Made in America EV Battery Production? Metals Needed Suggest No Time Soon

Cocoa

3 years ago

The US electrical grid is pretty much trash. Instead of grinding up money in Ukraine we should have been investing in a more resilient grid. Democrats want to stop fossil fuel usage with drastic and unplanned mandates to adhere to their religious war. Next they are picking winning companies according to their union memberships and not technologies. Next they are trying to get Europe off Russian nat gas by freezing them to death this winter. I love these guys

0

KidHorn

3 years ago

Aluminum ion technology looked promising a few years back. Seems the last few obstacles are a lot harder to overcome than believed.

0

mrchinup

3 years ago

Missing Trump yet? You will! He would have had us drilling on every piece of land available unlike the morons in charge now. Looks like the globalists running Booben are right on track they need to destroy us and the brain dead liberals are helping them. How sad.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to mrchinup

drilling and propping up is not necessarily a winning strategy long term. What you are saying is look, we are running out, lets use it all as fast as possible.

0

JRM

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

This is the “BIG LIE”!!!!

Oil is abiotic!!

0

JRM

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

We were supposed to run out of oil in the 80’s,90′,2000, ect ect, yet oil continues to be drilled..

China proved you can hit oil in any place you drill, it depends how deep you want to go…

Miami and NYC is supposed to be under water by now, according the God of the environmental terrorist movement!!!

0

ohno

3 years ago

Panasonic is building a $4 billion ev battery plant in Desoto ks. I think mostly for Tesla. It’s said to bring 4k jobs. I don’t know if that’s the overall economy or this place is going to be monstrous which would be me guess 4 billion?

I know the area well. Very small town. The mfg that are there now have a hard time getting help I’m not sure how that’s going to work unless they offer pay and benefits that blow everyone else away I have no idea.

0

mrchinup

3 years ago

Reply to ohno

Panasonic builds the best batteries in the world.

0

Lisa_Hooker

3 years ago

Reply to ohno

4k jobs while the plant is being built. Probably 350 to run it.

0

Maximus_Minimus

3 years ago

The Top 10 EV Battery Manufacturers:

https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-top-10-ev-battery-makers/

Visualizing 10 Years of Global EV Sales by Country:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-10-years-of-global-ev-sales-by-country/

The summary: China stole the trophies.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Anyone else ever had to explain to educated people that “electric” and “batteries” aren’t an energy source? lol

0

whirlaway

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

Same thing with hydrogen. People think it is an energy source when they should know that it is an energy *carrier* and not a source.

0

Lisa_Hooker

3 years ago

Reply to whirlaway

Actually it’s just an atom.

The simplest one.

0

Felix_Mish

3 years ago

California 2035 is aspiration, at best.

There is one big reason to change transportation to electric: Broader supply options. If you want a second reason, then you gotta go with: More reliable equipment. As people continue to get more expensive relative to things, reliability is a nice little benefit.

Energy supply options: Nukes and/or geotherm with petro in a pinch. The rest are quite interesting noise. But, after the usual transition pain any change brings, humans won’t be what we call “human” by the time energy is a serious, long-term problem for humans.

Petro demand will be high for a long time because of all the other things people make from petro. “I have one word for you Benjamin. Plastics.”

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Felix_Mish

geothermal works if we all pile into iceland i guess. Nukes are not profitable and don’t appear to be a solution outside the “we can do it!” crowd. Petro demand will remain high, yes, but petrol harvest continues to sink deeper, and deeper costs more energy. You might want it, but it won’t be there indefinitely… and would the WEF really have taken their shot if there were decades left? unlikely… the crunch is here with a few years helping hand by those who wish to control it

0

kansasdude

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

I dont really know whats going on with oil. Some say we are drowning in it, others have your opinion. You would think you are right since the push for EV. At least thats a better thought than the greens having us all living in grass huts eating bugs and riding bikes.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to kansasdude

people get confused because they hear something like half is gone and think, oh half is left. But thats not how its likely to work out… the first half was easy, it put us where we are, the second half is ever deeper and ever more muddy or dilute

0

Felix_Mish

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

Ah, you got me there. 🙂 Yeah, geothermal is a nothing-burger unless startups succeed in building plants that can be put pretty much anywhere. If such plants fly, then, whooeee! If not? Sigh. … Anyway, geothermal is my current favorite of the long shots.

