Updates from March, 2018 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • rogerglewis 10:21 am on March 13, 2018 Permalink | Reply  

    The Skripal Case: an open thread 

    Must Read Stop the war mongering May and Johnson should resign.


    The reality behind the alleged poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter remains murky and apparently contradictory. Six days in to the investigation and little more is known beyond the original announcements made mere hours after the supposed discovery of the crime. Questions proliferate and answers are few.

    We are opening this thread as a place for posting links to aspects of the merging story. This is going to be particularly useful as the narrative develops and changes. Today’s headlines might slip down the Memory Hole tomorrow. So documenting them as they arise may be useful.

    Here are a few of the questions currently outstanding that may be answered in future (or may simply vanish from the record):

    What “nerve agent” was used?

    Six days in and no statement about that has been made yet.

    Where exactly were the Skripals poisoned?

    a) Was the poison “sprayed” on them in the…

    View original post 658 more words

  • rogerglewis 7:22 am on March 10, 2018 Permalink | Reply  

    Energy Returned on Energy Invested, Surplus Energy Economics Data Base ( SEEDS) Embodied Energy CIrcular Economy. 

    Fig. 8. Imbalance in the intermediate trade and nal
    trade (The size of the sphere represents the corre-
    sponding economy’s gross trade volume of embodied

    Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320445428_Global_primary_energy_use_associated_with_production_consumption_and_international_trade [accessed Mar 10 2018].

    I have spent a Week Assembling Data available through public API’s so that I can build a model of World Economy based upon Energy Generation and Energy Consumption. Most of all of that has already been done what has not been done is creating a Money that embodies embodied energy as its objective valuation basis, The Value basis of money is subjective and as a subjective phenomenon is also a variable. A Bugbear expressed and repeated in the pages of this Blog more than once.


    Introduction to Technocracy – 1933
    discussions — of ‘value,’ of fluctuating prices, of the gold standard, of changing interest rates, of items of pecuniary wealth which are at the same time items of debt — are
    merely discussions looking toward a readjustment of the factors which prevent them
    The problem of analysing political choices against the metric of a Monetary measure is the Money as a Thing is most certainly a Variable and as any good technologist, scientist or metrologist will tell you a unit of measurement has to be clearly defined and fixed.
    The dollar. He notes that it is a variable. Why anyone should attempt, on this earth, to use a
    variable as a measuring rod is so utterly absurd that he dismisses any serious
    consideration of its use in his study of what should be done.
    He also considers ‘price’ and ‘value’ and the fine- spun theories of philosophers and
    economists who have attempted to surround these terms with the semblance of meaning.
    These terms, like the monetary unit, may have had meaning to men in the past but they
    mean nothing whatsoever to the modern technologist. The standard of measurement is
    not relevant to the things measured; and the measuring rod and the things, measured as if
    they were stable, are all variables.
    This comparison of different energy solution uses ERIO
    The Energy Returned on Invested, EROI, has been evaluated for typical power plants representing wind
    energy, photovoltaics, solar thermal, hydro, natural gas, biogas, coal and nuclear power. The strict exergy
    concept with no ”primary energy weighting”, updated material databases, and updated technical procedures
    make it possible to directly compare the overall efficiency of those power plants on a uniform mathematical
    and physical basis. Pump storage systems, needed for solar and wind energy, have been included in the
    EROI so that the efficiency can be compared with an ”unbuffered” scenario. The results show that nuclear,
    hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than
    photovoltaics and wind power.


    Click the Link Below and please read this book, written by a Physicist, Engineer and sadly now departed all round good egg Prof. Sir David MacKay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay

    Sustainable Energy - without the hot air Sustainable Energy – without the hot air
    by David MacKay

    So I can get back to my own number crunching I have made my blogging task easier by leaving what I find pertinent links to the question at the Surplus Energy Economics Blog of Dr Tim Morgan, ( Sorry Tim) Here are the two Blogs and Attachments concerned:


