Tag: petroleum

Iran: China Bet on the Wrong Horse

CHINA AND IRAN SINCE 1979

The previously nonexistent relations between Iran and China began to blossom after the Iranian Revolution of 1979. It is no coincidence that pariah nations seem to find each other and do business together, in one way or another, although Islamists and communists make strange ideological bedfellows. An alignment of the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism (for 39 years in a row according to the US State Dept) with a country that has practiced cultural genocide and forced organ harvesting for decades could be construed to be a match made in Hell.

Be that as it may, the relationship started slowly and followed an upward trajectory that paralleled China’s economic and military expansion and outreach that has been greatly accelerated by Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Some of the highlights:

China recognized the IRI in February 1979. Relations improved after China shifted away from supporting global communist revolutions in pursuit of “diplomatic pragmatism” and economic modernization in the 1980s. In Iran’s case, this meant withdrawing support from the communist Tudeh Party in favor of state-to-state diplomatic relations.

China provided approximately $2 billion worth of military hardware to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), including 107mm rockets, aircraft, main battle tanks, and surface-to-air missile systems.

In 1984, the Isfahan Nuclear Research Center was opened with Chinese assistance, which included technical support for the installation of a 30-kilowatt Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR), a Light Water Sub-Critical Reactor (LWSCR), a Heavy Water Zero Power Reactor (HWZPR), a Fuel Fabrication Laboratory (FFL) for producing experimental nuclear fuel, and a Zirconium Production Plant (ZPP) for manufacturing alloys used in nuclear reactors, all of which were vital for Iranian nuclear research.

—–

China has much to lose depending on the outcome of the Israel-Iran war. As the largest buyer of Iranian oil, China imports over 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports. Any disruption of flow of those exports through the Strait of Hormuz, whether through blockage or severe damage to Iran’s oil infrastructure, would be a significant blow to China’s economy.

Israeli and US attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure reminds the world of the important Chinese assistance in support of Iran’s nuclear research and development capabilities. While ostensibly developed for “peaceful use of nuclear energy,” the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center has long been suspected of contributing to Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program, and China was the main player in jump-starting Isfahan when France ended its technical support after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Were any of the 1000+ Chinese who have left Iran since the 14 June attacks began involved in Iran’s nuclear programs in any way?

Finally, in pursuit of its goal to displace the US in the Middle East, China would lose significant diplomatic leverage with Gulf Cooperation Council states if it China sides with Iran in a major way (diplomatically or material support).

more

Is Your Underwear Cockblocking You?

On Tuesday, I posited that the Pill may not only be driving women crazy, but it may also go a long way to explaining men’s declining sperm counts. Today, I’ve got a new theory about why men’s sperm counts are low and women struggle to get pregnant: It’s the underwear. While we’ve been focused on men’s tighty-whities as one of the problems behind their lower sperm count because they overheat men’s testicles, cooking sperm, the polyester that’s in almost everyone’s underwear may also be a problem.

In an era before “better living through chemistry” became a thing, to the extent people wore undergarments, they fit loosely and, of course, were made from natural fibers such as cotton, wool, linen, or silk. Having said that, chemistry began to infiltrate fabrics as early as the second half of the late 18th century, when arsenic was used to create a startling, very popular, and incredibly poisonous green dye. Alice in Wonderland’s Mad Hatter was also a victim of the mercury that hatters used to felt hats made from animal fur.

Image made using AI.

However, it was at the end of the late 19th century that chemistry and clothing really took off. The first artificial fabric was rayon, which Hilaire de Chardonnet developed in the 1880s using wood pulp. While wood is a natural product, the process to turn it into a thread was decidedly unnatural.

The next leap into artificial fibers was nylon, which Wallace Carothers, working at DuPont, invented in 1935. This fiber was ubiquitous in the years after WWII. Even growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, I remember everything being nylon, not just stockings. Nylon was entirely artificial, for it was made from petrochemicals.

During and after WWII, artificial fibers exploded in the fabric marketplace. Acrylic and polyester were invented in 1941. By 1958, figure-shaping Spandex or Elastane, marketed as Lycra, hit the marketplace. In the 1960s, Polypropylene fibers started being used for everything from carpets to sportswear. These fabrics later morphed into the microfibers of the 1980s. All these fibers are petroleum derivatives.

These fabrics are ubiquitous and affordable. Nowadays, you pay extra for all-natural products, so most people are wearing some form of petroleum-based product on their skin, including in their underwear. Finding underwear (especially women’s undies) without Spandex or polyester, both of which lend the fabric elasticity that makes the underwear fit better and enhances the wearing experience, is difficult and expensive.

In the same post-WWII era, the American birthrate has been rapidly declining. There are lots of reasons: affluence, which always pairs with smaller families; easily available birth control and abortion; climate changistas’ hostility to children; men’s decreased sperm counts; sterility from STDs; and women’s decreased fecundity all go a long way to explaining the problem.

