/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15247144

>>15247144
Because the government wants you to pay taxes and stop having those pesky white children.

You idiot! Climate change is linguistic manipulation. What’s really going on is peak oil and the extraction of finite resources.

You think there’s unlimited resources in the earth? hahahahahahahahaha

>>15247144
there's no climate change

>>15247144
>it's probably unlikely to significantly affect my life
It is and it will continue to. Climate change will continue to escalate food prices until we have a modern famine, even within the next 5 years.

>if the consequences aren't extinction-level
The consequences are extinction level as far as the natural world. If you're referring to a complete human extinction event, well that probably wont happen, but it's still something to be concerned about.

>>15247572
Food prices will go up because of inflation, deliberate sabotage of the food supply in countless instances, and wars. All of which are happening now.

>>15247144
you may find out once your house burns down in a forest fire or your life is washed away in a flood

>>15247825
He won't because global warming is a known and documented hoax.

Climate change is unironically an existential threat. In 500 million years all life on Earth will perish.

>>15247144
The consequences might very well be extinction level. Also I urge you to think again, would you really want your species standard of living to take a huge drop either ?

>>15247144
>unlikely to significantly affect my life
sure bud
https://www.drought.gov/current-conditions

>>15247144
it's extinction level on par with a meteorite (a very slow meteorite) cause as time goes on it will speed up and that's exactly what we've observed

>>15247825
Why would any of that happens because of 1 or 2 degrees of warming? I live in a mountain top, floods are impossible here and my house is not made of wood, it cant burn. The furniture can tho but ill just sprinkle it with water

>>15248063
You're a bit slow, aren't you ? But suppose the occurence of more adverse weather, which includes but isn't limited to, flooding increases but for some reasons doesn't directly affect you. Do you believe other people being affected by it will not by proxy affect you, regardless of your situation, unless youre an absolute hermit and recluse, in which case you wouldn't even be on here.

>>15248311
>But suppose the occurence of more adverse weather
That's a lot to assume considering that the volume and intensity of extreme weather events have both decreased since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Why not start from axioms that are true instead?

>>15247144
There is no climate change.
California has the same exact climate it had in the 1840s, over 180 years ago.
“Climate change” is just a grift for money and power.

>>15248714
This.

>>15248311
>Do you believe other people being affected by it will not by proxy affect you, r
No

>>15247144
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/columns/2010/02/10/global-warming-conference-cancelled-because-of-blizzard-in-dc/60920702007/

oh dearie me. what now.

>>15247825
Anon - its been flooding like this since recorded history. The real problem is that population or "development" has expanded to such a degree that what should be a non-event flood is catapulted into instant death-by-climate-change as these areas are now full of people with phone cameras.

Obscuring the truth that there are just too many people on tis world in comfy low lying areas near water.

When were you lobotomized?

It's funny how the shill abandons the thread every time he's ganged up on by anons with evidence. Very telling.

>>15247144
Because you and your family will end up surrounded by human roaches, rats and roches
The problem is Africa anyways

>>15247144
Why are these fuckers always trying to portray the steam from the thermal power station as a dangerous poison gas? They also generally change the contrast of the image to make it appear darker.

>>15251182
Because the only thing that warmists have is lies.

>>15247200
She needs to hurry up and do some porn before she gets too uggo. Surprised she doesn't have an OF yet.

>>15247144
Your offspring lol? You psycho cunt.

>>15247144
there's no climate change

>>15247144
Because even in developed states, the climate will change overtime; hence the term "climate change." This increases the likelihood of floods, fire, etc. Furthermore, this also results in environmental collapse ranging from a collapse of the local food chain to affliction on crops. It's problematic because it's not one singular person/group being affection, but rather all of humanity as a whole.

Am I the only one anxious about the technological collapse human kind will have to face in the coming century ? Not that I don't care about the environment, but I am way more scared about lack of energy.

>>15251633
Ah shit. I proofread that multiple times but I somehow missed "affection" in >not one singular person/group being affection...

>>15251648
>Not that I don't care about the environment, but I am way more scared about lack of energy.
No. Be nice having dark skies at night and everyone off of social media and hanging out at the square and bars again. Cruising the drag, scoring hot girls even on weeknights.

>>15251648
Technological collapse? Wouldn't that be from the result of societies collapsing? Either way, we'll adapt and change or continue our ways in ignorance despite us knowing the catastrophic consequences. I'm more worried about water wars in the upcoming century or so.

>>15251648
That's completely self-inflicted. If you solve the problem of heavily-shilled green activism you solve the energy crisis.

>>15247825
Would that happen in high elevated cities?

>>15252129
Nope. It won't even happen in low elevation cities unless they flood normally (because there is no AGW making it "flood more" it's just normal flooding).

>>15247230
There's unlimited resources on the Earth for all intents and purposes until you want to start creating megastructures in outer space.

>>15247572
Wrong. Plants are actually growing faster because of the higher levels of CO2 and greater warmth.

>>15247825
>Lowlands are flooding wtf this never happened before

>>15247908
>The consequences might very well be extinction level
No. There's no possibility of that whatsoever. Are you retarded? You think everyone would die because it got slightly warmer and the seas rose a few feet? If all ice melted, the sea would be like 65 feet higher, and that's not even the average elevation of Bangladesh.

>>15248049
Global warming increases overall rainfall.

>>15251633
The ecosystem isn't "collapsing" because it got slightly warmer. Whitetail deer population is increasing because greenery is increasing and they can survive further north, and whether or not bears hibernate depends on how harsh the winters are. Cold weather is objectively bad for life on Earth. Life wants warmth.

>>15251633
Also crops aren't even part of the ecosystem and rely on it in no way whatsoever. Farming is about destroying nature and replacing it with our own designs.

>>15251669
Water is fucking infinite have you never heard of the ocean?

>>15247230
Based, this is the true answer. Oil, natural gas and coal are all limited, oil has 50 years, natural gas has 100 years and coal has 150 years at current consumption and assuming undiscovered reserves. Humanity's energy consumption is just going up so we'll either collapse due to energy scarcity or build up so much new low-carbon capacity that we can weather the coming energy crunch.

>>15247230
>fracking revolution
>*dabs on peak oil fags*

>>15252616
calm your tits nuclear energy will be scaled up to meet the demand, and when the tech improves even the radioactive waste can potentially be reused as nuclear fuel while also reducing the half-life

>>15247230
>>15252616
>assuming undiscovered reserves
Anon, hope you know o&g reserves have increased proportionally with population for the last fifty years I think? Global proved oil reserves were 1,300.9Bbbls at the end of 2000, population was 6,143,493,823. At the end of 2020 proved reserves were 1,732.4Bbbls, while population was 7,794,798,739. That's a 33.17% increase in reserves versus a 26.88% increase in population. That's while production and consumption have kept going on, of course.

Sources:
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2022.pdf

I'd say that the peak oil spook can be safely buried until reserve growth truly stops keeping up. And even then and only then after that we've still got that fifty years plus bonus time with reserve growth, even if it can't keep up anymore at that point

>>15253594
Not to mention that oil wells refill so long as they're not fracked. The fossil fuel meme needs to be left in the 1800s where it belongs.

>>15253594
well im surprised, i thought discoveries were not keeping up with resource depletion. I remember reading several articles about it

>>15253687
Energy companies pay a pretty penny to make sure you continue thinking and reading articles about that.

>>15253688
I havent read the BP report in like 10 years, i also used to read the oil drum before it closed

>>15247144
eat the fucking bugs

>>15253687
The last few years they haven't but that's mostly driven by capital discipline demanded by investors. You see, back in 2014 or whatever there was a bit of a fracking boom in the US shale during which big producers all kept producing more and more. This of course lead to immense oversupply and a bear market in oil, and the execs have since learned their lesson. Oil is still being discovered though, major deepwater discoveries just last year in Orange Basin in offshore South Africa and Namibia, as well as in offshore Gyuana are examples of that. Most reserve increases come from resource conversion from nearby already producing blocks though of course.