    1. That is a very useful summary and introduction to Surplus Energy Economics Tim.
      There is an online book here,
      By the late Prof David MacKay
      He talks about the book here at Harvard,
      The Book is an easy read and the examples are very intuitive as they break back to the idea of how many 40 watt light bulbs different energy solutions break down as in per capita energy resources.
      There are some very good Sites which have well-embedded energy databases particularly in the Construction industry which uses 48% of global energy annually building and running domestic and commercial property.
      http://symposium.arch.tamu.edu/2017/ Project Summary: Buildings consume approximately 48% of global energy each year in their construction and operation alone adding proportionally to global carbon emission.
      The problems in Political Economy as it stands presently and the question of future Political Economy based upon future Energy realities are I think helpfully separated which is something Prof. David MacKay is very successful with, in his presentation of the question.
      The Problems are only weakly related with respect to future solutions and breaking the process into 3 parts is useful rather than lumping them all together. It is clear that the existing Form of Market economy and political economy is not able to solve the problem at stage 3 ( I.E Post 2050 post-Oil Economy)
      Stage 1 requires a reform of the existing paradigm which involves facing up to the broken debt-based money system. Pension provision, the sovereign debt crisis and Public debt crisis are all addressable and will see improvements even within the deteriorating Cost of energy inputs as a share of output. We could call this stage lets fix what we know is not working.
      Stage 2 covers the Post Financialised ( Big Bang Experiment) period to the oil running out in 2050.
      This requires a much more long-term investment horizon and complicating the energy mix by overstating the ”Climate Change question** seems to be counterproductive, again I like the way Prof David Mackay dealt with the question including stating the necessities of **Clean Coal and Nuclear”. In this stage, we will be implementing ideas previously barred due to the denial inherent in clinging to a failing system.
      Stage 3 Post 2050, This part is much easier than Stage 2 and stage 1, in my opinion, the myth-busting and levelling out inherent in solving the political problems at stage 1 and the challenge to vested interests in stage 2 are by far and away the largest obstacles to getting down to Brass tacks in my opinion.
    2. Dear Dr. Tim
      There is no doubt that you also see renewables as highly dependent on fossil fuels.
      However, I see your graph “ECoE by fuel group, 1980-2030F” as a stand-alone proof
      that renewables will compete with fossils in the near time span. Normally you give a full explanation of how you reach your figures. But not this time. Do you base your assumptions on figures from ‘renewables interest groups’? Are subventions ex- or included? Costs in connection with the integration and accumulation of intermittent energy? Unfortunately there are lots of negatives which you do not mention. I very much hope that you will take all minusses into account by your next article about the usefulness of wind, waves and sun.
      • With ECoE by fuel group, you need to remember that the energy used in contructing renewables equipment comes overwhelmingly from fossil fuels. Therefore, even as technology and economies of scale are lowering the ECoEs of renewables, the ECoE of their input costs will be rising. I am very far from convinced that we could – for example – extract or process copper or steel without using fossil fuel energy.
        I look at every information source that I can, trying to avoid anything that looks like lobbying. Taking PV just as an example, there are some arguments that it will never cover its energy costs, and others saying it’ll almost “too cheap to meter”.
        As you may know, I’m convinced that big commercial and official organisations are going to need to build something like SEEDS as conventional models become ever less useful. I’m not going to hand them the information to do that. So that’s why I publish ECoEs by fuel groups, but not by fuel types – it gives readers what they need, but doesn’t enable someone to build something like SEEDS.
      • Thanks Steve. Actually, I think this IS a paper on SEE, isn’t it?
        I use the term “discretionary” meaning “resources over which we exercise choice”. What we spend on essentials isn’t discretionary – what we spend on meals out or CDs is.
      • Apologies, I failed to make the connection between the link and the comment.
        The link invites submissions for attendance at a workshop, whilst isn’t really my scene nowadays.
    3. Dear Tim
      As always, many thanks for your work. I’m intrigued by your Prosperity Calculations to 2030. The HSBC Report on Global Oil Supply to 2040 infers an annual decline of 5% to 7% in oil production from 2016 onwards (doesn’t seem to have started yet though) :
      The latest graphs from Jean Lahererre indicate a similar scenario for future oil production:
      Under these circumstances could Germany, a country so reliant on export volumes and in particular the car industry, really experience nothing worse than stagnation up to 2030 ? How will Spain achieve a growth in prosperity of 3.2% in this time period ? Intuitively, I would expect depression and worse in ALL the world’s economies if these predictions are even remotely accurate. I note that you predict that for most of them, by the way.
      many thanks and regards
      Bernard Hartley
      • In the absence of replacement developments, oil production in non-OPEC countries declines at rates of between 6% and 8% annually. (Shales alone decline much more rapidly, sometimes by as much as 65% in the first year after start-up).
