North Korea, Russia, China, and Iran Lead Global Cyber Warfare Attacks: Those Countries are The Source of Many of the World’s Problems

  

     A Microsoft Copilot AI search for ‘cyber warfare data’ reveals the following summary:

“Cyber warfare in 2026 is marked by record attack volumes, multi‑billion‑dollar economic impacts, and heightened state‑sponsored activity targeting governments, critical infrastructure, and industries.”

     The following graph from Statista shows countries involved in Cyber attacks.

     Unfortunately, rogue totalitarian North Korea has been making a killing in crypto-heists, with the latest hack of Binance estimated at a shocking $6 billion. This is one reason, among several, I have never liked cryptocurrencies. Most of North Korea’s hacking is directed at the United States. They have made billions from crypto hacks and are using them to fund their sinister regime. North Korean crypto theft is shown in the Statista graph below. After that is a chart showing cyberattacks against the U.S. by type of target.

     In fact, the four biggest hacking countries are Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Those four countries are the origin of many of our global problems. Ukraine and the U.S. do cyber attacks as well, but most of these are retaliatory, and in the case of Ukraine, necessary to counteract Russian cyber warfare. The Statista data note that about half of cyber attacks remain unattributed. I noticed Pakistan in the list but not India. I think India has a higher percentage in the unattributed category. Iran focuses most of its cyber attacks on other Middle Eastern countries, followed by the U.S.

     Of those four countries, which are in many ways criminal regimes, three have nuclear weapons, and the fourth seeks them. Human rights are very poor in all four of those countries. Three of them are warmongers. China has, thankfully, shown restraint. All four have pursued military buildups. They are all adversaries. Although I like to think of China more as a competitor, they can be quite adversarial. Defcon Level compares these bad actors' cyber warfare capabilities below. 

     What is most shocking in the data below from Cyber Warfare Tracker is that the cost of these cybercrimes would reach $8 trillion by 2023.

     Cryptopolitan reported yesterday that the ~$6.3 billion hack of crypto company Binance moved all 233.46 million stolen XRP to 6 new wallets on Monday. That massive-scale hack has been attributed to North Korea. They should pay for that criminal theft. They likely won’t. The bad actors of the world sometimes succeed, but I believe they will ultimately fail. According to Cryptopolitan:

“Cryptopolitan reported that the industry has frozen around $3 billion of the stolen assets. The FBI blames TraderTraitor, the name it gives to a state-linked North Korean hacking operation, saying the attackers are turning stolen crypto into Ether.”

“However, North Korea’s Kim Yo Jong denied the FBI’s accusation, calling it “an absurd rhetoric and nothing new,” in an official statement released November 2.”

“Binance said company funds have compensated about 95% of the amount affected. The exchange also said it has full backing for its XRP balances.”

     Recent hacks that shut down freezers in Europe, resulting in the loss of perishable food of significant value, have been attributed to Russia, which has been probing EU defenses with drones, setting bombs at munitions factories in Europe and even threatening to assassinate European arms company CEOs. Recent hacks of freezers at U.S. military bases have been suggested to have originated from Iran, but I don’t think the origin has been established.

     In addition to being investigated by law enforcement entities, all of these cybercrimes need to be discussed at the UN, values tabulated, and some kind of hearings held. They will deny, but there are ways of knowing, some of which may best be kept secret.

 

References:

 

Kash Patel dealt humiliating blow as ‘major’ hack threatens to spread beyond his FBI. David Edwards. Raw Story. November 3, 2026. Kash Patel dealt humiliating blow as ‘major’ hack threatens to spread beyond his FBI

Cyber Warfare Statistics: Cybercrime costs are soaring, with breaches averaging millions and ransomware hitting more organizations than ever. World Metrics, Report 2026. Cyber Warfare Statistics | 2026 Edition

Cyber Warfare Tracker: State-Sponsored Attacks & Global Threats. Last Updated: July 19, 2026. Defcon Level. Cyber Warfare Tracker 2026: State-Sponsored Attacks & Threats | Defcon Level

Binance hacker spreads 233.46 million stolen XRP over six wallets Ripple has no power to freeze. Randa Moses. Cryptopolitan. November 3, 2026. Binance hacker spreads 233.46 million stolen XRP over six wallets Ripple has no power to freeze

European Freezers Keep Being Attacked By Hackers. Experts Believe Russia Is Behind: Cyberattacks affecting supermarket refrigeration systems across Europe have raised concerns about Russian state-sponsored hackers exploiting outdated remote-control technology in connected appliances. Brian SlupskiBrian Slupski. IBT. November 4, 2026. European Freezers Keep Being Attacked By Hackers. Experts Believe Russia Is Behind. | IBTimes

