Energy Sector

[Dalal.Holdings]

https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/assisted-thinking

 

This is something Western environmentalist imbeciles (who shut down their own energy like in Europe) fail to grasp:

 

Quote

It is a firm, objective, and undeniable statement of fact that China’s economy is powered by coal. According to the latest data available from the Statistical Review of World Energy, coal accounted for 58% of the country’s primary energy consumption in 2024. A distant second was oil at 20%, with natural gas rounding out the podium at 10%. Simple arithmetic dictates that nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and other renewables split the remaining 12%.

 

Quote

China’s coal appetite is so ferocious that it alone burns 56% of the global total, or 20 times the current combined consumption of the 27-member states of the European Union (EU).

 

European environmentalists have worsened climate change and global CO2 emissions by shifting energy consumption to China. They have done this with devastating long term strategic consequences for Europe.

 

And Western media is in denial and obscuring this fact:

 

Quote

Against this carbon-intense backdrop, legacy media outlets in the West regularly trip over themselves to heap praise on China’s bold climate leadership. We have long found this predisposition both bizarre and utterly detached from reality, part of what seems a purposeful distortion campaign. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the reappearance of Orangemanbad in the Oval Office has only accelerated the pace of these efforts.

 

Edited January 20 by Dalal.Holdings

[whiskybravo]

8 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/assisted-thinking

 

This is something Western environmentalist imbeciles (who shut down their own energy like in Europe) fail to grasp:

 

 

 

European environmentalists have worsened climate change and global CO2 emissions by shifting energy consumption to China. They have done this with devastating long term strategic consequences for Europe.

 

And Western media is in denial and obscuring this fact:

 

 

Yes, renewables have been oversold as replacement for traditional sources.  China is in fact coming to realize that they likely overbuilt, as wind and solar are seeing increased curtailment.  However for Western media, China’s renewable efforts must be seen to be successful.  
 

Remember physics always wins.  Remember also every bit of carbon forgone in the West will be readily consumed somewhere else.

[Dalal.Holdings]

3 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

Remember physics always wins.  Remember also every bit of carbon forgone in the West will be readily consumed somewhere else.

It's worse than that. If you shut down nuclear plants in Germany and shift German manufacturing/chemicals production to China (like BASF has done), the CO2 emissions are worse because you have replaced nuclear powered German factories & plants with coal powered Chinese factories & plants.

[whiskybravo]

2 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

It's worse than that. If you shut down nuclear plants in Germany and shift German manufacturing/chemicals production to China (like BASF has done), the CO2 emissions are worse because you have replaced nuclear powered German factories & plants with coal powered Chinese factories & plants.

Agreed!  I made similar point in the politics section yesterday.  

[Dalal.Holdings]

Just now, whiskybravo said:

Agreed!  I made similar point in the politics section yesterday.  

Not only nuclear--natural gas plants also emit much less CO2 per kWh produced versus coal.

 

Environmentalists are literally advocating for replacing cleaner energy sources in the West with coal furnaces in China. They are making global CO2 emissions worse. 

[Dalal.Holdings]

Good job environmentalists !

 

[SharperDingaan]

It would be a really bad idea to be short oil and/or gold at the close of market this week .

 

SD

[Stuart D]

3 hours ago, SharperDingaan said:

It would be a really bad idea to be short oil and/or gold at the close of market this week .

 

SD

 

I'm not following it closely - is this related to Iran?

[SharperDingaan]

1 hour ago, Stuart D said:

I'm not following it closely - is this related to Iran?

 

Let's just say that Israel's equivalent to Airforce 1/Cabinet evacuation has been repeatedly practised all this week, there are now enough flying tankers in the region to maintain 8-10 hours of continuous attack by a lot of planes, embassies have been quietly pulling out lower level staff and their families, and there have been some seaborne deliveries to key locations. Orange Boy has suddenly started escalating, Iran is digging in, and western markets are closed for two days starting Friday night. Maybe something happens, maybe it doesn't, but it would be foolish not to be prepared.

 

SD

Edited January 28 by SharperDingaan

[Dalal.Holdings]

On 10/20/2025 at 7:17 PM, Dalal.Holdings said:

 

Other than that they both trade in dollars, there is no reason. Supply-demand is everything. Plus, oil is a consumable commodity while gold sticks around forever once you dig it up.

 

There is a lot of coincidence that fools people into thinking there is correlation when looking at charts

Funny to watch gold, silver, metals totally rip and oil do basically nothing. Now try convincing me that they are correlated… 

[UK]

5 hours ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

Funny to watch gold, silver, metals totally rip and oil do basically nothing. Now try convincing me that they are correlated… 

This is very perplexing development, which I do not understand, like there is this trade on imminent energy botleneck, but thanks no for oil? 

[SharperDingaan]

31 minutes ago, UK said:

This is very perplexing development, which I do not understand, like there is this trade on imminent energy botleneck, but thanks no for oil? 

