And now since OPEC production is falling, this would mean that world oil production must also be falling at the moment. I doubt the US and Canada are making up for lost production elsewhere.

Great stuff! We are grateful to you for staying on top of things. By the way, how do you plot these graphs (which software do you use) and post them here?

Good choice of horizontal axis time interval, and really quite scary ...

Ron, I think this could be one of the key graphics to communicate the Peak Oil position over the next few years. Like Westexas' "ELM", but easier to explain. Everyone still thinks OPEC "controls" the price of oil, but your graph shows that "The Rest of the World" (ok, minus US and Canada), peaked in 2004/5.

Not much of a head, not much of a reservoir volume. If the timing is right, tides would help a little, of course if wrong tides will hurt.

The better tidal generators do not function off fast falling water, they function off slow but powerful ebbs and flows of lateral water movement in volume.

It looks a variation of the tidal lagoon proposed by Friends of the Earth back in Jan 2002

http://www.foe.co.uk/cymru/english/press_releases/severn_barrage_outperf...

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/severn_barrage_lagoons.pdf

We need a 'Grand Bargain' with Iran. They need to end their nuke enrichment, get it from Russia, allow deep inspections, end the sanctions, and open them to the free world.

This stupid tribalism is just pathetic at this state in mankind's development.

I'm not certain that Iran's leaders aren't doing the right thing for their country. If you look at the behavior of the western powers towards smaller countries it seems that becoming a nuclear power is an intelligent self-defensive action. Look at N. Korea. They may not be doing anything right internally to support their own population but they sure have scared the heck out of the US war hawks. The same may be said about Israel and Pakistan. No one really wants to mess with them. Then there's Iraq. Saddam tried to bluff his way past western aggression and he ended up cowering in a hole in the ground before being hanged.

Just my opinion, but I think the forceful attempts by some countries in non-proliferation to those not yet in the nuclear club is a failing strategy.

I say let any country that wants to go nuclear be free to do so. Maybe, just maybe "if everyone has them, no one will be quick to use them."

Might bring more global stability,and therefore lower prices for FF (while they last).

Have you read the NPT? The United States is the one violating it by not meeting its treaty obligations to pursue world disarmament. Iran, meanwhile, is a signatory, and hence holds the right to develop its own nuclear power industry. Not sure why you are not sure about how this is all working. The United States is committing international crimes in an effort to destabilize a nation-state rich with oil but somewhat impervious to our domination. Given our history -- see Mossadegh -- with Iran, the fact that anybody takes this "crisis" the way it's reported is a proof of how indoctrinated and unfree WE are, here in the USA.

"Atlas Shrugged" from Texas replied as follows:

"8/10 of a degree is a "serious threat to continuity of life on earth" but if I drive 100 miles north or south I experience far more than that. What kind of gullible people believe that ? "

If this is how most people think we are doomed.....

I'm sorry to see Chu leave the administration. I think overall he did a fairly good job.

Unlike most political appointees, his background as a physicist enabled him to grasp the technical side of energy issues. During the Deepwater Horizon spill, an aquaintence of mine (an expert on directional drilling) went down to the Gulf to help with the relief wells. He was also involved in briefing the various big shots in the Incident Command Team. When he came back to Alaska, the driller commented that of all of the people on the ICT, Chu was the easiest one to explain things to, and the one who best grasped the key technical details.

I am greatly saddened by Steven Chu stepping down. We need more hardcore scientists in government that follow the science where it leads. He'll likely be replaced by some bureaucrat or former industry executive that will be swayed by lobbyists instead of following the science.

It is a great loss for the country to longer have a Nobel prize winning physicist making decisions at DoE.

:-(

""Under his watch, energy consumption in the United States declined by 2.24 percent while our leading economic competitor, China, increased energy consumption by 28 percent," Kish said in a statement published to the IER website. "Similarly, GDP growth in the United States has limped along at the anemic annual rate of 0.6 percent while China’s economy has soared at the annual rate of 9.12 percent, more than 15 times our own. Clearly, the policies and priorities of Steven Chu’s energy department have benefitted our global competitors and intensified the economic pain felt by millions of unemployed Americans."

This stuff is so ridiculous ...

Of course one could have a solar hot water heater that provides-pre-heated water to an electric hot water heater that uses PV solar power. :-)

Interesting comparison. One way to avoid grid connected soft costs (paper work plus inspections ...), is to directly consume the power for some dedicated purpose that you've wired in separate from your grid connected wiring.

So, what I'd like to see. DC powered heat pump (that can be reversed to cool for the summer season). Scaled to be smaller than your total heating/cooling needs -so you don't waste so much of it. Then you could cut the demands on the grid connected part of your heating/cooling system. Note, that because hot/cold water stores heat, this would provide system level (I mean the regional power grid system here) benefits, even after the sun has gone down. Could be pretty interesting.