 

 

 

Clean Energy Solutions Are Not Maturing as Fast as Hoped: CCS, NET Power, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Better Batteries, and Advanced Nuclear are Still Stuck in Pre-Commercial Phases

      When I published my books about decarbonization, Sensible Decarbonization in 2021, and Natural Gas and Decarbonization in 2022, I presented several possible clean energy solutions and assumed some would mature a bit faster than they have. At the time, I thought I was being cautious and realistic, but apparently, I should have been more cautious and more realistic. It is clear that in those five years, no silver bullets have been advanced. While the return of the Trump administration is one reason decarbonization has been slowed, the bigger issues involve costs and capabilities. The higher borrowing costs and inflation initiated by COVID and the wars in Ukraine and Iran have made costs for pilot projects rise as well.

     The solar-wind-water approach of activist-scientists like Mark Z. Jacobson is marred by the realities of buildout, which would have very high upfront costs, would wreak havoc on those opposed to the massive land use issues they impose, and are simply not realistic without a highly coordinated national effort, without regard to the very high cost, including the cost for consumers. In addition, there are reliability issues. That version won’t happen.

     While many of these clean energy solutions continue to advance and some will be adopted more and more going forward, it has become clear to me that my recommendations to slow down the energy transition were well warranted and perhaps not slow enough since the technologies have failed to materialize on a big scale. Of course, the energy transition continues as it should, but it is clear that we should also invest in more fossil fuel production and conventional nuclear as well.

     Robert Bryce’s vision of a natural gas-to-nuclear solution (N2N) remains a valid approach to future energy production. He has long been critical of renewables, particularly wind, but he perhaps goes too far with that. He does make some good points about public opposition to solar and wind farms, the new transmission lines needed to deliver them, and AI data centers. He has maintained a database on public opposition to these projects for years. That public opposition stands firmly in the way of those who want to vastly expand power transmission projects and wind and solar facilities. In any scenario, it will slow any plans like that down.

     I wrote a post recently about the lack of technological readiness of CCS and green hydrogen, and I wrote one the other day about a geothermal pilot project that performed poorly with high costs. Other geothermal projects have been facing funding difficulties. High fuel and material costs are not helpful. Mature (but limited) technologies like wind and solar can benefit from higher fuel prices since it makes them more competitive. Geothermal and CCS technologies are negatively impacted by high fuel prices, including the drilling, drill casing/tubing, and well cementing sectors. The same is true of exploring for hydrogen and helium, which employ drilling. I also wrote recently about NET Power’s recalibration away from its original CCS model, which many, including me, did not expect.

     Many of these technologies have not matured as fast as hoped and have been hurt by high inflation. While many pilots don’t survive the notorious “valley of death,” many of these have been overhyped, suggesting that they would soon become viable. I even passed on some of that hype in my books and articles. Hype has long been a problem with clean energy technologies, from ignoring the inherent limitations of solar, wind, and batteries, to over-expectations with CCS, hydrogen, and geothermal.

     The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), currently in bill form, should be enacted into law. Virtually everyone could claim it as a victory: the Trump administration, the Dems, the GOP, clean energy advocates, and fossil fuel advocates. Only one faction stands to lose with BAAJA: the environmentalist groups who seek to deny and delay. They have had unwarranted success in this endeavor for far too long. This bill will also help advanced nuclear, which has been bogged down by high costs, especially high permitting costs and long permitting times. We simply can’t wait a decade to begin developing needed new energy projects. Even if BAAJA is passed, advanced nuclear still faces time and cost challenges. New battery chemistries and technologies also face challenges in getting to market.

      If we can get ahead of or reverse inflation, we can help many of these projects survive and perhaps speed up their deployment and contributions. Consumers are facing high costs, including high energy and electricity costs. Clean energy deployments add considerably to those costs on net balance. They do reduce costs in some niche areas and applications, but overall costs rise for consumers. It is simply a fact. Their need for expanded transmission is one reason for that. Other downsides of a fast or faster clean energy buildout include increased dependence on China for materials, minerals, REEs, and magnets, and increased mining pollution.    

     Thus, I do not think the new Democratically controlled Congress can come in demanding a more robust and faster clean energy buildout. While I prefer the Dems on several issues, they have been pretty lackluster about understanding energy. That should change. They need a dose of energy realism. While there is bipartisan support for several of these technologies, especially CCS and geothermal, if the technologies don’t perform as designed, they won’t succeed. 

