In addition, you will need some personal guidance foreign travel guide from someone who has been there and done that, learn how to get visibility on the tourist heavyweights like Lonely Planet family travel blog.
When it comes to fashion, most men could care less. Shopping? Same thing. Makeup? Not interested. But when it comes to how sexy a woman looks when she's all done up or just chilling in her sweatpants, men are all ears, or eyes we should say—they're visual creatures, what do you expect? They don't care about the hottest new fashion trends or how much a tank top opportunity cost (well, sort of), as long as it looks good on a woman and hugs her curves in all the right places, it's good enough for them. Common though, where's the fun in that? Men have to have a look they love on a gal, right? Here's what we concluded after careful consideration:
- Men Love Women in a T-Shirt and Tight Jeans
Turns out the casual, au natural look isn't so bad after all. "It's sexy and shows off the curves, but still leaves things to the imagination," says Rafael, an LA based designer. Emma from UK would also have to agree, noting that her husband prefers her most when she's wearing boyfriend jeans, a t-shirt and no makeup. - Men Don't Love Women in Clothes That Look Like They Cost More than Their Car
What!? Guys don't love Chanel?!?! "Although it may look good," says Dan, a Manhattan based comedian, "it will make most heterosexual, down to earth men run the other way." Hmm, we guess high maintenance isn't really their thing?jeans for men - Different Is Good
"A different or unique outfit reflects a confident woman who is sure of herself," says Andrew Schrage, Editor of the Money Crashers personal finance blog. "Even if it's not the most physically attractive outfit, the thought behind it can be mentally stimulating," Awesome, we love this! Is this outfit too different? - Body-Con Dresses Are Great
No surprise here—guys love anything that's form fitting! - Yoga Pants Are Probably the Best
We kind of have to agree…they do make our tushes look good! "I don't know when they became an acceptable thing to wear out, but I'm just glad they did," says Mike of NC. - Oh, and High Heels Are Super Sexy as Well
This one goes without saying. Every guy loves a woman in high heels!
http://www.yolobaba.com
Time for a few updates.
On the China front (which is to say a large fraction of the total global picture):
https://thinkprogress.org/with-millions-of-jobs-up-for-grabs-china-seize…
Feb 28, 2017
China smashes solar energy records, as coal use and CO2 emissions fall once again
We are witnessing a historic passing of the baton of global leadership on technology and climate from the United States to China.
snip
Beijing plans to invest a stunning $360 billion by 2020 in renewable generation alone… In 2016, Chinese coal consumption fell for the third consecutive year, Beijing reports, while it installed almost twice as many solar panels as it had in 2015, which was also a record-setting year. Beijing projects both trends will continue in 2017. China’s solar installation target for 2020 is likely to be achieved in 2018, which as Greenpeace’s Energy Desk noted in January, is “a pretty impressive feat given that the target was set only a couple of months ago.”
The German energy transition is coming along nicely:
https://www.gtai.de/GTAI/Navigation/EN/Meta/Press/press-releases,t=germanys-energy-transition-progresses,did=1598022.html
Dec 14, 2016
Germany’s energy transition progresses
Berlin (gtai) – The annual report on Germany’s Energiewende (energy transition) has given the process full marks for its progress in 2015. Most notably, renewable energy sources became Germany’s most important source of electricity, with a share of 31.6 percent, even allowing for a slight increase in energy consumption (an increase largely attributed to cooler overall weather).
Even more pleasing was the overall fall in energy bills, by 1.4 percent for households and 2.1 percent for industrial customers not eligible for tax relief on their energy usage.
Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Sigmar Gabriel was delighted with the scorecard, saying it confrimed a ‘near complete implementation’ of an ‘ambitious programme’.
In the U.S., solar PV DOUBLED in ONE YEAR:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-solar-market-grows-95-in…
US Solar Market Grows 95% in 2016, Smashes Records
by Mike Munsell
February 15, 2017
In its biggest year to date, the United States solar market nearly doubled its annual record, topping out at 14,626 megawatts of solar PV installed in 2016.
