In February this year, Barclays announced it would stop direct financing for “energy clients, for upstream oil and gas expansion projects or related infrastructure.” The bank followed a massively popular trend in the industry of boosting support for transition-related businesses at the expense of traditional energy because traditional energy was the new plague, at least reputationally speaking. There must have also been plans to profit from the transition, no doubt, because forecasts and projections said it would be profitable.
Greenhushing, greenwashing, etc. Notice all the new terms that are required to describe the bobbleheads. You might think they were from another planet? As to the insane Welsh government, I have a funny story. My oldest son spent a semester in Cardiff working for the government. He got a political science internship & had a great time. On his second or third day at work a coworker invited him out for the evening. My son & four coworkers were driven to several bars by a friend that drove for a limo company. At the time, my son thought he could hold his own in a bar. However, he said these guys were professionals. Think of the movie Animal House. These drinking sessions happened twice a week, every week. My son tried to keep up, but he occasionally had to decline an invitation. Perhaps these pros are now in positions of power? Who knows. 🤘😎🤘
The elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss is that crude oil is the foundation of our materialistic society as it is the basis of all products and fuels demanded by the 8 billion on this planet, of which only one billion existed less than 200 years ago.
• As a refresher for those pursuing net-zero emissions, wind and solar do different things than crude oil. Wind turbines and solar panels only generate occasional electricity but manufacture NOTHING for society.
• Crude oil is virtually never used to generate electricity but when manufactured into petrochemicals, is the basis for virtually all the products in our materialistic society that did not exist before the 1800’s being used at these infrastructures like: Transportation, Airports, Hospitals, Medical equipment, Appliances, Electronics, Telecommunications, Communications systems, Space programs, Heating and Ventilating, and Militaries.
• We’ve become a very materialistic society over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of all the products for society, and the different fuels for jets, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space program that did not exist before the 1800’s.
Agreed. One quibble: wind and solar do not generate energy, they collect energy. This is the problem in a nutshell, fossil fuels (and nuclear) are primary source energy producers so they can be controlled and output can be increased or reduced as required directly by Human intervention, wind and solar output cannot be controlled, they are - to coin a phrase - entirely in the lap of the gods quite beyond Human intervention.
That's exactly why we need to conserve oil for petrochemicals not waste it stupidly for energy purposes. Heavy transportation needs to shift from diesel to electricity. Light transportation needs to shift from gasoline to methanol. Remote generation from diesel to DME/methanol or SMRs. Heating oil needs to shift to methanol & gas or CHP SMRs.
To supply crude to the Developing World, as they will demand it, will require a 5 fold increase in crude consumption. That is not feasible. So it is urgent that we start focusing on preserving crude for priority applications, namely jet fuel and petrochemicals.
Convserving fossil carbon resources will be difficult before we have genuinely economical replacements for their use as energy, and enough for everyone. The focus should be on making synthetic fuels cheap, with limited electrification where and when it is economical. SMRs might be competitive with diesel for remote power or other niches, but will that really accomplish much? Those niches would also greatly expand with cheaper remote power, while reducing the need for expansive grids.
Basically, we need cheap and rapidly scalable high-temperature nuclear, which sadly is not a priority anywhere. Incidentally, we could save 40% of all crude, instead of burning it in refineries for heat. At least China is on the right path, steadily moving toward synthetic fuels and green steel produced with nuclear heat. Nuclear is being used there for CHP today, and they are selling methanol-fueled container ships. Even
Selling electricity back to the grid. Ah yes. My solar panels save the planet and won't cost anything. In fact, I'm going to make money from them.
Where have I seen/heard this concept before? Now I remember. Elon Musk and his cult followers claim you'll be able to purchase a Tesla, and the car will pay for itself in the first year as it Robotaxi's its way to riches while you sleep (or otherwise don't drive it). People actually believe this. Can't wait to witness the "reveal" on August 8.
Easy on Elon Musk, he is a Cornucopian vs most of the $billionaire & $trillionaire types are Malthusians. He is anti-DEI, anti-CRT, anti-Woke as he calls wokeness a "mind virus". And he's is a rational pro-America Republican, not an anti-America DemonRat. As Musk states there is a battle between those Extinctionists and the Expansionists.
I also got a lot of problems with Musk's energy "solutions" but he makes big money on them and he has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. Nice that he is largely based in the USA instead of China & Switzerland, like most of the $billionaire financial meltdown specialists who are raping & pillaging what is left of our Western economies. At least he is creating American jobs, while Detroit contracts most of their manufacturing out to China.
Amazing what Musk is doing with SpaceX, doing what NASA & big aerospace said was impossible, and doing it at 1/1000th of the cost they claimed.
I certainly cannot disagree with virtually all of what you’ve written here. However, I have formed a strong opinion, which could indeed be incorrect, that he is a highly manipulative person. I understand many disagree with that take. Let’s just say, that in 67 years I’ve observed human behavior enough that it’s led me to that conclusion.
Much of my distaste comes from the perspective of my education, career and retirement. It’s all been focused on economics, finance and investments. People love the idea of getting wealthy without really doing anything. It’s highly alluring. That’s why the term Teslanaire exits. Over a year ago on a quarterly conference call, Musk referenced excitement over Robotaxi and mentioned “quasi unlimited demand”. The ignorant eat that stuff up. The product didn’t even exist and obviously didn’t have a price. So how can you talk about demand? That’s still true today.