 

Blue Wave and Traditional Midterm ‘Shellacking’ Led by Red State Voters Offers Rebuke of Trumpism and Perhaps a Warning About Using the Win for Revenge Investigations

     I was glad to see Ohio and Texas turn bluer. Paxton was a bad candidate, and Abbott has held the reins for too long. Ramaswamy and Husted, both dedicated to MAGA, lost soundly. I was not thrilled with El Sayed winning in Michigan. I simply don’t trust anti-Israel politicians on the left, especially ones that may have some association with jihadists. The win by communist extremist and Israel hater Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York, with 88% of the vote, was disturbing but expected. I was hoping Susan Collins would hold her Maine Senate seat. I was glad to see Sununu lose in New Hampshire. Iowa turning blue was another unexpected surprise. I will be glad to see MAGA Mike Johnson lose the reins too. The Alaska Senate race has yet to be called. Peltola was in the lead, but I hope she loses due to the dirty politics employed, whether she knew about it or not. Unfortunately, but as expected, I am seeing Progressives feeling emboldened by the results. Many are posting about historic firsts for women and minorities. I think we should, more or less, not celebrate such milestones as much, since the ratios are now closer to population ratios.

     While the Dems may see these wins as a big mandate, I really hope they don’t overly focus on investigating Trump’s “crimes” as Pete Buttigieg called them. We all know that Trump stretches the law and that some of his actions could certainly be construed as crimes, but there is also a mandate to govern rather than make it about a fight between Congress and the executive branch. I’m a bit worried that Iran will be emboldened by the rebuke of Trumpism. The blue victories in what are seen as red states suggest that political moderates and centrists led the change, not leftists. This certainly suggests that a revenge agenda is not a good idea. I believe that most Americans want a sensible government, relatively free of extremist influences from either wing. We have long suffered under political division, which I believe Trump exacerbated considerably. Political unity and cooperation are better ideas. I would love to see the Dem winners take firm stands against the far left and favor the middle. I would also like to see them work together with the GOP more.

     The blue route was not a validation of Progressives and Democratic Socialists. They only really won in the few districts where they are popular. It was predominantly in red states like Texas, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, and North Carolina where the Dems picked up most of their wins. This likely simply means that those right-leaning moderates who usually vote Republican decided to lean left and vote Democrat. Those people won't vote for Progressives.

     I don’t think anyone really wants another Trump impeachment and endless investigations dominating the news. Overall, I am glad that Trumpism has been rebuked and hopefully MAGA is on the out, and the GOP can get back to something like the compassionate conservatism exhibited by the Bushes, pragmatism, and sensible government.

     Voters are much less interested in things like climate change than they were a few years ago, and that should be reflected in policy. The Free Palestine crowd is still in need of rebuking. Antisemitism has been off the rails, which is a shame for the country. Communists and socialists have no place in our government, and we should not cower to them in any way. Dems clearly now have a big enough tent that they can kick out the far-left whackos, and I certainly hope they do.

     Below, I have made a spreadsheet grading the Trump administration on several issues. I think they have done a good job securing the border, confronting bad socialist governments and narco-traffickers in Latin America (except for bombing drug boats), and engaging Mexican cartels. They have done a poor job with USAID, media relations, Canada and EU relations, tariffs, confronting Russia, lawfare against the perceived left, and health.

     Overall. I hope our government is compassionate but firm in addressing injustice and extremism. I would like to see a victory for moderatism and functional, cooperative government. 

Designing Drilling Mud for Stability in Shale Reservoirs: Summary & Review of ‘Mud Design for Shale Stability: More Than Just Mud Weight’ by Jovie Yunara

     This is a quick summary and review of a LinkedIn post by Jovie Yunara, a drilling operations and engineering professional. It pertains to drilling mud design for shale reservoirs to optimize wellbore stability during drilling. I remember spending a lot of time at well sites during the early part of drilling horizontal wells in shale reservoirs and the problems encountered with wellbore stability, especially with water-based muds. Oil-based mud systems are used in most shale plays and offer better well stability. However, some plays utilize new and improved water-based muds.

     A 2024 paper in Unconventional Resources by Chang Hong Gao notes that oil-based mud (OBM):

“…provides effective shale stability, excellent lubricity, and high rate of penetration (ROP). As a result, more than 70 % of shale gas wells have been drilled with OBM with very few reported cases of wellbore instability. WBM (water-based mud) is made of water and necessary chemical additives. WBM is less costly and more environment-friendly than OBM, however some shale wells drilled with WBM reported severe instability issues. Nevertheless, recent innovations in WBM lead to successes in drilling major shale plays. WBM has great potential in shale drilling and deserves more research and improvements.