Thanks, Ghung, for doing the arithmetic for me. I was thinking the same things. Solar hot water is easy if done crudely as I have (rubber rug lying on ground, summer only) , but would be far better to have year around and good control.

I have passed your epistle around among the PV faithful, of whom there are an ever-growing number around here, I am happy to report.

That's how I did the math... ended up just oversizing the PV capacity, it was cheaper and simpler.

Water heater elements really don't care whether they are operated by AC or DC. The standard 240VAC ones in water heaters will operate just fine directly to PV. It's just a matter of matching impedance.

I've been taking PV Hot water showers for almost a decade. You need 3x the capture area since you are at 15% source efficiency instead of ~60%, PV even works in COLD cloudy weather and will be working long after I'm gone. 4 - Spare 190W 72 cell panels at 140 volts or so into parallel 240V elements. Trick is modulating DC current, it would quickly weld the AC contacts in the 1st week. I use redundant 90A DC SSR tracking the thermotank switchs. Note these Relays fail on, so a mercury switch would be the way to go if you had a lot of PV and wanted to avoid popping the P/T valve or worse Chernobyl. Note to get this to work, requires code violations, HVDC into a System not approved, Ungrounded PV system (IMO Better For safety), Redundant Grounds to tank, etc. Works fantastic, but you don't want to do this unless you really consider the safety requirements of HV DC Systems.

For Off Grid, The Standard Midnight Classic 96A Charge controller will do proportional power (12-72V) to an element as the batteries step out of bulk charge and spend hours into the battery maintenance taper modes. I'm going to do this for a customer soon.

2 of these in parallel are and option at lower voltages.
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-9000130-045-Electric-Heater-Element/dp/B0...

There is a UL listed Black Box that converts 60V DC into AC at Max Power Point for a conventional Hot water heater, I post it when I dig it up. City of Tallahassee is field testing it. IF Someone designed a DC UL Listed tank for direct PV connection might get very rich.

If you are below 33 degrees latitude, and use LOTs of hot water, Solar thermal would still be a more economical solution. One advantage of PV is the Panels can be "very"remote, wire is cheap compared to Insulated tube. Lot's of cool things will be possible with Low(er) cost PV. http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/solar-thermal-dead

Ghung,

I remember the same thing being reported here a year or two ago (nope, you're not original ;-). Basically, if you are installing solar PV anyway then oversizing it and forgetting about solar HW is the sensible way to go. The installation and inverter issues are relatively less if you are already putting in a system, and as you say, not mucking about with water and pumps increases lifespan.

Whether straight resistance heaters, or batteries and a heat pump approach are best is another matter.

Ghung - I have long been on the 'thermal beats PV' side of this debate. Largely because of the strawman thermal systems costing $5K+ (often $8-10k) that are used for comparison. But your $3171 is right in the ballpark with the batch water heater (ProgressivTube) of which I have owned two and installed two others, all in (mildly) freezing climates: 25F out there right now, after 15 last night. They have had no freeze issues down to 0F over multiple winters. But your math and proposed system has me thinking that the choice is no longer so clear - except that not doing solar hot water in some form is crazy.

And a heat pump water heater could tilt the balance further. Last month, with inlet temperatures not that much above freezing, our Nyle Geyser supplied our two person household with all the hot water we required for just 55.8 kWh -- at a maximum power draw of about 700-watts; that's less than 25-cents a day at current utility rates.

Cheers,
Paul

Interesting. Would you recommend an off grid solar electric system in the Seattle area? We use about 1500 kw hours per month.

Except I can make solar hot water panels and a storage tank far less expensively than I can purchase them. I can not make photovoltaic panels.

[I tried posting a response earlier but somehow the comment disappeared...]

The analysis is correct but it is obviously surprising how a low-grade energy conversion (solar thermal) is more expensive that a high quality energy conversion (electricity to hot water at 70C).

It is indicative of inefficiency and underdevelopment of the market for hot water heaters in the US.

To illustrate the point, in Greece that has widely adopted solar hot water heaters and experience since the 80s with its own large domestic industry, an equivalent capacity system would cost EUR800 ~ USD1000 dollar installed. For example:
http://www.eurostar-solar.com/pdf/fino_thermosiphon_system_datashett_300...

Granted, the boiler is outside but having used these systems in the north where the temperatures go below freezing regularly in the winter, the insulation is sufficient for overnight heat after a sunny day. Nevertheless, for a larger market like the US they would probably be made even cheaper.

My 2c.

Thanks for doing the math. A few comments:

Here in California good luck getting a decent thermal system installed for less $4000. Plumbers are a huge issue, there seems to be a sense of entitlement, after the boom times, that they deserve to drive $50,000 trucks and live in mansions.

Plumbing will leak. Solar PV has no moving parts. Big difference. Your thermal system will freeze at some point. Freeze proof systems add $1000's of dollars and/or complexity. PV panels will last many decades and virtually all have 25 year production guarantees. It is the rare thermal panel that lasts anywhere near that long. Warranty is at best a few years. Doesn't cover plumber. Soldering required.