Similarly, he recently threw out the carrot that TSLA could be worth $30 trillion. Current market cap is just over $600 billion, so investors start believing in a 50 bagger from here. “Wow…my $50,000 position could be worth $2.5 million.” That’s rather enticing. Yet….The MSCI ACWI index which captures 85% of all global equities was worth $72 trillion as May 31. That presents a bit of a problem. Buffett alluded to this almost 25 years ago in a famous Fortune article. Growth of components cannot forever outpace that of the aggregate.
I can’t deny his accomplishments, and I have been wrong before. At least you have some sense where my snarky initial comment originated! Thanks
Yes he does deflate his timelines so much that people call it "Musk time", and inflates earnings expectations similarly. Of course, any investor with a few functioning brain cells should be well aware of that by now.
At least his claims have some basis in reality. Contrast what he claims with what our Malthusian Doomer Misanthropic political leadership state, like "12yrs to the end of the world", "global boiling", "the World is on fire", "Russia is trying to recreate the Soviet Union", "Putin will invade all of Europe". Ridiculous, dangerous Fear Porn nonsense.
Musk at least builds things. I have a lot of admiration for people who build things rather than those who just destroy and break things, and make $trillions doing it. Like George Soros and our Bankster Overlords, as JFK called them "The Gnomes of Zurich". These creeps are trying to kill us all in a Global Nuclear War just so they can break up Russia and achieve a World Totalitarian Tyranny. And get rid of us "useless eaters". When in actual fact it is them who are the useless eaters. Psychopathic Parasites, produce nothing, only good at destruction. As they did to us with their $16T Plandemic. As they are now doing to the poor bastards in Ukraine.
Elon Musk is an egotistical narcissist, a dreamer who maybe highly intelligent but lacks wisdom, if there’s anyone who would destroy the ecosphere and all who depend on it to reach Mars that would be Elon, I say he should be the first one to go to Mars and stay there for the protection of life on this planet 🌍.
“Consider the harshest environments on this planet—the stark summits of the Himalayas; the East Antarctic ice sheet in winter; the bleak Takla Makan desert of central Asia; the bottom of the Marianas Trench, where the water pressure will reduce a human body to paste in seconds. Nowhere in the solar system is there a place that’s even as well suited to human life as the places I’ve just named. Logically speaking, before we try to settle Mars or the Moon, wouldn’t it make sense first to build cities on the Antarctic ice or in the depths of the ocean? Every one of the arguments that has been trotted out to try to justify the settlement of Mars can be applied with even more force to the project of settling Antarctica.”🤔
Not quoting your Astrologer buddy again. We can settle those places you talk about more easily, but achieve precisely zero doing it. Once you pay the initial infrastructure costs, you can make an independent self-supporting Colony on Mars, that's all that counts. Any serious problem on Earth and people there will die in Antarctica more as easily as the rest of us. Nothing much new to learn there. Mars may have, in fact probably does have the only other life in the universe we know about. Start with that.
And for a fellow who is always screaming about "FINITE RESOURCES", you would think you would want to extract the massive resources of the asteroid belt. Just one of the asteroids having over 20,000 $trillion worth of metals. The delta V to reach those asteroids from Mars is <10% of what it takes from Earth. The Starship can fly directly to the Asteroid belt from Mars, no need of a booster.
A good primer on Mars:
We know almost 100% certain that there are living organisms on Mars, right now. The Viking landers themselves virtually proved it, and the excuses NASA came up with to deny that have been debunked. And there is multiple tracks of compelling evidence that confirm that. But NASA, ever since the Viking landers has essentially banned any further direct testing for life on Mars. And even makes sure it doesn't send rovers where there may be extant life. SOMETHING STINKS AT NASA.
Jan Spacek - 25th Annual International Mars Society Convention:
Dr. Gilbert Levin, the only surviving Principal Investigator of the 1976 NASA Viking Lander biology team, presents his startling and overwhelming proof for life on Mars.
And now NASA is pushing an absolutely nutty boondoggle sample return mission from Mars. Pure insanity:
Rethink the Mars Program. It’s time to consider alternatives to sample return, Robert Zubrin:
"....A recent review of the plan of its flagship Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission pegged its cost at $10 billion, a price tag that threatens to preclude funding any other exploration missions to the Red Planet for the next decade and a half. ...
"...For the same $10 billion now projected to be spent on the MSR mission over the next 15 years, we could send 20 missions averaging $500 million each in cost. These could include landers, rovers, orbiters, drillers, highly capable helicopters, and possibly balloons or other more novel exploration vehicles as well. Instead of being limited to one exploration site, these could be targeted to 20 sites and carry a vast array of new instruments provided by hundreds of teams of investigators from around the world.
"...Furthermore, the 0.32 estimate for the probability of MSR mission success only includes technical risk. It ignores programmatic risk, which in the case of the ESA orbiter is extremely high...In short, the MSR program of record is extremely high risk. It could very well not produce any science at all... In contrast, the success of the varied program is virtually guaranteed. With 20 independent missions, each with a success probability of 0.8, the odds are that at least 16 of the 20 will succeed – most probably more, since later missions can take advantage of lessons learned on earlier flights. .."