     Water-based mud is more environmentally friendly and can be cheaper. I would assume that Yunara’s LinkedIn post is addressing shale drilling via OBM.

     Yunara argues in his post that mud weight alone has been overused as a solution to wellbore stability in shales. While he acknowledges the importance of optimizing mud weight, he also stresses the importance of two other parameters: mudcake integrity and chemical compatibility.  

     An effective mudcake provides a barrier to the invasion of drilling fluids into the formation, which compromises wellbore stability. As mud pressure penetrates into the shale, the possibility of shear failure and borehole instability increase due to near-wellbore pore pressure increases.

     Shale contains reactive clay minerals, which create risks for hydration and swelling of the rock. These can make the shale less cohesive, increasing the risk of failure and wellbore instability.

     Increasing mud weight has been the traditional way to increase wellbore stability. However, if the mudcake has already been compromised, then increasing the mud weight may also increase penetration into the shale. Thus, he concludes that higher mud weight does not always mean improved wellbore stability. Of course, in some formations with high bottomhole pressure, it may not be possible to increase the mud weight without effectively hydraulically fracturing the rock on a small scale, which creates even more severe well stability problems.

“The objective should be to identify a mud-weight window that maintains mechanical stability while minimizing pressure invasion and chemical weakening.”

     The figure below illustrates Yunara’s arguments about the three parameters affecting wellbore stability in shales.

References:

 

Mud Design for Shale Stability: More Than Just Mud Weight. Jovie Yunara. LinkedIn. October 27, 2026. Post | LinkedIn

Drilling fluids for shale fields: Case studies and lessons learnt. Chang Hong Gao. Sci Engine. Unconventional Resources. Volume 4. December 1, 2023. Drilling fluids for shale fields: Case studies and lessons learnt

 

 

 

                                              

Can Closed-Loop Geothermal Provide Baseload Energy? Eavor’s Recent Problems Suggest That It Cannot: Eavor Cites Hydraulic Communication Due to Inadequate Cement Jobs and First-of-a-Kind Project Economics as Challenges in Germany

      As I have noted on this blog, many people, including the realist (seemingly pessimistic) Art Berman, have long seen closed-loop geothermal as overhyped. While it may have a small role to play in the energy transition, the technology is likely limited by physics from gaining a larger role.

     Eavor is the originator of the Eavorloop, its own closed-loop advanced geothermal system. One of its first pilot commercial projects, its well-hyped Geretsried geothermal project in Germany, has faced limitations not adequately foreseen. Eavor also cancelled its upcoming project in Hannover, in Northern Germany.

     Closed-loop geothermal is a type of conduction geothermal where the fluids convey heat to a working fluid via conduction. In contrast, convection geothermal involves producing hot fluids directly to run steam turbines. Many in the industry have long noted the limitations of conduction geothermal. It is simply harder to make the economics work for conduction geothermal.

     GeoExPro’s Henk Kombrink interviewed Eavor’s CEO Mark Fitzgerald in May. Kombrink had previously been critical of Eavor’s level of secrecy about the Geretsried project and its unexpectedly low output of its first loop, expected to be at 2 MWe, but only measured at 0.5 MWe. Fitzgerald was hired as CEO in October 2025. He said he wanted the company to be more transparent. He also explained that they stepped away from being the operator of the Geretsried project and wanted to focus instead on being a technology provider. He believes another company more experienced at operating projects should take the helm as operator. As part of this change of strategy, they also reduced their team from 147 to about 80. Kombrink notes some details about why the output is so low. It was due to clogging with cuttings and unexpected communication between loops. Poor cement jobs were implicated. The output should be as designed if all the loops were drilled and functional.

“…it is already widely known that the company only completed six loops instead of the planned twelve. What was new to me was that it is actually 3 to 4 loops that are contributing to flow. Two loops experienced clogging by rock fragments to such an extent that the cleaning operation could not alleviate the problem. The third loop is only contributing to a limited extent.”

“We believe that we have proven the concept. We now have to prove commerciality,” is what he reiterated a few times during the conversation.

     The company reported in mid-October that the two drilling rigs at Geretsried had been released. Kombrink noted in the interview that the company had burned through its funding of about 350 Euros for the project. He is also not quite sure they could say they had proven the concept, given the problems.

     Think GeoEnergy reported then:

“Although the milestone validated many technical aspects of Eavor’s closed-loop concept, challenges in execution prevented the project from reaching its operational targets. A few months after the start of electricity supply, the company disclosed that the Geretsried site only achieved between 0.5 to 2.0 MWe of gross power generation, with practically no power delivered to the grid.”

“Isar Loisach Naturwärme (ILN), the district heating company founded by Stadtwerke Geretsried, expressed disappointment that the project has been further delayed.”

     They signed a heat offtake agreement for district heating in 2024, but the lack of heat due to the low number of loops and now incorrect sizing of components, including the ORC system, presents operational issues.

     In a late October article in GeoExPro, Kombrink expressed more doubts about Eavor’s failed project in Germany and its concept in general. Lack of circulation and fluid loss problems would have to be fully solved before the concept could work as designed. One of the big problems with closed-loop geothermal and Eavor’s concept in particular is that drilling and cementing wells, laterals, and sidetracks is expensive as well as technically challenging. He expressed doubt that they will find an operator willing to proceed with the rest of the Geretsried project. Kombrink expressed doubt about Eavor’s viability going forward after the clear project failure. He thinks it may be years or even decades before closed-loop geothermal becomes viable, if ever.

     Back in May of 2026, Eavor did provide a technical update on the Geretsried project on its website. The early part of the drilling encountered severe problems, which they later improved, as recounted below:

Extreme drilling dynamics and dysfunction

“The combination of deep hard rock, long laterals, high friction, and difficult hole conditions created severe shocks, vibration, and torque dysfunction. This did not just slow rate of penetration; it also damaged tools, shortened bit life, and increased trips out of hole. As the campaign progressed, we improved the bit and BHA design, adjusted drilling parameters, changed the fluid system, improved lubricity and hole cleaning, and used drilling dynamics mitigation tools. Those changes translated into better ROP, longer bit runs, and fewer drilling dysfunction issues in the later wells. Ultimately, we were able to drill the last lateral pair in a single run from each rig.”

     Bit life improved, ROP improved, and Eavor’s magnetic ranging technology, used to connect the two wellbores in the loops, proved to be successful and faster than other magnetic ranging efforts. 

  As they recount below, the biggest problem by far was hydraulic communication:

“Hydraulic communication between the two rigs through previously drilled lateral pairs”

“This challenge was by far the most impactful. Following the sidetracking of the second lateral pair, hydraulic communication (fluid flow) between the two rigs was measured. The root cause was poor cement jobs on both cased “motherbores”, enabling a significant annular fluid channel behind the casing, which connected all the lateral pairs to each other. Fluid could freely flow down previously drilled laterals and up to the other rig.”

“Efficient Eavor-Loop construction depends on two rigs drilling in parallel; each lateral pair is drilled by two rigs simultaneously and intersected, starting with the lowermost lateral and then repeating from the “bottom up”. Each previously drilled lateral pair is supposed to be sealed (hydraulically isolated) from the next lateral pair which is drilled uphole (in the direction towards the surface within the cased motherbores). However, inadequate isolation in the cement behind the casing created hydraulic communication between the two well systems/rigs. Once that happened, pressure, mud, and cuttings could move freely between the inlet and outlet patterns through previously drilled lateral pairs.”

     Below are the company’s loop models.

     Eavor also points out that compared to other EGS geothermal projects and other forms of energy, it is heavily weighted toward Capex. One of its advantages is the low Opex once a project is completed as designed and online. However, completing a project as designed is currently the biggest challenge.

     Until these technical challenges are overcome, the concept will remain uncommercialized. They believe they can commercialize and stress that Gertsried is a first-of-a-kind (FOAK) project with FOAK problems that can be overcome in subsequent testing. However, with the lackluster results and loss of capital, Geretsried can only be seen as a technical and economic failure at present.

 

 

References:

 

The end of Eavor? With the rigs having departed from Geretsried and the Hannover project cancelled, what remains of the Eavor project pipeline? Henk Kombrink. GeoExPro. October 31, 2026. The end of Eavor? - GeoExpro

Eavor withdraws drilling rigs from the Geretsried geothermal project site in Germany. Carlo Cariaga. Think GeoEnergy. October 16, 2026. Eavor withdraws drilling rigs from the Geretsried geothermal project site in Germany

Eavor stepping away from operator role in Geretsried: That’s what Eavor’s CEO Mark Fitzgerald said during an exclusive interview with us that addressed the company’s recent project in Germany as well as the new strategy it has now embarked on. Henk Kombrink. May 13, 2026. Eavor stepping away from operator role in Geretsried - GeoExpro

Technical Update from Geretsried: What we built, what we learned, and what comes next. Matt Toews. Eavor. May 21, 2026. Technical Update from Geretsried: What we built, what we learned, and what comes next - Eavor

Appalachian Basin Digest Monthly Overview Highlights Data Pertinent to EQT-Range Merger

     Appalachian Basin Digest Monthly Overview, put out by Ayers Petroleum Consulting, has offered useful data and analysis for many years. The database was developed, and the digest was formerly run by now-retired Petroleum Engineer Tim Knobloch, whom I knew personally and worked with on several occasions, and colleagues. I have come to enjoy the monthly digest highlight, which may be for a region, a company, a geological formation, or, in this case, a large company merger. It always seems to offer useful information and analysis.

     This month, for the September edition, they highlight the EQT-Range merger, announced in October. Other oil & gas data analysts like NOVI Labs and its affiliate, RBN Energy, have also offered useful data about this important merger, as I noted in a previous post just last week.

     The Digest gives a map, a table of wells, well counts and formations for each company, a producing well count over time for each company, monthly gas production for each company, and monthly liquids production for each company. The last two graphs, including the graph of liquids production titled Monthly Crude Oil/Condensate Production by Operator, show that EQT gains some optionality by adding a higher percentage of liquids production than gas production compared to its own liquids-to-gas ratio.

 

References:

 

Appalachian Basin Digest Monthly Overview September 2026. Ayers Petroleum Consulting. November 2, 2026.

 

Massachusetts Governor Healy Reversed Previous Position and Now Supports Needed Gas Pipelines

      Massachusetts governor, who, as the state’s Attorney General, fully supported blocking needed gas pipelines into the state due to climate concerns, has finally faced reality and changed her position. She now supports those pipelines. According to an article in The Cool Down, she has done two things to support affordable energy: 1) she moved money from clean energy programs to support energy affordability for citizens, and 2) she explicitly offered support for an expansion of natural gas availability by asking the Trump administration to speed up approvals for the Algonquin gas pipeline project in southern Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

“In 2025 and 2024, Healey's administration used $305 million from alternative compliance payments to reduce electric bills. In October, after declaring an "energy emergency," she said the state would draw on that same fee from utility bills — money that generally supports local and state clean energy efforts — to cut heating bills by at least $129 million, The Boston Globe reported.”

     The Globe also reported that electricity prices in the state have increased by 20% over the past three years, twice the national average. In 2025, over half of the state’s grid was powered by natural gas, with renewables making up 13%, an estimated 5% of that coming from hydro.

     The Cool Down notes: 

“The Healey administration has advanced offshore wind projects, clean-grid modernization, climate-friendly building incentives, and a 2024 law meant to speed up clean energy siting and permitting as Massachusetts works toward zero emissions by 2050.”

     However, they also backed off of some mandates such as requirements for EV sales minimums and a delay of the state’s clean heat standard. Healy can so be credited with importing more Canadian hydropower. 

     Former CNX Gas CEO Nick Deliululiis, a self-described “advocate for domestic energy and Appalachia,” and a MAGA conservative, had some commentary with which I mostly agree, since I have been tooting the same horn for about a decade. Below are some snippets from a LinkedIn post by Deliululiis. The only part I would take issue with is the part in the second snippet that wind output is limited in the winter. As I have read, wind output can be excellent in the winter in the North Atlantic, and that the few offshore wind farms online had already helped New York with its winter reliability assurance last winter, not long after they came online.

     The Cool Down article also offered two other opinions, one by an MIT economics professor and the other by a Sierra Club leader. The first response was pragmatic but also supportive of a slower energy transition. I would call that a sensible approach. The second predictably suggests Healy is a traitor to the cause and features predictable anti-fossil fuel terminology.

“Catherine Wolfram, an MIT energy economics professor and former Biden administration official, said more gas capacity could help address winter shortages, while redirected funds may provide immediate help to consumers. "Clean energy will help us break the dependence on these volatile fossil fuels, but it's going to take a while for clean energy projects to get built and for relief to show up," she told the Globe.”

“Vick Mohanka, who leads the Sierra Club's Massachusetts chapter, said of Healey: "When she came into office, she saw things the way we did — that it's an investment in an outdated and polluting, dirty system that's also expensive. And now she's asking for more pipelines."