 

Gold had just been rising quicker than oil, which has been range bound for some time. As Iran/Iraq continue to worsen, and as per ME custom, gold has been bought in preparation for a chaotic departure, as Iranian banks are no longer solvent/reliable. The regime change goes well .... gold will sell off quickly as the risk of theft is very high.

 

SD

 

 

Edited January 29 by SharperDingaan

[UK]

1 hour ago, SharperDingaan said:

 

Gold had just been rising quicker than oil, which has been range bound for some time. As Iran/Iraq continue to worsen, and as per ME custom, gold has been bought in preparation for a chaotic departure, as Iranian banks are no longer solvent/reliable. The regime change goes well .... gold will sell off quickly as the risk of theft is very high.

 

SD

 

 

Yea, but this is going on for a while, take the last year, most metals, materials, energy related stuff up, yet oil is down, while wars continue and new escalates etc. Inflation adjusted price is even more sensational. So this is definitelly not Iran related, but either some outlier development or something biger, perhaps all this new energy stuff. E.g. some 10+ EU countries now consume >50 of green electricity, few 80+, while sun panels and turbines need these other materials. Maybe this could explain oil price?

 

Edited January 29 by UK

[Spekulatius]

Perhaps Europe is run by imbeciles but when I look at recent EPA changes regarding nuclear regulations scratch my head. There are  a lot of “ may be”, ”considered” . I have been long enough in the corporate world to know that “ may be” means “nothing” basically.

 

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/28/nx-s1-5677187/nuclear-safety-rules-rewritten-trump

 

 

Edited February 8 by Spekulatius

[UK]

8 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Perhaps Europe is run by imbeciles but when I look at recent EPA changes regarding nuclear regulations scratch my head. There are  a lot of “ may be”, ”considered” . I have been long enough in the corporate world to know that “ may be” means “nothing” basically.

 

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/28/nx-s1-5677187/nuclear-safety-rules-rewritten-trump

 

 

Dont worry this one is going UN way under current administration:))

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-environmental-enforcement-by-trumps-epa-drops-record-low-2026-02-05/

[SharperDingaan]

The 20+ US friendly bases around Iran had advanced missile defence systems installed last week, an additional 700+ missiles were just sold to the Saudis, and Israel is itching to strike the Iranian missile capability ... alone, if needs be. Things are heating up.

https://www.overtdefense.com/2026/02/06/us-approves-9-billion-pac-3-missile-sale-to-saudi-arabia/

https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/2020798200135717039

 

SD

[Spekulatius]

3 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

The 20+ US friendly bases around Iran had advanced missile defence systems installed last week, an additional 700+ missiles were just sold to the Saudis, and Israel is itching to strike the Iranian missile capability ... alone, if needs be. Things are heating up.

https://www.overtdefense.com/2026/02/06/us-approves-9-billion-pac-3-missile-sale-to-saudi-arabia/

https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/2020798200135717039

 

SD

Yes, we are in the preparation phase. I believe an attack on Iran is very likely.

[SharperDingaan]

As at 3:20 EST the market has now pushed WTI to USD 64.29 (up USD 0.74), and predicts a strike by Mar-31 (26% one-day rise). Inclined to think that air strikes will be sooner than that, as there is now so much ordinance in the area that it has started to bottle neck, and it will not be coming home. Gulf War II had a 5 month military buildup (Desert Shield) over 42 countries in 1990-91; near 25 years later, with better capabilities and fewer countries involved .... it should be a lot quicker. 

 

The current delay seems to be related to the runway crash of a fully loaded KC-46 tanker, at a time when the heavy lift air-bridge was also in full-swing. Those planes would not have just been transporting missile defence; as in Gulf War II, Desert Shield was followed with Desert Storm. Little reason to think this will be much different.

 

Last time round, the intervention spiked crude up by 100% before settling down to around a 20% spike, from an initial price of USD 17.47/bbl. Today at USD 64.29/bbl, the oil price is 3.6x higher . Quite a range of possibilities .. even if you discount by 50%

 

https://polymarket.com/event/us-strikes-iran-by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

https://www.msn.com/en-in/politics/international-relations/trumps-iran-showdown-crumbles-as-refueling-kc46-tanker-fails-spectacularly-leaves-army-stranded/vi-AA1VHE35#

https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

 

SD

Edited February 9 by SharperDingaan

[Jaygo]

I'm not sure of the way this will play out but if humans are a very efficient machine burning just a few thousand calories per day and we are going to replace much of our work with robots like we have with gasoline and electric powered machines ( tractors, dishwasher, laundry etc ) wont we be increasing the energy usage by a huge margin. 

 

A human per day burns the equivalent of about 250ml of gasoline so if we assume many tasks will become robotic and the humans will remain, we are going to need considerably more energy to feed both the humans and the robots. Am I wrong?

 

The dystopian would say we just don't need the people, but that's kind of a messed up way to look at human life as if its something to be consumed so hopefully that is not a consideration in the discussion.

 

 

[treasurehunt]

4 hours ago, Jaygo said:

I'm not sure of the way this will play out but if humans are a very efficient machine burning just a few thousand calories per day and we are going to replace much of our work with robots like we have with gasoline and electric powered machines ( tractors, dishwasher, laundry etc ) wont we be increasing the energy usage by a huge margin. 

 

A human per day burns the equivalent of about 250ml of gasoline so if we assume many tasks will become robotic and the humans will remain, we are going to need considerably more energy to feed both the humans and the robots. Am I wrong?

 

The dystopian would say we just don't need the people, but that's kind of a messed up way to look at human life as if its something to be consumed so hopefully that is not a consideration in the discussion.

 

 

 

Interesting thought. Before reading this, I hadn't considered the effects on energy usage of having a giant army of robots around.

 

The thing is that humans aren't very efficient when it comes to physical labor. We generate a lot of waste heat and efficiency is typically well less than 50%. I'd imagine a robot powered by electricity would be way more efficient (just like EVs are more efficient than ICE cars).

 

But let's assume pessimistically that each robot uses 4 times as much energy as the typical human, or about 8kWh per day. If the robot army is a billion strong, that's about 8TWh per day in energy consumption. Current global electricity generation is about 80TWh daily, so robot energy usage would be 10% of total generation. But robots are mostly charge at off-peak hours, meaning we may not even need to increase electricity production all that much to support a billion robots. Overall, not a big deal, it seems to me.

 

 

[Jaygo]

1 hour ago, treasurehunt said:

But let's assume pessimistically that each robot uses 4 times as much energy as the typical human, or about 8kWh per day. If the robot army is a billion strong, that's about 8TWh per day in energy consumption. Current global electricity generation is about 80TWh daily, so robot energy usage would be 10% of total generation. But robots are mostly charge at off-peak hours, meaning we may not even need to increase electricity production all that much to support a billion robots. Overall, not a big deal, it seems to me.

 

 

Nice to see some numbers around it. Yeah 10 percent is definitely not going to cause too much issues. 

 

[KPO]

6 hours ago, treasurehunt said:

 

Interesting thought. Before reading this, I hadn't considered the effects on energy usage of having a giant army of robots around.

 

The thing is that humans aren't very efficient when it comes to physical labor. We generate a lot of waste heat and efficiency is typically well less than 50%. I'd imagine a robot powered by electricity would be way more efficient (just like EVs are more efficient than ICE cars).

 

But let's assume pessimistically that each robot uses 4 times as much energy as the typical human, or about 8kWh per day. If the robot army is a billion strong, that's about 8TWh per day in energy consumption. Current global electricity generation is about 80TWh daily, so robot energy usage would be 10% of total generation. But robots are mostly charge at off-peak hours, meaning we may not even need to increase electricity production all that much to support a billion robots. Overall, not a big deal, it seems to me.

 

 

They also likely don’t have to commute in the 17-19 mpg trucks most laborers drive, so that’s a modest offset. Sending this partially as a joke, but there are puts and takes. Will bored humans with UBI burn much more energy? That’s another one to consider. I like this general conversation. 

[UK]

Also this is what Gemini told me re batteries:

 

Chinese humanoid robots, such as the UBTECH Walker S2 and AgiBot models, typically last between 2 to 4 hours on a single charge during active, continuous operation. To achieve 24/7, non-stop operation, these robots utilize advanced, autonomous battery-swapping systems that replace depleted batteries in just 3 minutes. 

Key details regarding Chinese humanoid battery life:
UBTECH Walker S2: This model features a 48-volt lithium battery system, allowing for 2–4 hours of work before requiring a charge. The robot can autonomously go to a charging station, remove its own battery, and swap in a fresh one.

 

 

[Spekulatius]

On 2/18/2026 at 10:53 AM, Jaygo said:

I'm not sure of the way this will play out but if humans are a very efficient machine burning just a few thousand calories per day and we are going to replace much of our work with robots like we have with gasoline and electric powered machines ( tractors, dishwasher, laundry etc ) wont we be increasing the energy usage by a huge margin. 

 

A human per day burns the equivalent of about 250ml of gasoline so if we assume many tasks will become robotic and the humans will remain, we are going to need considerably more energy to feed both the humans and the robots. Am I wrong?

 

The dystopian would say we just don't need the people, but that's kind of a messed up way to look at human life as if its something to be consumed so hopefully that is not a consideration in the discussion.

Well, if you eliminate the human, it’s not just the calories you save , but also think about his usage of energy for his house, his car, his air travel,  the stuff he consumes. A world based on robots ants would be so much more energy efficient and could do much more without all that waste.

Edited February 20 by Spekulatius

[Jaygo]

30 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Well, if you eliminate the human, it’s not just the calories you save , but also think about his usage of energy for his house, his car, his air travel,  the stuff he consumes. A world based on robots ants would be so much more energy efficient and could do much more without all that waste.

Yeah but that's the dystopian way of looking at it. whether its partially true or not my hope is that humans are not the property of others to consume or not need with robots around vs being their own individuals who may also benefit from robots.