        Countering this requires new field starts. For this, you have to have both capital and viable projects. Availability of capital has slumped since the oil price nose-dived, and discovery rates are at all-time lows.
        I didn’t think the HSBC report told us much that we didn’t aslready know, but such views from such a source are significant – a bit like Tullett publishing “Perfect Storm” when I was head of research there.
    4. Another good piece Dr. Morgan!
      Leaves me with the uncomfortable feeling that nothing can be done as I look for ways to make investments to provision for my own retirement. I am a hard working ‘have’ who would like to remain a ‘have’. SO much of what you write makes me think I should be in cash except for the fact that cash is a store of value that isn’t stable either.
      If a person had say $20k to invest what would he do? Solar seems to be the most likely answer, with the rising cost of energy being a given, so would the output of solar rise as well?
      Call me perplexed.
      • Investment advice is an area I don’t go into. But I reckon we can think through the areas that aren’t going to do well, even if it’s harder to identify those who will do better. In the situation described in my report, success is very much a relative concept.
        It’s interesting to note sectors that are already struggling, including retailing, restaurants, car sales and contractors like Carillion. It’s a strange kind of ‘recovery’ when these businesses are struggling….
        Businesses supplying essentials should fare better than those selling discretionaries, though we need to beware of anything (such as some utilities) which is emphatically in the political arena.
        It’s interesting that smartphone sales have peaked. I anticipate problems in the travel, advertising and car hire sectors.
    5. ”Therefore, even as technology and economies of scale are lowering the ECoEs of renewables, the ECoE of their input costs will be rising. I am very far from convinced that we could – for example – extract or process copper or steel without using fossil fuel energy.”
      Fossil Fuels clearly need to be used wisely certainly whilst the transformation process is attempted.
      Solar Breeders and another energy plant will surely produce the industrial quantities of Electricity required, why would that be impossible?
      to imagine the future, distributed networks and symbiotic systems have to be embraced. Top Down centralised command and control systems simply do not lend themselves to whole system thinking.
      The Old stories no longer work especially the Binary stories of left and right Elites and plebs found in Political economy.
      • Thanks. Quite some time ago we had an article here about why both right and left have become outdated terms. Both are corporatist, either private or state, and both require loyalties (to the corporation, government department, etc) which can conflict with broader loyalties (to other people, to the truth, and so on).
        I’m not at all sure about fast breeders. It seems to be in the category of ‘ideas that have been around for a long time but are still not proven’.
      • 03.09.2017
        MENA solar farms to power Europe underway – Ambitious Tunisian solar project may one day provide electricity to European home
        The Tunisia based company TuNur launched a request to export 4.5 GW of solar energy to Europe. It firstly will link Tunisa and Malta by 2020 and further links to the middle of Italy and southern France are planned. It is a project both sides can profit from – Europe by getting clean energy and Tunisia by getting the economy, jobs and investments, stimulated. Finally there has come a chance to realise the project Desertec tried to launch a decade ago.
        I Guess Rome was not built in a day , The Technology is way ahead of the FInancial and political infrastructure. The competitive side of Markets and tendency to monopoly of Financialisation really does make for very slow progress.
        My Experience with waterstillar showed that even though a clear workable model to solve one of the great problems of the world Clean Pottable water even struggled in a No Brainer Market. Why? becuase it is up against one of the biggest captured markets in the world Bottled Water.
        Distributed networked energy Grids are not easily monopolised and controlled they are anti-ethical to the COntrol models of late-stage financialised capitalism.
        The Physics is quite straightforward, the political Economy not so simple.
    6. With prosperity in decline in the west, covered up by monetary adventurism, China must feel the impact in due time. Everything is interconnected as we know. By the way, China too is on the highway to hell;
      I cannot see why China’s prosperity could rise further with the west in decline?
    7. Dear Tim,
      Thank you for your reply (regarding current Peak Oil reports). I did indeed read your ‘Perfect Storm’ report back in 2013 .
      Like houtskool in his comment above, I find it difficult to imagine that certain countries will avoid the permanent recessions experienced by the majority of nations. Specifically your projections for Spain (+3.2%) and Germany (+0.1%) are difficult to understand as these countries will be embedded in a recession bound Europe (UK -10%, France -6.9% etc.). Could you explain this briefly ?
      thanks and regards
      • Two helpful annual reports from Lazards on Levelised cost of electricity. Very informative.
        Also this is a very interesting Wikipedia article on OTEC ( Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion.
        Just by way of explanation by Profession I am a Chartered Surveyor and Valuer. I began my Career at Shell UK Limited where I was involved in the Tax Assesment of the St Fergus Gas Terminal in Peterhead, To Tax large oil industry plant and machinery open market valuations of Property Value based taxes like Property Rates do not exist and to calculate a property value for taxation purposes a Valuation Technique called the contractors principle of Valuation is employed.