     Mohanka is not wrong about fossil energy affordability threats. In addition to the diesel issue, the region's heavy reliance on fuel oil, which should be abandoned and replaced with cleaner, cheaper, and secure domestic natural gas, is estimated to strongly affect this winter's heating affordability.   

References:

 

Massachusetts governor backs $300 million gas expansion after earlier pipeline opposition. Leigh Cook. The Cool Down. October 30, 2026. Massachusetts governor backs $300 million gas expansion after earlier pipeline opposition

LinkedIn Post by Nick Deiululiis. October 29, 2026. Post | LinkedIn

 

Collective Human Metabolism Emits 2 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 Per Year: New Research Suggests That It Amounts to Nearly 5% of What is Emitted by Fossil Fuels and Land Use: However, It Does Not Really Add to Atmospheric CO2

       I've occasionally wondered whether scientists have ever measured the CO2 emitted by Earth’s 8 billion-plus humans, what percentage it is of the total, and how it compares to fossil fuel emissions. It turns out, according to new research published in Lancet Planetary Health, that human metabolism produces about 2 billion metric tons of CO per year, nearly 5% of what is produced by fossil fuels and land use combined. However, by itself, human metabolism contributes very little to climate change since much of that CO2 would have been emitted to the atmosphere via decomposition.   

     The modeling study, led by the University of Bath, tabulated CO2 emissions from human metabolism from 1985-2015. They found that the amount of carbon emitted increased by 74% through that time period, getting up to 2.05 billion tons per year.

     The CO2 emitted by humans comes from the food we eat, mostly from plants and animals that eat plants. We convert the food to energy and exhale CO2 as part of the metabolic process. The CO2 we release would likely be released to the atmosphere anyway as it decomposes, but likely a bit slower. Thus, I would conjecture that human metabolism is not really carbon-neutral, at least in the near-term, but closer to it long-term.  

     According to Phys.org:

“The study found that the amount of CO₂ produced by people worldwide rose from 1.18 billion metric tons in 1985 to 2.05 billion metric tons in 2015. Population growth accounted for more than 60% of the increase.”

     The study involved measuring how much CO2 we release at different ages, from infancy to old age. They also utilized global population data and body weight data to arrive at their conclusions. They concluded that less of the increase was due to per capita CO2 emissions increases and most was due to population increases. It should be noted that per capita CO2 emissions have been dropping in developed countries for many years now but are still increasing in developing countries. Theoretically, when those countries become fully developed, their per capita emissions will go down. However, they will likely continue to rise until then as those countries continue to electrify, adopt portable fossil fuels like LPG to replace wood and charcoal, and industrialize. 

     The authors explain the study, previous studies, and the implications below:

     According to Javier Gonzalez, one of the paper’s authors:

“The important thing is that the carbon dioxide we breathe out is not the same as burning fossil fuels. We're not saying that breathing is driving climate change.”

"What this study does is give us a much clearer picture of how much CO₂ people produce around the world, and how that is changing as the population grows. This understanding can help improve the accuracy of predictions of carbon reduction programs."

 

References:

 

Collective human metabolism produces 2 billion metric tons of CO₂ a year, global study estimates. University of Bath. edited by Lisa Lock, reviewed by Robert Egan. Phys.org. November 1, 2026. Collective human metabolism produces 2 billion metric tons of CO₂ a year, global study estimates

Accounting for global carbon dioxide production from human metabolism between 1985 and 2015: a modelling study. Javier T Gonzalez, Lorenzo Lolli, Bruno Spellanzon, Greg Atkinson, Ed Maunder, Alfonso Moreno-Cabañas, Jariya Buniam, Dylan Thompson, and James Betts. The Lancet. Planetary Health. October 26, 2026. Accounting for global carbon dioxide production from human metabolism between 1985 and 2015: a modelling study - The Lancet Planetary Health

Tesla Discontinues Solar Roof Tiles Due to Poor Economic Performance: Apparently, the Hype Was Miles Away from the Reality

     I remember when Tesla’s solar roof tiles, made to look and act like roof shingles, were all the rage, promising to be a way to replace your roof and add rooftop solar at the same time, in one step, which seemed to be an economical way to re-roof. However, the seemingly practical solution did not stand up to the hype. Tesla now admits that the roof tiles are not an economical solution and has discontinued them. It adds to the renewable energy hype vs. reality argument, with another point for reality. The peak hype for the tiles happened in the late 2010s.