This represents a 95 percent increase over the previous record of 7,493 megawatts installed in 2015.
…
What does this graph tell us?
… it tells us that the storm is gathering great momentum. The pattern of ~30% annual increases (very fast, and laudable) of the 2011-2015 interval has been smashed to the upside.
Nice!
Cheap, high-EROI renewables are a tsunami that cannot be stopped — as I wrote here years ago.
One more thing. This is from a year ago, but is well worth the read:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-solar-singularity-is-getting-closer
The Solar Singularity Is Getting Closer
by Tam Hunt
January 06, 2016
One year ago, I wrote a piece here at GTM that argued the solar singularity is nigh. The “solar singularity” is the point where solar becomes so cheap in a majority of countries around the world that it is established as the default new power source. At this point, solar will very likely go vertical in its growth curve.
snip
My key assertion is that under current cost trends for solar and wind power, and (less certainly) for other renewables and electric vehicles, we are well on our way down a path to dramatically reduced emissions.
snip
I made the solar singularity concept the centerpiece of my 2015 book, Solar: Why Our Energy Future Is So Bright. I offer here an update on the topics covered in my book, showing that we are perhaps even closer to the solar singularity than I previously dared to suggest.
I’ll cover not only solar, but also battery storage, electric vehicles and automated driving, which are the parallel and intertwined revolutions that are set to transform our energy system worldwide. With these four technologies developing steadily, we can reasonably expect to see, by 2035 to 2040, a world powered predominantly with renewable electricity — not only for homes and businesses, but also for transportation and industrial processes.
Thank you for the graph Alan.
This is the most important story in recent years, the replacement of much energy with solar.
I see that many estimates of EROI for solar have been made, but many of these seem to center around 6 to 6.5 and oil from the ground is about this. see for example https://www.carbonbrief.org/energy-return-on-investment-which-fuels-win Until recently, I made a living handling solar panel technologies at the patent office and had numerous chances to discuss this topic with inventors and new product managers in the companies that actually produce the wealth and not just talk about finances and bias predictions from old ways of thinking based on old tired-worn out American perspective and old technology, as is often done on this web site. The real action and real evolution to an improved future is happening in Asia and other places and the American way of thinking about energy use and lifestyle (blowing 40% of our energy on 150 hp 3000 lb cars for endless driving) is no longer relevant.
some comments to add to yours:
- the EROI of solar panels gets steadily BETTER while oil gets worse. the exponential curve will NOT flatten soon due to technology constraints
- already companies have learned to replace silver in solar panels with copper. solar to electric conversions are a basic phenomena and a nearly infinite variety of chemistries and materials are waiting to be used. the exponential curve will NOT flatten soon due to material constraints
- we are living in an ocean of energy, and advances in engineering constantly improve our ability to literally take energy out of the air, from our rooftops, etc. we are surrounded by energy that can be harvested
This website promotes the FAKE SCIENCE that “concentrated energy!” such as oil that is gathered from inside cracks and pores of rocks in the ground are inherently superior to “diffuse energy” such as sunlight falling on rooftops. Solar is available at the level of about 1000 watts (a little over one horsepower) per square meter during direct sunlight. Cheap solar panels allow harvesting of 200 watts (1/4 hp) per square meter during full sun. During rain or cloudy days, this directly scales to 200 watts (about 1/4 hp) for 10-20 square meters of cheap solar panels, which works fine with me because the panels are so dirt cheap. Solar works fine during cloud cover, it is simply a matter of using more of the cheap panels to collect and schedule big loads for high sunlight times. According to the fake science, this low diffuse level of energy is fundamentally inferior to exploding liquid fuels in internal combustion motors that typically get 10% efficiency and at best 30% efficiency.