In all of the non-petro cases, there must be storage for transportation use. Electricity is the common denominator, so it looks like batteries are gonna win, there. Hydrogen is the Betamax of storage, at best.

I’m sensing talent going in to the nuke field and exploring enough avenues that problems will be solved. Cost in this sort of thing is about the only problem reliably solvable even without really top tech talent. Anyway, France hasn’t been cut off at the knees by nuke costs.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Felix_Mish

you make the mistake of assuming supplies (lets say lithium) will necessarily meet demand because we’ve been taught thats what economics is (market fills all voids)… but truth is that economics is an energy system. i’d recommend surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com for the details; he does a fantastic job explaining.

0

Felix_Mish

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

Thanks for the link.

What I got from it: A Malthusian explaining his views through the increasing energy cost of energy.

Most of the parts I read faster and faster concerned his thinking that the financial world was not gonna fix the dwindling value of `energy divided by energy_cost`. In that, I’m in complete agreement. And, I’m in complete agreement that it’s very likely that the cost of energy will not take a significant hit any time soon, if ever. I just think it won’t go up very far, if only because the speed of light squared is a really big number.

Energy economy: Well, some call it an “information economy”. One could call it a “cooperation economy”. Or the economy is a living thing. Lots of lenses to look at the world through. You’ll notice the big oil companies are sharing the most-valuable-company lists with tech companies already, though.

I’m also just not of the Malthusian faith. Malthus had the misfortune of positing that population grew exponentially while food grew linearly at almost exactly the time food started seriously growing super-exponentially. And 250 years later, he’s still spinning in his grave frustrated that the world has been exactly 180 degrees out of sync with his predictions during all that time. But, hey, someday.

Admission: My faith is just as faithy as a Malthusian’s. But, mine’s more fun. And sees beauty in the sky at night.

0

MPO45

3 years ago

“The inflationary polices of Progressives in blue states, coupled with inflationary madness by president Biden, will put the Fed on hold for any recession (stagflation) fighting efforts.”

So does this mean you are now in the “inflation here to stay camp” or “deflationary demand destruction camp?”

0

Mish

3 years ago

Reply to MPO45

There will certainly be demand destruction, but de-globalization, de-carbonation, perpetual war, the ridiculously-named inflation reduction act, energy madness in California and by the White House, will cause a long period of economic weakness that the Fed will struggle to deal with. Stagflation and weak growth (recession or near recession) for a while.

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

The transition to renewables is going to take a lot longer than most people expect. While there will be investment opportunities in areas like hydrogen, there is still a lot of money to be made from oil and gas over the next several years.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

thats one way to look at it… it will let the propaganda go on a lot longer, but thats about it… there will be no real transition since all “green energy” is tied to fossil fuels

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

I will keep focusing on the investment opportunities that arise from the transition that IS going on.

I will leave the propaganda and the politics to you.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

by all means invest where you feel the cash will flow to… doesn’t change anything about the costs of green energy being no where near viable. They are tied to fossil fuels entirely, if you have some evidence otherwise I would be happy to look at it. But having done extensive research into “non renewable renewable energy”, you simply mentioning, “propaganda”, “politics”, and hydrogen doesn’t change anything… Where will you be getting the hydrogen from (who is spouting propaganda again?)? Can we insert a straw into the ground and have it bubble up for free?

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

I will leave all that discourse to you. It matters not to me. All that matters to me is how to profit from the circumstances.

Are you profiting from your claimed extensive expertise in the area? Or are you gaining all this knowledge in order to whine and complain about things you have no control over?

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

did you notice me complaining about it? I have no complaints, my only issue is all the ignorant masses becoming violent as they realize they have to grow their vegetables and get on bread lines

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

“Where will you be getting the hydrogen from?”

The plans, as I understand them, are to store excess energy in hydrogen from renewables with electrolysis of water.

I am looking for the investment opportunities in this area as well.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

so convert sun to solar electric to hydrogen and back to something useable… sorry thats not going to compare to growing a tree and burning it. every time you transform energy you lose some, thats a horribly cumbersome process… your money won’t be vaporized if you invest in timber, but hydrogen? goooood chance

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

Cumbersome; yes. Expensive today; yes.