Today, though, one X user put together a long thread that may also explain men’s lower sperm rates and women’s decreased fecundity: Petroleum-based polyester underwear may be affecting their hormones:

more

Why They Can’t Give Away EV’s Right Now

First, we have this: EV Dealers Are So Desperate to Offload Stock That They’re Offering Lease Deals For $20 a Month.

How soft is the new EV car market? Some EV vehicles have been on their lots for so long that they’re offering lease terms so generous, they may as well be giving them away.

A Kia dealer in Virginia only gets a couple of inquiries a month for EVs. The price tag of new vehicles scares them off, says Finance Director Ramon Nawabi. He’s got a few EV 6 SUVs that have been on the lot for six months that Kia is now offering discounted leases on top of the $7,500 EV tax credit “just to move the car,” he says. “In a sense, we’re giving them away.”  

That $7500 tax credit helped dealers sell a million EVs in 2022. However, the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act severely limited how that $7500 tax credit could be applied. There are now price caps for EVs ($80,000 for SUVs and trucks; $55,000 for cars), and the batteries must be American-made. Also, the vehicles must be assembled in the U.S. There’s also a cap on the net income of the potential buyer.

But you can avoid the restrictions if you lease a new EV. “That’s allowed car companies or dealers to bundle the $7,500 tax credit savings into the lease financing cost, lowering consumers’ monthly payments,” reports Bloomberg News

source

Then, the EU mandate on EV’s caused this:

“The EU is in a crisis caused by low consumer demand for EVs and unfair competition from third country EV manufacturers, meaning that the EU industry will not be able to meet these reduction targets. EU industry will have little choice but to significantly cut production, which threatens millions of jobs in the EU, harms consumers, and adversely impacts the EU’s competitiveness and economic security.”

The quote above is an excerpt from a draft European Automobile Manufacturer’s Association (EAMA) document made public this week in a story by Bloomberg. The report was prepared by EAMA in preparation for formally requesting a 2-year delay in EU emissions goals set to take effect in 2025. EU EV makers say they will not be able to meet the idiotic mandate set by the EU’s authoritarian central planners, citing low consumer desire to buy the damn things and “unfair” competition from China.

It’s a reality that should come as no real surprise to anyone, especially since critics of the EU’s central planning literally predicted this very outcome a thousand times.

Source

It’s because people bought them because there was a subsidy. Then they found out that the current technology of an EV is flashy, but not good. It sucks in hot or cold weather and takes too long to charge.

It’s not the panacea that was promised, just another government program, nee mandate that is a failure.

There is not enough electricity nor the grid to support people driving EV’s. They are 3-5 iterations of technology away from being efficient and desirable. They are wealthy peoples salve at feeling good about themselves for the made-up environmental crisis going on.

Let’s also not ignore the fires that they cause and the inability to put them out. They just burn to the ground (or 57,000 gallons of water for the enviro-weenies trying to save the planet – irony and sarcasm there).

So unless they bribe the buyers to get a technology worse than a petroleum powered car, people don’t want them.

Let’s not ignore that the manufacturers lose 10’s of thousands on every car they build (to the tune of a billion and a half loss for Ford alone this year).

So other than to make someone feel good because they are a greentard, there is no reason to buy one, yet. There may be a better iteration in the future, but it isn’t now.

For the record, I drove last weekend for 4 hours in my diesel truck and got 36 MPG. I didn’t hurt a plant or a tree.

Economics and technology say it’s a loser. It’s just another idea by the Enviro-nuts to try and make us do something because they hate petroleum.

EU Mandate here:

The mandate is so utterly unattainable that EAMA makes this projection as part of its application for a delay:

EU rules targeting a CO2 fleet emission of about 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer per vehicle would require automakers to either halt production of about 2 million cars or be exposed to fines that could reach €13 billion ($14.3 billion) for passenger cars, according to estimates by the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association contained in the draft and seen by Bloomberg.

Van manufacturers could also face paying an additional €3 billion for falling short of targets, said the group that’s currently headed by Renault SA Chief Executive Officer Luca de Meo.

“The EU is in a crisis caused by low consumer demand for EVs and unfair competition from third country EV manufacturers, meaning that the EU industry

Should Have Dumped The Renewables – German manufacturing firms are looking at options as sky-high energy costs weigh on bottom line

German manufacturing firms are considering scaling back production or relocating operations as the high cost of energy in the renewable-committed nation cuts into their profits, according to a new survey. 

The German “2024 Energy Transition Barometer,” which was published by the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce, surveyed firms employing 500 people or more. 

“The trust of the German economy in energy policy has been severely damaged. Policy makers have failed to show companies that they can have reliable and affordable energy supply,” said Achim Dercks, the association’s deputy managing director, according to OilPrice.com. 