This is the same NASA that claimed it would cost $100B to develop a new heavy lift rocket in the 1990s and take at least 15yrs. And that's a fully disposable rocket. So Musk develops a heavy lift rocket in 4yrs for $5B that lifts over double as much and get this, is also fully reusable.
His SpaceX Falcon 9 now has launch costs now of $1500/kg vs Big Aerospace @ $11,500 to $64,500/kg to LEO. And the Starship pushing those costs down to $100/kg. Meanwhile our illustrious Congress funnels over $24B to the SLS, which so far has got one rocket off the ground at a cost to taxpayers of $4B per launch. Which is about what the Starship program will cost for reusable rockets in 1/4 the development time. Combined with the Orion capsule has cost over $50B and 17yrs with still only one load carried by the Orion (now broke down at the ISS). SpaceX Dragon has carried 11 manned and 9 cargo missions to the ISS already at a cost of $1.7B and 6yrs development time.
Had you saved that up especially for me Mr Smith, if so well done, or perhaps you’ve been waiting for the opportunity to pounce on someone else with your sci-fi delusions. In either case I could have saved you a lot of time and effort, because it ain’t gonna’ happen in your lifetime and it ain’t gonna’ happen ever.
But if you really do want to help the planet 🌍 👇
“There is ONE THING we can do to save the planet: Keep your pecker in your pants, and do not let your knickers down. Period.
End of story. It will have the added benefit of phasing out coal to zero. Ditto for oil, gas, lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, plastic, chemicals... I think you get my drift. This is not rocket science.” — Sam Mitchell at Collapse Chronicles🤔
A Malthusian Doomer Misanthropist. Thought so. You can do your part first by removing yourself in order to "save the planet". Practice what you preach.
I like how you always tout FINITE EARTH, but declare your opinions INFINITE. So we will never, ever colonize Mars because you, who knows nothing, declares it to be so. Some crystal ball you must have, I've heard of people seeing into the future but you can see right to the end of time. I'm so-ooo impressed.
Mr Smith, yes I’m Doomer but one of the Doomers of the: overpopulation, resource depletion, not energy blind, habitat degradation and pollution in all its forms so are far more pragmatic than like yourself the Hopiums of this world 👇https://youtu.be/GbPjwRzoMu8?si=d6EPwvKLjmxjuynE
Thomas R. Malthus and Paul R. Ehrlich were NOT WRONG, just their timing was out. Malthus died in 1834. When alive he wouldn’t have known about free FINITE Flammable Fossils ((FFFF’s) source of humanity’s exponential rise in population and industrial and technological development) Hydrocarbons, and their effects on local and global transportation, or of the Haber-Bosch process resulting in the green revolution, or about debt and globalisation, or of Norman Borlaug’s high-yielding, disease-resistant dwarf wheat. Likewise when Paul R. Ehrlich wrote “The Population Bomb” he didn’t know about debt and globalisation, or of Norman Borlaug’s high-yielding, disease-resistant dwarf wheat (it’s interesting to note that Borlaug only expected his development of semi-dwarf, high-yielding wheat, resistant to disease and stem breakage to help third world frequent sufferers of famine, not the rich world profiting from it as just another commodity). And Paul R. Ehrlich never advocated culling the population, in the near future nature will do that, as life sustaining resources wane. Humanity has become hubristic in oh so many ways, believing through its ingenuity and innovation it can always find a solution, so allowing it to continue to exponentially grow, but humanity cannot create energy, only change it from one form to another, and physics and Earth’s resources mean, you cannot run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely, but we don’t seem to have realised that yet, but we will, and it won’t be pleasant🤔
"Every one of the arguments that has been trotted out to try to justify the settlement of Mars can be applied with even more force to the project of settling Antarctica"
Nope.
Extinction level event on Earth affects Antartica too. A self-sufficient Mars would be safe.
Anyone who actually cares about the human race should devoutly and fervently desire our settlement of spaces off Earth. I always find it rather telling when folks oppose it.
Slightly more succinct version of what SmithFS said.
Irina - Much of the FT story based on the Cornwall Insight report is grossly misleading, though that is not surprising given the two sources. I have examined in detail the database on renewable energy projects. Refusals of planning permission is a long way from being the major hindrance to the development of new wind & solar plants. The major issue is that developers simply don't want to proceed, either because they can't raise the finance or want larger subsidies. There is an enormous backlog of approved projects not under construction plus ones with expired planning consent.
A related issue is that developers have taken to asking permission for one project and then executing a bait-and-switch by re-applying for, say, much larger turbines. However, there is a big problem with this. Most planning authorities treat a change in turbine height as a technical variation but only if the locations are not changed. However, a wind farm layout designed for 130 metre turbines is absurd for, say, 180 metre turbines because it will lead to huge wake effects because the turbines are too close together. Any change in turbine height should require a new EIA and a complete site redesign, but no developer wants to do that.