More generally speaking, lack of willingness for capital spending to fund new projects is a very recent and modern trend not only constrained to oil and gas but mining as well, especially copper. We've enjoyed multiple decades of a non-stop economic gravy train where no downturns are allowed and now that those debts are coming due so to speak nobody wants to sacrifice anything. Pretty bad timing when it comes to copper considering new large open pit mines aren't coming online to pick up the slack from the ones the whole world has been depending on whose grades keep dropping annually. There are a few big ones some of which have come operational like Kamoa-Kakula; Oyu Tolgoi; and Filo del Sol, so the world isn't going to run out of copper either. But things are probably going to get more expensive which necessarily will push demand down. Last year copper hit new all-time highs and I suspect copper will remain relatively expensive for the foreseeable future and will make new highs if increased demand projections (electrification) come to pass.

>>15251182
From nuclear plants no idea, I remember watching Dr. Oz when I was a kid maybe 10-15 years ago and they were talking about global warming and dirty energy during the episode. I distinctly recall, they showed a nuclear power plant cooling tower emitting steam alongside video of coal plants pumping out smoke talking about dangerous air pollution, my 14 year old self realized just how retarded and fallible even most educated men are. The truth is 99% of people in public and probably 90% of people here are too uninformed on energy issues to having any meaningful engagement with the topic of energy and the implications of policies that are supported or have a decent understanding of how much of our lives are dependent on oil/natural gas and it's derivatives. It's hilarious too, even organizations like Green Peace who purport to be experts in energy policy, while obviously they are incredibly biased in favor of green energy systems and against legacy fossil fuels, are even more delusional in their understanding of American energy infrastructure, policies, and necessities to keep the systems functional than the average person. To clarify, I'm not even discounting green energy, it is a good solution for baseline load when paired in the right environment in the right quantities with the appropriate infrastructure, support, and local/proximate demand markets since transmission losses will eat up production.

Also even though we're not on /lit/ I highly encourage anyone interested in a meaningful understanding of our oil/gas industry read Leffler Non-technical handbooks on oil gas refining and Raymond on Oil/Gas Production, they about 250 pages each so not too long and if you actually understand them, you'll have a better understanding than 99.9% of the population. Also understand how screwed we are without oil/gas when you understand the implications of heavily restrictions on its usage.

>>15251182
They do the same bs with coal-powered thermal plants. It is ridiculous.

>>15254526
>>15254859
>smoke
This is exactly what I mean. Flue gas from coal plants is not smoke. It's mostly CO2, nitrogen and water vapor. Modern coal plants are perfectly safe and clean to operate and live around, and they filter out most particulates, desulphurize the gas, and process nitrogen oxides into nitrogen, and often even capture much of the carbon. One of the best ways to reduce emissions globally (and in an economic manner) would be to modernize old coal plants but people rarely realize this

>>15254901
>Flue gas from coal plants is not smoke. It's mostly CO2, nitrogen and water vapor. Modern coal plants are perfectly safe and clean to operate and live around, and they filter out most particulates, desulphurize the gas, and process nitrogen oxides into nitrogen, and often even capture much of the carbon.
Yup that's true, they have had ash scrubbers for almost 50 years not mentioning how many coal plants have been converted into natural gas generation systems, my father spent 10 years in my childhood converting coal plants to burn the excess natural gas coming out of the west from the wells out there and this exploded in the mid to late 00s with the shale energy industry before moving into the wind energy industry in the upper Midwest. They've also changed coals sources and raw feed inputs or processing techniques for the remaining coal plants to low sulfur bituminous coal. Good luck convincing people of this though, most people don't have any idea that things are different now than they were 100 years ago, they probably still mentally picture 10 year old children shoveling coal into the boilers.

>>15255742
This is all by design. People were paid $$$$$$$ to slander "clean coal" as a hoax and a scam even though it's less damaging to the environment than a wind turbine field.

>>15255988
trillions of dollars are at stake for those green new deal elites anon, think of the planet!

>>15252616
>Based, this is the true answer. Oil, natural gas and coal are all limited, oil has 50 years, natural gas has 100 years and coal has 150 years at current consumption and assuming undiscovered reserves. Humanity's energy consumption is just going up so we'll either collapse due to energy scarcity or build up so much new low-carbon capacity that we can weather the coming energy crunch.
and remember that not all those reserves can be extracted at the current price, oil will get progressively more expensive

>>15256177
No anon you've got it slightly wrong. Reserves are currently economically extractable resources from known accumulations. Resources are known accumulations that are not yet reservesn and which may or may not become reserves at some point in the future depending on many factors (technology, price, etc.), and also new resources and reserves can be and are discovered from prospects and leads with the help of exploration drilling and geophysics.

>>15252418
>Plants are actually growing faster because of the higher levels of CO2
Which is not a refutation of my point, and is itself a problem for multiple reasons.

>>15256466
>more greenery is bad because.... IT IS OK?!?!?!

>>15256488
More of anything isn't inherently good. Would you rather I stuff your face with 1 cheeseburger or 10 cheeseburgers, or better yet 20 cheeseburgers?

>>15256466
I think it's a much more welcome problem than a precipitous decline in greenery. Should also promote biodiversity which I keep hearing is a net good

>>15256558
Greenies are constantly complaining about deforestation, but now that plants are growing 2x more vibrantly they're butthurt because it's le wrong molecule.

>>15256488
>more greenery is bad because.... IT IS OK?!?!?!
Yes
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows

>>15256589
No just no. Plants "growing bigger" wont change their micro nutrient composition, which is the more important part. We've seen it already, but there's been some insect die offs (in conjunction with pesticides of course) because they're not getting enough micro nutrients from the amount of vegetation they can feasibly eat in a day. Paradoxically such a "greening" can realistically cause extinction of important herbivores. It doesn't "promote biodiversity" you're just pulling shit out of your ass, so stop being disingenuous.

>>15256884
>We've seen it already, but there's been some insect die offs (in conjunction with pesticides of course) because they're not getting enough micro nutrients from the amount of vegetation they can feasibly eat in a day.
you're really doing a lot to minimize the fact that poisoning the world results in the deaths of the insects which those poisons are intended to kill.
Find a study about this micronutrient deficiency that can't be explained away by the extreme abuse of neonics (the cause of colony collapse in bees) or other toxic chemicals in yards and fields.

>>15256891
Yeah, it would be all attributable to pesticides, if it weren't for the fact that there have been extensive studies showing climate change induced deficiencies in other animals.
>https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/01/vitamin-b1-thiamine/617884/
An important example which hasn't got a lot of attention, despite the fact that it's probably one of the biggest threats to biodiversity, is that there's been a broad decline in thiamin concentrations of pretty much every animal on Earth, from fish to bears to even grazers like deer and moose.
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1815080115
>Warming waters due to climate change could explain the seawater vitamin scarcity, he says. Warmer temperatures speed bacterial growth, making the microbes consume more B vitamins than they produce—gobbling up the vitamins before the phytoplankton can take their share.
We now know that climate change is changing the cyanobacteria composition of the planet (along with dilluting nutrients) resulting in deficiency. Greening of the earth is unironically one of the worst effect of climate change we've seen.

>>15247144
>why care about climate change?
You should only care if you are pro-life. i.e. you can't logically defend climate change and abortion simultaneously.

>>15256934
>could explain
>might
>theatlantic.com
You might as well have said "source: my asshole" dude. Do you think that the world was lacking in vitamins during the carboniferous period? Or back when bugs were the size of horses? Because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has never been lower than it is today, and life flourished in more varied and energetic forms when it was over 2x higher.