The conclusion from this website’s fake science that “diffuse” solar is inferior is nonsense. A great deal of energy, movement, chemical alternation etc is required to concentrate or alter oil into a form that can finally be burned as a mist in a metal chamber to generate a heat gradient. More importantly, the type of motor that REQUIRES concentration liquid fuels to work (heat engines) are extremely inefficient and UN-NECESSARY and NOT required (this is the main flaw of the Fake Science constantly promoted at this site). Heat engines REQUIRE concentrated energy to get their low efficiencies of high temperature heat gradients to work. The Fake Science promoter on this website overlooks the fact that HIGH EFFICIENCY LOW TEMPERATURE motors (electric motors) are off the shelf, cheap and typically 65% efficient and often 90% efficient when used in well regulated applications. These are 2-4 TIMES as efficient as the exploding combustion heat energy types that require the concentrated liquids to work and ARE REPLACING those outmoded engines that require explosions of liquid fuel. Diffuse energy sources such as solar are superior to liquid fuels in many ways for most of the important energy consuming activities (transport by wire instantaneously, dont explode, highly efficient motors etc.) This topic requires a separate discussion with engineers and not MBA’d financial analysts…
Thanks for your reply, Mots. In general I agree with all. But I would not be so hard on the proprietor of this site. The mistake he is making is easy to make; I know, because I’ve been there myself. The peak oil (and net energy shortfall) narrative has a rich history and plenty of good arguments and facts to back it up. The case was strong up to about 10 years ago, maybe even just 5 years ago. Once one buys-in to that story it has a momentum, like any idea to which one cleaves, and one finds oneself defending it in increasing desperation because it is so painful to admit being in the wrong. But really it is not so much a matter of being wrong, as being insufficiently open to new information as it unfolds. In the case of the renewables explosion, the new information came quickly, not all that long ago, and it had (and has) revolutionary implications. This is hard to accept. It is HARD to be open to new info that challenges your ideas, when you’ve done your homework and are quite certain that “I’ve got that thing figured out”.
Further, there is a certain personality type (more evident at places like automaticearth and doomsteaddiner than here) that has embraced declensionism and the inevitability of collapse of industrial civilization, or at least economic collapse and permanent depression. This kind of person clings to the peak oil and peak net energy stories tenaciously not because of a cool analysis of all relevant facts, but because of the inner conviction that everything is going to hell, inevitably – therefore peak oil and peak net energy ideas MUST be right, because they are consistent with that inner conviction. Facts are marshalled as an afterthought, to maintain intellectual respectability, but they are not the real source of conviction. I’m familiar with this strain because I flirted with it for some years; at times it was more than flirtation. Then, as newer and different information presented itself to me, I was forced to change.
We are all on a path to greater understanding. It is difficult, sometimes painful.
Be charitable. No need to scream about “FAKE SCIENCE” and the like. Just state the facts, and keep stating them.
A few comments:
MOTS wrote:
The real action and real evolution to an improved future is happening in Asia and other places
MOTS wrote:
1. the EROI of solar panels gets steadily BETTER while oil gets worse.
MOTS wrote:
2. already companies have learned to replace silver in solar panels with copper.
MOTS wrote:
3. we are living in an ocean of energy, and advances in engineering constantly improve our ability to literally take energy out of the air, from our rooftops, etc.
MOTS wrote:
the type of motor that REQUIRES concentration liquid fuels to work (heat engines) are extremely inefficient.... HIGH EFFICIENCY LOW TEMPERATURE motors (electric motors) are off the shelf, cheap and typically 65% efficient and often 90% efficient when used in well regulated applications. These are 2-4 TIMES as efficient as the exploding combustion heat energy types that require the concentrated liquids to work"
Mots-
I totally get the production side of the equation, and for rooftop solar power generation, I think your case is relatively strong. However, rooftop solar power generation doesn’t provide transport fuel.
Do you have numbers on the “complete system” energy return for EVs? That is, ones that include not only the 6:1 power generation EROEI, but the battery costs as well?
IOW, what’s the EROEI for an EV that includes its battery cost. If batteries were cheap, we wouldn’t need to factor them in, but at $150/kwh x 60 = $9000, a battery is a lot more expensive compared to an empty fuel tank for a conventional car.