Again. Not my plan. But that is the plan of many companies who are going to spending many billions on it.

And with the hydrogen subsidy of up to $3/kg of hydrogen, I expect the US to become the world leader in hydgrogen production and use.

Whether it ends up working or not; who knows.

All I know is that this represents an interesting investment opportunity.

When you come up with a good plan to do the equivalent with trees, let me know how I can invest and make money from that as well.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

fail miserably with trees? hardly see the benefit. I will continue to eat them cook with them shelter with them build with them and heat with them. good luck cleaving hydrogen out of water with high tech tho

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

“good luck cleaving hydrogen out of water with high tech tho”

I’m not the one doing it. I am but a simple investor trying to take advantage of the best available investment opportunities.

And you still haven’t mentioned a single worthwhile investment for me yet. All you seem to want to do is to hug trees.

“fail miserably with trees? hardly see the benefit. I will continue to eat them cook with them shelter with them build with them and heat with them.”

Good luck with that.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

btw i think i misinterpreted your propaganda statement… seems you were merely saying you don’t care much about that but only making money… sorry if I misinterpreted you as saying what I said was propaganda! i do agree there is money left to be made from fossil fuels, unfortunately the fossil fuel industry is just as subject to energy constraints if not moreso, and there is a high likelihood of nationalization and unfair compensation for your former property (investment).

the transition is taking place I agree, but the destination isn’t where you or 95% of the first world expects its to go

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

The destination, as I understand it, is to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for the vast majority of our energy. Is there some other destination that you are privy to?

Personally, I think it will take much longer than most are hoping. Which leads to investment opportunities in oil and gas.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

my point was most people see their current life, but powered by solar panels and wind turbines… that is not coming, it will not happen.

your current point seems to be a world less dependent on fossil fuels, well of course that is true, but the reason is there won’t be any available to anything but the war machine, and that too will dry up over time.

the destination is more like the 1840s than it is the modern world… and that will take some luck avoiding the violence i mentioned elsewhere

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

1840. A world without electricity and indoor plumbing? No cars? No planes? No phones?

Where does that come from?

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

where does it come from? I don’t understand how thats a question. Do you mean to say you are unaware that progress is not a one way singular thing, (ie your ability to skim money out of the market etc?)?

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

“the destination is more like the 1840s than it is the modern world”

You said it.

Not me.

How can you not understand it, if you said it?

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

its funny to me that what you say here shows me how little you know about very real, historical, and core realities… I sense you have no idea people can and do live without electricity and indoor plumbing. That many many people have no cars, never use planes, and really only use phones to kill time. I frankly pity the thought of having never lived without those things for periods. I too might think that is what it is to be human. The universe is under no obligation to continue supplying humanity with cheap fuel… in fact we have demonstrated ample reason for the universe to want us dead.

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

You’re right about one thing. I don’t give a flying f*ck about most of the crap you are talking about.

At first, I thought you had something useful to say.

Now, I’m beginning to think you are a complete waste of my time. And I don’t like wasting my time on nonsense.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

lol um ok… got one for you then: “baaaaa”

0

worleyeoe

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

Several years? That number is at least 10 years, IMO.

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to worleyeoe

Probably. But I tend to be conservative in my predictions.

I certainly hope to make a minimum 30-60% per year from many of the oil company stocks I own for as many years as possible.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Energy is a fun topic to watch both the left and the right writhe around on the floor shaking a fist at the heavens… or plant themselves at a typewriter and construct various magical forms of humanity’s future.

0

ohno

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

I really wish the magicians would leave us the hell alone.

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

For the last two years energy has been fun to invest in!

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

for the last 30 years everything has been fun to invest in… Watching it unravel will be shocking to many still waiting on hydrogen pipe dreams

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

So what are YOU invested in? What is your future outlook and how are you planning to invest for it? Are you shorting those Hydrogen stocks that are a pipe dream? If so, which ones?

All I see from you is criticizing. How about some useful investment advice. Where are you invested? Gold?

0

Fish1

3 years ago

So China assembles 76 % of the batteries and does not even make the chart for mining the basic materials for said batteries. Several major lithium mining operations are in the permitting pipeline in the US. The US makes the best electric cars in the world and has a major technological lead in the field, thanks to Musk. I’d say we’re not doing badly, not bad at all.

0

FromBrussels2

3 years ago

Reply to Fish1

electric cars SUCK ! causing 50% more accidents in dense traffic affected areas like mine (Flanders )due to utterly smug EV driving mfrs feeling the need to compete with combustion engines, showing off with impressive accelaration, winding up against trees , walls and slower cars …. Go figure they even don t have to pay traffic taxes ….WHY ….because of conveniently, hypocritically hidden ‘pollution’ ??

0

Fish1

3 years ago

Reply to FromBrussels2

So you’re one of the legions of posters here with all the marbles in oil stock?

0

FromBrussels2

3 years ago

Reply to Fish1

Definitely not ! Neither do I have ‘all the marbles’ in hypocrisy stocks …..

0

Doug78

3 years ago

Reply to Fish1

FromBrussels2 has lost his marbles so he doesn’t have any at all.

0

FromBrussels2

3 years ago

Reply to Doug78

Why don t you check ? ‘50% meer ongevallen met elektrische autos’ says our very reliable VRT news( state prostitute)

0

Captain Ahab

3 years ago

Reply to FromBrussels2

Give it a brake. Environmentalists need to go zero to 60 (100km/hr) in two seconds.

0

Doug78

3 years ago

Reply to FromBrussels2

My God! You gave a reference! I will make you happy and say one of my cars is diesel and another is gas. I do not own an electric nor am I planning to buy one especially with the price of electricity these day here. Nevertheless I do own stock in Musk’s company because he is pretty good at what he does and I like that.

0

FromBrussels2

3 years ago

Reply to Doug78

….I do like Musk I must say …..he d make one hell of a great president if he d ever try ….. All we ever get are smug, egotistic fckn corrupt idiots ….

0

Doug78

3 years ago

Reply to FromBrussels2

He has plants in the US, one in China and one in Germany. Note that he has none in Russia and has no interest in Russia at all even for sourcing metals.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Fish1

you have a chicken and egg problem in your statement fish1

0

shamrock

3 years ago

Panasonic has already made over 6 million EV battery cells in Sparks,NV and is opening a $4b factory in Kansas. Ford is investing $11b on battery production plants in Kentucky and Tennessee.

0

Lisa_Hooker

3 years ago

Reply to shamrock

6 million battery cells? That’s what, enough for 15 Teslas?

0

Jojo

3 years ago

Yet another reason why the focus should not be on batteries and EV’s but hydrogen and fuel cells to power transportation.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Jojo

The people still resorting to magical thinking with the leaders having brought the crunch 5 years early… Good luck with that lol

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Jojo

but in all seriousness, how will you be obtaining the hydrogen?

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

Using surplus renewable energy for hydrolysis of abundant ocean water. That is the plan as I understand it.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

“surplus renewable energy” is an oxymoron

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

Care to explain?

0

JRM

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

Until the Environmental terrorist start complaining about the shrinking oceans!!!!

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to JRM

Sorry. The oceans are rising. Might as well make use of that fact.

0

Casual_Observer2020

3 years ago

Fwiw, batteries probably do more environmental damage than even fossil fuels. I see it all as a zero sum game when it comes to ‘clean’ technologies. Solar maybe the only net negative energy technology in the long run.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Casual_Observer2020

solar electric? no way… solar thermal, small scale wind, and various forms of hydro power… other than that you better hope we find a way to manufacture bikes post fossil fuels. Biomass and animal power will be makinga comeback, and unfortunately literal slavery will work its way in if people keep staying too silly to realize whats happening

0

MPO45

3 years ago

Reply to Casual_Observer2020

Double Bingo! The problem is 8 billion people wanting to consume more, more and more and businesses all wanting growth, growth and growth. Replacing millions of ICE cars with millions of EV cars then millions of hydrogen/fuel cell cars means strip mining the entire planet into oblivion.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to MPO45

one thing I think Americans miss here in their wishful thinking is they don’t realize some 5 billion people are seeking the lifestyle we 200 million had which began the depletion long ago. The math no longer works and it never would have, exponential growth charts are a very short shift from inverting

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

Agree. There are current limits to growth. One of the biggest being a lack of energy.