>>15256686
>a-are the chinks... planting hecking TREES?! OH THE HUMANITY THEY ARE RUINING EVERYTHING NOOO

>>15256942
>Do you think that the world was lacking in vitamins during the carboniferous period?
Because carbon levels of the environment went up incredibly slowly over hundreds of thousands of years and life evolved to get thiamine in this environment, and you're seriously comparing that to humans dumping billions of lbs of carbon into the atmosphere every year?

Also it's not that hard to consider. Cyanobacteria eat up thiamine, green algae blooms are associated with drops in thiamine concentrations of the shit animals eat, and climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of green algae blooms along with eutrophication. Your point is essentially "we can't know nuffin".

>>15257036
>Also it's not that hard to consider. Cyanobacteria eat up thiamine, green algae blooms are associated with drops in thiamine concentrations of the shit animals eat, and climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of green algae blooms along with eutrophication. Your point is essentially "we can't know nuffin".
You're saying that an algae overgrowth that is proven to arise from chemical fertilizers dumped into rivers and the ocean is ackshually because of muh CO2 because...
How, exactly? Wishful thinking?

>>15255742
>Good luck convincing people of this though, most people don't have any idea that things are different now than they were 100 years ago, they probably still mentally picture 10 year old children shoveling coal into the boilers.
It really boggles the mind how ignorant people can be on subjects like energy considering we are living in an age of abundant and easily accessible information. How is it possible that there are still people who think flue gas is smoke? And how is it possible that there are still people who don't know that most of the materials and energy their life depends on comes from oil and natural gas? Water apparently comes from the tap, and electricity from the socket. Does food simply grow on store shelves in the minds of these people?

A quote from Matrix: Reloaded has always stuck with me.
>"That's how it is with people; nobody cares how it works as long as it works."

>>15258240
>It really boggles the mind how ignorant people can be on subjects like energy considering we are living in an age of abundant and easily accessible information.
That's a complex problem, the more information you feed, the more difficult and complex it becomes evaluating the credibility of a given information source. This is the hardest struggle these days with the internet, especially when people can seek those that will tell them what they want to hear rather than what is factually true. This is true everywhere from Reddit to 4chan, there is more of a social cost speaking out against orthodoxy on sites like reddit due to the karma system where as 4chan is more basic and "anonymous" as far as the public is concerned.

>How is it possible that there are still people who think flue gas is smoke? And how is it possible that there are still people who don't know that most of the materials and energy their life depends on comes from oil and natural gas? Water apparently comes from the tap, and electricity from the socket. Does food simply grow on store shelves in the minds of these people?
We're talking about normal people, it's easy to sit on your high horse when you have an engineering/science degree but the average person lacks an understanding of basic chemistry. What most people understand about oil is that it's black tar that comes from the ground, what they don't realize is crude is much more complicated than that ranging from differences in Naphtha/Benzene/Aromatic (good luck explaining organic chemistry to most average engineers even) content to sulfur and mineral differences. Oil varies in color and viscosity and refining techniques based on its source and a wide number of variables in the crude, they often blend crudes with one another during the refining process to achieve optimal flow rates or efficiency of the refining depending on the refiner's infrastructure. Good luck explaining even simple oil/gas concepts like that to the average person.

>>15247144

>if the consequences aren't extinction-level, why be concerned?

Because they are civilization killing level, and likely mostly due to policy, which is about to turn in into a dull and sterile open prison, as well as prevent it from being able to react to changing environment due to inherent inefficiency of central planning.

>>15258284
>We're talking about normal people, it's easy to sit on your high horse when you have an engineering/science degree but the average person lacks an understanding of basic chemistry.
But the funny thing is, anon, that I have no degree. I'm literally just a dude who wageslaves away in a warehouse. I'm not particularly gifted in physics or maths or sciences in general. I'm just curious about how things work because I enjoy learning. It has been very easy to find answers online in my experience. I suppose most people just don't want to go and find out about things on their own and instead prefer to be blissfully ignorant about how society works? Or maybe it's like you said about people just feeding their own biases. In any case, I think it's inexcusable to lack a bit of basic understanding of where the things we depend on come from especially these days when retarded policies are being crept in to undermine farming or energy security for example.
>What most people understand about oil is that it's black tar that comes from the ground, what they don't realize is crude is much more complicated than that ranging from differences in Naphtha/Benzene/Aromatic (good luck explaining organic chemistry to most average engineers even) content to sulfur and mineral differences. Oil varies in color and viscosity and refining techniques based on its source and a wide number of variables in the crude, they often blend crudes with one another during the refining process to achieve optimal flow rates or efficiency of the refining depending on the refiner's infrastructure
Out of curiosity: are you a chem/petroleum engineer? Seems like you might have experience working at a refinery based on what I've read. Is it fulfilling work? I really need an education and I've been thinking about petroleum or energy related jobs. God knows society needs more of those kinds of professionals when the average Joe believes that soon 100% of energy can be produced with wind and solar...

>>15259616
>But the funny thing is, anon, that I have no degree. I'm literally just a dude who wageslaves away in a warehouse.
Not really all that surprising these days, you're probably vastly better informed on those issues, atleast from one prespective that interest you, than the average engineer or scientist. Engineers and scientists are specialists in a certain field that they can be incredibly insightful on but outside of that, unless they are interested in reading generally dry literature or absorbing information about fields unrelated to their own, instead of watching the newest episode of the Office, they are uninformed on most other issues. Also do you think engineers are really anything but slightly better compensated wage slaves? There might be a handful of engineers that do ultra cool work but most stuff boils down to repetitive tasks.

>I'm not particularly gifted in physics or maths or sciences in general. I'm just curious about how things work because I enjoy learning. It has been very easy to find answers online in my experience.
That's the beautiful part of a lot of "engineering" in general, a lot of it is intuition based on the general mechanisms/operation principles and how they interact with one another rather than being able to plug and chug very specific formulas. Being interested in how things work and seeking a further understanding of the mechanisms says a lot about you, none of my coworkers, who are all engineers, really care enough to question even the foundations of our society (specifically industrial agricultural and energy sectors are the two that uphold everything else). The question on the internet that I had a lot of time dedicated to figuring out how to evaluate if a source is credible, Wikipedia is actually not bad for really high level but it gets more challenging from there. Most of my own knowledge actually comes from reading non-fiction dry literature that 99.99% of people will never do and I kind of don't blame them.

>>15259616
>I suppose most people just don't want to go and find out about things on their own and instead prefer to be blissfully ignorant about how society works? Or maybe it's like you said about people just feeding their own biases. In any case, I think it's inexcusable to lack a bit of basic understanding of where the things we depend on come from especially these days when retarded policies are being crept in to undermine farming or energy security for example.
Their priorities are different, and they don't care, the matrix quote is actually probably a good depiction of reality. There is so much complexity in the world at this point understanding everything is impossible, I'd be lucky to gain a decent understanding of my own field in the next 10-15 years let alone half a dozen that interest me yet I am not employed in. Why do you believe it so inexcusable for the average person? Pragmatically they lack the interest to understand so what can really be done about it?

>Out of curiosity: are you a chem/petroleum engineer? Seems like you might have experience working at a refinery based on what I've read. Is it fulfilling work?
I'm actually not just a curious third party but I am college educated in another engineering field with some background in O. Chem and polymers which are petroleum derived. I've never even set foot in a refinery, I have toured a couple conventional and shale oil fields out of curiosity. My energy resource comes from my dad, he's a mechanical engineer and worked in power generation his whole life, started in coalfire to nuke to coal/nat gas to wind to solar/geothermal and finally he's end of career in transmission and substation infrastructure. He's basically toured most of the energy infrastructure as a result since he represented a massive electricity corp in the Midwest. So through him I have personally done everything from crawling in disassembled natural gas turbines to climbing wind towers.