Just because of the battery and math, I suspect “the singularity” for EV will happen later than “the singularity” for rooftop solar, simply because the “total system” EROEI is lower for EV than it is for rooftop.
Lastly, the variable that TAE always reminds us about is capital costs. If we assume our current low cost of capital will remain in place forever (courtesy of our worldwide central bank money printing operation), that will bring the singularity time forward. If at some point the capital markets blows up because of peak debt, capital will become a lot more expensive (and/or reduce the willingness of people to take on debt in order to fund purchases of solar power generating equipment), and that will push out the time-to-singularity further into the future.
Its also the case that both the monetary system as well as production bottlenecks will act as a break on the speed of adoption. The gigafactory is a great example of that problem, and without a well-functioning capital market, that gigafactory would never have been built.
In some sense its a race. Will peak debt cause our capital markets to explode before we develop the infrastructure that will create the conditions for the singularity to occur?
If we have the equivalent of a great depression, which is usually what happens after a massive debt bubble pop, nobody will be building gigafactories.
If we can avoid disaster, I think the singularity will happen, but we should always remember to compare apples & apples. You can’t use rooftop/utility power generation charts and then claim this will apply directly to EVs.
And on Kauai, as the ocean, and the reefs that support it, perishes, we’ll still be able to turn the lights on to keep the scary night away…Thanks Elon. Aloha, Steve
Dave Fairtex:
- Good point about battery cost. Compelling point if cost were static. But battery cost dropped 80% in just the last 6 years. Cost will continue dropping, perhaps at an even faster rate as adoption gains momentum.
- Good point about capital cost. Peak debt probably will precipitate a great crisis, probably soon. But the implosion of the old system does not have to mean, and won’t mean, permanent paralysis. See MMT - Modern Monetary Theory, Randall Wray, Warren Mosler, and others. See also public banking, e.g. Ellen Brown’s work. See monetary reform in general. The old system may be doomed, but that does not mean WE are doomed. If humans were helpless, unthinking automatons, like yeast cells, then we would be doomed. But we are different from yeast cells. Most of us, anyway.
Yes, it will be a bumpy ride. Uncomfortable. But humans won’t be limited by energy shortfall OR by fictions like money. We might yet blow ourselves up (nuclear holocaust). Or we might push climate change past critical thresholds that cause collapse and dieoff. There are serious potential existential crises, this century. But energy and money shortfalls won’t be among them, at least not as ongoing crises (i.e. leaving aside choppy waters for short transitional periods).
alan-
You describe a possible outcome that I believe could in fact happen. We could have just a short, choppy period. A small burp that stands between us and the singularity.
However as an engineer, I can’t simply look at outcomes where “all goes well.” That’s like making system calls without checking return values - its just asking for trouble. That’s why I like to look at all the reasonably possible outcomes going in. I also like to attach a probability to each outcome.
Outcome 1: debt bubble pops. Our gang in charge does exactly the right thing - they remove the debt overhang from society, and bring everything back on keel. Using just the right policies, creditors are (mostly) made whole, savers remain (mostly) intact, debtors have their debts (mostly) cleared out, pensions are (somewhat) intact, and we emerge from the other side with a debt/GDP of about 60% in about two years time. Lots of one-time inflation occurs (everyone with USD cash-like assets takes a hit to purchasing power), lots of income streams are replaced with cash, but once the period of adjustment is over, everyone remains willing to take risk, invest, etc. A short burp, and we move on. [outcome “steve keen”]
Outcome 2: debt bubble pops. Our gang in charge does nothing. Massive deflation ensues. Debtors default like crazy, pensions are wiped out, property changes hands, creditors take big losses, savers are (mostly) wiped out. Psychology of risk-taking changes for a generation. Nobody wants to borrow money anymore. This cycle takes about 4 years to work itself out initially, and then its another generation before people feel like taking risk again. [outcome “1929”]
Outcome 3: debt bubble pops. After an initial burst of deflation, our gang in charge prints money with wild abandon. This is the favored scenario here at PP. It ends up with a hyperinflationary outcome. Savers and pensions are effectively wiped out, debts are initially wiped out but (may be) re-established at the end of the period. People spend more time speculating than they do on anything productive during the hyperinflationary period. Afterwards, with no savings, and no pensions, nobody is investing in anything. Middle class is more or less wiped out. Caution is the watchword, and money printing is frowned on for three generations. [outcome “weimar”]
Outcome 4: the denouement never happens. Wile E Coyote, surprised, remains suspended in mid-air for the next 10 years. Capital remains cheap, R&D moves ahead; this is likely the fastest way to get to the singularity. [outcome “eternal can-kick”]
Do you see any other likely outcomes? What’s your assessment for the probability of each outcome?
Which outcome occurs will end up determining how far off the singularity is in time.
Dave, very briefly since I have to leave right now and won’t be at a computer until tomorrow: explain what you mean by “singularity”, please.
Alan,
First, are you talking about PV supporting business as usual or some sort of scaled back conserver society? Here are some concerns I have about your scenario (assuming you are talking about business as usual).
So far, battery costs are dropping. But we’ll need to scale this up by a factor of multiple hundreds or more have global impact. Can this be done without resource constraints or environmental impacts causing the cost curve to bottom out and begin to climb significantly, even precipitously? Remember, once solar is scaled up to a substantial fraction of the grid, storage needs will escalate tremendously to provide electricity during cloudy periods and at night. Do you envision lower cost batteries using common materials for this purpose? How far along the path is this technology to the goal of being scalable to the level that would be required?
This summary comment on Prieto and Hall’s review of photovoltaic performance in Spain shows their conclusion that large scale PV in Spain at an EROEI of 2.45:1. Almost 70% of the energy invested is not related to the panels themselves, although some of that 70% is related to the area of the plants (gravel roads, security fences, concrete foundations, etc.) and would come down if more efficient panels came along without increasing the embodied energy in the panels. On the other hand, the small amount of that energy invested reserved for grid integration would probably go up significantly with a higher percentage PV on the grid. Do you agree with their analysis? If not, explain where they erred and what the true EROEI is. Do you see a path to PV significantly improving this EROEI in the future? If so, give details to support your claim.
The capital costs for this transition represent real use of current technology and resources to build out the new infrastructure, especially the use of fossil fuels, minerals and skilled labor. Will sufficient quantities of these resources be available for the build out without starving essential functions of our current system for resources? How would you perform an analysis to show this?
A significant use of fossil fuels is for high heat industrial processes (cement manufacture, etc.), heavy equipment for mining, construction and other purposes, air transport and shipping. All of these would be very difficult to transition to renewables. Most of them are required input for PV build out and maintenance. How do you propose to address this?
Assume you are right and the transition happens. How could we prevent the unfolding environmental crisis from bringing everything crashing down? Would the transition make the crash worse by delaying our day of reckoning with resource constraints?
Meant to add this link to my above post:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/10/teslas-kauai-solar-storage-facility-of…
Tesla, and the local politicos, are making this a big deal, but it’s nothing new for us here, really:
http://www.saftbatteries.com/press/press-releases/saft-supply-li-ion-bat…
All that effort to save 1.6 cents per KWH? My all-in costs are about .49 per KWH…I always wonder about the true costs of all the production, transport, etc, of the panels and batteries. I’ve heard there’s not enough raw materials to supply this technology on a global scale…I guess I’m grateful though…Aloha, Steve.
I can only agree with you all! Where should we focus.For me to address the EROI issue with any hope of making a difference to the outcome of humanity, is a bit misguided and, frankly, smacks of hubris. Developed and developing countries are driven by comfort and/or sloth. The rare exceptions live in a minimalist or primitive, sustainable culture. Entropy will ultimately win out over the long run. As L.M. Keynes has stated, " in the long run we are all going to be dead". (Thanks T2H)
The aphorism of, “what have you done for me lately”, is a better guiding sentiment for our current plight than most of comments on this thread. Academically, some very good and cogent thoughts(thanks, contributors). However, after several years of using a programmable thermostat, I was able to reduce my energy bill by approximately 8% over three years. My son, after one year saw a 9% reduction using a “Nest”. Where should our energy management focus be? Does wearing a sweater during a cold winter day or taking a hot water bottle to bed with a night time temp of 65 F (18 C.) qualify as a measurable and environmentally responsible actions. Ultimately, Jevon’s paradox will bite us in the ass, given our human condition. As my grandmother used to tell me (her 2nd law of home economics), “In order to make something clean, you end up making something else dirty. But to make something dirty, you don’t, necessarily have to make something else clean”!
alan-
Well, it was in an article you quoted so I figured this was me speaking your language, not the reverse.
The “solar singularity” is the point where solar becomes so cheap in a majority of countries around the world that it is established as the default new power source. At this point, solar will very likely go vertical in its growth curve.Same holds true for EVs. Just change the words around.
The "EV singularity" is the point where EV cars (run by solar energy) become so cheap in a majority of countries around the world that it is established as the default new transportation mode. At this point, EVs will very likely go vertical in its growth curve.But neither of these two things are important. For this discussion, I'm interested in your assessment of the different economic/monetary outcomes, if I'm missing any that you see as reasonably likely, and furthermore, what's your assessment of the probability of each outcome. As the people at TAE say, the credit markets move much faster than R&D, or energy, and as such, they could be the gating factor. If we have a credit accident, that means no more R&D, and no movement towards cheaper batteries or cheaper panels until things "get fixed." And the time-to-fix can be quite extended if, for instance, we drop into a depression.
davefairtex wrote:
For this discussion, I'm interested in your assessment of the different economic/monetary outcomes, if I'm missing any that you see as reasonably likely, and furthermore, what's your assessment of the probability of each outcome.davefairtex wrote:
As the people at TAE say, the credit markets move much faster than R&D, or energy, and as such, they could be the gating factor. If we have a credit accident, that means no more R&D, and no movement towards cheaper batteries or cheaper panels until things "get fixed." And the time-to-fix can be quite extended if, for instance, we drop into a depression.Quercus bicolor:
I am sorry to report that you are too late. A year ago, as President, General Manager, and Technical Planner of Planet Earth, I had instant fingertip-access to scores of ponderous technical reports answering each of your questions in exhaustive detail. But now, having left that job, I’m just an average schlub with no special information.
Kidding aside, look at what I posted: a few cut-and-pastes about soaring renewables installation, and related matters. Facts and unarguable statistics. Except for that last comment about a “tsunami that can’t be stopped”, which may not be unarguable yet, but close, given the facts. And except for Tam Hunt’s speculative thing, which I probably should not have posted, and which you should not pay too much attention to. Pay attention to facts, rather than speculation.
Anyway, that’s what I posted. And now you ask a bunch of arms-akimbo questions like “how do you propose to address X?” and “what is your detailed plan to solve Y?” – as though I could possibly answer such questions. As though I had super-human expertise. I kept thinking things like: “who the hell does this guy [you] think I am?”
If you’re seriously interested in answers, you can get them, but not from me. I’m no expert, I’m a dilletante. I read the work of experts, academics, serious students, but I am not one myself. If you want answers to broad questions with an optimistic spin (as you seemed to expect from me), read the work of intellectuals and pundits like John McCarthy, Matt Ridley, Peter Diamandis, Charles Collis, Julian Simon, David McMullen, Ernst von Weizsacker, Ramez Naam, and the like.
So now, having said that, I will post specific responses later – for what they are worth, which isn’t much.
Further thoughts:
I wrote: “China won’t be down for long, even in a TAE worst-case crash. Short rationale: China INVESTED its wealth; we in the U.S. pissed ours away.”
TAE, I’ve noticed over the years, ignores assets, and pays attention only to debts. This is reflected in that recurrent post title on TAE: “DEBT Rattle”. Why no “ASSET Rattle”? Because they are blind to assets; it is as though assets did not exist. And yet, if you can see only debts, when significant assets exist, you will wind up with a distorted picture of the world, and a grossly distorted picture of the aftermath of a credit crash or monetary crisis.
Further, TAE is (moderately) chauvinistic and racist as regards the West vs. the East. This is no big deal; it is typical in the West. We Westerners cannot believe that those slants and gooks might be beating us, might be smarter than us, might be building a newer and better civilization than ours. And yet that IS precisely what is happening. We’re already beaten and outsmarted. The game is over already, even though most people (like TAE) are just starting to become aware that it began, and even though it will take the remainder of this century to fully play out.
China has probably amassed in excess of 15,000 tons of gold. This is a fact of enormous significance. This alone would float a new currency and/or generally allow reasonably comfortable recovery from a credit crash or monetary crisis. That is not to mention vast stockpiles of other critical materials and metals as well as mining capacity for much more. Nor is it to mention vast productive capability of almost everything under the sun. And a terrific transport infrastructure featuring 15,000 miles of high speed rail ALREADY LAID with 10,000 more before 2020. And vast urban infrastructure including many “ghost cities” which are filling up; they are wise investments in the future. And a terrific education system now churning out 100X more skilled technicians and engineers and etc. than the West. And much more (energy infrastructure mega-projects, environmental recovery and improvement mega-projects, etc.), but that is all I’m willing to type right now.
(TAE, you will note, ignores everything I just wrote. Worse than that: they write it all off as a “misallocation”! I’m serious! That’s actually what they say about China! They are not only incapable of seeing assets, but they seem incapable of seeing the building of a great new modern civilization, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty into relative affluence in a short few years, creating infrastructure capable of supporting economic development across the entire continent (with billions of residents), and so on. This is one of the most phenomenal and exciting and laudible things that ever happened. I mean EVER, in the whole flipping history of the world. And TAE dismisses it as a “misallocation”! The word “blindness” fails to express. The phrase “fucking idiots!” springs to mind. Lots of Westerners are in the same boat, not just the TAE people; I dont mean to pick on them. However, since they position themselves as big-picture analysts and prognosticators, they have a lot less excuse than others.)
Now, contrast all that with the West, and with the U.S. in particular: crumbling central cities, crumbling and neglected infrastructure, educational system churning out sociology and women’s studies majors (etc.), 8,000 tons of gold SUPPOSEDLY in Fort Knox (probably actually either gone completely, or leased/rehypothecated, or something), much productive capacity long gone or rotting, zero miles of high-speed rail and generally neglected and rotting rail system, and on and on and ON. There’s no comparison.
SO, THEREFORE, when you ask me these questions about various debt crisis and collapse scenarios, I have to ask you: Where? A critical question. Because those crisis scenarios will mean something entirely different here in the U.S. versus over there in China/Eurasia. There’s not a snowball’s chance, IMO, that China/Eurasia progress will be delayed more than a scant few years by any monetary or debt crisis. (Which means, hence, that the “solar singularity”, or at least rapid solar and general renewables buildout, will not be delayed by more than a scant few years.) Whereas there’s an excellent chance that the U.S. will slide into a depression that lasts a generation or more. We are a spent, decaying and declining empire. They are a continental civilizational network on the rise with unstoppable force, almost as though fulfilling global geopolitical destiny.
The only fly in this ointment is, as ever, catastrophe possibilities such as strategic nuclear war, and climate change sufficient to disrupt everything. Those are real possibilities which could bring down China and everyone else, I freely admit. Less likely: a killer virus could rampage out of control killing billions, or an asteroid could hit earth, or hostile aliens could invade, or etc. etc. There are a bunch of terrible disaster possibilities. I try not to think about them. Pray for no nuclear war, and pray for manageable climate impacts.