The article does correctly identify the key underlying issue as being speculative site proposals. It is not about planning consent but a strategy of throwing lots of darts at the board - i.e buy lots of options - in the hope that some projects will get finance, approval of revisions, grid connections, etc. Because they don't want to spend too much money on the development stage, most projects are really awful in terms of technical and environmental design but who cares if they get a high enough PPA or CfD strike price.
If the UK’s Labour Party wins the General Election next month, they have pledged to remove or over-ride local planning rules and local objections to wind turbines.
Election promises and reality are two different things. They can't just issue an executive order and repeal 70 years of planning law as well as lots of domestic law incorporating international conventions. I have seen many planning disputes from both sides. They will find a lot of great crested newts and other endangered species turning up on potential development sites. If they ignore such issues, decisions will just be turned over by judicial review and to change that will be a legal minefield.
In any case the concern is ridiculous and reflects almost complete ignorance. The rules are different in Scotland where most potential onshore development occurs. These are not controlled by Westminster. Further, all developments of greater than 50 MW in England & Wales are dealt with by the (national) Planning Inspectorate under different procedures.
The underlying problem is that politicians, briefed by lobbyists, are utterly ignorant of practical details.
That was my feeling, too, Gordon, that it wasn't so much permit refusal as incapability to put those permits to good use. Thank you for the detailed elaboration on the topic.
From the UK Daily Telegraph: “BP has put all new offshore wind projects on pause as the oil company’s new chief executive seeks to focus more heavily on fossil fuels.
Murray Auchincloss, who became permanent head of the business at the start of the year, has also frozen hiring in the offshore wind division.
The move, which was first reported by Reuters, follows investor discontent over the company’s switch to green energy.
Mr Auchincloss is seeking to slow down investments in big budget, low-carbon projects, particularly in offshore wind, that are not expected to generate cash for years.
It suggests he is reversing the policies of Bernard Looney, his disgraced predecessor, who tried to move away from fossil fuels before quitting over inappropriate relationships last autumn.
The shift to greener energy has weighed on BP’s shares as returns from renewables shrank, while profits from oil and gas soared. “
When fantasy and reality collide, there can be only one winner.
Not sure which which side of the debate FREE FINITE Flammable Fossils FFFF’s (Coal, Oil, Gas) versus Rebuildables, sorry, Renewable Energy Converters and Storage devices) REC&S of WT’s, PVP’s, Batteries etc) you’re on Irina. yes it’s right that Greenwashing impediments or sweeteners should be called out for what they are along with any hidden agendas. And when it comes to REC&S’s I’d say they could power a great civilisation, just not this one. On the other hand FFFF’s are by their nature FINITE, and have over the last 70 years transformed H.Sapiens’s lifestyles through so called progress, at least for the Global North, but they have/are leaving a legacy of pollution from all its activities resource extraction to CO2e and discoveries like Plastic and PFAS (forever chemicals). But what a surprise I had Irina, as I thought you were one of those that believed FINITE particularly as regards to Oil didn’t apply to FFFF’s, believing it could be extracted exponentially for as long as, well as long as H.Sapiens were around, maybe you even believed in Abiotic Oil, I don’t know. But then what a surprise I had when I came across your article in “OILPRICE” Jun 23, 2024 titled: “Shale's Efficiency Boost Is Not Guarantee of Strong Future Growth”, your article culminating in “If recent shale history has taught us anything, it is to never make assumptions. Just because efficiency gains boosted production in 2023, it does not mean the boost will be repeated this year.” So if Oil isn’t going to be, and Gas won’t be far behind, and Coal after that, not available to H.Sapiens forever what are we going to power our carbon civilisation with, as it becomes evident Oil/Gas in particular are headed for if not already on the downward side of M.K Hubbert’s Peak Oil Slope, surely not Nuclear, but certainly something a child born today will have to contend with, or is that just that, their problem?🤔
Of course the easiest way to avoid this tax will be to simply quit dealing with cows. If I owned a working farm, I'd still keep a milk cow for my family and consider the tax the cost of milk and dairy, but wouldn't be as keen to deal with all the bureaucracy to supply everyone else. And of course in the US we have the reverse incentive now where "poop gas" is worth a lot in certain markets if you can pretend it came from a farm, so that now our small farmers are going out of business because they don't have this great source of income. Factory farming is on the rise. Perverse doesn't even begin to describe the craziness.
Greenhushing, greenwashing, etc. Notice all the new terms that are required to describe the bobbleheads. You might think they were from another planet? As to the insane Welsh government, I have a funny story. My oldest son spent a semester in Cardiff working for the government. He got a political science internship & had a great time. On his second or third day at work a coworker invited him out for the evening. My son & four coworkers were driven to several bars by a friend that drove for a limo company. At the time, my son thought he could hold his own in a bar. However, he said these guys were professionals. Think of the movie Animal House. These drinking sessions happened twice a week, every week. My son tried to keep up, but he occasionally had to decline an invitation. Perhaps these pros are now in positions of power? Who knows. 🤘😎🤘
https://youtu.be/2xmRWj7gJEU?si=e_7DodTVVMBtaXtJ
Excellent thank you 😊
The elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss is that crude oil is the foundation of our materialistic society as it is the basis of all products and fuels demanded by the 8 billion on this planet, of which only one billion existed less than 200 years ago.
