There is also the dd-wrt project, which is an open source router distro which you could use - I haven’t tried hacking on it, but it does seem to be a bit more purpose-built for constructing local wifi.
I run dd-wrt as my internal router in my home. I don’t exactly trust the Huawei router that my ISP decided to give me - the “firewall” feature on this Huawei router was disabled, for “whatever reason”. Traitorous dogs, my ISP. And Huawei too.
So, dd-wrt. I just use dd-wrt, I haven’t tried customizing it. I expect its probably more reliable than a Pi. One note: its probably a good idea to reboot the Pi every week or so. That’s what I do with the dd-wrt router. Supposedly that’s the single most useful security thing you can do - an occasional reboot.
https://dd-wrt.com/
And here’s some advice on how to secure your home router, which is worth following if you want to make the life a potential intruder a bit more difficult.
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/home-router-security,news-19245.html
I’m noticing some themes here:
“AKGrannyWGrit” links to a video by nonentity James Corbett that questions climate science and suggests that it is “hubris” to imagine we can affect climate; I’ll let that go because it’s obviously nonsense.
AO writes:
Can you recall any historical incidents in modern history where ALL nations successfully shunned a single nation? I can’t … because it’s never happenedYes I can recall, and it has happened: South Africa and apartheid. There goes your argument down the drain. Davefairtex writes
Sure. We’ll all shun China. Except those that won’t because they’ve been bribed. Or coerced.So your argument is that because there is a chance that some nation could possibly be bribed by China, therefore we should still do nothing about climate change because China is (supposedly) doing nothing about it? Illogical! And wrong: China at least signed and ratified the Paris Agreement, unlike the damned US, which has signalled its intention to withdraw under Trump! China is actually taking anthropogenic global heating very, very seriously, if only you'd bother doing some research.
Yes I can recall, and it has happened: South Africa and apartheid. There goes your argument down the drain.Sorry Gerry but your attempted refutation is a specious one. Not every country shunned South Africa (although, admittedly, most did) and apartheid ended for a very complex series of reasons, not just the shunning (i.e. sanctions). And South Africa was and is at the opposite end of the economic and military power spectrum as China. It's an apple and oranges situation, like taming a house cat by physically restraining it versus attempting the same with a tiger. And there was a whole lot more to my argument. You'll need to do better to convince me. As an aside, not that apartheid was good but now that you have black majority rule in South Africa, what do you have? Massive emigration by whites, especially the most productive element of society. White genocide being initiated by blacks, starting with the white farmers. And the country has turned into a ****hole. Likewise, shunning of China also has the potential for producing a debacle.
Gerry- So your argument is that because there is a chance that some nation could possibly be bribed by China, therefore we should still do nothing about climate change because China is (supposedly) doing nothing about it? Illogical! And wrong: China at least signed and ratified the Paris Agreement, unlike the damned US, which has signalled its intention to withdraw under Trump! China is actually taking anthropogenic global heating very, very seriously, if only you’d bother doing some research.Uh, no. That's not my argument. That's you doing a reframe on my argument, and then ridiculing your own reframe. I'll reframe the straw man back to my actual argument. I'll put the key bits in bold so you don't miss them. So in your reframe, you said my argument was: "because there is a chance that some nation could possibly be bribed by China..." And now for my actual argument: I believe there is a 100% chance that politicians in every nation are currently being bribed by China. Every nation. Politicians in every nation are currently being bribed by China, starting from the US, and working their way down. These guys are smart. They have lots of money. They are a superpower. They are much smarter and stronger than Russia ever was. They saw how US corporations control the US Congress and Presidency, and they just followed that same path. This is a very good ROI for those corporations. Maybe $5 billion is all it costs them to own Washington. For China, that's chump change. So they start with the US, and they work their way down. As for China "working hard on climate change", I don't think that's what they are doing. I think they are doing a Hirsch Report conversion, and reframing it to be "working on climate change." Here's the really fun part: I think we should do exactly the same thing China is doing. Did you get that? I just said, I think we should do the same thing that China is doing. As for China signing some document in Paris - they also signed a document vowing they would leave Hong Kong untouched until 2047. How's that one working out? Two questions for you.
