Net Zero is the Plan for Peak Oil in disguise - An imminent peak of world crude production is why we have carbon credits, traffic controls, plastic bans, vegan nudging, and humanity walking into a digital trap


Net Zero is the Plan for Peak Oil in disguise​

An imminent peak of world crude production is why we have carbon credits, traffic controls, plastic bans, vegan nudging, and humanity walking into a digital trap​


When you heard about the Great Reset and New Normal, did you wonder what exactly was guaranteed to revolutionise our entire way of life? Probably not daily climate catastrophes. Surely not simultaneous viruses miraculously sustaining their virulence while circulating the globe. Whatever happened, surely we’d just Build Back Better?

It turns out there is a truly revolutionary event for humanity on the near horizon: growing scarcity of the finite resource that powers the global economy and enables mass production of its four fundamental pillars: steel, cement, fertiliser and plastics.

Peak Oil theory lost momentum as deep-sea drilling, fracking of shale deposits, and steaming of tar sands kept the show on the road well into the 2010s. But could there be any clearer signs that we’ve entered the final chapter of the hydrocarbon age? The high point for oil discovery was almost 60 years ago. As every oil field must peak and enter decline, so must all known reserves as a whole.

It seems apt that the global peak of production would arrive after decades of declining prosperity and opportunities for the average school-leaver, culminating in extreme inequality and grand, vague slogans uttered by a series of influential figures across the political spectrum. Without some major ongoing narrative to justify things getting worse, political establishments will be threatened from all sides.

Unsurprising, then, that a Plan for Peak Oil (PPO) is already in full flow: it's the very same plan that ostensibly seeks to slash carbon emissions to Net Zero. Since hydrocarbons are the major ingredient in plastics, the plan also requires phasing out plastic use. Schemes to reduce pollution and traffic congestion also serve to slash oil consumption via the progressive exclusion of private vehicles.

Whether elected leaders know it or not, Net Zero is all about coordinating, across countries and continents, the inevitable down-scaling of the global economy. The advantages to the 1% of selling their PPO as a climate emergency, with the promise of improved cities and health, are clear. For starters, nobody has to concede that they were complicit in the illusion that this finite resource could last infinitely.

Second, by framing it as a broad moral imperative (the planet, community, health) they hope to recruit almost all youth as evangelists, while opponents from any angle can be easily smeared. Thirdly, a more widely-defined mission enables a more comprehensive agenda to be pushed, with moveable climate targets and priorities permitting policies be to introduced at variable pace in diverse regions.

Limiting panic and political upheaval, the PPO actually masks the ending of growth by providing a fresh spurt of activity. Replacing existing, serviceable things with brand new, more complex things doesn’t always make sense from the perspective of efficiency, let alone future scarcity. However, it does create the widespread illusion that we are future-proofing the economy.

Why not be on the green & efficient bandwagon? Who doesn’t want clean, walkable communities? What’s not to like about a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?

Whatever we do, pollution is destined to disappear. Efficiency and alternatives will emerge by default. Walking and bicycling will become the norm. None of this requires that we adopt new forms of surveillance and control.

Technology is steadily reducing the labor required across the economy, but scarcity of oil will do so far more directly. Reliance on the state, however, could mean digital-only income. If cash is phased out entirely, anyone’s income from any source could be subject to limits on how, when and where it is spent.

Sunny brochures promise “15-minute” city districts with almost everything within walking distance — but don’t depict the network of cameras and other sensors that could enforce not only limited car journeys, but pricing by distance travelled. Most private vehicles will disappear from roads, and all public transport might be free (but potentially limited based on distance, evaluated need or any other reason).

Smart meters, supplied free of charge across the West to meet ambitious targets, enable per-residence limits to be placed on electricity usage. Digital ID, expected to be required for all Internet access, would enable restrictions on the type of online activity, time spent online, and locations/hours of Internet availability. Facial recognition could enforce bans on physical presence outside of specific zones.

This is the digital trap. With just a few innovations in the name of clean air, security, cheaper bills and reliable income, you would forever be at the mercy of a state attempting to maintain order in the midst of prolonged economic contraction. There would be very little resistance, violence or rule-breaking if punishments were rapid and arbitrary — exactly what the digital trap is capable of.

An honest PPO salesman would say this is by far the most efficient means of controlling a population: no prisons, judges or police (except robot police) involved in dealing with minor offences. It will be accepted because, despite the rich doing what they please, commoners will be convinced that they are contributing to the greater good, making the same sacrifices as everyone else.

The honest salesman would also admit that the 1% will never let a good crisis go to waste. Think of all the data that could be harvested to feed Artificial Intelligence, helping to augment and extend the lives of Transhumans. Not to mention the data that could minimise crime and maximise compliance. Give up all your data, or suffer. The WEF warned us back in 2018 that we’d have no privacy, and we’d be happy.

But why must the masses be forced to eat lab-grown protein and bug burgers? Quite simply, because these can be mass-produced and continually modified so that medical and other data can be analysed for different groups of consumers. The less privacy and autonomy society enjoys, the more power our rulers can obtain. Everything about the PPO can be viewed through this very simple lens.