        The Contractors Principle of Valuation is a residual method of valuation which adds up all the input costs and then applies a discount rate to generate an annual economic rent ( Net Present Value )
        which can then be used to calculate the rating assessment. At shell I did hundreds of these types of Valuations and the Largest such valuation was for the St Fergus Gas Terminal.
        Concepts such as Embodied energy also feed nicely back into measures of Levelized costs of electricity. Pulling these concepts of energy value as opposed to financial value into the equations should hopefully result in seeing what the problem we are trying to solve is? DO we want to save Society or the financial system as it currently operates?
        Discount rates based upon the cost of Capital are pretty subjective as you will know Tim but it seems to me that EROIE measures Levelised costs of Electricity production and so forth and a residual valuation approach can yield a good method by which to assess the Economic potential for future prosperity based upon access to energy.
        Energy and Capital are very different things.
        The best description of this dichotomy I have encountered is this from Carol Quigley in Tragedy and Hope,
        ”Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary,
        exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from a failure to
        recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion.”
        Quigley Tragedy and hope.
        Energy and Money are different.
    8. https://www.energy.siemens.com/mx/pool/hq/energy-topics/publications/living-energy/pdf/issue-09/Wind-Trade-London-Array-offshore-Living-Energy-9.pdf This really is a huge achievement why it is not trumpeted more or jumped on by Politicians I really do not know. I was heavily involved with the early days of Canary Wharf and with the London Docklands Development Corporation there were no shortage of Political johnny come lately’s who claimed the credit after the event , I guess in due course this Huge achievement will see all the wrong people claiming credit for something they really had not realised was a great achievement at the time.
      This project is visionary and for people like me who oppose capitalism quite frankly, it is a strong argument against our case that Capitalism does not deliver, in this case, it has.
    9. ”For Bombay to get all of its energy needs from solar in my hypothetical future it would need to harness almost 100% of the solar radiation that strikes it, a remote prospect. This extremely high population density is routinely ignored by western environmentalists calling for distributed energy to be the solution to India’s energy problems. It quite clearly is not.”
      This article challenges one of my own Cherished stories regarding distributed networks, I accept they are not a panacea and take on board this argument that clearly defeats any sensible defence I can make against its logic.
    10. Hi guys, what do you make of this comment by a Nick G. at Peak Oil Barrel regarding Tim’s PDF?
      “The info about renewables and EVs is unrealistic. One example: it argues that the grid can’t supply enough electricity for EVs, starting from the premise that power demand is growing at 2.5% per year – that’s no longer true. US power demand has been flat for a decade. And, EVs would only require an expansion of roughly 20% over 20 years – obviously not a big deal, especially when EVs are synergistic with renewables. EVs can charge when renewable output is high and other demand is low. That minimizes CO2 and cost for the driver, and raises prices for renewable power sellers. It’s a win-win.”
      • He is correct.
        Tims SEEDS is a very important insight into energy based economics it is not in my opinion fully reflective of advances in technology or indeed technology generally.
        Read David MacKays Book its free on line and does what it says on the tin, although simplified and de jargonised it adds up and debunks.
        3 Cars
        For our first chapter on consumption, let’s study that icon of modern civi-
        lization: the car with a lone person in it.
        How much power does a regular car-user consume? Once we know the
        conversion rates, it’s simple arithmetic:
        For the distance travelled per day, let’s use 50 km (30 miles).
        For the distance per unit of fuel, also known as the economy of the
        car, let’s use 33 miles per UK gallon (taken from an advertisement for a
        family car):
        33 miles per imperial gallon ≈ 12 km per litre.
        Rather than willfully perpetuate an inaccurate estimate, let’s switch to the
        actual value, for petrol, of 10 kWh per litre.
        Congratulations! We’ve made our first estimate of consumption. I’ve dis-
        played this estimate in the left-hand stack in figure 3.3. The red box’s
        height represents 40 kWh per day per person.
      • In general, I don’t comment on comments made elsewhere. First, I haven’t the time. Second, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
        But I note that data for the US is cited, the point being that electricity demand in the US is flat. Given population growth, it’s arguable that consumption per person is dropping.
        But didn’t I hear there was a world beyond the US?
        The US numbers, of course, are consistent with my report, which concludes that prosperity in the US is declining. Logically enough, if you’re getting poorer, you’re likely to use less electricity.
        My growth projections, however, were based on world trends. These are consistent with trend growth of 2.5%.
        We’re also using more of our energy as electricity, and less in other forms. This puts upwards pressure on generation even where total use of energy is flat.
      • Seems to take the energy analysis of economies to a degree that will enable sensible decisions to be made economically based upon economic realities.
        The analysis could only be dreamed about in the Early 80’s when this paper with Energy expåpressed as BTU’s was the norm.
    11. Demand management using electric vehicles
      To recap our requirements: we’d like to be able to store or do without
      about 1200 GWh, which is 20 kWh per person; and to cope with swings
      in supply of up to 33 GW – that’s 0.5 kW per person. These numbers are
      delightfully similar in size to the energy and power requirements of electric
      cars. The electric cars we saw in Chapter 20 had energy stores of between
      9 kWh and 53 kWh. A national fleet of 30 million electric cars would store
      an energy similar to 20 kWh per person! Typical battery chargers draw a
      power of 2 or 3 kW. So simultaneously switching on 30 million battery
      chargers would create a change in demand of about 60 GW! The average
      power required to power all the nation’s transport, if it were all electric, is
      roughly 40 or 50 GW. There’s therefore a close match between the adoption
      of electric cars proposed in Chapter 20 and the creation of roughly 33 GW
      • Roger
        Can I ask, politely, why you post so many links here? Speaking personally, I don’t have the time to follow them up, though of course others may. I’m pretty busy and have to plan prettycarefully.
        For instance, right now I’m looking into what SEEDS might tell us about shock exposure risk. We have good data on financial exposure, such as debt and financial assets. What SEEDS can do is compare these exposures with prosperity, instead of reported GDP. We can look at energy supply patterns, dependency on incremental borrowing, and other metrics. If we back-test this far enough we can strengthen the ability to use it predictively.
        My view now is that some kind of shock is becoming more likely. You’ll have seen in the report that an increasing proportion of “growth” is either cosmetic, and/or is the result of spending borrowed money. Mainstream news sources will show you how many sectors are already in trouble, and the next ones to struggle are fairly predictable.
      • I’m quite optimistic, because of what SEEDS brings to the table.
        For example, if debt increases, but a lot of it is pushed through consumption, GDP looks better as well, moderating any apparent rise in debt/GDP ratios. Set prosperity against that debt increase and things begin to show up. We’ll see if it works out like that – pretty big project…..
      • Tim, before I left the national security research/policy area there were a number of “resilience” research programmes considering non-linear abrupt events referred to as “systemic shocks”, looking at how and why they occur, why they aren’t anticipated, and how a system deals with them. Dstl’s Policy and Capability Studies, and Human Systems Departments were heavily involved programmes. Maybe some FOI requests with these terms might yield something useful? I can’t think of any sensitivity issues that would restrict access.
    12. Tim, outstanding as always. As some of your readers mentioned, the forecast of continued economic growth for China and India while Western economies experience a decline appears cognitively dissonant. The Seeds model may be underestimating some covariances likely due to the linearisation of feedback loops. In nonlinear dynamical terms models fail to predict phase changes that are common in complex systems. I realize that we may be asking the impossible of the SEEDS model yet something to ponder.
      • You are right, of course. For instance, can China keep on growing if its markets in the US and Europe are in decline? I mention this in the report, albeit obliquely, as “collateral damage”.
        I try to take this issue into account, which is why my projections for China and India (in particular) are pretty conservative. BTW, of the two, I’m more optimistic about India.
        This said, SEEDS is way off the consensus in arguing that global prosperity has flattened out, that emerging economies are going to slow, and that prosperity is declining in most western countries. For instance, SEEDS puts the UK -10% poorer in 2030 than now, and estimates the peak of prosperity there was 2003. If it turns out that the drop is -15% rather than -10%, SEEDS will still be a lot more correct than the consensus, which believes in continued growth!
        Incidentally, we’re seeing increasing signs that prosperity IS deteriorating. When you tot up the negatives – not just failures, cut-backs and earnings declines, but the sheer extent of cash-burn as well – it’s mystifying that the consensus still buys the ‘growth’ story. The next sectors to slump are becoming more apparent as things unfold.
        The next piece here is likely to be shock risk. It’s a big project. Like this one, I might make it a PDF.
      • Current seeds numbers should tell us enough about where we are heading.
        We have numbers and we have words. Mixing up those doesn’t add anything to the conclusion.
        Its like putting a ‘price’ on gold. In my opinion, dear doc, you can skip efforts putting numbers on words and let the blog figure it out.
      • The analysis regarding EROEI and its effect on prosperity potential is one thing, Continuing Economic models are failing for other reasons in addition to available cheaply priced Energy. ( Crony Capitalism is the buzz term I believe)
        Placing all of ones’ analytical ammo into the seeds weapon would be a strategic mistake.
        Another mistake is accepting the starting assumptions and definitions moulded in the Growth Paradigm and applying them to a post-growth paradigm.
        Finally, Seeds is not looking at the embodied energy question which gets very interesting when one considers re-cycling and circular economy, this question gets into use models over ownership models, this speaks to efficiency of energy use and not to some ideological measure of fairness or equality, or indeed some subjective voodoo related to the time value of money.
        Google Procrustes.


