Not long ago I read an article about how difficult it is to produce usable copper—the mining and refining processes are quite complex and difficult to scale up.
Right, you cannot destroy the climate system. Climate means CHANGE. It goes through waves and the earth regulates temperature extremes. This has been proven. All of us humans cannot compete with the power and radiation of the SUN…. Not even close. Humans don’t create energy they just transform energy. Now pollution is a problem and disrespectful to our earth. We could end that problem but so much distraction with the climate hoax and so many other lies
Anyone using the term “fossil fuels” is either misinformed or an idiot. Oil does not come from melted dinosaurs but is the second largest renewable liquid on the planet behind water. This is all a bag of lies.
Well you can’t make money unless people think it’s a finite resource. There has never been a “fossil” discovered at the depths that oil is mined…. You can find old videos of geologists laughing at the term “fossil fuel”…. Oil is plentiful like water.
Reading this I can't help thinking that one of the worst things about the Ukraine war is that gives these people an excuse. They can point the finger at Putin and three of their fingers are pointing back at them. The sanctions blowing up in their face sped things along, but their green energy schemes always amounted to a perpetual motion machine. Which meant that we were always going to be here. There was always going to be a shock to the system, and if it hadn't been Ukraine, it would have been something else. With money to be made in systems disruption and Europe utterly dependent on an umbilical to the Russian gas fields, that pipeline was always going to go boom. The refusal to produce energy always meant the immiseration of the people, no matter how many impractical schemes were devised for storing it. And it was all feature, there was never any bug.
I said to a Catholic friend of mine recently that these people basically crawled out on a limb and dared God to saw them off. He replied that those who tempt God do so in sin.
Levin has often talked and written about the "de-growth movement". Started in Europe - what a surprise. When one looks at the post here you have to think that either, it's intentional or these nuts are so ideological that they don't care to take the time necessary to think things through.
I'm a consultant to an effort at reopening a closed copper mine in Melanesia. (Nothing special, I just keep the project on schedule.)
We've had occasion to talk to USG reps regarding the main protect, and secondary projects, e.g. hydropower, for the indig population. Tropical rains mean potential near-continuous hydro-generation.
Whenever you talk to USG reps about extractive efforts, the door is slammed in your face. There is absolutely NO interest in extractive industry.
And, there is no interest in hydropower. If it ain't solar, don't bother them.
Doesn’t matter. Leftist Marxists have no time for basic math. Math is a useful tool yo understand the reality around us. Marxists however live in an alternate unreality of their own fantasies. And they mean to drag the rest of us into their insanity. Never engage with or argue with a crazy person.
The same climate ideologues pushing wind and solar have dismantled the energy sector. The irony is the amounts of fuel, namely diesel, that it takes to get copper out of the ground and through the refining processes is very, very high and no substitute.
Even if* it was feasible to strip mine that much copper, the Climate Nazis have no alternative to fuel the trucks and machinery needed, and have crippled global production.
Robert Hunziker is, imo, wrong in his first two statements - oil is not 'fossil' but a product of geologic processes and therefore practically unlimited, and CO2 is a 'good', not a 'bad' (unless one hates life).
Congratulate me. I made it to the fourth sentence of Robert Hunziker's article before I came to a hard stop idiocy: "Secondly, fossil fuel emissions such as CO2 are destroying the planet’s climate system."
Sorry, Bob, you just obliterated whatever marginal credibility I would have accorded you (I mean, even given that you are writing for the Counterpunch bozo rag).
Rather that read Hunziker's tendentious take, read Simon Michaux's down-the-middle, exceptionally thorough presentation from August 2022:
BTW: an even bigger problem is vanadium. It would take 9,920 years of extracting vanadium at 2019 levels (pre-Covid) to produce enough for ONE generation (lasting 20-25 years) of 'renewables' on a scale sufficient to replace all oil and gas energy.
Copper is probably not a problem- easy to recycle, but the price will rise if we attempt this transition, which will make copper theft even more of a problem going forward. There are deeper problems, though, than copper- lithium is the real one that I don't see a ready solution for- while there is far more lithium in the ocean than we would ever need, it is at a concentration of 25 micromolar, which would require a ridiculous amount of energy to isolate and process.
The entire Green Energy push is about the most insane thing I have ever seen. Lots and lots of grifters are involved.