• As a refresher for those pursuing net-zero emissions, wind and solar do different things than crude oil. Wind turbines and solar panels only generate occasional electricity but manufacture NOTHING for society.
• Crude oil is virtually never used to generate electricity but when manufactured into petrochemicals, is the basis for virtually all the products in our materialistic society that did not exist before the 1800’s being used at these infrastructures like: Transportation, Airports, Hospitals, Medical equipment, Appliances, Electronics, Telecommunications, Communications systems, Space programs, Heating and Ventilating, and Militaries.
• We’ve become a very materialistic society over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of all the products for society, and the different fuels for jets, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space program that did not exist before the 1800’s.
Agreed. One quibble: wind and solar do not generate energy, they collect energy. This is the problem in a nutshell, fossil fuels (and nuclear) are primary source energy producers so they can be controlled and output can be increased or reduced as required directly by Human intervention, wind and solar output cannot be controlled, they are - to coin a phrase - entirely in the lap of the gods quite beyond Human intervention.
That's exactly why we need to conserve oil for petrochemicals not waste it stupidly for energy purposes. Heavy transportation needs to shift from diesel to electricity. Light transportation needs to shift from gasoline to methanol. Remote generation from diesel to DME/methanol or SMRs. Heating oil needs to shift to methanol & gas or CHP SMRs.
To supply crude to the Developing World, as they will demand it, will require a 5 fold increase in crude consumption. That is not feasible. So it is urgent that we start focusing on preserving crude for priority applications, namely jet fuel and petrochemicals.
Convserving fossil carbon resources will be difficult before we have genuinely economical replacements for their use as energy, and enough for everyone. The focus should be on making synthetic fuels cheap, with limited electrification where and when it is economical. SMRs might be competitive with diesel for remote power or other niches, but will that really accomplish much? Those niches would also greatly expand with cheaper remote power, while reducing the need for expansive grids.
Basically, we need cheap and rapidly scalable high-temperature nuclear, which sadly is not a priority anywhere. Incidentally, we could save 40% of all crude, instead of burning it in refineries for heat. At least China is on the right path, steadily moving toward synthetic fuels and green steel produced with nuclear heat. Nuclear is being used there for CHP today, and they are selling methanol-fueled container ships. Even
jet fuel can be synthesized.
It can’t happen. It won’t happen.
Selling electricity back to the grid. Ah yes. My solar panels save the planet and won't cost anything. In fact, I'm going to make money from them.
Where have I seen/heard this concept before? Now I remember. Elon Musk and his cult followers claim you'll be able to purchase a Tesla, and the car will pay for itself in the first year as it Robotaxi's its way to riches while you sleep (or otherwise don't drive it). People actually believe this. Can't wait to witness the "reveal" on August 8.
Easy on Elon Musk, he is a Cornucopian vs most of the $billionaire & $trillionaire types are Malthusians. He is anti-DEI, anti-CRT, anti-Woke as he calls wokeness a "mind virus". And he's is a rational pro-America Republican, not an anti-America DemonRat. As Musk states there is a battle between those Extinctionists and the Expansionists.
I also got a lot of problems with Musk's energy "solutions" but he makes big money on them and he has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. Nice that he is largely based in the USA instead of China & Switzerland, like most of the $billionaire financial meltdown specialists who are raping & pillaging what is left of our Western economies. At least he is creating American jobs, while Detroit contracts most of their manufacturing out to China.
Amazing what Musk is doing with SpaceX, doing what NASA & big aerospace said was impossible, and doing it at 1/1000th of the cost they claimed.
I certainly cannot disagree with virtually all of what you’ve written here. However, I have formed a strong opinion, which could indeed be incorrect, that he is a highly manipulative person. I understand many disagree with that take. Let’s just say, that in 67 years I’ve observed human behavior enough that it’s led me to that conclusion.
Much of my distaste comes from the perspective of my education, career and retirement. It’s all been focused on economics, finance and investments. People love the idea of getting wealthy without really doing anything. It’s highly alluring. That’s why the term Teslanaire exits. Over a year ago on a quarterly conference call, Musk referenced excitement over Robotaxi and mentioned “quasi unlimited demand”. The ignorant eat that stuff up. The product didn’t even exist and obviously didn’t have a price. So how can you talk about demand? That’s still true today.
Similarly, he recently threw out the carrot that TSLA could be worth $30 trillion. Current market cap is just over $600 billion, so investors start believing in a 50 bagger from here. “Wow…my $50,000 position could be worth $2.5 million.” That’s rather enticing. Yet….The MSCI ACWI index which captures 85% of all global equities was worth $72 trillion as May 31. That presents a bit of a problem. Buffett alluded to this almost 25 years ago in a famous Fortune article. Growth of components cannot forever outpace that of the aggregate.
I can’t deny his accomplishments, and I have been wrong before. At least you have some sense where my snarky initial comment originated! Thanks
Yes he does deflate his timelines so much that people call it "Musk time", and inflates earnings expectations similarly. Of course, any investor with a few functioning brain cells should be well aware of that by now.