However, regarding energy, I think that technological improvements will bring us enough relatively cheap renewable energy to provide the world with all the energy needed before the end of this century. But we are several decades away from reaching that point.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

technology has yet to prove it can subvert the laws of thermodynamics

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

In a single hour, the amount of power from the sun that strikes the Earth is more than the entire world consumes in an year.

All we have to do is tap into that energy.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

lmao we are… we used it up in about 300 years. Now we will have legacy projects… for a while… after a while we will go back to plants. Its funny you should say that, because its precisely true just not at all like you think… (if anyone still needs help i mean oil is literally tapping that energy he wants to tap) that when that supply is gone you go back to the possible efficiencies of what we can harvest from sun, mostly plants. The limits to our ability to harvest from the sun was calculated many times but I don’t have the info off hand… i would encourage you research the theoretical limits to solar panels. then think about how many acres of land you will be occupying with NOT plants because you need your electron motion.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

i’m chuckling because its literally an argument I’ve seen debunked a half dozen times but keeps getting repeated anyway: “In a single hour, the amount of power…”

solar thermal has promise but we need to be working on small scale glass production… and we aren’t

0

JRM

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

They’ve been saying this for decades, yet no way to create enough electricity..

China is going back to Coal, cause the math didn’t didn’t work!!!

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to JRM

I guess you missed the last few decades of solar.

Worldwide energy production from solar:

2000: 1.06 TWH

2010: 33.91 TWH

2021: 1032.50 TWH

30x growth every 10 years, which projects to

2030: 30,000 TWH

2040: 900,000 TWH

Current Total world energy consumption from all sources 160,000 TWH.

Not saying we will get there. Just saying its possible with our ever advancing technology.

0

Lisa_Hooker

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

The new technology will harness good intentions of which the liberal Left has an infinite supply.

0

Casual_Observer2020

3 years ago

The real problem is that speculators can drive up the price on commodities before any technology actually takes hold. Until there is major derivatives reform ( including perhaps banning anyone but producers from hedging) , nothing will change.

0

Captain Ahab

3 years ago

Reply to Casual_Observer2020

Producers hedging against themselves; now there’s a good idea.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Casual_Observer2020

the real problem is not thoughts ideas or perceptions, the real problem is actual dwindling energy supplies. People aren’t even on the doorstep of understanding yet and its highly unfortunate as we’re already 40+ years behind in our planning

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

Agree. Supplies of oil and gas are falling short as a result of several reasons:

1. Oil and Gas Companies lowering their capex for almost a decade now in anticipation of lower demand for oil and gas as we transition towards renewables.

2. Higher worldwide demand for energy than anticipated.

3. Not enough construction of renewables to meet the growing energy demand.

The good news is the great investment opportunity in oil and gas that we have seen for two years now and will probably exist for the rest of this decade.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

1 is a far more complex problem than you let on. 3 is a direct consequence of 1 and 2 and furthermore 3 will be impossible since attrition rates and negative consequences of “renewables” means there’s next to no chance we build out enough for our population at any point ever… think of it this way… every year we fall behind now some 1 out of every 20-30 solar panels comes offline and also needs replacing. Heaps of solar panels are already being tossed in land fills as there is no way to economically recycle them. So next 20 years when we were hoping to grow our solar farms will also have to deal with replacing our solar farms as they become dead and needing to be replaced with more oil as the subsidy… appeals to future inventors always remains just that. the only reprieve was fracking and doesn’t look like we get lucky again

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

And every year the efficiency of new solar panels and windmills improves. So you are always replacing expensive and inefficient tech with newer and better tech.

Renewable energy is all technology. The price of tech tends to fall, while performance improves. Think semi conductors and computers.