    • I enjoy reading and have learned a ton of technical information from the Stop These Things web site.
      For SEEDS and an EROEI perspective on our Industrial and Domestic energy budgets transparency is essential.
      The jist of the attached article is that corrupt rent-seekers in the Green Lobby ( Al Gore Anyone) are instituting an ideologically driven energy solution onto the poorest in society completely ignoring the sensible transition that is possible for the payback of large subsidies from Big Central Government.
      The Problem that Gore and his like say they are urgently solving is Climate Change, as a climate realist i do not burden my investigations into energy budget solutions with Climate Alarmist dogma that many do make it very easy for StopTheseThings to call out the renewables lobby who have been economic with the actualite much of the time and who are fanatically closed minded to mixed solutions at the expense of upfront pain.( bourne as a sort of penance for past sins).
      The Energy Cliff does not make an appearance in the linked article and SEEDS would add rather a lot to StopTheseThings advocacy, Australian energy abundance surely leads to the idea that they have far more than they can use themselves and can use surpluses to exchange for what they do not have enough of?
      At this point things like Leitaers TERRA currency proposals come to mind but most of all this quote from Benjamin Franklin which fits the polarised and binary state of the renewables versus legacy fuels debate.
      In 1729 Benjamin Franklin wrote a pamphlet ´´A modest Enquiry into the nature and the necessity of a paper Currency.”
      a modest enquiry,
      ”There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one’s Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and therefore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho’ it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other.
      Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.
      To proceed, then,
      There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it.
      This leads us to the following general Considerations.”
    • From Storm clouds gathering. I do not buy into catastrophe porn and the Private Frasier ***We are all doomed ** mindset.
      The best attitude I have come up with is a sort of Stoic form of Ghandis dictum, *Be the change you wish to see in the world”
      Saskia Sassen says as much in this paper which resonated with me when I read a few years back.
      It was introduced to me in a discussion about Coercive aggregation which reminded me of Marx’s Primitive Accumulation.
      There are a number of dialogues on my Blog with Green Party CLimate Catastrophe and Population catastrophe pornographers.
      Population gets a few mentions above, a key question is ”Who’s Reality * are we setting for the benchmark metric?
      The Oligarchy is a bad idea, they are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves time for some more bottom-up joined up distributed network thinking,
    Opening FIG.(8)Diagram. 
    TY  – BOOK
    AU  – Wu, Xiaofang
    AU  – Chen, G.Q.
    PY  – 2017/12/01
    SP  – 85
    EP  – 94
    N2  – Presented in this study is a comprehensive analysis for energy use of different economic entities in global supply chains, including the exploiter, producer, consumer, intermediate trader and final trader. The systems input-output analysis method is adopted to trace the direct and indirect energy use associated with both intermediate production and final consumption activities in the economic system. In the world economy, 15% of the energy use embodied in trade turns out to be induced by final consumption, and 85% is attributed to intermediate production. Different trading patterns for different economies are identified with the separation between energy trade for intermediate production and that for final consumption. For Japan with a production-oriented trading pattern, intermediate trade should be a top priority in local trade structure adjustment, while final trade needs more attention for the government in the United States as the country is in a consumption-oriented trade pattern. This analysis aims to provide an in-depth insight into energy sustainability, as well as a sound scientific reference for policy making at the regional, national and global scale.
    JF  – Energy Policy
    T1  – Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade
    VL  – 111
    DO  – 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.024
    ER  – 
    On Notions of Debt, GDP and monetary measures of the Dismal science one asks the question what is the blogger problem, The end of Cheaply available Oil or the End of the Debt Based Petro Dollar?