>>15247144
>why care about climate change?
Fish are super tasty

>>15247144
I stopped caring when I realized that no matter how much I care, it will never get better. Instead, I actively search for ways to accelerate it. My mental health has taken a huge turn around when I feel like I'm on the winning team.

>>15259616
>I really need an education and I've been thinking about petroleum or energy related jobs. God knows society needs more of those kinds of professionals when the average Joe believes that soon 100% of energy can be produced with wind and solar...
You should get an education if you're actually curious about all this and want to work in this sort of industry, but be warned, engineering is a tough field to get a degree in, you will be required to take a significant amount of calculus and advanced science courses. If you put in a serious effort and you're above average IQ you should be able to manage. If you like money and you're willing to move to an oil dominated area, especially TX and LA, I'm sure the refineries are looking for petroleum/chemical engineers as lots of boomers are retiring, do Chem E of the two IMO, more job flexibility. Solar and wind just to be clear work great in the right environments for baseline load to cities and industry but scalable energy like Natural Gas will remain necessary until they can come up with ultra cheap, temperature resistant, very high capacity battery that can handle a lot of discharge cycles, kind of a unicorn if you ask me but who knows. Renewables also free up hydrocarbons to be used on other valuable exports like petrochems and polymers. Lastly you'll commonly find large aluminum and steel foundations (things like Hall-Heroult for transforming bauxite [Al2O3] into aluminum plate/bar/etc. are extremely electricity intensive industrial processes) nearby nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar facilities because the electricity costs are cheaper, an example of this is cities like Davenport, Iowa where they have both large amount of nuke and wind energy to draw from and it's on the river to facilitate transport. Anyhow the green fantasy of removing oil/gas/coal is delusional at best so certainly a safe industry broadly speaking that will have growth for many years yet in the US.

>>15247572
>Climate change will continue to escalate food prices
not a climate change denier here, you however are impying that the recent rise in food prices is due to climate change, and not other factors.
Proving this will be very difficult.

Hard Mode: don't just link to an article that also claims this, link to something that proves it.

I stopped caring when I realised I have no impact on it.

Sure the UK can push all it wants to go green but unless theres pressure on china russia USA india etc to give a massive shit too its a drop in the toilet.

So fuck it

>>15260435
>Why do you believe it so inexcusable for the average person? Pragmatically they lack the interest to understand so what can really be done about it?
Because these people vote. And then we get ignorant/malicious policymakers who undermine our society's security. I have been dumbstruck and at total awe the last few years regarding policies and politics in general. It's a total shit show. The people in power don't know what the fuck they're doing. I think these issues would be easy to address by modernizing basic education to actually cover how society works in a simplified manner, but sadly that seems to be too much to ask for. On the contrary, students are beginning to have more trouble with reading and maths, and schools are responding by making education less demanding. It's like watching a car crash in slow motion; something has to change because the direction is worrying. /rant

>My energy resource comes from my dad, he's a mechanical engineer and worked in power generation his whole life, started in coalfire to nuke to coal/nat gas to wind to solar/geothermal and finally he's end of career in transmission and substation infrastructure. He's basically toured most of the energy infrastructure as a result since he represented a massive electricity corp in the Midwest. So through him I have personally done everything from crawling in disassembled natural gas turbines to climbing wind towers.
Your dad seems cool haha. He is one of the very few people in the world who has had experience working in that many fields of the energy industry. I doubt you'll ever find anybody who understands energy infra better than him.

>>15260493
Thanks mate. I live in Finland so no o&g jobs here aside from refinery or other downstream stuff or research. But petrochem/materials and energy in general interests me. Paper&pulp is another energy intensive industry which we have lots of here, I think it's #2 in energy intensity after aluminium.

>>15260493
Also funnily enough I made your pic related post

>>15247572
>Climate change will continue to escalate food prices until we have a modern famine, even within the next 5 years.
Thanks for demonstrating why climate hysterics need to be physically dealt with ASAP. What's causing the escalation in food prices is your owners actively destroying the food supply. You are trying to cover for them. You need to be killed for your support for crimes against humanity.

>>15260966
>Because these people vote. And then we get ignorant/malicious policymakers who undermine our society's security. I have been dumbstruck and at total awe the last few years regarding policies and politics in general. It's a total shit show. The people in power don't know what the fuck they're doing. I think these issues would be easy to address by modernizing basic education to actually cover how society works in a simplified manner, but sadly that seems to be too much to ask for. On the contrary, students are beginning to have more trouble with reading and maths, and schools are responding by making education less demanding. It's like watching a car crash in slow motion; something has to change because the direction is worrying. /rant
It is truly depressing watching the seeming drop off in standards, it's especially pronounced in my own country but schools are local here so some are better than others. That said you're going to bang you head against the wall trying to change it, we have trouble in inner city schools teaching people to read basic story books. I'm not really all that knowledgeable on child education though so not the person to have an accurate account. I like to think the politics are evil, rarely are people truly evil, they just may disagree what makes a good society. Also if the people have a genuine belief of something in a certain district isn't it that politician's responsibility to represent that view in the most sound manner?

>Your dad seems cool haha. He is one of the very few people in the world who has had experience working in that many fields of the energy industry.
Yeah it's amazing what 45 years does, all because of TMI he lost his job in nuclear industry after the regulations enacted in the early 1980s, otherwise he could've stayed there a lifetime.

>>15247144
but there's no climate change, there's fossil fuels inevitable depletion

>>15260966
>Thanks mate. I live in Finland so no o&g jobs here aside from refinery or other downstream stuff or research. But petrochem/materials and energy in general interests me. Paper&pulp is another energy intensive industry which we have lots of here, I think it's #2 in energy intensity after aluminium.
Your English is exceptional for a Finn, better than most Americans anyhow, guessing you were born in the UK and moved there? Yeah oil gas is probably not a thing in most of Europe, they have some coal mining especially in Germany, i suspect will probably become more common with the Russian sources of nat gas gone. There are some shale reserves in Europe but they are mostly trash for the time being at current cost to extract, shale oil is more valuable btw since it is lighter and sweeter. Crude price you see (crude is at $XX a barrel) is kind of bullshit as it ignores oil quality and characters, the bitumen tar that comes out of Canada is trash in terms of quality but it's cheaper for a few reasons and it commonly gets blended with shale oil to help with processing. Paper and pulp industry probably is big in Finland given the tree coverage, just tour a paper mill and see if you want to work in that industry beforehand as they are quite dirty by modern standards and get used to the smells especially bleach, atleast that's how that specific American paper mill was 15 years ago when I toured it.

>>15260972
Hahaha well met, it's a good posting!

>>15261265
>It is truly depressing watching the seeming drop off in standards, it's especially pronounced in my own country but schools are local here so some are better than others
It seems to be a universal direction in first world countries. They should make students leave their smart phones at the door when they enter a classroom. I don't like the incessant electrification of teaching, either; I'm pretty sure they use tablets or laptops more than paper & pen now. When I was in elementary school about one and a half decades ago, we had to learn cursive handwriting on top of normal handwriting. Things like those helped cement my ability to read and write. Pretty sure they don't teach that anymore.
Pic related is a comparison of Swedish first grade textbooks. One is from 2009, and the other is from 2020. Can you guess which one is which? I'm sure you know the answer intuitively.

>>15261314
>Your English is exceptional for a Finn, better than most Americans anyhow, guessing you were born in the UK and moved there?
Native Finn, born & raised. Our education is hailed as one of the best in the world. Although our PISA survey results have been sliding in recent years indicating a weakening quality of education. My good English is thanks to abundant exposure to vidya and the Internet in my earlier youth.
>Yeah oil gas is probably not a thing in most of Europe, they have some coal mining especially in Germany, i suspect will probably become more common with the Russian sources of nat gas gone.
Our politicians happily approved of demolishing a modern yet at the time offline coal plant which could now be supplying us with the energy we are in dire need of. Yet another incredible manouvre from our excellent decision-makers. As if demolishing our trade with Russia wasn't crippling enough as it is. This country is going down the shitter anyways, economically speaking we keep doing the wrong decisions and giving away all of our wealth.