At least his claims have some basis in reality. Contrast what he claims with what our Malthusian Doomer Misanthropic political leadership state, like "12yrs to the end of the world", "global boiling", "the World is on fire", "Russia is trying to recreate the Soviet Union", "Putin will invade all of Europe". Ridiculous, dangerous Fear Porn nonsense.
Musk at least builds things. I have a lot of admiration for people who build things rather than those who just destroy and break things, and make $trillions doing it. Like George Soros and our Bankster Overlords, as JFK called them "The Gnomes of Zurich". These creeps are trying to kill us all in a Global Nuclear War just so they can break up Russia and achieve a World Totalitarian Tyranny. And get rid of us "useless eaters". When in actual fact it is them who are the useless eaters. Psychopathic Parasites, produce nothing, only good at destruction. As they did to us with their $16T Plandemic. As they are now doing to the poor bastards in Ukraine.
Elon Musk is an egotistical narcissist, a dreamer who maybe highly intelligent but lacks wisdom, if there’s anyone who would destroy the ecosphere and all who depend on it to reach Mars that would be Elon, I say he should be the first one to go to Mars and stay there for the protection of life on this planet 🌍.
“Consider the harshest environments on this planet—the stark summits of the Himalayas; the East Antarctic ice sheet in winter; the bleak Takla Makan desert of central Asia; the bottom of the Marianas Trench, where the water pressure will reduce a human body to paste in seconds. Nowhere in the solar system is there a place that’s even as well suited to human life as the places I’ve just named. Logically speaking, before we try to settle Mars or the Moon, wouldn’t it make sense first to build cities on the Antarctic ice or in the depths of the ocean? Every one of the arguments that has been trotted out to try to justify the settlement of Mars can be applied with even more force to the project of settling Antarctica.”🤔
— John Michael Greer
Not quoting your Astrologer buddy again. We can settle those places you talk about more easily, but achieve precisely zero doing it. Once you pay the initial infrastructure costs, you can make an independent self-supporting Colony on Mars, that's all that counts. Any serious problem on Earth and people there will die in Antarctica more as easily as the rest of us. Nothing much new to learn there. Mars may have, in fact probably does have the only other life in the universe we know about. Start with that.
And for a fellow who is always screaming about "FINITE RESOURCES", you would think you would want to extract the massive resources of the asteroid belt. Just one of the asteroids having over 20,000 $trillion worth of metals. The delta V to reach those asteroids from Mars is <10% of what it takes from Earth. The Starship can fly directly to the Asteroid belt from Mars, no need of a booster.
A good primer on Mars:
We know almost 100% certain that there are living organisms on Mars, right now. The Viking landers themselves virtually proved it, and the excuses NASA came up with to deny that have been debunked. And there is multiple tracks of compelling evidence that confirm that. But NASA, ever since the Viking landers has essentially banned any further direct testing for life on Mars. And even makes sure it doesn't send rovers where there may be extant life. SOMETHING STINKS AT NASA.
Jan Spacek - 25th Annual International Mars Society Convention:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn7wTKIvYAM
How to Search for Life on Mars. First, stop refusing to look. Robert Zubrin, Steven Benner, Jan Špaček:
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/how-to-search-for-life-on-mars
Steven Benner - The Case for Extant Life on Mars - 25th Annual International Mars Society Convention:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMgIOVXQ_sI
10 Indicators that Mars Might Harbor Life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqf9JloNrts
Will the SpaceX Starship crew find life on Mars? An exclusive interview with Dr. Gilbert Levin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWMdrNpF_nY
Dr. Gilbert Levin, the only surviving Principal Investigator of the 1976 NASA Viking Lander biology team, presents his startling and overwhelming proof for life on Mars.
And now NASA is pushing an absolutely nutty boondoggle sample return mission from Mars. Pure insanity:
Rethink the Mars Program. It’s time to consider alternatives to sample return, Robert Zubrin:
https://spacenews.com/rethink-the-mars-program/
Robert Zubrin is right about the NASA Mars Sample Return Mission! Here's why! The Angry Astronaut:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXK1V67VCec
"....A recent review of the plan of its flagship Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission pegged its cost at $10 billion, a price tag that threatens to preclude funding any other exploration missions to the Red Planet for the next decade and a half. ...
"...For the same $10 billion now projected to be spent on the MSR mission over the next 15 years, we could send 20 missions averaging $500 million each in cost. These could include landers, rovers, orbiters, drillers, highly capable helicopters, and possibly balloons or other more novel exploration vehicles as well. Instead of being limited to one exploration site, these could be targeted to 20 sites and carry a vast array of new instruments provided by hundreds of teams of investigators from around the world.
"...Furthermore, the 0.32 estimate for the probability of MSR mission success only includes technical risk. It ignores programmatic risk, which in the case of the ESA orbiter is extremely high...In short, the MSR program of record is extremely high risk. It could very well not produce any science at all... In contrast, the success of the varied program is virtually guaranteed. With 20 independent missions, each with a success probability of 0.8, the odds are that at least 16 of the 20 will succeed – most probably more, since later missions can take advantage of lessons learned on earlier flights. .."
This is the same NASA that claimed it would cost $100B to develop a new heavy lift rocket in the 1990s and take at least 15yrs. And that's a fully disposable rocket. So Musk develops a heavy lift rocket in 4yrs for $5B that lifts over double as much and get this, is also fully reusable.