    The Story of the petro dollar figures in my on Line PDF for understanding Climate Science. Which draws on the drilling into debt report linked above.

    Thats been my week pretty much.
  • rogerglewis 8:57 am on February 26, 2018 Permalink | Reply  

    Possibilist perspective on Post Growth, Sustainable Money and Sustainable Energy. Who’s Reality. 

    Hello Tim,
    I have not commented for a while, I almost did on a recent blog in which you said that Electric Cars were no panacea, which of course they are not.
    I know that that blog and this are looking for discussion and in this spirit offer this VPRO documentary which is in Dutch, subtitles are available in English.
    I came across another interesting proposal for money creation the other day.
    These questions of Circular Economy, Materials Passports, re-defining prosperity, Status questions, Distributive and re-distributive political economy all feedback into a question of *Whoś Reality’ are we seeking to cater for in our political Economy.
    That is a fundamental question Who’s Reality?
    Your perspective is grounded in abstracting reality to a balance sheet view albeit a balance sheet based on SEEDS energy metrics. My own perspectives are drawn from technological perspectives and these Cornucopian views of Cornucopian possibilities derived from circular manufacturing concepts lead me to be optimistic as a possibilist technologically speaking. The obstacles are and will remain political and geopolitical and here the Pigou Dalton principle regarding status and managing expectations becomes paramount.
    I would be very interested to hear what you think of Thomas Rau’s ideas I find them compelling.
    Best Wishes and A belated happy new year.
    Why should we not include each in money creation?
    All sovereign debt shall be financed with Shares of global fiat credit, that may be claimed by each adult human on the planet, held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, as part of an actual social contract
    This is a great idea, getting the conversation started is quite a problem even with those with a long history of supporting Universal Basic Income. Stating a proposal this boldly is an excellent initiative as it invites people to sign up unless they have a sound objection. I see no objection and would happily sign up to this to get the show on the road.
    Here is a Dialogue I had with Clive Lord Joint founder of the UK Green Party, I wish Clive could see the money creation question as clearly as you state it here Stephen.
    Go to the profile of Clive Lord
    Clive Lord
    Feb 25
    ‘Fiat’ money MUST be tied to eco-considerations, so must entail redistribution, and with a Basic Income taxes can reflect what is, or is not sustainable.
    Go to the profile of Roger Glyndwr Lewis
    Roger Glyndwr Lewis
    Feb 26
    Hello CLive,
    I am really happy you have joined this discussion I think that Stephens distillation of the problem to his simple rule provides a very good starting point to understanding what money is and what it can be.
    The problem of Re-distribution instead of Distribution is one of the politics of Status. The Pigou Dalton princple nailed this very well in the 1920’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou%E2%80%93Dalton_principle
    Regarding sustainabiltity I think that Energy based metrics for money values is essential this is nothing to do with redistribution and evrything to do with being cognisant of what stuff there is and qwhere that stuff is. Dr Tim Morgan has doene some excellent work on the question recently on his Blog.
    Tim Morgan in the last blöog of his I read a few weeks ago appeared to be getting frustrated and drawn into frustration and doubt as to the extebnt to which new energy technologies can really sustain the Human Family Hans Rausing used to call himself a possibilist and I think thats a great positibve view to have regarding Stephens simple rule I think we can all speak to our inner possibilist and see that he is on to something here.
  • rogerglewis 11:26 am on February 10, 2018 Permalink | Reply  

    The Distributed Web, Energy Based Economics , Trustless Value Transfer Systems. 

    Periodically, usually every 12-18 months I find that my reading and research loop back to a common point, All roads lead back to a central direction or a common vector. This past 3 months I have been immersed in the Hardware side of computing looking at and implementing my own Mining operation for Crypto Currencies. I Blogged about Ethereum during its first release into the wild at that point I bought a 10 MH/s mining contract from Genesis Mining and whilst I got a miner working on my old mac pro under the OSX operating system the 32 bit EFI in my 2006 Mac gave me all sorts of issues. I blogged about turning that machine into a 64 Bit GNU/Linux machine with 32 bit EFI booting in a post called Apple Hardware euthanasia.I have since got a 150 MH/S Rig Up and running and have all sorts of fun plans to build ever more elaborate and exciting confections of nerdiness. On Hardware euthanasia and planned obsolescence ( My last Blog post back in November), we come to the Full Circle part of my Post this VPRO documentary is one I watched when it first came out, and I have made a few posts and comments regarding the circular economy but this documentary and the interview with Thomas Rau is the most incisive and prescient of everything I watched and as is usual with the good stuff the Google algorithms have usually defeated me when I have wanted to link to this mind-blowing documentary interview. If having watched that you then consider another big event which I had been interested in and mentioned in passing in the Blog, The DAO and the Ethereum Hard Fork and Slocket. We see a crossing of paths and a glimpse of potentials and just how disruptive the Blockchain enabled World of commerce will become, USE will eclipse ownership and money will become a much more directly mappable concept between use rights and exchanges rather than Ownership rights and trust based custodial hierarchies. I do not feel a need to elaborate on the connections here, they are potential and the film gives some interesting metaphors as well as real-world illustrations of its conception of one Possible Future World. Maria Abramovitch makes a cameo appearance somewhat less disturbing that the Spirit Cooking work of hers that has been in the non-corporate media. http://www.rau.eu/ This is a film I made about a trip to the Universeum back in 2013 Rau and Wingårdh would make a very interesting interview together I think.

  • rogerglewis 8:18 am on November 12, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    Apple and Hardware euthenasia. (Planned Obsolescence) The Answer. Botting 64 bit Linux on 32 Bit EFI Mac Pro 1.1(2006) 

    Going full Linux now and will be working on IPFS, SWARM and Internet IO distributed computing plaforms and building some apps for the Ethereum block chain.
    I have been into Free Software for the whole time we have been in sweden, The advance in the Linux orbit is unrecognisable in the last 8 years and that I can run a full 64 bit system on legacy hardware which in Mac World is obsolete speaks volumes for how the Corporate oligopoly is failing the economy for its own super profits greed.
    MAC practices hardware euthenasia. This MAC Pro 1.1 is part of the resistance.