>>15261314
>There are some shale reserves in Europe but they are mostly trash for the time being at current cost to extract, shale oil is more valuable btw since it is lighter and sweeter.
I know the UK has recently allowed fracking so that's an option I suppose. And Norway of course is also a major producer but that's all offshore. Most production in central Europe is sparse and they are being winded down in places like France IIRC.The Neatherlands used to be a major natgas supplier from thr Groningen field but the earthquakes there have caused them to stop producing there. Lots of gas production still in the Neatherlands but much much less, and it's tightly overseen. That's about it when it comes to the extent of my knowledge of European hydrocarbons. I think surely there has to be rich resources but they haven't been developed thanks to ample supply from Russia (at least until recently... stupid politics ruining everything again)

>Crude price you see (crude is at $XX a barrel) is kind of bullshit as it ignores oil quality and characters, the bitumen tar that comes out of Canada is trash in terms of quality but it's cheaper for a few reasons and it commonly gets blended with shale oil to help with processing.
Yeah WTI is just WTI, and Brent is Brent. The sourness/sweetness and heaviness/lightness determines the price. Typically sweet & light is good I hear but I think refineries need heavy crude as well for certain products.

>Paper and pulp industry probably is big in Finland given the tree coverage, just tour a paper mill and see if you want to work in that industry beforehand as they are quite dirty by modern standards and get used to the smells especially bleach, atleast that's how that specific American paper mill was 15 years ago when I toured it.
It really is big here! But yeah I should go check out how the infustry operates. I don't really like dirt and bad smells.

>>15254901
>It's mostly CO2
Yeah that's the problem, genius

>>15261486
>It seems to be a universal direction in first world countries... laptops more than paper & pen now.
Yeah, I've been incessantly obsessed with the declines in educational standard the past couple years as it's starting to leech into otherwise reasonably high educated parts of the country especially the northeast and upper midwest but I've yet to find a satisfactory answer that can actually be solved. What I've read has been exclusive to the US, sorry to hear the degradation is more wide spread. I suspect we're about the same age as I remember the transition from the old fashion overheads and learning cursive in elementary to large digitization of education by my graduation from highschool. I have since taken notes by hand and it has made my understanding and retention of topics much better. It seems that cursive has dropped out entirely but it makes rational sense given how much communication happens via computers and typing, nobody sends letters anymore unless you're entertaining a grandparent. For better or worse computers and typing are going to be even more necessary basic skills as time goes by.

>Native Finn, born & raised. Our education is hailed as one of the best in the world. Although our PISA survey results have been sliding in recent years indicating a weakening quality of education. My good English is thanks to abundant exposure to vidya and the Internet in my earlier youth.
And it truly shows then, you write better in a second language than most Americans I know in their first not that that's a particularly high bar for most of this country. I can speak and write Spanish (given the northern immigration from Mexico historically but now central America and South America) at a functional level but not even close to as well as you can English.

>>15261546
It's still not smoke mate! Just making the facts clear.

>>15261908
>Yeah, I've been incessantly obsessed with the declines in educational standard the past couple years as it's starting to leech into otherwise reasonably high educated parts of the country especially the northeast and upper midwest but I've yet to find a satisfactory answer that can actually be solved.
There are probably a variety of reasons but I maintain that social media and smart devices play a major role. There's a reason why tech execs don't give their kids smartphones. Social media and smart phones cause addiction, and they condition the user to attention deficient behavior.
>I have since taken notes by hand and it has made my understanding and retention of topics much better.
Same here. Whenever I think about writing something down, my first instinct is to grab a pencil and some paper. It works better for me too with regard to retention. Sometimes I write down mind maps to better gather my thoughts and come up with ideas.
>For better or worse computers and typing are going to be even more necessary basic skills as time goes by.
Indeed. I just wish the more classical skills won't be forgotten.

>>15261521
>I know the UK has recently allowed fracking so that's an option I suppose. And Norway of course is also a major producer but that's all offshore. Most production in central Europe is sparse and they are being winded down in places like France IIRC.The Neatherlands used to be a major natgas supplier from thr Groningen field but the earthquakes there have caused them to stop producing there. Lots of gas production still in the Neatherlands but much much less, and it's tightly overseen.
Interesting that's good knowledge, I'm not that familiar with European energy. I heard that the UK has allowed fracking historically but do they banned it in 2019 and are just in the process of closing down their remaining wells has that all been rescinded due to the Russian invasion? Either way ROI on shale makes it higher risk for the reward and basically it constrained capital availability although shale has a reputation that is unfounded, of polluting well water, there are a few instances of it contaminating surface water sources though, think EPA released a 500 page study on it a couple years ago. I doubt shale industry will get much traction in Europe due to no public support, lack of capital investment, and lack of good shale reserves to exploit but who knows, high quality shale may be found and countries in the EU get desperate enough to approve the mining permits. The cheap Russian gas certainly hasn't helped, one if the drawbacks of capitalism (which seeks to reduce costs in any manner possible to be more competitive) is it poorly handles this sort of externality.

>Yeah WTI is just WTI, and Brent is Brent. The sourness/sweetness and heaviness/lightness determines the price. Typically sweet & light is good I hear but I think refineries need heavy crude as well for certain products
Yup it's true, actually refineries are generally tooled, equiped, and optimized for certain sweet-sour light-heavy crude. Sulfur is a big pain in the ass to deal with environmentally.

>>15252616
Nigger are you fucking retarded? We can make methane.

>>15262097
What energy source would you use to make it?

>>15262111
Nuclear.

>>15261546
CO2 isn’t a poison. It’s not pollution. You are breathing it out right now.

>>15262111
uhh...cows? I guess technically photosynthesis via grass.

>>15262111
Ag waste. Which is what is literally happening all over the world.

>>15262080
>I heard that the UK has allowed fracking historically but do they banned it in 2019 and are just in the process of closing down their remaining wells has that all been rescinded due to the Russian invasion?
Yes, they brought back fracking in the UK.

>shale has a reputation that is unfounded, of polluting well water, there are a few instances of it contaminating surface water sources though, think EPA released a 500 page study on it a couple years ago.
I don't think it's entirely unfounded that fracking can cause groundwater contamination. I'm no expert on the subject but the summaries I've read indicate that the evidence is inconclusive on fracking as a whole and that there have been isolated incidents of fracking fluid or its constituents or wastewater getting into surface/groundwater, or spilling on the ground and possibly reaching groundwater if the earth was porous. There are multiple stages during which spillages could occur. Most incidents seem to be minor amounts spilling into surface water so as a whole fracking is probably safe and clean enough. But there are also questionable practices like brine spreading, practiced in certain states, which I don't think are proper ways to dispose of wastewater and which could not only cause spills to groundwater resources but also damage to nature and human health.

>I doubt shale industry will get much traction in Europe due to no public support, lack of capital investment, and lack of good shale reserves to exploit
Yeah no way are the o&g giants going to invest much in Europe, especially after the recent "solidarity tax" BS. The whole industry is giving Europe the side-eye. Industry flight from Europe isn't just constrained to o&g companies though. Chemical manufacturers are also turning away from Europe because now cheap gas is off the menu and they aren't competitive anymore. So there's just high taxes, expensive workforce and expensive feedstock in Europe. Those companies are moving to the USA or Asia.

>>15262292
>Yes, they brought back fracking in the UK.
I read that the most recent administration rescinded the Truss administration lifting the ban. I know the source is left bias but I didn't see any counter evidence. Do you have anything more recent that accurately shows the policy reversal?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/26/rishi-sunak-ban-on-fracking-uk-no-10

>I don't think it's entirely unfounded that fracking can cause groundwater contamination
The EPA study from 2016 suggested the vast majority of water contamination cases being surface water contamination due to improper handling of fracking fluid or shales and extracts and their storage and disposal. Well theoretically possible for well contamination there is generally a 300 meter gap minimum (most of them are several thousand meters) of separation between the shale rock and ground water, risks can be controlled for with government regulation to double insulate fracking wells and instituting more robust maintenance and inspection requirements. I've only seen the 2016 study and it's been 7 years since publication so there probably have been some claims in that timeframe that I'm not aware of. If you're interested here's the five hundred page report, I read the fifty page executive summary which is somewhere probably linked to this but you probably know more than I about fracking fluid mishandling and downsides as I don't find anything overtly objectionable that you stated based on my understanding.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990

>Yeah no way are the o&g giants going to invest much in Europe, especially after the recent "solidarity tax" BS.
Yeah I know there was a lot of interest ten years ago about fracking in Europe but it seems really unlikely these days, it's really to bad since the US, being an early adopter of fracking, has had time to work through some regulations and best practices that Europeans could likely use. What's the solidarity tax?

>>15247144
the "science" of climate change is what I call scientism

>>15262292
>The whole industry is giving Europe the side-eye. Industry flight from Europe isn't just constrained to o&g companies though. Chemical manufacturers are also turning away from Europe because now cheap gas is off the menu and they aren't competitive anymore. So there's just high taxes, expensive workforce and expensive feedstock in Europe. Those companies are moving to the USA or Asia.
Makes sense as energy and chemical availability is a lynchpin necessary for industrial manufacturing. As you are aware a lot of basic chemicals are petroleum or natural gas derived. How are you going to competitively make basic goods that maintain population and comforts like nitrogen fertilizer without natural gas, and yes you can use massive amounts of electricity and water to get hydrogen via electrolysis but that extremely expensive in comparison to Haber-Bosch which makes that industry uncompetitive. There is seemingly a wide spread (and baffling) societal rejection of what is necessary to maintain an industrial society in Europe. Anyhow the US may only be 10-20 years behind you on this.

I work with metal suppliers/manufacturers in Europe and there is a reason why people don't want to work in the EU anymore and it's all self inflicted despite the fact you all do good machine work and are honest. When my coating choices for a part that we nickel electroplate or hard chrome in California for equivalent parts in Germany are a light oil touch or a paint that will hold up to zero wear, why would I want to deal with such a massive performance and aesthetic downgrade when I can go to Mexico, get good quality parts and get our preferred coating so we don't get pallets of rusty parts that have to be blasted, refinished, and recoated. My company has no plans for any growth in European manufacturing sector and is shrinking manufacturing in PRC for new facilities in Vietnam, Mexico, USA, and Canada which are honestly way easier to deal with and cheaper in most cases.

>>15262970
>Do you have anything more recent that accurately shows the policy reversal?
I don't know much really. Oilprice had an article last year that explained that there has to be at least 50% approval rate of fracking in an area but I don't know about all the nitty gritty.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cash-For-Fracking-UK-Households-May-Receive-Payouts-For-Allowing-Fracking.html

>The EPA study from 2016 suggested the vast majority of water contamination cases being surface water contamination due to improper handling of fracking fluid or shales and extracts and their storage and disposal.
That's my impression as well yes. Though there are isolated cases of drilling/fracking causing groundwater issues as well. One that comes to mind is a case where methane from a deposit above the targeted formation traveled up to groundwater along the drill casing due to improper cementing. Things like these can and do happen and it's regrettable but that's just the nature of the business, mistakes happen.

>What's the solidarity tax?
In essence, a windfall profits tax. Oil&gas companies in Europe were making bank last year due to high energy prices, and obviously we can't just let those evil energy companies charge the fair market price, so a "solidarity tax" of at least 33% of profits made since 2018 was approved, though I don't know how or when
it will be implemented in practice.
https://taxfoundation.org/windfall-profits-tax-eu-energy-security/

>>15263017
>There is seemingly a wide spread (and baffling) societal rejection of what is necessary to maintain an industrial society in Europe.
We have had it too good for too long. Maybe an economic depression will hammer some much needed common sense into the minds of the people. I hope so anyways. "Green" propaganda and a stable economy have twisted people's minds. What's coming for Europe now is mostly self-inflicted.

>I work with...
Interesting, thanks for the industry info. What kind of work do you do?

>>15260736
A significant proportion of the rise is dur to inclement weather. The midwestern US drought being a major example. A proportion of the rises are also due to increasing fuel/fertilizer prices.

>>15251666
I have a feeling the future wont be like your romanticized 80s fantasy and more like the 1500s with peasantry toiling away for capitalist warlords.

>>15263885
>Oilprice had an article last year that explained that there has to be at least 50% approval rate of fracking in an area but I don't know about all the nitty gritty.
That article reports on the Truss Administration decision, the one I sent last post is her successor Sunak undoing the fracking ban. That said I'm not an expert on UK oil policy but this doesn't seem to refute anything in my understanding.

>Things like these can and do happen and it's regrettable but that's just the nature of the business, mistakes happen.
Ah that makes sense, yeah obviously the casing has to done properly and inspected on a regular basis. Mistakes certainly can happen which isn't good, we should sign policy and regulations to mitigate and lower the risks of operation. Obviously we don't shut down our steel industry when someone improperly disposes of steel slag which leeches heavy metals such as lead into groundwater like happened a few times in the 80s and I'd argue shale oil is more important to our prosperity than steel industry is.

>In essence, a windfall profits tax. Oil&gas companies in Europe were making bank last year due to high energy
I don't actually wholly disagree with it with limited use to mitigate inflation costs but that's a much more complicated topic and belongs on /biz/, Europe has bigger problems for energy systems than a one-time solidarity tax on O&G. You'd be surprised by the amount of profit regulations exist in the US for things like the MIC and our electrical generation systems.

>I hope so anyways. "Green" propaganda and a stable economy have twisted people's minds. What's coming for Europe now is mostly self-inflicted.
Yeah I really relish seeing it, it is mostly Europe's fault but they also don't have nearly the ease of geopolitics as the US so it's easy me to wag my finger when stuff like shale industry is dominate in low population areas like western PA, western TX, and western ND where it's impacts are lower. We have plenty of problems.

>>15263885
>Interesting, thanks for the industry info. What kind of work do you do?
Materials engineer specialized in polymers and metallurgy that works both in the lab and tours material manufacturers for auditing their processes things like heat treatment, material logging and certs, Destructive and Nondestructive lab testing methods, failure analysis techniques and basically trained on all of the major material lab evaluation equipment available for use everything from optical microstructural evaluation to electron microscopy to computed tomography with x-rays. I work for a massive corporation making components for tools right now but I worked in Aerospace and Defense industry prior. It's a good field but only ancillary relations to energy sector.

>>15264077
>really relish seeing it,
Really don't relish seeing it

Apologies, it brings me no joy seeing industry shrivel and die.

>>15262126
>>15262126
Thats been reserved for the bug farms, get another source

It's clear climate change is crushing humanity like a roach at the moment. Just imagine what it'll be like in a decade.

>higher temperatures
i sleep

>atmospheric CO2 levels reaching for 1000 ppm
>slowly poisoning and lowering the IQ of the human race
wake me up

>>15264077
>successor Sunak undoing the fracking ban
Apologies I've been distracted a bit this morning, Sunak is undoing the Truss Administration decision to reverse the fracking ban.

>>15263909
Most of it is due to intentional supply disruption like the war with Russia (US cutting everyone off from fertilizer), mass slaughtering chickens to "flatten the curve," and burning down meat packing plants and grain silos for unknown reasons.

>>15264077
>Obviously we don't shut down our steel industry when someone improperly disposes of steel slag which leeches heavy metals such as lead into groundwater like happened a few times in the 80s and I'd argue shale oil is more important to our prosperity than steel industry is.
Which is why it's so dumbfounding to see ignorant minds speak about "just stopping oil" and stuff like that. I had a discussion with a coworker recently who was absolutely certain that by 2050 the world would not be needing any coal. I think that in the decade to come we're going to see a lot of ideological bubbles burst as reality comes knocking.

>Europe has bigger problems for energy systems than a one-time solidarity tax on O&G.
I don't doubt that there are many regulations and taxes and royalties and levys and subsidies and you name it in the US as well. All I'm saying is that if Europe wants more energy, taxing energy producers is obviously not the way to go.

>Yeah I really don't relish seeing it, it is mostly Europe's fault
Even though my family, friends and I myself will suffer for it, frankly speaking it is what we all deserve. It's ugly but it has to happen. It's cause and effect. Europe itself has voted for this. We are getting exactly what we voted for. It's quite amusing seeing people starting to notice the inflation and the higher energy prices only now. Though it's less amusing to see the deflection that Russia is entirely to blame when that is clearly not the case. And of course it is not amusing in the slightest to see the economic distress that is beginning to be felt especially in lower income households. It's my first time experiencing what seems to be shaping into a full-blown depression, and it's harrowing. My parents lost everything during our last depression in the 90's over here in Finland, so they know and I know that things can become hopeless for many.

>>15264492
Did he accidentally set an entire truck of cellophane on fire?

>>15264087
My friend who studies chemical engineering recently got a graduate degree in materials as well, I think he got a side-degree or whatever you call those in either automation or electronics. Though he is specialized in metals, and not at all interested in polymers. He is especially interested in metal nanocoatings and nanomachines. He sometimes shows me his homework and I can barely understand half of it lol

>tours material manufacturers for auditing their processes
Basically checking that they are operating safely and as planned?

>It's a good field but only ancillary relations to energy sector.
I've been thinking about chemical engineering as a career path for a while now because it's such a flexible degree to have but do you know of other degrees that could potentially lead me toward jobs in the energy industry (aside from petroleum engineering since that is not an option in my country)? Maybe jobs like project design for different kinds of power plants.

>>15264497
I think he had steel toe boots on and a spark from the metal part of the boot hitting the truck floor created a spark which ignited the whole thing. Obviously there had to be lots of free particles in the air for it to explode like that. That's the explanation I came up with anyways.

>>15264492
>I think that in the decade to come we're going to see a lot of ideological bubbles burst as reality comes knocking.
I hope you're right for your people's sake, but I'm also an industrialist so that's just one prespective. I guess Europe will be given a choice, remove energy sectors, coal, etc and largely deindustrialize or make policy reversals on it's choices about what to do with fossil fuels (and nuclear) with it's industry. Maybe the deindustrialized Europe isn't so bad, prosperity will be less and people will certainly have a reduction in material wealth but maybe life satisfaction will be better. Sometimes I wonder if I'm on the wrong side of things watching how gluttonous people are made by industrial society in the United States.

>All I'm saying is that if Europe wants more energy, taxing energy producers is obviously not the way to go.
Maybe that's the crux of it, they want less industry, less energy. I see the same sort of push within my own generation.

>It's my first time experiencing...can become hopeless for many.
I'm sorry to hear that, that's the thing, everything that goes up must eventually come down, lots of good people will inevitably get swept up. Our economy just added 200k jobs this month which is the largest increase in a year. I hope layoffs and other sorts of economic contraction slow in Finland for you and family and I hope your job isn't at risk.

>>15264589
>I hope you're right for your people's sake, but I'm also an industrialist so that's just one prespective. I guess Europe will be given a choice, remove energy sectors, coal, etc and largely deindustrialize or make policy reversals on it's choices about what to do with fossil fuels (and nuclear) with it's industry. Maybe the deindustrialized Europe isn't so bad, prosperity will be less and people will certainly have a reduction in material wealth but maybe life satisfaction will be better. Sometimes I wonder if I'm on the wrong side of things watching how gluttonous people are made by industrial society in the United States.
My big concern (not that anon) is that the deindustrialization is being enacted as a controlled demolition of living standards in concert with the mass importation of foreigners. It seems intended to destroy the peoples and cultures upon whom it is being imposed, not to lift them up from the malaise of technocattle society.

>>15264511
>My friend who studies chemical engineering recently got a graduate degree in materials as well,
They're brother/sister degree fields, chemEs work on fluids and MatEs on solids but conceptually very similar fields.

>Though he is specialized in metals, and not at all interested in polymers.
This is generally the case, my jobs have forced me to be more flexible than many other people in my field. Metals and polymers are very different both conceptually and physically but their complementary material types. Generally polymers I deal with are actually composite materials that include a ceramic fiber such as glass of CF in a high strength thermoplastic resin which radically improve mechanical properties at the cost of a bit of ductility in the end item. Metals are actually more upfront to understand and common, most are heat treated steels and knowing a handful of elements like Molybdenum or Chromium and how they impact ferrous metals is kind of all what's necessary. Failure analysis is more common in metals since things like SCC or fatigue are more readily identifiable.

>He sometimes shows me his homework and I can barely understand half of it lol
You sound pretty intelligent, you should get a technical degree and I rarely recommend them anymore to people that I don't think will be able to graduate granted I don't know curriculum difference between Finland and the States, but with some background training and information you'd be able to understand better. I don't mean to come off as judgemental as maybe I don't understand your job role in the warehouse but you seem very underemployed, especially given your interests which is half the battle.

>>15264589
>I hope you're right for your people's sake, but I'm also an industrialist so that's just one prespective.
No worries I'm also a bit of an industrialist myself. You may be right, maybe some deindustrialization isn't a bad thing. That remains to be seen. I hope for the best. One thing I am sure of is that a depression can actually end up being a net good in the end. In a normal, healthy economy there are upturns and downturns but in recent decades governments and central banks have ensured that no downturns occur. Which I'm sure is part of the cause for overconsumption and societal gluttony. A good economic kick in the nuts may be a great thing when it comes to overconsumption and will get rid of useless companies that don't actually contribute anything to society. I worry for living standards though, but we've had it so good for so long that it's obvious living standards will have to suffer every once in a while. Even though it's painful.

>Maybe that's the crux of it, they want less industry, less energy. I see the same sort of push within my own generation.
I'm sure Ted Kaczynski will be pleased to see it all unfold, if he lives that long. Personally I'm conflicted but no matter what ends up happening I will have no choice but to try and adapt and do what I think is right.

>I'm sorry to hear that, that's the thing, everything that goes up must eventually come down, lots of good people will inevitably get swept up.
Exactly, and it's about time to come down now. Did you hear the recent news of a major bank in Silicon Valley going bust just yesterday? My job is fairly secure so that's about the least of my worries. I do worry about my property though, since I own an apartment on mortgage. Every day I feel like selling and moving to a rental apartment.

>>15264594
I also worry about this, though I think deindustrialization should reduce immigration flows to Europe. I'm more concerned about things like "health/vaccine passports" and CBDCs limiting freedom.