- Do you know the difference between doing a Hirsch Report conversion and "working on climate change?"
- More basically: do you even know about the Hirsch Report?
You can play this assumption and with the eroie, CO2 and kWh per Barrel etc. with this online calculator (1 Twp is about 1000 Gwp PVeq) http://www.pv4.eu/globally-13-twp-of-photovoltaics-could-be-installed-in-2023-compared-to-the-world-energy-outlook_1935.html
Please point me to an explanation of the Hirsch Report and explain more fully how this can be used as a “conversion.” I have never heard of this report nor how it might be used. Please elaborate.
Found one summary by Richard Heinberg (linked above)
The [Hirsch] report’s Executive Summary begins with the following paragraph:
The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking. The report's authors were not asked to assess when the global peak is likely to occur; however they do survey the range of forecasts from optimists and pessimists alike, projecting a peak date anywhere from 2005 to 2037. The Hirsch report examines three scenarios: one in which mitigation efforts are not undertaken until global oil production peaks; a second in which efforts commence ten years in advance of peak; and a third in which efforts begin twenty years prior to the peak. Each scenario assumes a "crash program rate of implementation." In the first case, the study concludes that peak will leave the world with a "significant liquid fuels deficit for more than two decades" that "will almost certainly cause major economic upheaval"; even with a ten-year lead time for mitigation efforts government intervention will be required and the world will experience a ten-year fuel shortfall. A crash program initiated twenty years ahead of the event will offer "the possibility" of avoiding a fuel shortfall. The report emphasizes repeatedly that both supply- and demand-side mitigation options will take many years to implement and will cost "literally trillions of dollars"; it also notes that "the world has never faced a problem like this." The Hirsch report concludes that substantial mitigation of the economic, social, and political impacts of Peak Oil can come only from efforts both to increase energy supplies from alternative sources and to reduce demand for oil. With regard to the claim that efficiency measures by themselves will be enough to forestall dire impacts, Hirsch et al. note that, "While greater end-use efficiency is essential, increased efficiency alone will be neither sufficient nor timely enough to solve the problem. Production of large amounts of substitute liquid fuels will be required." Further, "Mitigation will require a minimum of a decade of intense, expensive effort, because the scale of liquid fuels mitigation is inherently extremely large." Hirsch, et al., also point out that "The problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be temporary, and past 'energy crisis' experience will provide relatively little guidance."... And a more worrisome note he concludes:
Yet, half a year after its release, the Hirsch report is nowhere to be found. For several months it was archived, in PDF format, on a high school web site (www.hilltoplancers.org, Hilltop High School in Chula Vista, Calif.). On July 7 the report disappeared from that site. The Atlantic Council [SP note--this is Neocon Central] (www.acus.org) is considering publishing the Hirsch report; however there is no projected date of release. When contacted, Dr. Hirsch replied that the document is "a public report, paid for and released by DOE NETL, and that it therefore could be reposted at will." Project Censored has now posted the report in full.Looks like DaveF is onto something.
Courtesy of the wayback machine. The Internet Is Forever.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111216033653/http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirsch_World_Oil_Production.pdf
Looks like they really did try to stamp that report out. “We have always been at war with Eastasia.”
Perhaps the new generation really does think this is all about climate change.
I guarantee the Chinese read that report cover to cover. And then promptly started implementing their plan to remediate, 20 years ahead of peak.
How are they doing? Reasonably well, it would seem. Chinese electric production:
- 55% coal
- 7.3% solar
- 9.2% wind
- 17.7% hydro.
Just finished an hour long commute to work (3 gallons of gas) and had a chance to think about how I would respond were I an elite who wanted to ensure future comfort and power for myself and “my people” during the catastrophic disruption of post peak oil.
1. Get control of the oil resource. Invade, buy, control. 2. Divest away from oil as one's primary energy source. 3. Convince everyone else that there is no shortage (Saudi America, energy independence, the Shale Miracle, and all that). This allow time to secure control. 4. Reengineer for conservation for the masses with personal jets for the elite. (Fund Greta, make it a moral issue of Good versus Evil, "4 legs good, 2 legs better")) 5. Prepare to lock down society with control systems anticipating that the vulgar masses will be resentful as this unfolds. (Remove firearms--especially the very effective semi-auto rifles, track individuals' location, identify loyalties, wrong thinking, control the avenues of discourse, identify networks of dissidents, establish the right of the oligarchy to inject the population with chemicals/drugs, institute security measures for control of movement (TSA, etc), suspend due process to allow imprisonment / detention without evidence--guilty of "anti-Soviet thinking" or just label as "a terrorist.")What else am I missing?
- astonishingly well-performing sports cars that use batteries (perfect to provide as status symbol/rewards to the toadies and factotums)
- a medium-term potential for life in orbit
- AI-enabled drones provide an always-loyal Pratorean Guard [1] as well as an untraceable hit squad to eliminate annoying dissidents.
- robots to construct all those toys for the elites once the workers brains have rotted from phone (and opioid) addiction.
- AI/big data/call monitoring to provide a data stream to pre-crime law enforcement.
[1] assuming they don’t get hacked, of course.
I just watched Steven Greer’s Unacknowledged again last week on Netflix.
Should I (hypothetically) get my hands on an extra-terrestrial craft, I would want to ensure that ONLY MY GROUP had access to these technologies while I learned to use them.
- A secret development program outside control of the military and pesky governmental oversight.
- Ensure that the public believed that such craft were non-sense.
- blockade of any inquiry from governments
- a funding source for development that comes from public coffers
When you have perfected use of the “alien” technology and related weapons:
- Gradually allow the forbidden subject of UFOs to be revealed to and discussed by the public. Gradually allow military and civilian encounters and evidence to be released. Begin to build a mental capacity in the population (aka The Dirt People) to eventually accept the reality of UFOs.
- When the moment is right, stage a “War of the World’s” type of “alien” invasion and demand that the humans surrender to rule by the “aliens.” The technology and weapons the “aliens” deploy is so superior to current human technology (eg. stodgy aircraft carrier battle groups, stealth aircraft and hypersonic missiles) most human militaries surrender after a few very brief, very disastrous battles with the “aliens.”
- The “aliens” promise to be benevolent and allow the humans a limited amount of self rule in a global one world government staffed by elites chosen by the “aliens.” However the Alien Governor, who resides in geosynchronous orbit, retains the power to overrule any human decision and take any initiatives necessary to keep the peace and put the earth onto a sustainable path. Humans who cooperate are rewarded. Those who resist or complain are crushed. This helps the “aliens” achieve a sustainable earth population of 1 billion in three years.
- As always in these kinds of situations, small groups of dissenters and counter-revolutionaries form and go to ground. The “aliens” and the one world government work together to root these groups out and destroy them, for the good of the children and the whole earth. The “aliens” take a special interest in the groups claiming the “aliens” are really just human elites who copied alien technologies over the past 60 years and are attempting to take over the world for their own sociopathic purposes. The “aliens,” apparently, don’t like being disrespected, nor will they respond to human demands that they show themselves to the world to prove they are actually “aliens” and not mere humans hiding behind a veil of astounding technology.
I’m an old engine guy. Design and research, so I’m probably biased.
That said I don’t think fully e-cars make much inroads unless it is through legislation. Hybrids are anywhere and always a decent idea. E-cars? Not sure they are going to make much noise unless we keep ratcheting down the emissions regulations. How many significant digits on the right side of zero until you are into the truly ridiculous?
Don’t get me wrong, I think they will get better. BUT then you just bring in pneumatic valve-trains (like they’ve already done with VVT) and get another boost in power or efficiency. We always choose power in this country but we don’t have to. If you need it bring in turbos on even more engines.
IOW for the near to medium term there is already the work done to improve IC engines and keep them a leg up on fully electric cars. To the point where fully electric is only marginally better in a carbon footprint comparison. A good hybrid will give you 90% of the gains with a much more accessible platform.
I could be wrong but I just don’t see fully electric cars replacing what we’ve got unless governments step in and force the change.
Will
You may want to study the Cuban experience- when the Soviets collapsed how did Cuba deal with no oil/ fertilizer etc? Since they have socialized medicine etc. records were kept. The population lost weight but out of cold hard need moved into bio-logical agriculture. Traction animal of choice was oxen which surprised me. Anyway, a book on how it went down you may want to check out- ‘Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance-Transforming food Production in Cuba’ being the most readable to me. Lots of charts etc. You may also want to check out ‘The Theory of Peasant Co-operatives’ by Viktor Danilov, which is an analysis of how rural areas can survive. Of course we don’t think in these terms because its not profitable for the Ag Industrial Complex narrative fairy tale.
Marti61
Thanks for the book citation, I have to read it. I would add to your list regarding how Cuba dealt with massive drop in oil supplies, the DVD “The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil.” Basically Cubans responded by losing 10kg of body weight, farming became real popular, and small effort farming became much more economically attractive. The Cuban experience is another example of a third world country that has valuable clues for how to deal with oil-weaning.
As for China signing some document in Paris – they also signed a document vowing they would leave Hong Kong untouched until 2047. How’s that one working out? Two questions for you.I guarantee that I knew about it before you did. I was an oildrum contributor from the early days. The climate issue is MUCH more urgent and important than the peak oil issue. Peak oil is probably still a decade away, or more, because there are many areas of the globe that have not even begun to frack oil and gas the way the US has. So take the US "miracle" of tight oil and multiply that by 20, and you begin to get some idea of the potential oil supplies out there. Peak oil will never occur because we will have to abandon oil burning long before the resource runs out. As for China and the Paris Agreement: you are simply wrong about China's attitude to climate. Do some proper research. China is acutely aware of how damaging global heating will be, especially to their own country, which is dependent on glacial water resources. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/17/climate/melting-glaciers-globally.html A lot of the planned coal projects in China and India are effectively dead in the water. In India, they are commercially dead, no one in their right mind is going to build them…In China, economically, it makes no sense as they already have way too much capacity. The Chinese government is enacting a national carbon trading scheme and has announced waves of cancellations and restrictions on new coal power, in response to air pollution and climate concerns. Overall, its pipeline of plants being built or planned has shrunk more than 70% since 2016.
- Do you know the difference between doing a Hirsch Report conversion and “working on climate change?”
- More basically: do you even know about the Hirsch Report?
Sandpuppy
You made a few posts about communication and ham radio as a solution to shutting down internet/cell phone service.
I reviewed your questions with another ham friend who happens to be the comm officer of a prepper group in the northeast, and here is his response:
When conducting comm exercises and training, almost no one is willing to learn about how to use the equipment and ends up using their cell phone to call each other.
For local communications when internet/cell phone service is disrupted, private ham club repeaters are used in the VHF/UHF (line of sight) frequencies using a hand held whereas Baofeng (less than 50$) seems the most popular (note: “techguy” disagreed with this conclusion the last time I posted on this topic, so see his posting for additional enlightenment since his amateur radio experience seems to differ).
“Echolink” is a popular software used to communicate where one end of the communication does not have access to a cell tower (Echolink allows one to get onto a digital repeater system from the internet).
During a grid down/internet down scenerio, regular ham radio will be jammed up and not useful, at least for voice communications.
However, the digital modes (communication by keyboard texting) will be a good option.
Due to low solar activity, world wide communications are much more difficult now, and for the next few years.
I conclude the following: to prepare for internet/cellphone down situation, it is best to learn to use a digital mode ham radio method such as the popular PSK31 or the very reliable Olivia and practice with friends from different geographical areas.
I foresee a day when people receive reliable news from overseas that avoid the censors in America, something like a Radio Free Europe but for America (Radio Free America).
As many are aware, China is ahead of the US in controlling information. It is surprising how many websites (including this one) are blocked in China. Although many Chinese use VPN to get around that, VPN is illegal and it is only a matter of time before that route is blocked. Perhaps we can learn by watching the situation in China.
GerrySM-
Well given that you know about all the issues, your decision to try the reframe-and-ridicule attack on me is a bit puzzling. Usually only lazy or ignorant people use that strategy, and on closer examination, you appear to be neither lazy nor ignorant.
Well, no matter.
Now that we have finally established factual common ground, I fear we must agree to disagree. Your interpretation of “what motivates China” is different than mine. To me, they are entirely motivated by getting rich, responding to their people who are intensely irritated by the dreadful levels of air pollution, and executing on that conversion plan. Their “climate change” fig leaf that you find convincing - well, they’re good at convincing people. You certainly bought it, and you seem to be better informed than most.
Do you live in China? Nearby China? Just how extensive is your experience in country? Or in the region?
As for them signing that document in Paris - they sign a lot of documents. Documents signed by the CCP mean less than nothing. Since you are well informed, you no doubt know about the concept of “promise fatigue” when applied to China.
So we still need to execute that mitigation program. As you said yourself, if peak oil is 10 years out … memory test here … how long did Hirsch say we had to execute on the plan for it to work properly?
And might I point out - fracking is still unprofitable. There’s a reason why the rest of the world isn’t rushing off to do it. That’s because it doesn’t make money/its very low EROEI. Fracking happens in the US because - my belief - the US government supports it behind the scenes in order to buy time for conversion.
If you have any information on the amount of fracking going on elsewhere - presumably that would also show up as climbing output in those nations - I’d love to hear about it.
Mots, I’m happy to share more info about my Local Wifi. I’ll contact you via your personal web site that you mention in your profile.
Paul
I received this question via email and thought I would provide my response to everyone:
In your zero hedge article, you quoted Roger Pilke exactly (I doubled checked his publication and verified this myself). I have a problem with burning something and producing approximately 3 times more carbon dioxide emissions. 11,743 Mtoe burned produces 33,700 Million tones of carbon dioxide emissions. Don't get me wrong, I agree with your article. I just couldn't get my head around these figures.[Dear ____], thanks for reaching out. The answer lies in the math and chemistry involved. Let's take the easiest example - burning natural gas. The chemical formula of natural gas is 1 carbon and 4 hydrogens - or CH4 in chemical nomenclature. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12. Hydrogen = 1. Add that all up and the CH4 molecule weighs in at 16. CO2 is what results when you "burn" (oxydize) CH4. It consists of one carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms. The entire balanced formula for the "burning" is: 2(O2) + CH4 --> (1)CO2 + (2)H2O That is, one molecule of natural gas plus two molecules of oxygen results in one CO2 and 2 water molecules. Let's now introduce that Oxygen has an atomic weight of 16. Where we had one molecule of CH4 weighing 16 (12+1+1+1+1) we end up with one molecule of CO2 (or C + O + O) weighing (12)C + (16)O + (16)O = 48 That gives us a ratio of 48/16 = 3 And that is how one ton of natural gas, when burned, becomes 3 tons of CO2 The formulas for coal and oil are slightly different due to differing bonds and such, but they're not that dissimilar and all hover around 3.
Sand_puppy, All 91 pages: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/939271
The Heinberg reference dates back to 2005. Hilltoplancers.org domain is for sale - no report. Project Censored also no report.
It’s in the public domain with the lead page being https://www.osti.gov/biblio/939271 which has the intro and abstract and link referenced above. OSTI = U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information.