So, like most tech, eventually we will have almost limitless energy for low cost. Because of human ingenuity. The same ingenuity that allowed us to fly in planes, and to travel in space.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

I’m well aware of this, except its not true… as i said elsewhere look for yourself into the limits… I assure you it doesn’t work the way you think for solar panels

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

I found this very simply you can go all day if you like… but I’m confident you don’t get exponential increases with diodes in the sun

_______

The Shockley-Queisser limit, stemming from the broad spectrum of solar radiation combined with the band-gap nature of semi-conductors, says that a single silicon (or similar) layer can’t beat 30%. The theoretical limit using multiple layers is still not great, at 68%. (It’s also far from realized. Multi-layer panels have only reached about 40% in the lab, and only then when using optical concentrators.)

The easiest way to take a step up in efficiency is to use solar energy as a heat source rather than an electricity source (e.g., for heating water), which can approach 70% efficiency with current technology. Trouble is, electrical energy is just so much more handy than heat energy.

-“What limits the theoretical efficiency of solar panels? – Factual Questions – Straight Dope Message Board”

0

Bill Meyer

3 years ago

Yet another great post. One can be forgiven for wondering if our “elites” are truly that dumb, or if it’s an intentional self-inflicted gut shot to speed the “you will own nothing and be controled…uh, er, HAPPY…yeah, THAT’s it”.

0

Captain Ahab

3 years ago

Reply to Bill Meyer

Politicians are not well known for their mental accuity when it comes to understanding the consequences of their crappy decisions. However, if there is a buck to be made, why would they even care?

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Bill Meyer

more likely some very smart people are controlling some very dumb people. What the climate religion does is give an excuse to slice the population before the hard limit of fossil fuels… what that allows for is the modern life for a few decades longer as there will be less consumers of fossil fuels. its all coming unraveled.

0

Doug78

3 years ago

The video talked to an expert who said that all the metals and minerals can be found in the US and that problem is getting permits to mine them.

0

Casual_Observer2020

3 years ago

Reply to Doug78

The NIMBY mentality has to end.

0

Doug78

3 years ago

Reply to Casual_Observer2020

Amen

0

FromBrussels2

3 years ago

Reply to Casual_Observer2020

and what to say about the LQBTG or something …..I HATE acronyms …..too many of them

0

FromBrussels2

3 years ago

Reply to Doug78

Sure …..and flying in miners from ‘the south’ working for peanuts …..although…. with the ungoing drought, even that might become a problem…

0

Doug78

3 years ago

Reply to FromBrussels2

Do you know what in Russia the average salary for miners $11,700 while the average miner in the US earns $56,300? Mining in developed countries hasn’t been pick-and-shovel work for ages now and requires high-paid expertise.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Doug78

this is the same as oil… and its what people don’t understand. As we pass peak mining/oil etc the cost of extracting these things becomes too expensive, but not just in money but in energy itself. The easy stuff is gone and the hard to get stuff is not going to suffice maintaining lifestyles into the future… these are obvious basic facts that you too can now watch everyone ignore as they point fingers elsewhere

0

Doug78

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

There is plenty of minerals around and we have the means to get them. We just want to be careful how we do it.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Doug78

Plenty of minerals and have the means? So basically our final means will be spent isolating tiny parts of rocks into their base material? and we might completely destroy the environment on the way….

thats what I read in your statement. It is NOT a solution it is how do we eek out modern life until I myself am dead, future be damned…

the solution involves practical people with advanced knowledge of the problem and its potential solutions, very little has been done to accomplish this. Again, not how do we scrape the bottom of the barrel

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

And BTW if you were to ask me what the solution was it would have been government sponsored permaculture via education and land grants some 40+ years ago. It would easily be feeding America by now in everything but grain (reduced necessity by perennial nut crops (don’t forget this country was once literally covered in chestnut!). Alas the rule of democracy seems to be to look only 2 to 4 years into the future as I stated in the comments elsewhere. Had we looked into the future 40 years ago there was enough time to make these issues far less burdensome… far less… our agriculture would now be powered by people with purpose and health rather than government reduced nitrogen supplied by depleting (and illegal) fossil fuels. It’s still an option just the results won’t be as good.

0

Jojo

3 years ago

Reply to Doug78

Or Greenland & Canada.

