News:
R.I.P to the great Charlie Kirk!
- Welcome to THeBlueCashew.
Posted by DKG
- Today at 10:52:37 AMQuote from: wizer on Today at 10:14:36 AMPredictions 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.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.
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/
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MOU4MPshCw
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.
Posted by wizer
- Today at 10:14:36 AMQuote from: Thiel on November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMNatural 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/
Posted by DKG
- Today at 10:03:46 AMQuote from: . on Today at 12:39:27 AMIt 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.You raise another good point. Oil and natural gas production can be quickly ramped up or down when demand goes in either direction.
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.
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.
Posted by .
- Today at 12:39:27 AMQuote from: Thiel on November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMNuclear 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.
Quote from: Thiel on November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMSolar 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.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.
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.
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.
Posted by Shen Li
- Today at 12:21:15 AMQuoteNatural 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.
Posted by .
- Today at 12:17:34 AMQuote from: DKG on November 03, 2025, 07:21:48 AMIn 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.
Posted by .
- Today at 12:03:28 AMQuote from: Shen Li on November 01, 2025, 10:27:22 PMI 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.
Posted by Lokmar
- November 03, 2025, 02:35:36 PMCoal 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.
We have such a coal fired power plant right here in Springfield, IL.
Posted by MrNiceGuy
- November 03, 2025, 01:22:25 PMQuote from: Thiel on November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMNuclear 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.
Posted by Thiel
- November 03, 2025, 01:04:28 PMQuoteThe few available options that are environmentally friendly is the production of energy via nuclear energy, solar and wind power.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.
Sooner or later the oil's going to run out anyway.
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.
Posted by MrNiceGuy
- November 03, 2025, 12:40:03 PMQuote from: wizer on November 03, 2025, 02:34:09 AMThe 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.
Posted by Biggie Smiles
- November 03, 2025, 12:32:07 PMHow 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.
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.
Posted by MrNiceGuy
- November 03, 2025, 12:22:09 PMQuote from: Oliver the Second on November 01, 2025, 12:18:14 PMYup, it''s now an 'issue' but no longer an existential threat for some reason.
Bill Gates needs moar power for the A.I. to construct his afterlife armor suit so when he croaks his brain will transferred over & continue for generations. Like Windows operating system.
Posted by Brent
- November 03, 2025, 11:47:16 AMQuote from: DKG on November 03, 2025, 07:21:48 AMIn 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.They grow they recede. I was reading the Antarctica has gained back 200 tons of ice recently after losing ice for years.
The point here is that we have real environmental problems like the filth and contamination in our oceans coming from third world cesspools. We are wasting too much time and money on C02 emissions.
Posted by wizer
- November 03, 2025, 07:24:18 AMQuote from: DKG on November 03, 2025, 07:21:48 AMIn 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 Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported that two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has seen the highest levels of coral cover in over 36 years. This recovery is primarily due to the growth of fast-growing Acropora corals, which have been dominant in the northern and central regions of the reef. However, the southern section has experienced a decline in coral cover due to ongoing outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish. Despite this, the reef demonstrates resilience and the ability to recover from disturbances, but scientists warn that climate change poses increasing risks to its long-term health