     Tesla discontinued selling its roof tiles in August 2026, after determining that the product was no longer economically viable. Of course, the loss of rooftop solar subsidies via the Trump administration likely put the last nail in the coffin. However, problems with the roof tiles were apparent before that, as Tesla stopped advertising and actively marketing them in 2024. As noted below by Electrek, the solar roof tiles were a big part of Tesla’s pitch after buying debt-laden SolarCity in 2016.

“The Solar Roof was never just a product. It was a pitch.”

“Elon Musk unveiled it in October 2016 on a Hollywood back lot, using homes from the set of Desperate Housewives fitted with the tiles. Weeks later, Tesla shareholders voted to approve the company’s roughly $2.6 billion acquisition of SolarCity — a debt-laden solar installer where Musk was the largest shareholder and chairman, and which was run by his cousins.”

     The roof tiles were a central part of selling the SolarCity deal to investors. Apparently, the roof tiles at that time were not yet even functional. The reality was far worse than the hype depicted and suggests that Elon Musk is not the genius he was hyped as either, unless one includes bilking consumers as genius. He is still able to spend $500 million on our latest nationwide election with his (ill-gotten?) gains.

“Years later, during shareholder litigation over the acquisition, it emerged that the tiles shown at the 2016 event were not yet functioning solar products.”

“The original promise was compelling: Tesla marketed the Solar Roof as costing less than a new conventional roof plus traditional solar panels combined, with early quotes in the neighborhood of $22 per square foot.”

“Reality diverged sharply. Installed prices came in far higher than the initial figures — and, for many customers, far higher than the quotes Tesla itself had provided. In 2021, Tesla drastically increased Solar Roof prices, in some cases after customers had already signed contracts.”

“That triggered a class-action lawsuit that Tesla settled for $6 million in 2023. One customer’s contracted price reportedly jumped from about $72,000 to roughly $146,000 before installation.”

“Musk repeatedly said Tesla would be producing and installing 1,000 Solar Roofs per week — a target he pinned to the end of 2019 and the first half of 2020. When Tesla claimed it had reached 1,000 roofs of weekly production in 2020, installations lagged far behind.”

“At its peak, Tesla was installing roughly 21 to 32 Solar Roofs per week, according to Wood Mackenzie data — more than 95% short of the goal. In total, the firm estimated Tesla installed only about 3,000 Solar Roof systems in the US across roughly seven years. As we’ve been tracking the widening gap between the Solar Roof’s promise and its reality, the product quietly slid toward irrelevance.”

     In other words, the solar roof tiles were a massive economic failure, with hype that was very unfair to the consumers bilked into buying them, complete with estimates that were far different from the actuals. It’s something that sounded good and practical on paper but failed miserably in the real world. Of course, Tesla still sells solar panels, but not solar roof tiles. It adds to the list of Musk’s hyped-up failures, which are substantial. However, those failures, which would have been grounds for getting fired in some cases, did not prevent him from becoming a trillionaire and the richest man in the world.

     The top comment on the Electek articles by Spec9 sums up the failure:

“It was inevitable. Just another overhyped failure. Bad thermal issues, too expensive to install, niche market, difficult & expensive to repair, etc.”

     According to an article in Yahoo:

“The shingles required special glass tiles instead of standard solar panels, which needed custom equipment to make. The higher manufacturing cost was not offset by customer demand.”

“The system was also hard to install, costly to service, and had long wait times for repairs. Some customers even reported temperature control issues, likely due to reduced airflow compared with rack-mounted panels. Still others claim prices ended up much higher than expected, with quotes allegedly increasing by up to 100% after signing a Solar Roof contract. This culminated in a class action lawsuit that Tesla settled in 2023.”

     Basically, it was a bad marketing decision by Musk, who has argued that his expertise was allocating funds, and that is why he deserves to be super rich.

     The tiles hit mass production in 2020, and by 2021 the cost overruns and other problems were apparent. Hoping for 1000 installations per week, the product was installed less than 1000 times per year. Oops!

 

 

 

References:

 

Tesla discontinues its Solar Roof tiles, not economically viable. Fred Lambert. Electrek. August 20, 2026. Tesla discontinues its Solar Roof tiles, not economically viable | Electrek

Tesla Stops Selling Solar Roof Tiles, Refocuses on Regular Solar Panels. Devesh Beri. Yahoo. August 24, 2026. Tesla Stops Selling Solar Roof Tiles, Refocuses on Regular Solar Panels

Tesla is ditching its solar roof tiles for a good reason: Tesla had to cut losses after significant mistakes and overspending. Antony Terence. November 1, 2026. Tesla Is Ditching Its Solar Roof Tiles For A Good Reason