His SpaceX Falcon 9 now has launch costs now of $1500/kg vs Big Aerospace @ $11,500 to $64,500/kg to LEO. And the Starship pushing those costs down to $100/kg. Meanwhile our illustrious Congress funnels over $24B to the SLS, which so far has got one rocket off the ground at a cost to taxpayers of $4B per launch. Which is about what the Starship program will cost for reusable rockets in 1/4 the development time. Combined with the Orion capsule has cost over $50B and 17yrs with still only one load carried by the Orion (now broke down at the ISS). SpaceX Dragon has carried 11 manned and 9 cargo missions to the ISS already at a cost of $1.7B and 6yrs development time.
Had you saved that up especially for me Mr Smith, if so well done, or perhaps you’ve been waiting for the opportunity to pounce on someone else with your sci-fi delusions. In either case I could have saved you a lot of time and effort, because it ain’t gonna’ happen in your lifetime and it ain’t gonna’ happen ever.
But if you really do want to help the planet 🌍 👇
“There is ONE THING we can do to save the planet: Keep your pecker in your pants, and do not let your knickers down. Period.
End of story. It will have the added benefit of phasing out coal to zero. Ditto for oil, gas, lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, plastic, chemicals... I think you get my drift. This is not rocket science.” — Sam Mitchell at Collapse Chronicles🤔
A Malthusian Doomer Misanthropist. Thought so. You can do your part first by removing yourself in order to "save the planet". Practice what you preach.
I like how you always tout FINITE EARTH, but declare your opinions INFINITE. So we will never, ever colonize Mars because you, who knows nothing, declares it to be so. Some crystal ball you must have, I've heard of people seeing into the future but you can see right to the end of time. I'm so-ooo impressed.
Mr Smith, yes I’m Doomer but one of the Doomers of the: overpopulation, resource depletion, not energy blind, habitat degradation and pollution in all its forms so are far more pragmatic than like yourself the Hopiums of this world 👇https://youtu.be/GbPjwRzoMu8?si=d6EPwvKLjmxjuynE
Thomas R. Malthus and Paul R. Ehrlich were NOT WRONG, just their timing was out. Malthus died in 1834. When alive he wouldn’t have known about free FINITE Flammable Fossils ((FFFF’s) source of humanity’s exponential rise in population and industrial and technological development) Hydrocarbons, and their effects on local and global transportation, or of the Haber-Bosch process resulting in the green revolution, or about debt and globalisation, or of Norman Borlaug’s high-yielding, disease-resistant dwarf wheat. Likewise when Paul R. Ehrlich wrote “The Population Bomb” he didn’t know about debt and globalisation, or of Norman Borlaug’s high-yielding, disease-resistant dwarf wheat (it’s interesting to note that Borlaug only expected his development of semi-dwarf, high-yielding wheat, resistant to disease and stem breakage to help third world frequent sufferers of famine, not the rich world profiting from it as just another commodity). And Paul R. Ehrlich never advocated culling the population, in the near future nature will do that, as life sustaining resources wane. Humanity has become hubristic in oh so many ways, believing through its ingenuity and innovation it can always find a solution, so allowing it to continue to exponentially grow, but humanity cannot create energy, only change it from one form to another, and physics and Earth’s resources mean, you cannot run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely, but we don’t seem to have realised that yet, but we will, and it won’t be pleasant🤔
"Every one of the arguments that has been trotted out to try to justify the settlement of Mars can be applied with even more force to the project of settling Antarctica"
Nope.
Extinction level event on Earth affects Antartica too. A self-sufficient Mars would be safe.
Anyone who actually cares about the human race should devoutly and fervently desire our settlement of spaces off Earth. I always find it rather telling when folks oppose it.
Slightly more succinct version of what SmithFS said.
You left out, may have made the single most important contribution to saving the 1st amendment freedoms in the USA.
We all need to just get pushing hard against the grifters pushing ‘transition’ - we need to get to net zero climate catastrophists!
Irina - Much of the FT story based on the Cornwall Insight report is grossly misleading, though that is not surprising given the two sources. I have examined in detail the database on renewable energy projects. Refusals of planning permission is a long way from being the major hindrance to the development of new wind & solar plants. The major issue is that developers simply don't want to proceed, either because they can't raise the finance or want larger subsidies. There is an enormous backlog of approved projects not under construction plus ones with expired planning consent.
A related issue is that developers have taken to asking permission for one project and then executing a bait-and-switch by re-applying for, say, much larger turbines. However, there is a big problem with this. Most planning authorities treat a change in turbine height as a technical variation but only if the locations are not changed. However, a wind farm layout designed for 130 metre turbines is absurd for, say, 180 metre turbines because it will lead to huge wake effects because the turbines are too close together. Any change in turbine height should require a new EIA and a complete site redesign, but no developer wants to do that.
The article does correctly identify the key underlying issue as being speculative site proposals. It is not about planning consent but a strategy of throwing lots of darts at the board - i.e buy lots of options - in the hope that some projects will get finance, approval of revisions, grid connections, etc. Because they don't want to spend too much money on the development stage, most projects are really awful in terms of technical and environmental design but who cares if they get a high enough PPA or CfD strike price.
If the UK’s Labour Party wins the General Election next month, they have pledged to remove or over-ride local planning rules and local objections to wind turbines.
Election promises and reality are two different things. They can't just issue an executive order and repeal 70 years of planning law as well as lots of domestic law incorporating international conventions. I have seen many planning disputes from both sides. They will find a lot of great crested newts and other endangered species turning up on potential development sites. If they ignore such issues, decisions will just be turned over by judicial review and to change that will be a legal minefield.
In any case the concern is ridiculous and reflects almost complete ignorance. The rules are different in Scotland where most potential onshore development occurs. These are not controlled by Westminster. Further, all developments of greater than 50 MW in England & Wales are dealt with by the (national) Planning Inspectorate under different procedures.
The underlying problem is that politicians, briefed by lobbyists, are utterly ignorant of practical details.
They just did that in the State of Michigan, USA. Bryce calls it “Big Footing.” I don’t think it is going to go over to well.
That was my feeling, too, Gordon, that it wasn't so much permit refusal as incapability to put those permits to good use. Thank you for the detailed elaboration on the topic.
Bravo!! Perhaps we have a tulip bubble on the horizon...
There is a quotes somewhere, I think, about fools and money ....
From the UK Daily Telegraph: “BP has put all new offshore wind projects on pause as the oil company’s new chief executive seeks to focus more heavily on fossil fuels.
Murray Auchincloss, who became permanent head of the business at the start of the year, has also frozen hiring in the offshore wind division.
The move, which was first reported by Reuters, follows investor discontent over the company’s switch to green energy.
Mr Auchincloss is seeking to slow down investments in big budget, low-carbon projects, particularly in offshore wind, that are not expected to generate cash for years.
It suggests he is reversing the policies of Bernard Looney, his disgraced predecessor, who tried to move away from fossil fuels before quitting over inappropriate relationships last autumn.
The shift to greener energy has weighed on BP’s shares as returns from renewables shrank, while profits from oil and gas soared. “
When fantasy and reality collide, there can be only one winner.
Not sure which which side of the debate FREE FINITE Flammable Fossils FFFF’s (Coal, Oil, Gas) versus Rebuildables, sorry, Renewable Energy Converters and Storage devices) REC&S of WT’s, PVP’s, Batteries etc) you’re on Irina. yes it’s right that Greenwashing impediments or sweeteners should be called out for what they are along with any hidden agendas. And when it comes to REC&S’s I’d say they could power a great civilisation, just not this one. On the other hand FFFF’s are by their nature FINITE, and have over the last 70 years transformed H.Sapiens’s lifestyles through so called progress, at least for the Global North, but they have/are leaving a legacy of pollution from all its activities resource extraction to CO2e and discoveries like Plastic and PFAS (forever chemicals). But what a surprise I had Irina, as I thought you were one of those that believed FINITE particularly as regards to Oil didn’t apply to FFFF’s, believing it could be extracted exponentially for as long as, well as long as H.Sapiens were around, maybe you even believed in Abiotic Oil, I don’t know. But then what a surprise I had when I came across your article in “OILPRICE” Jun 23, 2024 titled: “Shale's Efficiency Boost Is Not Guarantee of Strong Future Growth”, your article culminating in “If recent shale history has taught us anything, it is to never make assumptions. Just because efficiency gains boosted production in 2023, it does not mean the boost will be repeated this year.” So if Oil isn’t going to be, and Gas won’t be far behind, and Coal after that, not available to H.Sapiens forever what are we going to power our carbon civilisation with, as it becomes evident Oil/Gas in particular are headed for if not already on the downward side of M.K Hubbert’s Peak Oil Slope, surely not Nuclear, but certainly something a child born today will have to contend with, or is that just that, their problem?🤔
Great article as always. Irina, you have such a gift with words, you should write a novel about climate hysteria, it would be a best seller.
Thanks you! I am, in fact, working on something involving climate hysteria. And a lot of mythical creatures. :D
Barclays is missing an opportunity to make a lot of money!
I was settling down to enjoy this, when yet another burst of genius from a country you would have thought would have more sense showed up - https://fortune.com/2024/06/26/carbon-tax-denmark-cow-burp-methane-emissions/
Of course the easiest way to avoid this tax will be to simply quit dealing with cows. If I owned a working farm, I'd still keep a milk cow for my family and consider the tax the cost of milk and dairy, but wouldn't be as keen to deal with all the bureaucracy to supply everyone else. And of course in the US we have the reverse incentive now where "poop gas" is worth a lot in certain markets if you can pretend it came from a farm, so that now our small farmers are going out of business because they don't have this great source of income. Factory farming is on the rise. Perverse doesn't even begin to describe the craziness.
Yes, seriously disappointing news from Denmark, which was once upon a time a pioneer of modern farming.
Pickle chips for everyone....
Love the Supernatural reference. Maybe it's time for a rewatch, but with 15 seasons, that would prevent me from doing anything else for about a month.
Excuses, excuses. Besides, the last season is not really worth watching, so that's just 14. :D
Ah, I like it all.
Me too. I lied. :)