0

Doug78

3 years ago

Reply to Jojo

Same problem. Canada has lots of gas to export to good-paying customers like Germany but the Federal government squashes all projects in red tape.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to Doug78

with supplies dwindling why would any country want to export their fuel? oh yea because democracies only care to care for the current period before the next election cycle… i almost forgot

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

Most commodities are traded in global (partially free) markets, where pricing is based on supply and demand.

Democracies, such as the US, tend to want free markets, where US companies are able to freely buy and sell goods worldwide.

Are you suggesting that the US should start putting more restrictions on companies that prevent the free flow of goods between nations?

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

resource nationalism is a natural consequence of shortage and deglobalization. my opinion is irrelevant. Countries which allow needed supplies to be sent to foreign nations run major risk of upheaval. Globalization was a huge mistake that will very soon be leading to catastrophe in many nations now dependent on it. If you are asking me to solve their problems after decades of cementing the problems I would need way more paper than I would subject our host to having to moderate.

your question is fair enough, but it seems more like bait to me for an ideological battle… I don’t control anything I’m only pointing out the logical conclusion of these problems

the point was specifically, we don’t run our society out the the 7th generation… but about 2 to 4 years max.. not a recipe for success

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

Then we agree. We, as individuals cannot control what happens in the world.

I choose to try to take advantage of what is happening rather than complain about it.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

first off yes individuals can control things. I just cannot control the thing we are talking about.

If you choosing to try and take advantage of your brethren as we usher in a new age of suffering, is your goal, then I imagine you will do it quite acceptably. But I wouldn’t bet on it as the game is rigged and if you aren’t coming in as an oligarch you aren’t likely to leave as one. Identification of fads before they happen doesn’t meaningfully contribute to anyone’s life except, perhaps, your own. I think your money would be better invested in yourself and your community but to each his own I guess. And I’m not complaining so I take exception to the implication. It honestly doesn’t bother me in the least that humanity will move back towards living as it did for 2 million years. I am not complaining one bit, I am explaining. There are both positives and negatives.

0

PapaDave

3 years ago

Reply to Raymond_Flagstaff

Lol! Trying to lay a guilt trip on me is a complete waste of your time.

However, unlike you, I do not take exception to it. I simply find it amusing.

0

Raymond_Flagstaff

3 years ago

Reply to PapaDave

you think its about you… thats funny.

0

Captain Ahab

3 years ago

Democratic Republic of Congo… LMAO. I wonder if the Democraps realize the DRC is a major human rights abuser, including child labor in cobalt mining. Indonesia is a little better, still plenty of problems with indigenous peoples. And Just mention The “Family Resilience Bill” to force LGBTQ people into ‘rehabilitation’

0

Six000mileyear

3 years ago

“This is one hell of a let’s do it and see what happens mandate”

This sounds similar to Nancy Pelosi hounding, “We have to pass it to see what’s in it.”

0

RonJ

3 years ago

Oilprice.com

“However, environmentalists are concerned with the damage the rapid
expansion that mining operations could cause to the environment. In
addition, a spate of viral social media posts has brought negative
attention to a mineral that the public knows little about, beyond
hearing it in the context of lithium-ion batteries.”

0

Mish

3 years ago

Was at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon since Thursday

A
rainbow with lightning last night at sunset (a triple play) and many lightning
strikes. Had
rainbows Thursday, Friday, Saturday

No
storms scheduled today – headed home. About
2.5 hours away

Way backed up in editing pictures, will take me a while to process.

0

Roy

3 years ago

Reply to Mish

Good for you. The Grand Canyon is a great place to visit – North or South Rim.

0

FromBrussels2

3 years ago

Reply to Mish

….you live well , don t you ? When I grow up I wanna have me own blog too !

0

Matt3

3 years ago

Reply to Mish

Good. Time is short. Enjoy.

0

Felix_Mish

3 years ago

Reply to Mish

I shot the current wallpaper on my main machine from Cape Royal on the North Rim a couple years ago. So I’m really looking forward to your https://mishmoments.com/ shots from the area. Anyone else here who uses their camera or phone’s camera for natural scenes should check it out. Mish knows how to make pictures. MishMoments even tells how he made each shot!

0

Don’t Miss a Post. Subscribe now.

Made in America EV Battery Production? Metals Needed Suggest No Time Soon

Share this:

Recommended Articles

Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk