comes from dinosaurs.

[.]

Nuclear is environmentally friendly and it won't run out. Natural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.

It looks very much like it's bacteria-produced. So yeah, anything left undisturbed for long enough under the right conditions would become oil, dinosaurs included.

Nuclear is a lot cleaner and safer than it was. Yay technology. The only problem I see with nuclear is provisioning, it is great at producing power demands for a static load, dynamic not so much. Perhaps storing the excess energy produced at times of low load for later release into the grid is a solution and there are a number of methods by which that can be achieved.

Solar and wind power are the least environmentally friendly sources. They have a massive environmental cost because the rare earth minerals needed for wind turbines and solar panels come from mines in developing countries. They are very very non renewable.

Wind and solar use up more of another important finite resources too - land. They require a lot more land than wind or solar to provide less energy than natural gas nuclear or hydroelectric.

Correct. But when have you ever seen an environmentalist address the troupe of elephants in the room when it came to just how pollutive the supposed "green solution" is, both in terms of its implementation and its ultimate disposal once it reaches EOL? As far as they are concerned, if the pollution is largely hidden (ie: location, time, etc) then it's not a matter for concern.

Fun fact; it is theoretically possible that we might solve the entire world's energy problems by populating the Sahara desert with solar farms. Only a couple of problems with that, one being financing the build in the first place, it literally costing more money to do than is currently in circulation on the entire planet. Oh, and the difference in albedo in that neck of the woods would create a raft of issues in Amazon basin (including it's eventual drying up, but hey.... green energy for all, right?

Much better to plod along with what you know works until you have a system in place that trumps it. Some people are a little too fucked in the head to recognise that though.

[DKG]

It looks very much like it's bacteria-produced. So yeah, anything left undisturbed for long enough under the right conditions would become oil, dinosaurs included.

Nuclear is a lot cleaner and safer than it was. Yay technology. The only problem I see with nuclear is provisioning, it is great at producing power demands for a static load, dynamic not so much. Perhaps storing the excess energy produced at times of low load for later release into the grid is a solution and there are a number of methods by which that can be achieved.
Correct. But when have you ever seen an environmentalist address the troupe of elephants in the room when it came to just how pollutive the supposed "green solution" is, both in terms of its implementation and its ultimate disposal once it reaches EOL? As far as they are concerned, if the pollution is largely hidden (ie: location, time, etc) then it's not a matter for concern.

Fun fact; it is theoretically possible that we might solve the entire world's energy problems by populating the Sahara desert with solar farms. Only a couple of problems with that, one being financing the build in the first place, it literally costing more money to do than is currently in circulation on the entire planet. Oh, and the difference in albedo in that neck of the woods would create a raft of issues in Amazon basin (including it's eventual drying up, but hey.... green energy for all, right?

Much better to plod along with what you know works until you have a system in place that trumps it. Some people are a little too fucked in the head to recognise that though.

You raise another good point. Oil and natural gas production can be quickly ramped up or down when demand goes in either direction.

One of the many problems we have had with wind farms in Canada is they produce excess power when it is not needed and not nearly enough when demand is high in extreme cold or heat. When Western Canada(Alberta in particular) falls victim to their annual -30 cold snaps and demand explodes they have to import coal produced electricity from Saskatchewan or Montana.

[wizer]

Natural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either.

Predictions vary and largely depend on consumption rates, but experts estimate that it will be between 90 and 120 years before we run out of natural gas.

At the rate oil and coal are being consumed and depleted, estimates vary that if usage stays the same or increases, known oil reserves will be depleted within 50 years, coal within 130 years.

Who knows maybe if usage continues to skyrocket and those numbers turn out to be overly optimistic, we will live to see the devasting effects of fossil fuels start to reverse as there's nothing left to burn.

https://www.fairplanet.org/story/when-will-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels/

[DKG]

Predictions vary and largely depend on consumption rates, but experts estimate that it will be between 90 and 120 years before we run out of natural gas.

At the rate oil and coal are being consumed and depleted, estimates vary that if usage stays the same or increases, known oil reserves will be depleted within 50 years, coal within 130 years.

Who knows maybe if usage continues to skyrocket and those numbers turn out to be overly optimistic, we will live to see the devasting effects of fossil fuels start to reverse as there's nothing left to burn.

https://www.fairplanet.org/story/when-will-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels/

That is simply factually dead wrong. Start to finish. Peak oil has been completely debunked. Through technology we are constantly finding new cost effective ways of extracting natural gas which is literally everywhere in Canada. Your article ignored that we are adding to new storage all the time.

Your article was talking about existing reserves. We are finding new reserves all the time that are not in production yet.

I will give you an example. This is from just one province in Canada.

New analysis commissioned by the Alberta Energy Regulator has increased the province's natural gas reserves by 440 per cent, bumping Canada into the global top 10.
https://energysecurityfreedom.substack.com/p/alberta-natural-gas-reserves-swell

Here is why the world will never run out of oil and natural gas from an engineer.

What is interesting is that a number of finite resources including land will run if we foolishly try to reengineer the economy to electric vehicles, wind and solar.

A lithium-ion battery pack for a single electric car contains about 8 kilograms (kg) of lithium, according to figures from US Department of Energy science and engineering research centre Argonne National Laboratory.

Global lithium production totalled 100,000 tons (90.7 million kg) last year, while worldwide reserves stand at about 22 million tons (20 billion kg), according to the US Geological Survey.


Lithium is one of the key components in electric vehicle (EV) batteries, but global supplies are under strain because of rising EV demand.

Lithium supply faces challenges not only from surging demand, but because resources are concentrated in a few places and over half of today's production is in areas with high water stress.

Lithium is a non-ferrous metal known as "white gold", and is one of the key components in EV batteries, alongside nickel and cobalt. But rising demand for Electric Vehicles is straining global lithium supplies.

A lithium-ion battery pack for a single electric car contains about 8 kilograms (kg) of lithium, according to figures from US Department of Energy science and engineering research centre Argonne National Laboratory.

Global lithium production totalled 100,000 tons (90.7 million kg) last year, while worldwide reserves stand at about 22 million tons (20 billion kg), according to the US Geological Survey.

Lithium demand could soon exceed supply.

"There simply isn't going to be enough lithium on the face of the planet, regardless of who expands and who delivers, it just won't be there," Lake Resources Chairman Stuart Crow told the Financial Times. "Car makers are starting to sense that maybe the battery makers aren't going to be able to deliver."

Lithium extraction requires very high volumes of water, and this is leading to problems around water stress – a situation where a region's water resources are not enough to meet its needs.

This is particularly concerning given that a lot of lithium is found in drought-prone regions – such as South America and Australia. Bolivia's San Cristóbal mine reportedly uses 50,000 litres of water a day, and lithium mining companies in Chile have been accused of depleting vital water supplies.

More than half of today's lithium production is in areas with high water stress, the IEA says. "Several major producing regions such as Australia, China, and Africa are also subject to extreme heat or flooding, which pose greater challenges in ensuring reliable and sustainable supplies," it adds.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/07/electric-vehicles-world-enough-lithium-resources/

Oil and natural gas use up fewer finite resources and disturb smaller amounts of land. Hence, they are more sustainable than wind, solar and ev's.

[Herman]

I worked in the upstream oil and gas industry all my working life off of the farm. Environmental standards for drilling rigs in developing countries aint what they are here but it is still a hell of a lot better than any cobalt copper or lithium mine in Africa. They are needed for wind solar and evs's but they are really finite.

[wizer]

That is simply factually dead wrong. Start to finish. Peak oil has been completely debunked. Through technology we are constantly finding new cost effective ways of extracting natural gas which is literally everywhere in Canada. Your article ignored that we are adding to new storage all the time.

Your article was talking about existing reserves. We are finding new reserves all the time that are not in production yet.

I provided a link to one article. When you do a search on "when will oil run out", thousands of pages are displayed, the vast majority from reputable sources explaining when and why it's going to happen and they are in strikingly similar agreement "about 50 years".

Sure, the numbers are based on what is known now about the current supply of oil, where it's found, how much of it is available and how often new locations are discovered. There could be an ocean of oil somewhere under the ground that would skew those number but based on what is known, it's not looking too good. Some sources halve that 50 year number.

Same for natural gas.

The sources that contradict those that are in agreement are few and far between and sound rather questionable.

This sums it up rather nicely:

Predicting the exact moment oil reserves run dry is impossible. The "oil clock" isn't a simple countdown; it's a complex calculation influenced by a multitude of interconnected factors. Focusing solely on proven reserves provides a misleadingly pessimistic view. The real question isn't just about how much oil we know is in the ground, but also about how efficiently we can extract it, what alternatives we develop, and how drastically we can reduce our reliance on it.

[Shen Li]

wizer my friend, the stone age didn't end because the earth ran out of rocks.

I hate the term fossil fuels because it is so misleading. However, they are renewable just not at the current rate of consumption. Actually natural gas is. That we have an inexhaustible supply that can be scaled up or down and requires nothing close to the land disturbance that diffuse energy sources like wind and solar do.

Peak demand is a possibility. Particularly since Western countries have become so efficient in their use of oil derivatives.

Peak oil on the other hand dates all the way back to the 1880s. Repeated predictions of peak oil supply have repeatedly been moved further into the future. Soviet oil exploration adopted the abiotic oil theory—the idea that hydrocarbons are generated by inorganic processes in the Earth's mantle, not from decomposed biological material.

The Soviets didn't just theorise, they acted. They developed deep-drilling programs that tapped into oil fields far below what traditional fossil theories considered viable. The results?

Dnieper-Donets Basin: Considered geologically "sterile," this Ukrainian site was one of the Soviet Union's most productive oil regions, reaching depths of 6–8 km.

White Tiger Field, Vietnam: Discovered by Soviet engineers, this offshore field also defied fossil logic by producing oil from granite basement rock, far below sedimentary layers typically associated with fossil fuels.

The strongest challenge to peak oil comes not from theory, but from the earth itself.

Eugene Island 330: Replenishing rates were so bizarre that the U.S. Department of Energy funded multiple studies. MIT's Jean Laherrère remarked that the field "appeared to be refilling from somewhere below."

LaBarge Field, Wyoming: Produces oil, gas, and helium—another deep-earth marker. The gases are geochemically traced to mantle origins.
Kola Superdeep Borehole: Although no oil was struck directly, the borehole encountered unexpected water and hydrocarbons at depths where life should not have existed. It confirmed that deep Earth chemistry is far more complex—and fertile—than fossil logic suggests.

If oil is being formed in the mantle and slowly migrating upward, then the question isn't whether oil is running out—it's how much is being created and how fast.

Petroleum products have provided for so many advances besides energy. From agriculture to medicine to engineering to even music. They even play a role in mitigating any potential climate change impacts. It is so essential to an advanced way of life. Nobody seriously thinks we can find an organic resource or create one that could match it's many uses.

What I don't get is if you are concerned about supplies going forward why would you want to replace an energy source you think is running out with something that is more finite than oil and natural gas. You do know wind and solar use a lot of natural resources that actually are finite?