Does this mean we’ll be herded into pods in cities? Anything is possible when the state has control over the food supply, or your money, or home comforts, or ability to travel. Certainly, rising world population will be forced into reverse, and it would be trivial to guarantee greater longevity for citizens residing in the smart city. Don’t you want to help save the planet?

Can any cities resist growing surveillance? Maybe only temporarily. The PPO cannot realistically advance at a uniform pace around the globe. Some countries, some cities will pioneer different components of the plan, experiencing setbacks and pushbacks. Ideally, villages and towns would now be seeing a revival as the drawbacks and risks of city living are made clear to remote workers.

The most urgent resistance might be to promote the use and importance of cash. Another, more direct action would be to damage or destroy any cameras that could regulate the movement of vehicles or humans. Grow food, keep chickens, and support local farmers. Learn to use ham radio, or to fix bikes, build wood stoves or install solar panels. Share this article online and with your neighbours.

If we collectively understand the true motivation behind Net Zero, their wider agenda cannot be imposed as easily as they hope. Smashing the main deception will lead to the unravelling of the rest.

We can manage energy scarcity with full transparency, and minimal surveillance or control. Avoiding the digital trap is paramount. Anything else means our most basic freedoms are on the line.


Here are some sources that are worth a follow.

Gigaohm Biological - first for good reason. Requires hours of attention to get the picture, but very rewarding. Learn Your Biology!

Our Finite World - a comprehensive blog on energy issues.

Geoff Buys Cars - an accessible YouTube channel looking at PPO measures in the UK.

THANKS FOR READING & SHARING.
 
The problem is that retrofitting heat pumps is completely impractical for most places, and for many places air source heat pumps are completely unsuitable too. An average British house doesn’t even have space for the outside unit, and can’t rip the floors up to install water heating like they’re trying to push. Those heat pumps also don’t work well when temperatures drop below a certain point. Heat pumps (and I’ve lived in a house (barely) heated by one a while back) are generally shite.
We aren’t going to run out of oil any time soon. We certainly should be looking at alternative forms of energy and nuclear is the obvious option. Anyone who says they’re green and denies nuclear just wants to make you live like it’s 1650 again. No ta.
My comment is in regards to the statement of the video that is like this:
More energy use = Always better of

When the connection is not obvious. If you don't like heat pumps as example, take better insulation. Having a door that closes properly compared to a piece of wood with open chunks on each side.

But since the triggerword heatpump must have made you ignore all of that somehow, let's go with it.

>Br*tish
There is the problem. Don't blame the rest of the world for not coming up for solutions for you. Seems to be a unique Br*tish issue.
634624636.png 48548548.png

>Those heat pumps also don’t work well when temperatures drop below a certain point
How efficient they run is stated in COP, which is the annual average. This includes the winter.

>We aren’t going to run out of oil any time soon. We certainly should be looking at alternative forms of energy and nuclear is the obvious option. Anyone who says they’re green and denies nuclear just wants to make you live like it’s 1650 again. No ta.

Please do and see how it's going to work out for you. Also if you want to heat with electricity from nuclear power, however. I have a question. How do you combine nuclear as baseload with high demand load during the cold months? Example France, which largely heats with electricity:
25125215.png
Load goes from below 50.000 MW to around 80.000 MW in winter. Nuclear provides base load. You want to have a trailerpark of conventional power plants you never use just sitting around 2/3s of the year?

>ib4 but France does it too
France has immense overcapacity which is fine since they are integrated into the European electricity market. But even though this leads them to be a huge exporter of electricity, they turn into importers of electricity in the cold months. Then German coal and gas power plants are turned on for production.
Furthermore their nuclear power fleet has a load factor of 60-70 %. While the current Br*tish Hinkley Point C has a planned capacity factor of 90 %. And even with this high load factor Hinkley Point C got this price arrangement:

EDF has negotiated a guaranteed fixed price – a "strike price" – for electricity from Hinkley Point C under a government sanctioned Contract for difference (CfD). The price is £92.50/MWh (in 2012 prices), which will be adjusted (linked to inflation – £128/MWh in 2022 during the construction period and over the subsequent 35 years tariff period. The base strike price could fall to £89.50/MWh if a new plant at Sizewell is also approved.
A 80 % load factor would be a (An even worse) financial disaster.

Meanwhile spot electricity prices for the UK are like this:
523236236.png

After all. I am a bit curious how you would like the electricity mix of the UK to be. 80 % nuclear? 50 % nuclear? The rest gas? Or coal?
What about cars and heating? How should they be looking in the future?

The retards in charge won't build nuclear power plants to replace oil. That should give you everything you need to know about their true intentions.
Aren't you the guy that was so strongly for nuclear power but then you failed to do a rough back on the envelope calculation for the capital costs alone? Seems like you haven't reconsidered your position. Sad, but that would explain why other people have to make those decisions and not you.
 
Peak oil :story:

What matters is peak oil demand, not production

Peak oil doomers always assumed that demand would never peak, only production would

Oil demand is going to peak before production does. It's a complete non-issue
 
What about cars and heating? How should they be looking in the future?
What works with the housing stock we have. Our government is pushing heat pumps. They are not well suited for the housing stock we have. If you’re building new, high quality homes, like the Scandinavian do, heat pumps work fine - everyone I know with a new house over there has well insulated buildings, triple glazing, and underfloor heating. It’s built in to high quality and it works great for them. They have exhaust type pumps, not the simple air source they push here. The people in city flats there get hot water from a city central source and that works for them. Bit soviet, but works. We don’t do that. How do you fit heat pumps to a tower block?
But take the Uks housing stock. How are you going to retrofit a heat pump to an Edinburgh tenement that’s 250 years old with single glazing? It’s not doable. How about a row of terraces in skipton? Not doable.
Electric vehicles? Great for suburban dwellers who have a place to park and charge. Great for uk city buses, delivery within city, all that. How about our Edinburgh tenement dweller? She’s got a parking permit for her zone, and often when she gets home from work she has to park half a mile away. Where does she charge? What about someone who lives up in aviemore? Are there ev chargers in applecross? Laugh at uk infrastructure for sure, none of us can change it, we just make the best of what we have. The rural people I know often have wood burners, heating oil, and one has peat turves.
We should be having a diverse set of solutions tailored to need, not one size fits all or else we fine you. Public transport is vital for cities, it’s non existent outside them. Rural people need big engines.
With different demand across the year, demand capacity change is inevitable. That’s how life is in the north. it’s cold in winter and the kettle goes on in the ad breaks. There used to be a noticeable spike in usage during the commercial breaks for Corrie. Design a power grid that deals with it? We seem to have managed ok u til recently. Perhaps needing power for a few million extras doesn’t help.
 
Aren't you the guy that was so strongly for nuclear power but then you failed to do a rough back on the envelope calculation for the capital costs alone? Seems like you haven't reconsidered your position. Sad, but that would explain why other people have to make those decisions and not you.
Was? I still am. I find it quite interesting that people suddenly start caring about cost when they oppose shit. And it gets really funny when people back the idiots in charge over that. And hilarious when the historical long-term context is willfully ignored. Sad, but that would explain why politicians should all be hanged.
 
Net Zero carbon emissions is not a plan to deal with Peak Oil under disguise. Peak Oil is about a lot more than energy production, and encompasses usage of oil in agriculture, consumer products, plastics, and so on.

The arguments against Peak Oil are unconvincing, to say the least.
 
We could even start looking into more efficient ways to make synthetic oil.
I don't think the field has had much progress since the nazis needed it to not sputter out entirely.
Nuclear powered synthesis would be great.

Hell, "Synthetic Fossil Fuels" is an early game tech in Alpha Centauri and the game specifically cites their ridiculous energy density as to why you need to start making them over things like batteries.
 
The upper limit of lithium batteries that we know of is 50% or 1600wh/kg.
No, this is a theoretical upper limit that is only potentially achievable in the sort of ideal conditions that don't exist in the real world, usually based on the performance of novel chemistries that are not able to be scaled to mass production. It requires some serious massaging of the numbers to even speculate about its existence. Even if it could be achieved, when all's said and done what you have is a densely packed oxidiser and fuel source with an unstable chemistry that wants to rapidly exothermically decompose, and is only kept from doing so by artificial means. This is also known as a bomb.

Batteries only need to be 1/3 as energy dense to be equal to gas or diesel cars.
Again, untrue. Even assuming your numbers are correct, the functional capacity of a battery is far less than its nominal capacity, and is constantly shrinking as the battery is used. Discharging a lithium cell of any kind below a certain capacity causes it irreparable damage, so you generally can't use the bottom 20-25% of the cell. Charging the cell to 100% also causes significant damage, so you can't use the last 5-50% of the capacity. The sort of rapid charging necessary to get a cell up to a useful charge level in a reasonable amount of time rapidly degrades the cells, further reducing their capacity, meaning that to preserve the capacity of your battery you have to charge it slowly. Every action taken with a battery damages it and reduces its capacity. You keep talking about these hypothetical and ideal conditions for batteries, but in the real world they never remotely live up to the nominal maximum capacity and performance. The slightest deviation from ideal conditions can knock a hundred miles off the range of a BEV.

Batteries are a dead-end technology when it comes to storing and transferring energy for any sort of mobile society; their improvements in capacity and lifetime have plateaued and they will not see more than marginal increases in capacity and lifetime in the future. They are a meme, and not a particularly funny one.
 
Tell me, what brand of brown tunamelt (using that bit from the videos, lol) does the UK use to build things like utter shit? Did any of our Mexicans find their way to Jolly ol' England?
I've not been on a site for a long while, but I'd guess it's about equal thirds bongs, eastern europeans, and north africans. I'd expect the only mexicans we get here are drug barons buying property to launder money. The City is rife with that sort of thing.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo