Column: Summer Interrupted – A Good News Energy Story Amid the Carnage


Terry Etam

It’s not even Stampede yet – and it looks like it will be a good old-fashioned free-for-all – and I’ve already encountered a fascinating drunken goofball at the top of his game. Nothing unusual there, I suppose, except that this encounter actually had an interesting and thoughtful punchline.

It happened on the train to downtown last week, at about 8 am. Life is returning to normal and the train was fairly full. Halfway downtown, two guys oozed aboard, oddly drunk for 8 am; not falling-over-drunk but party-drunk, making friendly but disjointed/loud conversation with commuters who just wanted to stare at their phone or crawl under the seat if it wasn’t so disgusting down there.

One of the drunks, swigging from a 2L Coke bottle, latched onto a tall gentleman and began chatting him up: asking how his day was going, pointing out how nice his clothes were, etc. He then lapsed into the philosophical phase that too much alcohol often brings. “Do good things,” the drunk advised. “Be good. Don’t have too many nice things. Don’t wear too many nice things like your nice belt there, because [side note: for those unfamiliar, these heartfelt alcohol-soaked soliloquies often include some eyebrow-raising admissions], someone like me might come along and take them.”

“That would be really annoying,” the ready-to-flee businessman answered, valiantly attempting to make conversation.

“Maybe that’s the point,” said the drunk. Whoa. That perked me up.

Fascinating, hey? If the guy’s right – and I don’t have a reason to doubt him, he knows his business – he brings up an interesting point about motivations and well-meaning but misguided cures. Is there a whole psycho-industrial complex built around the idea of helping people like this, when their ultimate justification for their actions is that they just want to annoy people who are higher up the economic ladder? Can that explain the unfathomable attacks on the energy system that keeps us all alive, but is withering from the assault? Do activists to a certain extent simply want to get under the skin of ‘Big Oil’?

Drunks talking philosophy have a surprising overlap with today’s energy conversations, because the quality and tone are so endearingly similar (to a degree; our leaders pontificating about current energy challenges lack not just the wisdom but even the enthusiasm of the drunk). I’d sworn off the topic of energy conversations for the summer months (hence the dearth of columns lately) because the energy world currently defies description. Equally powerful movements about, one setting out to deconstruct the current energy system, the other encouraging it to produce more.

Sometimes these opposing views come from the same mouths, a few days apart. Discourse is challenging, a natural consequence of asking those who have torched the existing system why they are doing it, when the consequences are so obviously devastating (if one were to ask, maybe they too would say they did it just to be annoying – I have no idea and will never know).

I have been drawn back from exile, at least temporarily, by notice of interesting/positive energy news that defines the essence of what any significant progress on an ‘energy transition’ will look like.

First of all, it should be profoundly evident by now that the giddy rush to renewables/sidelining of hydrocarbons is nothing but a recipe for disaster, and the demise of billions of people. If that’s your silent (or not) vision of how to severely reduce global emissions, well, more power to you, the Museum of Failed Dictators has floor space, but because it’s not going to work, we owe it to ourselves to find out what will work to reduce our footprint on the globe.

The whole world wants to live like the west, and should be allowed to live like the west, but resource scarcity is going to make that very hard indeed.

That is the ultimate ‘environmental’ movement – the attempt to maintain the magnificent standard of living we’ve achieved by utilizing the resources we pull from the earth much more wisely. 

Think of a typical $500 Best Buy crap TV. They used to be $3,000, but now are so cheap we buy them then toss them to upgrade to the latest greatest. Embedded in that outdated TV set are all sorts of minerals and metals, in minute amounts, each of which requires a mine and processing facility and a whole lot of transportation.

To take a gram of any such substance and throw it in the landfill doesn’t sound so atrocious, but all those grams add up to an environmental nightmare in the form of new mines and supply chains, all necessary to get that gram into the TV.

It’s a human abomination to throw such stuff into the dumpster, yet that is what we do, because it makes no economic sense to salvage that gram. But we should, somehow. If the incentives are right, the market will find a way.

I’d have been happy not even thinking about energy all summer, but encountered a cool story that at least somewhat revived the seemingly-forgotten (or at least antiquated) concept of reduce, reuse, recycle. It’s so old it sounds like a cliche now, but those three words are the foundation of any environmental progress we may achieve in the next decade or two. 

Benefits flow out of those words in tangential ways, one of which is or should be the relentless drive to optimize what we have, rather than sidelining something that is still good and diverting precious resources to building something new.

Crux OCM, a company that has developed software that automates certain pipeline operating procedures, much like autopilot does for planes/pilots. The company’s software can expand throughput production capacity by up to 10 percent. They made the news last week with an announcement of a new customer, Phillips 66, who plans to implement the software across their network.

I really don’t know much about the company other than the public material, and I don’t have a pipeline I can call my own. But the concept of building a company or sub-industry solely for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of what we’ve already built is exciting and full of potential.

Think of the potential value embedded in software like this. Some parts of North America’s oil and gas production landscape are unable to grow without further pipeline access. It is safe to assume anyone that watches energy at all knows by now how difficult it is to get new pipelines built.

Canada and the US produce millions of barrels of oil per day, and many tens of billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. The ability to increase throughputs by up to 10 percent has enormous repercussions, and if the alternative to moving that extra ten percent is building tens of billions of dollars of new pipeline – if it can be built at all.

What I find so interesting and exciting about developments like these is that whatever “energy transition” progress develops in the next 10-15 years is going to be dominated by ideas like this – better utilization of existing resources. Same goes for better windows in houses, same goes for better recycling of materials to prevent their mining/extraction/construction in the first place.

Between that and converting the world from coal to natural gas, we can make an absolutely huge dent in our environmental impact (and here I’m referring to the most critical aspects of “environmentalism” – reduced habitat destruction, reduced demand for new mines/infrastructure/processing/raw materials transportation, etc.).

If you get a chance, fill your elected representatives’ ears with common sense energy ideas. They might welcome it; it can’t be easy on any brain to publicly negate themselves every other day as they currently do on the energy file.29dk2902l

Find out how the world got into such a calamitous energy state, and how to get out – pick up  “The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity” at, or Thanks for the support.

Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here. PS: Dear email correspondents, the email flow is welcome, but am having trouble keeping up. Apologies if comments/questions go unanswered; they are not ignored.

4 9 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
July 8, 2022 6:51 am

 is that they just want to annoy people who are higher up the economic ladder? 

The usual liberals I know curl their lip when they talk about, “These Corporations” and tell me how much corporate CEOs make forgetting how much pro athletes Hollywood stars and lawyers make.

we owe it to ourselves to find out what will work to reduce our footprint on the globe.

I take that to mean efficient use of resources, who wouldn’t agree?

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Has to compete with digging it out of the environment in the first place. Otherwise it’s not really going to happen. I’m rather sure the contents of our recycle bin goes straight away to the landfill.

Reply to  Steve Case
July 8, 2022 8:10 am

we owe it to ourselves to find out what will work to reduce our footprint on the globe”

Take one of the, er, most respected sellouts

“Sir David Attenborough’s new doc: ‘Humans are intruders'”

In other words, he and those like him would prefer things if humans were not present – at all.

“David Attenborough: ‘Population Growth Must Come to an End’”

The only way to do that is to make life unliveable via mad ideas like Net Zero.

Reply to  fretslider
July 8, 2022 9:11 am

And we are waiting for Sir David to make an example of himself.

Reply to  fretslider
July 8, 2022 10:21 am

We are part of the natural world , not aliens from under or over the earth (flat by the way) We are innovators and will find ways to make this thing work if we would just be left alone to have open communication and not by interrupted by tyranny and mutation of worthless goals to hurt ourselves

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Steve Case
July 8, 2022 12:03 pm

“Reduce, reuse, recycle.”

There are more possible angles here. 1) design the TV to be easily recyclable (easier to take apart including unclipping the rare metal, valuable small bit).

2) pay a bit to the primary recycler to make it worthwhile to do it. Say put the TV out for a company that will pay 10 bucks for it and who will choose whether to dismantle and resell to various other material handlers to reduce purchases of newly mined material, or rebuild the TV for resale.

C) A glass jar for pickles sells to the pickle factory for 60 cents. You could give a decent amount, say 10cts to the primary recycler, because the used glass (cullet) acts like a flux and the glass batch batch melts at a reduced temperature and contains higher cost feldspar along with silica sand.

Who, in this day and age, would have thought that free enterprise was the way to go for saving resources?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 8, 2022 12:38 pm

None of your suggestions count as free market. They all use government regulations and taxes to force other people to do things the government wants them to do.

Redesigning the TV is going to make it a lot more expensive.
Who is this person who is going to be forced to pay the primary recycler?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2022 1:25 pm

Well, no. Some company that can pay the home owner ten bucks and profit from it. I guess I wasn’t clear in my explanation. I visualized the recycling being private enterprise with the home owner getting some cash for his trouble. The TV redesign isnt huge. Think about easy disassembly while you are making the product.

This isn’t even a new idea. Actually,When I was a schoolboy (1940s) the junk dealer with horse and wagon traveled back lanes buying old hot water heaters, appliances, scrap of various kinds because it was a moneymaking business. No sign of government in it at all.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 8, 2022 2:01 pm

But he was recycling the BULK not the tiny bits, so it WAS economical.

Hell, they can’t even recycle lithium from batteries.

Reply to  Drake
July 8, 2022 4:20 pm

Cars from the 50’s and 60’s were pretty much solid metal. Few wiring harnesses and almost no plastic.
Compare that to modern cars that extensively use plastic and have miles of cables.
Early cars are very recyclable, modern cars require much manual intervention to retrieve many of the recyclable components.

Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2022 5:56 pm

When taking those cars to the junkyard in the 1970s, the junkyard required that we bust out the windows and remove the tires.

That made it economical for them to crush the car into scrap metal and sell it to a refiner.

I have a cousin who paid $50 maximum for old cars. He’d get them running and then run them into the dirt traveling around Las Vegas.
When the car died and we removed the glass and tires, he’d get approximately $40 for the car’s metal.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 8, 2022 4:17 pm

Have you been involved in circuit and circuit board design? I have.
Everything is designed to make assembly quicker and cheaper. To design to make it easy to disassemble would dramatically increase assembly costs and the cost of parts themselves.
The only way to get your ideas implemented would be through government diktat.
The only recyclable component in your TV set is the gold that coats the pins that are used in the connectors.
Going from saying that a metal tank that holds water is recyclable therefore a modern TV set should be as well is quite a stretch.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2022 5:40 pm

Mark, you know, therefore, that silicon chips are tiny and made from quartz which is cheap as a raw material. I didn’t have in mind recovering the squeal from the pig too! My smart teenage children used to use ‘the inconsequential bit’ to try to overturn my main arguement. I’m not sure whether this is ‘a red herring’ or a ‘strawman’. Both are a sign you are losing the arguement.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 8, 2022 1:57 pm

There are already ways to recycle almost everything but the energy costs are frequently much higher than using new resources. Today’s political trajectory is to reduce available energy while at the same time making regulations that requiring more energy to function. There is a huge insanity barrier to overcome. Virtually all government regulations result in reduced functionality and increased cost in attempting to achieve a little more cleanliness.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  AndyHce
July 10, 2022 6:21 pm

Thanks Andy. I didnt really mean recycle everything. I envisioned businesses paying something for the sorted garbage a person puts out for pickup. A glass company could provide a box with its name on it for example and pay by the lb or kg. You have to put your garbage out anyway.

The economics for glass include the fact that waste glass (cullet) acts as a flux when added to a glass batch, thereby, melting at a lower temperature – saves energy. We already get paid for returning beer and pop bottles for reuse.

Paper waste is very profitable for remanufacture, particularly cardboard. Metals, too. Precious metals everybody knows about. Did you know that in your wedding ring, chances are there could be atoms of gold in it that crossed the Sahara from the Gold Coast in the Middle Ages?

My thought that products could be manufactured with recovery of valuable components in mind seems to have led to strong argument. A minute’s research led to this:

July 8, 2022 6:55 am

We interrupt this program for the following special news report:

Old Man Winter
Reply to  john
July 8, 2022 8:03 am

If the Dimbulbs finally throw The Big Guy under the bus, can we survive with Giggles in charge?

Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 8, 2022 9:16 am

It really doesn’t matter. No one believes (at least, no rational person does!) that China Joe is making any decisions. And that will remain the same if Commie-La is sitting in the Oval Orifice. The people really running things are the Obama people that came in with Brandon.

Yes, Obama’s fingerprints are all over this series of debacles. I suspect that they are now doing what they wanted to do but didn’t want Barry to get the blame, and they care not a whit for Joe.

Take down America, and put the ChiComs in charge of the world. “Holomodor” for the USA, and Biden will go down in history as the villain, not Obama.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Kpar
July 8, 2022 10:03 am

Come on, man! 🙂 At least Dementia Joe’s “Asufutimaehaehfutbw” sounds more
credible than the totally meaningless word salads Giggles uses. His stuff is part
of a potentially serious speech. It’s hard to take Giggles as a serious adult as
she sounds, at best, like a Valley Girl. Like, totally, fer sure! Seriously?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  another ian
July 8, 2022 5:30 pm

Having seen that, maybe Giggles will get better speech
writers if/when she takes over. Since the Dimbulbs live in
DC- a high-value target- you would think they’d be
screaming at the top of their lungs, demanding to invoke
the 25th Amendment.

He’s read teleprompter cues at least once before- after a
second time, he should be gone! The latest is after we’ve
seen his cheat sheet. Whatever points I gave him
for more cred than Giggles is definitely gone!

Nick Graves
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 9, 2022 1:46 am

Can’t they just get Moon Zappa to over-dub the speeches?

Might make more sense…

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 8, 2022 9:18 am

Here’s the Plan: stack Congress in Nov — both houses, impeach Traitor Joe and Kommie Ho — both clots, and make that putz McCarthy the new temp Pres. Not the best plan, but all we’ve got at the present.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 8, 2022 2:07 pm

Better yet, make TRUMP! the Speaker of the House, then get rid of the clowns, then TRUMP! is POTUS for less than 2 years more, and can run in 2024.

TRUMP! presents complete list of ALL appointments who are confirmed in ONE vote without any committee hearings and Democrat delays, then the house cleaning (swamp draining) begins.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Drake
July 9, 2022 3:53 pm
Rich Davis
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 9, 2022 3:49 pm

Can we try to return to the real world?

If you’re not aware, Senators serve six-year terms with one-third of the body up for election every other year. This year, only 14 seats held by Democrats are up for grabs. It is mathematically impossible for the Republicans to reach a 2/3 majority this year.,_2022

In other words, if every seat currently held by a Republican is retained, and every seat held by a Democrat is flipped, Republicans would gain 14 seats.

Currently at 50-50, that (truly miraculous) outcome would mean 64-36, three short of the required 2/3 majority necessary to convict and remove an impeached official.

Not only would it be a zero probability that any Demonrats would vote to convict Biden (let alone Harris), but you’d probably not even get all the RINOs like Romney, Murkowski, and Collins to convict.

It’s not even clear at this point that Republicans will be able to get to a bare 51-49 Senate majority, since they have to defend 21 seats while the Dims only have to defend 14.

In order to reach effective control (win cloture votes to end debate and proceed to move legislation), Republicans would need 60 seats. They would need to pick up 10 seats. Otherwise, the Dims can fillibuster everything. While a pickup of 10 seats is mathematically possible, it is next to zero probability. And even if it were achieved, only a 2/3 majority could override a Brandon or Kakala veto. Republicans would be at least 7 votes short of being able to do that.

Focus on achievable goals and avoid disappointment. Until January 2025, all that is achievable is to block Democrat legislation and shine light on Democrat corruption.

Old Man Winter
July 8, 2022 7:50 am

“converting the world from coal to natural gas”

Why bother. Plants love their CO2 turbochargedl!

Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 8, 2022 8:29 am

This guy seems to buy into the left wing nonsense about how bad coal mines are.
In the US and most western nations, mine operators are required to restore open pit mines to a state similar to what existed prior to the mine being dug. If the regulators aren’t satisfied they will require companies to do it over until they are.

That developing countries don’t spend as much money on protecting the environment is because they are poor. A state that most so called environmentalists are dead set on maintaining.

July 8, 2022 8:08 am

but resource scarcity is going to make that very hard indeed.

The only resource scarcities that we are dealing with are all caused by government restrictions.

Companies don’t need government pressure to not waste resources. They already realize that wasted resources mean lost profit and are already doing everything practical to reduces waste.

Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2022 9:21 am

The only resource scarcities that we are dealing with are all caused by government restrictions.”

OH, SO TRUE! If one looks at the various famines in the world over the last several decades (mostly India and Africa) it is their own governments that either created the problems in the first place, or dramatically made things worse. India is a particularly interesting case because it was their abandonment of Socialism and the embrace of Capitalism that turned things around for them.

Reply to  Kpar
July 8, 2022 10:53 am

What economic growth China has seen, has been from their abandoning Marxism and allowing some capitalism into the country.

Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2022 2:01 pm

plus massive industrial espionage

Reply to  Kpar
July 8, 2022 2:09 pm

And think of all the US acreage being used for corn to fuel crops that could be feeding people.

July 8, 2022 8:12 am

This guy talks as if stuff thrown in landfills is vaporized and no longer exists.
Everything thrown away still exists and can be recovered if it is ever needed again.

Etam reminds me very much of the drunk in his story.

Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2022 8:28 am

Good point, why don’t we “mine” old landfills? After a few years all the solubles and volatiles will be gone and all that’s left is stuff that stays around and can be reused.

Reply to  Yooper
July 8, 2022 11:11 am

We don’t mine old landfills mostly because other sources are still cheaper. If that ever changes, the mining of land fills will start.

Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2022 1:54 pm

Meanwhile, we are capturing the landfill gas and can either sell it or use it to generate electricity on-site. Landfills are not lost resources, merely long term storage.

Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2022 9:24 am

The same is true of so-called “nuclear ash”, the highly radioactive (meaning, still having lots of energy!) fuel from fission reactors. Future (and some present) technologies will be able to safely harness that energy and put it to use, greatly reducing the storage issues for the remainder.

Reply to  Kpar
July 8, 2022 10:55 am

The “highly” radioactive stuff is radioactive because it has short half lives. As a result, most of it will be gone in a few decades. All the stuff with long half lives are potential fuels and shouldn’t be thrown away in the first place.

Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2022 2:11 pm

And in the US are sitting in pools of water on site of the reactors they came out of.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
July 9, 2022 4:08 pm

Terry Etam is what passes for a right-winger in the GWN (Great White North).

In other words, something like Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern back in the day. Similar to the situation in the UK or Australia.

Ron Long
July 8, 2022 8:15 am

Looks like Terry Etam has discovered “in wine there is truth”. The whole idea of presenting careful scientific comments to CAGW fanatics is something I gave up, it doesn’t work and it annoys the pig. Good to see persons trying to get out the message anyway.

Reply to  Ron Long
July 8, 2022 10:56 am

A tee-shirt I saw many years ago

In wine there is truth
In beer there is strength
In water there is bacteria

July 8, 2022 8:26 am

Take a look at this one. Timely,

Reply to  Yooper
July 8, 2022 2:18 pm

Interesting though experiment, but MOST of what he states as if it is fact, is wrong.

Reply to  Yooper
July 8, 2022 4:30 pm

Pretty much everything he says about energy is wrong.

Peta of Newark
July 8, 2022 8:50 am

Yeah. Absolutely, where you been all this time?

I refer to, have done several times, to The Green Eyed Monster
Jealousy basically.

It gets worse because under the influence of a crap diet, alcohol as in the tale here and too much sugar, adult-learning & thinking are switched off The Child within us all emerges.
Have I just described Boris Johnson?

And The Child works on the premise of want want want and if it can’t have, petulance takes over it will try to destroy what it is that the other person has.
That way both parties are ‘equal’ in their nothingness- impeccable faultless logic.

Oh no, what have i just described…

  • Puritanism (Well-Meaning & Good Intentions)
  • ….or…
  • Socialism (Equality)
  • …or…
  • Punitive taxation (Smash it up)

None of them are very nice and seem to what’s controlling, certainly, most of Europe. ##
I don’t know but what are Dumbocrats all about?

## Except possibly Poland – and to understand why you need to visit inside a Polish supermarket or delicatessen.
It’ll be obvious.

(Don’t venture into there with a vegetarian friend – exploded heads are messy things and may be invited to clean it up. But The Poles are empathic and understanding sorts of folks, so no you won’t)

July 8, 2022 9:23 am

Griffin will not like this one, not even little bit.
Germany to reactivate coal power plants as Russia curbs gas flow
Parliament approves measures to use mothballed sites to produce electricity and preserve gas supplies.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Vuk
July 8, 2022 10:31 am
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 8, 2022 2:06 pm

Yet they are still determinedly destroying their nuclear power plants.

July 8, 2022 9:43 am

It’s a human abomination to throw such stuff into the dumpster, yet that is what we do, because it makes no economic sense to salvage that gram. But we should, somehow. If the incentives are right, the market will find a way.

Due to entropy, the market will never find a way. Matter goes from order to disorder with less energy input.

That simple fact alone makes recycling anything economically impossible since virtually everything we touch stays here on earth with us anyway. It is better economically to throw everything useless into a hole in the ground.

Reply to  Doonman
July 8, 2022 10:59 am

It takes a lot less energy to melt an aluminum can in order to make a new can, then it takes to make the same amount of aluminum from ore.

Many things are economical to recycle, because the waste product is a lot less disordered than is the raw product.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2022 1:31 pm

Only if someone has separated out the aluminium cans in the first place. If they are junked in with all the other unrecycled trash, it increases the sorting cost enormously. That’s why “scouts’ bottle drives” which raise money for their scouting activities is so worthwhile. Yet most of them don’t happen any more.

Reply to  Mike Lowe
July 8, 2022 2:28 pm

In Las Vegas we have single stream recycling where it all goes in one container to be dumped on a conveyor then separated. It is less expensive (more economical) to do it that way due to ONE truck with only a driver collecting the recyclables.

Why recycle, because THE LAW, why single stream, because MORE EFFICIENT.

I visited my wife’s cousin in Montreal, they still had to recycle/separate, paper from plastic from glass from metal from food waste. Yard waste on a separate special day every couple of weeks. Boy, are they well trained, and if they try to just dump it all in the “rubbish” and get caught, they will be in BIG trouble. Just think of all the jobs THAT system maintains.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Drake
July 9, 2022 4:15 pm

Yep, bad-paying Green jobs

Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2022 2:08 pm

some things but probably not many things. Then here is the additional energy, water, and other resources necessary to prepare the used product for its rebirth.

July 8, 2022 11:52 am

A fascinating interview with the CEO of Crux OCM, Vicki Knott, and how she ended up co-founding the company:

Integrating and simplifying operations in huge, complicated industrial control rooms like refineries seems like something that would have been done a long time ago, but it sounds like the industry is learning new things. The concern is that by tying these different systems more closely with computers, you open up a target for hackers, especially state-sponsored hackers (Israel, Iran, Russia, China, the U.S.) that could massively disrupt the global economy. I hope they have thought carefully about cybersecurity and built a robust system.

July 8, 2022 5:47 pm

“Think of a typical $500 Best Buy crap TV. They used to be $3,000, but now are so cheap we buy them then toss them to upgrade to the latest greatest.”

I’m happily watching a TV I paid $600 for in 2005 and that TV replaced a $250 TV that failed in 2004 after entertaining us daily for fourteen years.

“Embedded in that outdated TV set are all sorts of minerals and metals, in minute amounts”

Sophistry using gross assumptions.

“each of which requires a mine and processing facility and a whole lot of transportation.

To take a gram of any such substance and throw it in the landfill doesn’t sound so atrocious, but all those grams add up to an environmental nightmare in the form of new mines and supply chains, all necessary to get that gram into the TV.”

Wrong! Completely wrong!
Modern mines in the developed world are held to strict standards.

Nor do most “recycling centers” in the developed world bother recycling electronics, unless those electronics are IBM 360/370 mainframes with approximately two pounds of gold in the contacts.

If and when it becomes economical to recycle those electronics, then landfills can be mined. Along that recycling, plastics and metals will be bonus materials.

I’ve know a few people addicted to the newest gear. It doesn’t matter how useful older equipment is, they must have the latest gear as soon as Marketing announces the new stuff.

Those companies advertising the latest newest gear almost always charge stiff prices for early adopters. That new gear is not purchased at significant discount, unless the company expects to receive more value from the early adopters than just the price.

July 8, 2022 6:26 pm

Join the discussion? What does it take to get a comment approved here? I’ve been reading this blog for years, have a good mind and even know how to think properly. But I can never get through. My most recent comment addresses the matter of shadow banning, that I cannot purchase your book at Amazon even as it is innocuous, a book! I would think you’d care about this matter, unless you are just a computer.,

July 9, 2022 1:27 am

I improved the accuracy of an oilfield SCADA system from 8% error to 4%. Thus in practice producing about 30% of the information used to control the system. And I did this in just 8 lines of code.
For this my boss tried to fire me. He argued that I was unproductive, producing so few lines of code.
So I believe little in companies actually wanting to improve the systems. It seems to be just theater.

Verified by MonsterInsights