Recession and the Upside

Due to the coronavirus, oil output, general stupidity on the part of governments regarding their levels of debt, private companies borrowing too much and whatever else; we are now in a worldwide recession. This will likely last the entire year. People are going to lose their jobs, they don't deserve to but companies, especially large companies, will use this event to shed staff. It's going to get worse before it gets better, let's put it that way.

Is there an upside to any of this, apart from the obvious, plenty of bargains for the cashed up investor. The main upside is all of these silly Green initiatives are toast. I'm talking about all those things the taxpayer funds, whether it is kerbside recycling or electric vehicles. Consumers are not going to be spending, they'll have to take the cheapest and most efficient option, out goes so-called Green. Green is not really Green I hope you realise, the whole thing is an exercise in fleecing you, me and everyone else. The only people who win are the crooks coming up with their silly ideas.

In the not too distant future, soon after the airlines get their bailouts (I hate to say it, they likely will get their bailouts), the Green companies will be crying to survive. Don't let them get access to your hard earned dollar.

Big Oil and Electric Vehicles

I thought of this lovely conspiracy theory, have fun with it. I haven't seen this anywhere else, so I apologise in advance if this isn't an original idea.

As I've outlined numerous times, electric vehicles (EV's) are total nonsense, a complete waste of time, don't even think about them. That's the well considered experienced view of the matter, all very scientific.

But hang on, what if the fact EV's are utter crap has something to do with why they're being pushed so hard. What if the big oil companies and the myriad of companies heavily reliant on the liquid fuels infrastructure are pushing EV's as they know they're rubbish. They're doing this to discredit alternative fuels or forms of energy. The result would be to force people back to the internal combustion engine and this would be for the foreseeable future. In other words, EV's are a stalking horse, concealing big oil's desire to lock in fossil fuels. Hmm?

Note that Norway, the world's biggest hypocrite which has made a fortune from oil and gas is heavily promoting EV's. Sweden is not far behind this, they're massive hypocrite's too but they'd be promoting their carbon capture technology. There'd be a lot of interconnecting and overlapping agendas with this theory, but they all have one goal; to lock in people to a future that relies entirely on old industries that have morphed into new, sexy, born again new technology companies. Old technology companies that are really old tech re-branded or re-skinned.

To support this theory, consider ideas that never get looked at seriously. We have the idea of the water powered car, which are generally discredited. One in New Zealand was designed and built, the story of which you can read about here: https://waterpoweredcar.com/archieblue.html

The argument against this is that it involves more energy (or the same amount) to separate the hydrogen and so there is no gain. Fine, but what about a nuclear car? The nuclear reactor generating heat, then a steam engine is used for motive power. The amount of uranium needed to drive a car its entire useful life would be extremely small. Even microscopic. It would not be enough to create an explosion, it would be more like a clock with reflective hour and seconds hands and numbers.

Such a car completely circumvents the liquid fuels infrastructure. No gas stations, and very few oil refineries would be needed as only certain lubricants would be required for wheel bearings and the like. These ideas would be ditched because of that very fact. In this new green age of Corporate Green only the right technology is accepted and that has to be based upon centralised models that rely on the existing companies (or sources of capital ) to provide the solutions. Independence is not allowed, with this idea that's exactly why EV's are promoted, they're to fail as they must, sending people into the arms of Big Oil.

Alternatives to Household Recycling

Thought of this the other day; instead of sending a large truck past every house in the country which then use a mechanical arm to lift half-empty recycling wheelie bins (it's the emptiness of the bins being put out that really kills any scheme like this), why not require all houses to install a home trash compactor? Then have a smaller general waste truck come around and pick everything up in the one pass, and take the load straight to landfill.

This would offer several savings; the first being it takes the large recycling trucks off the road. And the smaller rubbish truck is cheaper to run. That's because the waste stream is an issue of volume not weight. Then when at the transfer station, the waste brought in is already compacted and requires less compacting for final transfer to landfill.

Alternatively, do not send the rubbish truck past each house at all. Set up collection points and accept trash compacted at home first. Each day a very small truck then clears this collection point. This is a kind of surge pile and far more efficient.

What my idea does is save on the amount of energy being used disposing of waste. The flash recycling schemes and their wheelie bins are not energy efficient at all, they're damaging to the environment and expensive for ratepayers.

Now before someone says, 'Hang on, how do you get trash compactors in every home?' What could be done is require all home construction obtaining a building consent, to install a trash compactor as a condition of that consent. This would cover all houses being modified and new house construction. For the rest, take the first year's savings from running the large trucks and subsidise the installation. They'd sit in the garage, and can be free standing, you just plug the thing in at the wall.

The Big Lie About Reycling

The big lie is you're helping save the planet by recycling plastics. Am I committing heresy in saying it? Probably.

Here's the thing; recycling certain metals makes sense. They're expensive and come in limited quantities when mined. An example is gold, silver, lead and copper. Steel, the list goes on and on. But plastic, that's problematic as oil is available in vast quantities despite what the naysayers claim and when produced manufacturers do so in large production runs, using economies of scale.

Now consider the consumer, that's you and me. We go into a store and buy a drink stored in a plastic bottle. Does it make sense to then separate that plastic, transport it, sort it, process it into another plastic whatever? Clearly it does not as the amount of hydrocarbons displaced in 'saving' that precious bottle is greater than what went into making the bottle in the first place.

The only sensible thing you can do is ensure that that plastic bottle takes a short and safe trip to a landfill. Maybe, possibly an incinerator. But it makes absolutely no sense to recycle the thing.

And the really big lie is the one told to you time and again. That lie is when choosing to recycle you're saving the planet, protecting cute seals or some such, sustainable this, eco that. How about this as a sales pitch; are you prepared to take a 20% pay cut to save the planet? Oh and with no certainty that taking a pay cut will actually work, but it will make you feel like you're doing something. Have I won you over? No? Well that's what the consumer is being asked to do as that recycling 'industry' is building cost into every part of their saving everything.

Recycling sometimes makes sense. Mostly though, it's a sales pitch hoodwinking you, the put-upon consumer, into paying more and receiving less. What is the answer? Engineer alternatives that's what. Find other ways to do things. Don't take junk and think you can make something out of it.