Other factors are substitution: copper used to be used in pipes and for brass fittings, but those uses are now mostly superceded by other materials. That will continue. Also, copper scrap is relatively easily re-processed and re-cycled. I expect that 50% or more of future copper consumption will come from scrap (if it's not already that high.)
when I was young, I worked for a very large copper mining, smelting and refining company in Canada for many years. And while I'm not up to date on copper markets, I've got a lot of experience. Copper and other base metal prices remained stagnant for decades - not just in inflation-adjusted currency, but in absolute dollars. Copper hit $1/pound in 1973 and is $3.60 currently. Compare that to house prices or other commodities. If miners could be sure of long-term prices of (say) $ 5 per pound, I expect that lots of copper could be developed. One of the concepts in the actual business was the concept of a "resource triangle" - i.e. at lower cut-off grades, the amount of reserves increased. At higher prices, lower cut-off grades make more and more reserves economic. In past 30 years, China developed massive copper smelting and refining capacity - from virtually nothing to more than the entire west combined. I don't think that most people in US or Canada fully appreciate the degree to which China is a much larger economy in these heavy industries.
Besides windmills and solar panels, we are already using much more copper than we used to. In the 1970s, the wiring harness for a car weighed about 40-60 pounds. Now with onboard computers, power windows, power locks, powered sliding doors on minivans, heated seats, sensors for all kinds of things--tire pressure, pollution control, air bags, and more, a car's wiring harness is over 200 pounds of copper. And that's for a gas-powered car!
I'm retired now, but in my past I worked as a residential electrician at times. It takes a lot more copper to wire a modern 3000 sf house than it used to take for a 1000 sf house 60 years ago. It isn't just the longer distances from the panel to point of use (although that can be a problem--if the distance gets too great, you have to use heavier wire to prevent voltage drop). Where a house had maybe a dozen electrical circuits 50 years ago, with a panel rated for 100 amps, now a panel may be made for 200 amps and up to 40 circuits.
Right, you cannot destroy the climate system. Climate means CHANGE. It goes through waves and the earth regulates temperature extremes. This has been proven. All of us humans cannot compete with the power and radiation of the SUN…. Not even close. Humans don’t create energy they just transform energy. Now pollution is a problem and disrespectful to our earth. We could end that problem but so much distraction with the climate hoax and so many other lies
Anyone using the term “fossil fuels” is either misinformed or an idiot. Oil does not come from melted dinosaurs but is the second largest renewable liquid on the planet behind water. This is all a bag of lies.
As is stating "emissions such as CO2 are destroying the planet’s climate system". When I was at school we were taught it was plant food.
I hafta say, the dinosaur theory is inherently implausible.
Well you can’t make money unless people think it’s a finite resource. There has never been a “fossil” discovered at the depths that oil is mined…. You can find old videos of geologists laughing at the term “fossil fuel”…. Oil is plentiful like water.
Reading this I can't help thinking that one of the worst things about the Ukraine war is that gives these people an excuse. They can point the finger at Putin and three of their fingers are pointing back at them. The sanctions blowing up in their face sped things along, but their green energy schemes always amounted to a perpetual motion machine. Which meant that we were always going to be here. There was always going to be a shock to the system, and if it hadn't been Ukraine, it would have been something else. With money to be made in systems disruption and Europe utterly dependent on an umbilical to the Russian gas fields, that pipeline was always going to go boom. The refusal to produce energy always meant the immiseration of the people, no matter how many impractical schemes were devised for storing it. And it was all feature, there was never any bug.
I said to a Catholic friend of mine recently that these people basically crawled out on a limb and dared God to saw them off. He replied that those who tempt God do so in sin.
So too many humans for their energy plans. Or do they have plans for humans too
Levin has often talked and written about the "de-growth movement". Started in Europe - what a surprise. When one looks at the post here you have to think that either, it's intentional or these nuts are so ideological that they don't care to take the time necessary to think things through.
I'm a consultant to an effort at reopening a closed copper mine in Melanesia. (Nothing special, I just keep the project on schedule.)
We've had occasion to talk to USG reps regarding the main protect, and secondary projects, e.g. hydropower, for the indig population. Tropical rains mean potential near-continuous hydro-generation.
Whenever you talk to USG reps about extractive efforts, the door is slammed in your face. There is absolutely NO interest in extractive industry.
And, there is no interest in hydropower. If it ain't solar, don't bother them.
~~~~~
Happy Thanksgiving Eve !
Stories like that make me weep for our former republic.
Doesn’t matter. Leftist Marxists have no time for basic math. Math is a useful tool yo understand the reality around us. Marxists however live in an alternate unreality of their own fantasies. And they mean to drag the rest of us into their insanity. Never engage with or argue with a crazy person.
The same climate ideologues pushing wind and solar have dismantled the energy sector. The irony is the amounts of fuel, namely diesel, that it takes to get copper out of the ground and through the refining processes is very, very high and no substitute.
Even if* it was feasible to strip mine that much copper, the Climate Nazis have no alternative to fuel the trucks and machinery needed, and have crippled global production.
Sharp as bowling balls that bunch...
Thanks for your blog.
Robert Hunziker is, imo, wrong in his first two statements - oil is not 'fossil' but a product of geologic processes and therefore practically unlimited, and CO2 is a 'good', not a 'bad' (unless one hates life).
Every cloud has a copper lining
A wheat penny saved is a dollar earned
A dollar for your thoughts
The future rewrites the past...
It ain't happening, it being the forced changeover from coal, oil, gas to greenie fantasies.
As Denninger often says the laws of thermodynamics are facts not suggestions!
Speaking of KD, his latest post is spot on:
https://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=247466
Thank you for KD’s post, it’s spot on!
Congratulate me. I made it to the fourth sentence of Robert Hunziker's article before I came to a hard stop idiocy: "Secondly, fossil fuel emissions such as CO2 are destroying the planet’s climate system."
Sorry, Bob, you just obliterated whatever marginal credibility I would have accorded you (I mean, even given that you are writing for the Counterpunch bozo rag).
Rather that read Hunziker's tendentious take, read Simon Michaux's down-the-middle, exceptionally thorough presentation from August 2022:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBVmnKuBocc
BTW: an even bigger problem is vanadium. It would take 9,920 years of extracting vanadium at 2019 levels (pre-Covid) to produce enough for ONE generation (lasting 20-25 years) of 'renewables' on a scale sufficient to replace all oil and gas energy.
Copper is probably not a problem- easy to recycle, but the price will rise if we attempt this transition, which will make copper theft even more of a problem going forward. There are deeper problems, though, than copper- lithium is the real one that I don't see a ready solution for- while there is far more lithium in the ocean than we would ever need, it is at a concentration of 25 micromolar, which would require a ridiculous amount of energy to isolate and process.
The entire Green Energy push is about the most insane thing I have ever seen. Lots and lots of grifters are involved.
Other factors are substitution: copper used to be used in pipes and for brass fittings, but those uses are now mostly superceded by other materials. That will continue. Also, copper scrap is relatively easily re-processed and re-cycled. I expect that 50% or more of future copper consumption will come from scrap (if it's not already that high.)
when I was young, I worked for a very large copper mining, smelting and refining company in Canada for many years. And while I'm not up to date on copper markets, I've got a lot of experience. Copper and other base metal prices remained stagnant for decades - not just in inflation-adjusted currency, but in absolute dollars. Copper hit $1/pound in 1973 and is $3.60 currently. Compare that to house prices or other commodities. If miners could be sure of long-term prices of (say) $ 5 per pound, I expect that lots of copper could be developed. One of the concepts in the actual business was the concept of a "resource triangle" - i.e. at lower cut-off grades, the amount of reserves increased. At higher prices, lower cut-off grades make more and more reserves economic. In past 30 years, China developed massive copper smelting and refining capacity - from virtually nothing to more than the entire west combined. I don't think that most people in US or Canada fully appreciate the degree to which China is a much larger economy in these heavy industries.
Besides windmills and solar panels, we are already using much more copper than we used to. In the 1970s, the wiring harness for a car weighed about 40-60 pounds. Now with onboard computers, power windows, power locks, powered sliding doors on minivans, heated seats, sensors for all kinds of things--tire pressure, pollution control, air bags, and more, a car's wiring harness is over 200 pounds of copper. And that's for a gas-powered car!
I'm retired now, but in my past I worked as a residential electrician at times. It takes a lot more copper to wire a modern 3000 sf house than it used to take for a 1000 sf house 60 years ago. It isn't just the longer distances from the panel to point of use (although that can be a problem--if the distance gets too great, you have to use heavier wire to prevent voltage drop). Where a house had maybe a dozen electrical circuits 50 years ago, with a panel rated for 100 amps, now a panel may be made for 200 amps and up to 40 circuits.
Trouble maker! You and your facts.