    Here’s our latest story as well as recent major announcements, featuring the epicenter of GPU computing, the era of AI, the world’s largest gaming platform, an…

    LikeShow more reactions


    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis with FFADO and JAck I should be able to get my MOTU Traveller fully functioning with the New system, there is HDMI on the GTX 960 which is plug and play or the original sound output is also available but for use of the ARDOUR recording suite I will persevere with getting the MOTU runnning. MOTU unlike NVIDA have not got their act together supporting Linux developers with driver support etc. NVIDIA have really pulled a rabbit out of the hat in the past year. Last Summer I simply could not get a bootable system working with the GTX 960 on this machine and Ubuntu 16.04, it now offers the driver in the alternative software screen.( Fanfare sounds, Cheers and general celebrations!)

     · Reply · 6 mins


    Roger Lewis
    Roger Lewis Mac Pro 1.1 and 64 bit Ubuntu 16.04 lts rocking Ge Force GTX 960ś and opening the world of distributed network computing on a budget.

     · Reply · 2 mins


    Burn a CD and End Apples Hardware euthenasia programme today. GNU/Linus we are the resistance!!!
    IPFS UP and Running, See this short post on Terminal Commands.


  • rogerglewis 4:05 pm on October 31, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    Missing the Clues first Time around. Careful re-reading can pay dividends. A Five Year old discussion re-visited. 

    “All the theories agree if new money helps create new economic growth then that growth will soak up the extra money”
    And this is the reason why we are going down regardless of theory. We are facing a steadily decreasing EROEI (energy return on energy invested) and I don’t see how the required additional growth can be achieved while the energy rug is being pulled away from under us. The theories being quote are nothing but outflows of times of increasing EROEI. And where shall the government invest today: New roads, more cars, more dams? That did work in the 30ies. Bridges to nowhere they are building, blowing overinvestment bubbles in solar etc.
    Golem XIV October 10, 2012 at 9:50 am # 
    Yes, that is indeed a deeper argument our society has not even begun to grapple with. But as you indicate, we have to and soon
    wikispooks October 11, 2012 at 10:13 am # 
    I’d like to push Yerk’s earlier EROEI comment (10 Oct 8:54) a little further because it seems to me that EVERYTHING else is analogous to rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic, with all that cliched analogy truly implies. Uber-wealthy/power remains (and will remain) grimly determined to maintain – even extend – its privileges no matter what.
    Precisely where our predicament sits in the period just before – to the unreality of the hour or so after, hitting the iceberg, is what this article is really about. And I mean that constructively since I often ask myself how I would have behaved had I been either a state-room ensconced VIP on the one hand or one of its third class Rif-raf on the other.
    So far as I can ascertain from extensive research on the complex of issues that define it, the correlation between classic economic growth and human/industrial consumption of energy has remained as close to unity as makes no difference throughout history. That being so, future REAL economic growth will requires similar 1:1 growth in energy consumption. That is one big BIG problem folks. It is the elephant in the room of pretty well any and all MSM/Establishment discussion of our predicament – for public consumption at any rate.
    An increasing EROEI implies an increasing proportion of economic activity (let alone ANY growth) being required to stand still – so-to-speak – until, well before EROEI’s own magic 1:1 ratio looms on the horizon, the whole construct hits its so-called ‘energy cliff’ and slowly (or rapidy) subsides into total collapse.
    There are those who invest their faith and hope in the so-called ‘sustainable’ alternatives of wind, solar, tide, and – heaven forbid among our manifest follies – nuclear. I find myself pondering these issues extensively too. My conclusion? they cannot, even in the widest of optimistic imaginings, fuel ‘business as usual’.
    • backwardsevolution October 11, 2012 at 7:18 pm # 
      wikispooks – good post. We CANNOT have perpetual growth, people. We are living on a finite planet. Open your eyes.

    5 Years Later I have Just caught up to EROEI.

    Its a Long Road one  never knows when the answer is staring you in the face?

  • rogerglewis 8:57 am on October 31, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    False Flags For Dummies – How to Create a False Flag in 10 Easy Steps 

  • rogerglewis 6:13 am on October 31, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    CrossTalk Bullhorns: Dossier-Gate 

  • rogerglewis 3:53 pm on October 30, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    Crisis Solutions 

  • rogerglewis 3:53 pm on October 30, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    SERCO: The Biggest Company You’ve Never Heard Of! 

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc