Jeff McFadden Profile picture
Apr 9, 2022 24 tweets 8 min read Read on X
This rush to villainize fossil fuel as though it's not *our* fault we did this, it's that bad old fossil fuel that did it.
If not for the evil of fossil fuels and their corporate sources, we would miraculously by now have carbon free energy enough to piss away on our every whim.
2. I find it offensive. Seriously. We have all the facts staring us in the face.
Lawrence Livermore National Labs does this analysis annually.
This thing is way more important than the new #IPCCReport Image
3. The boxes on the left margin are sources of the energy we use, real numbers, hard science.
The pink boxes on the right are categories of activities. How much energy, and from whence it came, is in each box.
The orange box in the top middle is a conversion point, where other Image
4. Prior sources of energy are converted to electricity and where that goes.
All the gray parts are energy lost in the various processes. Under the laws of thermodynamics no process can be 100% energy efficient. None are even close in the real world. Image
5. Up there at the top of the left hand column are the non-fossil direct sources of energy, with nuclear the largest, producing about 8½ percent of the total input energy.
Next comes wind, at 2¾%, then hydro, big dams, at about 2½.
The pink boxes are where all the lines end. Image
One hundred percent, all, of the energy we produce and consume, what I refer to as throughput, is to power those activities.
Almost 30% of the total energy is used for transportation.
This is US only, not global.
Slightly less of our energy goes into industry than transportation Image
7. So transportation and industry, those two classes of activities, consume over half the fossil fuels.
You want to halt fossil fuel use?
Which of those two pink boxes to you choose to shrink?
That's over half your fossil fuels.
That chart is all the energy we are capable
8. Of bringing to bear on our activities. There is no magic spigot we can turn on to take the place of the well over a third of our total energy throughput annually.
And don't even *think* electric. You see the big orange box? That's where a vast quantity of fossil fuels are run Image
through heat engines, which are between ⅔ and ¾ energy loss transactions -
Fossil Fuels.
Which pink box do you want to shrink, and how much?
That's where the fossil fuels went. Into the pink boxes.
Our homes barely break 10% of the total.
We can turn down this and turn off that Image
10. we've got all these people screaming INSULATION and - if we just quit heating and lighting our homes *at all* we'd still have 89% of our current fossil fuel demand.
Transportation and manufacturing.
So what are we doing?
We're building new highways and manufacturing renoobles
11. I've been screaming SLOW DOWN for years, and it's like this giant nationwide yawn 🥱
That's almost ⅓ of our total fossil fuel use, y'all.
Slowing would reduce it.
This is physics. It is incontrovertible.
A nationwide 30 mph speed limit would make *a big* difference in fossil
12. fuel use.
I find it offensive that people whose credentials and employment proclaim them to be Scientists with a capital S, screaming about fossil fuels.
We. Know. Where. It. Goes.
Pick. The. One. To. Shrink.
I've been voting for the speed one for years. Ignore me. Pick one.
13. The pink boxes are everything. They're where the fossil fuels go. The only way to keep the fossil fuels from going is to turn down or off some specific demand.
Shrink the pink boxes.
Or STFU. Image
14. Electrify everything.
OK, Orange box. Right now we're using 100% of the output electricity from the aggregate of fossil and other inputs to the left of the orange box.
All the new electric cars go on the orange line coming out.
It is what all the fossil fuel turned into. Image
15. Of the available new sources of energy to feed into the orange box - energy is the original zero sum game, TANSTAAFL. You want more out, put more in.
It's a tossup between natural methane and coal which power more new electric plants over the next few years. Renoobles ain't. Image
15. Presumably we're going to transfer the entire transportation pink box - well, theoretically (in somebody's dreams) *all* the pink boxes
Are going to get *all* their input energy out of the orange output line from the orange box.
The pink boxes, we are assured, will never have Image
16. to shrink, nay, indeed they can all grow forever, out of the magic carbon-free Pure Clean Energy flowing out of the orange box, and in this dream, all the pretty colored boxes on the left are magically gone, Image
17. and the trickle of warm piss coming out of purple box, and the yellow box, will through an act of Technological Prowess grow to provide all the power, going into all the pink boxes, all the Power, all the Sacred Technology, Image
17. That trickle will expand to replace the Sacred Green, the Mordor Black, the sky blue - the light green is a net loss and only in there for Grassley - all that wonderful, colorful Energy, to power all the pink boxes - and no fossil fuels. Image
18. There is never a time when someone says, "I think I'd like to use some fossil fuel today. How can I do that?"
There is one, and only one, route, or technology, or system, or step, whatever you want to call it - there is one and only one way to reduce fossil fuel use today:
19. Start at the pink boxes. Observe each box and say, "How can I accomplish the things which we need accomplished, within this box, on less energy?
In almost all cases the answer will be, slow one or more processes.
It's either that or find processes we can entirely halt. Image
20. As far as I can see no credentialed climate professional who is willing to get arrested for protesting fossil fuels is willing to host a public discussion on means to attain his/her stated goal of reduced fossil fuel now today.
21. We know where it's going. Which action shall we shrink?
We are not, scientists notwithstanding, going to repeal the laws of thermodynamics no matter how inconvenient they may be.
My box to shrink is transportation. What's yours? Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jeff McFadden

Jeff McFadden Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JeffAndDonkeys

May 13
I appreciate all of you who encourage me in my threads. I write them in the hope of literally, as one man, changing the world. I understand that the odds aren't good, but it remains physically possible, not to end or reverse climate change in less than century or two, but to
2. Reduce the rate at which we do increasing damage. We could immediately reduce motor fuel consumption, immediately. Not in 2025 or 2030 but in May of 2024.
This is a physical possibility, a relatively easy and low hassle one.
We could literally save millions of gasoline a year,
3. just with a 55 mph nationalspeed limit that ONLY CLIMATE BELIEVERS OBEY, based on some ⅔ of Americans claiming to be that.
Read 9 tweets
May 12
I know it's not worth writing this, but I'm going to anyway.
This (screenshot) came off a pissing contest thread.
Many people strongly believe that we can't do anything about the climate because we are so many.
Actually we can't do anything about it because we don't want to. Image
2. Here's a chart on global energy use from a very few years ago. The general ratios haven't changed, just all the numbers have gotten bigger.
All that matters for this discussion is the sizes of the demands relative to one another.
Over half is industrial use. Image
3. So Prof Bill's question was, you tell me how to reduce emissions by 50% in 66 months?
If we reduce industrial output by half, and reduce transportation speed by half, those two things alone would get us real close.
Absolutely all, without exception all, current "climate action
Read 21 tweets
May 9
I despair when I read crap like this.
I despair when I see what climate professionals in the aggregate say. "The stakes could not be higher" is absolutely true. It's where the truth ends.
Their recommendations are pure, unadulterated bullshit. theguardian.com/environment/ar…
2. They quote this woman. Christiana Figueres, UN climate chief.
She presents herself in this article as either a liar or a fool. Image
3. As follows:
Two immediate lies.
"...on the edge of positive societal tipping points away from fossil fuels."
The world has never burned more fossil fuels than the world is burning today.
The only tipping point we're approaching is the one where there's no food or water for us Image
Read 17 tweets
May 6
I'm going to try to explain myself to newer readers. I know my ideas are so far out there that I sound crazy.
I'm old, city born and raised, country since age 37. Couple months shy of 40 years out here.
But I earned my living with technology. All of my living.
2. I designed, installed, maintained electronic, and later digital, communication systems, starting in a telephone central office, where all the calls get placed, working on that machine.
It was a fabulous machine, all relays, older than me (I was 21) and did the same stuff
3. as computers do now.
In many of the same ways, except visible to the naked eye.
Relays are digital. They're either on or off. Current either flows or not flows. Same decision trees as machine language. Fabulous machine to work on.
Started back in the 60's. Been a helluva ride.
Read 29 tweets
May 4
When I write threads about ecosystem collapse, about global heating, global excess energy accumulation, my (obviously carefully vetted) mostly assume that It Is Over and collapse is inevitable.
Talk about any other topic, and everyone unconsciously assumes all we have now goes on
2. Just as an example, people say it's appropriate to ignore the climate during this election because if this election goes wrong, it's the last one, and we must Save Democracy.
If I'm right - if the ecosystem emergency is upon us - the current organization of the United States
3. is not going to have the physical and technological infrastructure required to run a modern federal government.
There won't be any jets for Israelis to bomb Palestinians with.
There won't be a global supply chain.
At all.
Anything anyone must have to live, if it's at the
Read 11 tweets
Apr 28
We - my brethren / sistren and myself - often speak of #collapse as though it were a foregone conclusion, and I guess to us it is.
But none of us can see the future, and exactly what form this collapse might take we have no way of knowing.
2. I have said, more than once, that possible routes to final irreparable collapse of high energy services, which will be one final step of our current ongoing collapse, include pandemic, international war, local high intensity guerilla war (we already have it at low intensity),
3. at least as likely and probably more likely points of failure than actually running out of oil, even of accessible oil.
I think in the long run we'll leave a lot in the ground.
I don't think the ecosystem will support us long enough for us to burn it all.
And she votes last.
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(