>>15264511
>Basically checking that they are operating safely and as planned?
Basically auditing to make sure the processes are as planned to our engineering drawings and meeting all the requirements outlined so the production parts match the performance of the expected end item. You'd be surprised how incompetent or "forgetful" some manufacturers can be, especially in places like the PRC where some suppliers are known to cut corners. What the layman doesn't understand is how many components of complex machines are built on small contracts of a few thousand parts at dozens of different manufacturers in several countries, and shipped to other countries and facilities for assembly, it's a right mess logistically but it's done as a cost mitigation. For example if you want springs, you don't start up a spring factory, you buy contract quantities of a certain sizes of spring from a massive facility that just makes springs of a handful of sizes all out of the same material (generally AISI 1080 or a similar grade is most common). Do this for o-ring, piping, gears of all varieties, housings, frames, etc. In some countries we have no right to speak on safety, I've seen pregnant women working on paint lines and men pulling 900C forged parts with a pair of 300mm long tongs in large smoky rooms with all the burning forging lubricants namely graphite. Anyhow, when we don't give certain suppliers scrutiny we find the QC drops and things like shot peening processes, quenching oil maintenance, and proper carburization process tend to be done improperly which carries performance (and liability) considerations.

>I've been thinking about chemical engineering...different kinds of power plants
Chemical engineering is a good degree field, generally the first two years are generic for engineering in general so you can switch later. My dad as I mentioned did power generation and is a MechE, his degree specialty was digital controls not it was relevant after the late 1990s. Stable work!

>>15264611
>They're brother/sister degree fields, chemEs work on fluids and MatEs on solids but conceptually very similar fields.
In the university my friend goes to they offer a broader ChemE education and after year 1 or 2 specialization in either polymers, materials, or a third option which IIRC was something more theoretical in nature (probably something to do at the atomic level so less practical and more physics-related idk, that's the impression I got from my friend's explanation). I'm not sure how different the curricula are from what you have over there but probably very similar.

>you should get a technical degree
If I were to go to ChemE, I'd like to preface my knowledge a bit before even taking up the entrance exam. Do you happen to know any books/materials/etc. that could help me flex my basic engineering/maths muscles? Aside from the required materials I have to read for the entrance exams of course. I am really rusty when it comes to physics and maths. Another choice would be business school but idk I'll have to make up my mind and commit. My problem isn't that I lack a good head on my shoulders, it's just that I lack passion.

>>15264640
>Basically auditing to make sure... considerations.
I haven't given that any thought at all but now that you spell it out it seems obvious that that's how most parts are manufactured. And when getting the parts for cheap is the priority, it's no wonder that work conditions and quality can be poor. Many of those parts manufacturers are no doubt in China or India. Supply chain strains in recent years have also brought these realities to light when certain product lead times have gone from a couple of weeks or months to multiple years in some cases that I have read about. Pic related is an astounding rant from an anon who has had the displeasure of working with Chinese steel manufacturers. They really do cut corners and work quite differently than what we Westerners might expect from presumably respectable business partners

>Chemical engineering is a good degree field, generally the first two years are generic for engineering in general so you can switch later. My dad as I mentioned did power generation and is a MechE, his degree specialty was digital controls not it was relevant after the late 1990s. Stable work!
That's pretty reassuring. With a year or two of studying I could switch to another field of engineering if chemistry doesn't interest me after all. And I'm pretty sure I could still work some jobs outside of my field with a chemE/matE degree. The other degree which I might go for, business, is also pretty flexible which I like. I'm a practical guy so I'm interested in degrees like these which have some flexibility.

>>15264667
>after year 1 or 2 specialization in either polymers, materials, or a third option which... nature
In the states generally after year 2 you pick a specialty, I would wager ChemE is the same. For us there were four options for MatE, metallurgy, polymers, ceramics, and electronic materials (very difficult, focused on solid state physics for semiconductor fabrication). You don't really get into your engineer degree classes until year 2.

>I'm not sure how different the curricula are from what you have over there but probably very similar.
It's science/mathematics heavy degree and teaching is done via lectures and exams, the content is probably nearly identical for the most part since it's a hard science no idea how the Finnish university system handles teaching differently. I have heard generally it's harder to get into university in Europe, is that true?

>Do you happen to know any books/materials/etc. that could help me flex my basic engineering/maths muscles?
Well most basic engineering is probably basic chemistry, physics, algebra, trigonometry, the exams probably have reading and writing on them too. For our SAT/ACT which is the entrance exam for university here it's five topics: Science, Mathematics, Reading, English, and Writing, I don't imagine it's all that different in Finland. There are test preparation books we get in our last year of highschool that cover these five and have sample problems, I'd look for something akin to that. Sorry, wish I could be of more help but I don't want to mislead you. Khan academy is helpful resource too but all English, probably not an issue for you.

>Another choice would be business...passion
Well a common route for American engineers is to do a B.S. degree then after a few years in industry go for an MBA business degree. Pick a field (that won't leave you working at a coffee shop) that you also have passion for, it's sort of a life commitment. If you like solving problems and troubleshooting, engineering is good

>>15264594
>My big concern (not that anon) is that the deindustrialization is being enacted as a controlled demolition of living standards
This is hyper reductive and I'm sure there are prespective foreign to me that influence it. But broadly, those with the levers of power have conceded anthropogenic climate change and they have acknowledged that at some point in the future, oil/gas will become increasingly expensive and sophisticated to extract in worse and worse locations. If you concede these two assumptions their actions are rational to "save humanity from itself". Humans, especially westerners, consume a lot of hydrocarbons on a daily basis. Based on those two assumptions, the amount of carbon consumed each day ought be minimized but that comes at a cost in a reduction to our standard of living, people react negatively to a shrinking pie so the way to reduce carbon without anyone flipping the board is to slowly erode standards away and convert over to what can be convert to renewables (and nuclear once they get through the tough phase in the coming 20 years). Biofuels like ethanol can also help stretch fuel supplies out.

>in concert with the mass importation of foreigners. It seems intended to destroy the peoples and cultures upon whom it is being imposed, not to lift them up from the malaise of technocattle society.
Different problem but this one is related to demographics mostly, a massive upset in the demographic pyramid really fucks over capitalistic structures since you need a balance of producers, consumers, and investors to stabilize markets. I don't think they actually care about foreigners, they just need them to keep the gears churning since the native birthrates have dropped so substantially. Their view is that the added ethnic tensions aren't good but the alternative of just letting the system go demographically is worse and policies to try to increase the native birthrates haven't worked or they have substantial unintentional consequences.

>>15264955
>If you concede these two assumptions their actions are rational to "save humanity from itself".
The issue is that those assumptions were invented as an ex post facto rationale for their behavior. The depopulation agenda came into existence before the automobile was even widespread.

>>15264698
>I haven't given that any thought at all but now that you spell it out it seems obvious that that's how most parts are manufactured
Ever heard the expression about globalism: Japanese make good cars, Germans machinery, Americans Computer chips, and Chinese manufactured goods. The name of the game in globalized markets is to build facilities and companies that hyper specialize at making one type of product in massive volumes really well, really efficiently, and most importantly really cheaply. That's how a lot of industry is [except for custom manufacturing like machine work (CNC, Lathe, etc.) which is a high value add process] as it is more efficient from a manufacturing standpoint. All that bluster though ignores human nature and geopolitics, the Trump election in the US in 2016 is the consequence of working class who got fucked over economically when their job got shipped to China to play into this system.

>They really do cut corners and work quite differently than what we Westerners might expect from presumably respectable business partners
Biggest takeaway from my travel to the PRC is the Chinese prespective on the value of human life. There is an expression in English, not sure if it translates but Jerry rigging, basically means to construct in a crude manner, well they Jerry rig all sorts of testing apparatus and even microscopes in the lab, most of it is really shotty in it's construction but lol I have a job at the company as they don't trust them. I have no idea how they do stuff for other customers in a repeatable and valid manner that is consistent with traceable standards.

>With a year or two of studying I could switch to another field...
Yup one of the good things about engineering is it's all the same foundation. You can get jobs outside ChemE but it's more of a specialty field, if you want the generalist engineering degree the flexibility is maximized by going Mechanical but you'll have to learn drafting/design if that is interesting.