A report in May from the Federation of German Industries concluded that Germany had lost a decade’s worth of growth in production since before the outbreak of the pandemic in 2019. 

Story

Another failure for Green and unfortunately Germany.

Drill baby drill.

If There Was A Real Climate And Energy Crisis, This Is The Answer, Not Banning Carbon

If you have a real solution for endless energy, the money train stops for the climate grifters like John Kerry, Leo Decapitated and Al Gore. It is the whipping boy for everything Biden does despite every prediction of climate disaster being wrong.

There are two easy answers that no one wants to use. The second is the real answer in the title of this post

First, nuclear power. It’s clean, safe and as affordable as the waste of money that has occurred chasing carbon as a bogeyman. It has it’s detractors, but if the climatards were serious it would be the main source of their energy. They just want to penalize the USA and some western countries and it’s petroleum production to line their wallets. They don’t mind using other countries gas. That puts our country at a disadvantage for cost of goods produced and sold. It’s on purpose. We already saw our economic freedom between 2016 and 2020 with fracking.

Here is a recent example of one western country cutting it’s own throat, but proves that it is a cheaper solution for energy.

The wrong people are leading the the self created energy crisis and climate scam.

The real answer is fusion energy. It is self perpetuating and an endless source. Of course that would mean the end of the climate gravy train and control of the narrative that we are being assaulted with.

Here goes:

On Dec. 5, for a fraction of a second, a man-made star was created at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California. The occasion was an experiment in nuclear fusion that succeeded in doing something no fusion experiment had done before: It emitted more energy than it consumed.

The experiment amounted to a big step forward in basic science. If the technology used at NIF is developed to its full potential, it could provide a virtually endless source of energy that would be clean and inexpensive. You’d think that nuclear fusion technology would be pushed forward by billions of dollars in research and development, but you’d be wrong, because it doesn’t fit into the “climate change” industry’s mantra that any nuclear power generation has to be bad.

Nuclear fusion is what happens on and in the sun. At temperatures up to 27 million degrees Fahrenheit, the sun fuses types of hydrogen — tritium and deuterium — under enormous pressure in such a way as to produce enough heat and light to warm and illuminate our planet, which is about 93 million miles away.

One of the benefits of fusion technology is that it produces virtually no nuclear waste like a nuclear fission plant does. Moreover, the “half-life” of the “activated” materials is far shorter than those of the conventional nuclear power plant, which produces “hot” waste such as fuel rods that are radioactive for hundreds of years.

Oh, it has it’s problems, but we went from the Wright brothers to the moon in 66 years. If we were serious about the problem of replacing petroleum, then it would get solved.

For example:

First, the “target” mass of tritium and deuterium is destroyed by the fusion that takes place within it. To render the technology feasible, you have to create targets about 10 times per second, not over a period of months as they are now.

Second, fusion emits neutrons that, at this stage, have to be converted into heat and steam to power a turbine engine that will produce electricity. Along the path of research, scientists may discover how to convert neutrons into electricity more simply and directly.

Both of these problems have to be solved — as well as the “unk-unks” that are encountered — before fusion can be made into a usable technology. And that’s where the government has to come in.

But if the Government was actually interested in the energy/climate issue other than an ATM…..

Industry can only spend money on research that is paid for either by the government or by rapid transformation into profitable products. The government’s proper role is to fund research into technologies that can later be made into profitable products. It did so many times, from the development of stealth aircraft to former President Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed,” which developed the COVID vaccines in months rather than the decade or more it would normally have taken.

Fusion research will continue, but at a far slower pace than it could were it better funded. The outlook is good, but fusion won’t, at the current rate, produce practical — i.e., usable — fusion technology for at least a decade or two.

What is needed is a major research effort, such as the Manhattan Project, which produced nuclear weapons in the 1940s. But that won’t happen while President Joe Biden and his “climate change” minions govern us. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said on March 1: “As the Secretary of the Navy, I can tell you that I have made climate one of my top priorities since the first day I came into office.” Climate change is his priority rather than rebuilding our Navy, which has far fewer ships than the Chinese navy.

As always, it comes down to money. The climate change clowns are investing in reducing carbon emissions — eliminating fuels such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum — and converting us to weather-dependent sources of energy such as wind and solar power. They won’t even consider building more nuclear power plants regardless of how safe they are. (One of my friends used to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. He often reminds me that our nuclear-powered Navy ships have had zero accidents.)

Our government wastes billions on too many idiotic ideas. They are far too many to rehearse here. If we have a new president in 2025, Biden’s priorities can be tossed aside, and those billions can be spent in productive research and development of fusion and other technologies that could make us more secure and energy independent again.

Source

Lastly, we aren’t going to run out of petroleum reserves, and it is the cheapest and easiest source of energy. Hating it is the cheapest and easiest source of increasing bank accounts and control of the masses by tyrants.