The resource does not match the load in many cases. Hot water is less in demand on hot summer afternoons than it is on cold winter mornings. Your electricity can be produced and stored in June, July, August, and consumed in December January February (net-metering).

When starting from scratch, electric heat and DHW + solar easily beats gas hot water, and when you factor in leaks, plumbers, freezing and other factors, solar thermal.

A Nyle heat pump water heater can be retrofitted to your gas hot water heater in minutes. No more propane (a no-brainer) or natural gas.

Drawbacks: Slightly higher initial cost. If you already have non-PV infrastructure, cost to swap out. Wait until your existing stuff craps out, then switch. Heat pumps make some noise, don't put them in your bedroom.

Ghung, I think your calculations are not quite fair for solar thermal. Your hot water system has a special 80 gallon tank, which the site sells for $1429 and for that money, I would expect a lifetime stainless tank, whereas your quoted 80 gallon tank from Home Depot is a generic bottom of the line electric tank with a 6 year warranty, which would likely need replacement 3 times over a 30 year period. Your reference thermal system also includes only 1 4x10 foot collector, whereas one might expect that 2 of the 4x8 or 4x10 collectors would be required in most locations with colder temperatures, thus understating the output of a typical installation. The rated output of the thermal collector which you quote is for cool climate conditions with a Ti-Ta around 50C, as would apply in, fall or winter, again understating the yearly output. FYI, the collector plates for those panels are made in Hickory, NC, according to information I received while touring the manufacturer and watching them make some plates.

As you note, the collection area of the PV panels will be greater than that of the solar thermal, though not as large as you note because I expect more thermal area would be required for a properly designed system. That adds to the installation cost for PV, unless you are doing-it-yourself.

PV has another problem which you don't mention, shading limits the panel output, which implies all the trees in the aperture area to the South must be removed, whereas solar thermal can still capture thermal energy with some shading. This would be a big issue at higher latitudes in Winter where the Sun is at low elevation. Then too, with snow cover, the PV panel won't provide any output if the lower portion of the panel is covered, as might happen when the snow partially melts and slides down the glass to pile up at the bottom.

Finally, your stated cost of your PV panels sounds great, but is that price the average for everyone or just a sale you happened to catch during the off season? Your referenced site sells PV for $0.89 a watt, not $0.65 a watt. Are your PV panels listed and UL certified? If not, your insurance won't cover them if they cause a fire, etc. The same might be said of your do-it-yourself installation work. Solar thermal isn't likely to start a fire whereas a poorly grounded PV system might...

E. Swanson

Ghung, I was thinking about your calculation this morning. You equated the daily energy output of the solar hot water panels on a sunny day to the daily energy output of the PV panels on a sunny day. Solar hot water systems use grid electricity as a backup power source on cloudy days usually resulting in 75% of the energy coming from the solar hot water panels and 25% coming from the grid. You did not take this back up grid power into account, and PV panels do not output much power on cloudy days.

In an off-grid PV system there is no back up power from the grid placing the burden on the storage system. If you use lead-acid batteries as your backup, you need to factor in the fractional cost of the batteries that is used and overbuild the PV array. The hot water tank is also part of the storage system which makes me wonder about the size of the tank if the backup grid power is removed. Some assumptions:

1. water temperature in the tank is allowed to vary between 40 C and 60 C.

2. The household uses 15 gallons of hot water per day.

3. On a cloudy day the PV panels output enough power to balance the conductive heat loss from the tank.

4. 4 consecutive days of clouds.

5. Worst case condition is in winter with cold water entering the tank at 0 C.

6. The water in the tank is fully heated to 60 C at the beginning of the cloudy period.

You remove 60 gallons of hot water whose temperature is decreasing and add 60 gallons of cold water whose temperature is increasing. This is a differential flow rate problem, and if I did my math correctly, then the tank needs to have a capacity of 270 gallons for the water temperature to be 40 C at the end of the 4^th cloudy day.

If the PV array is overbuilt by 2 times, then using the power from your example, there is 12.8 kWh/day available for heating the water. To heat this water from 0 C to 60 C assuming 100% efficiency:

270 gallons of water = 1046 l
specific heat of water = 4,186 J/(l C)

1046 l * 4,186 J/lC * (60 C - 0 C) = 263 MJ

It would take 5.7 days for the double sized PV array to heat this water starting at 0 C assuming no heat loss (no loss by heat conduction and no use of hot water). It would take 1 hour and 15 minutes on a sunny day to heat 15 gallons of water from 0 C to 60 C which is fast enough to heat the daily average consumption of water. It would take 1.9 sunny days to reheat the 270 gallons of water in the tank from 40 C to 60 C assuming no heat loss.

Remembering you stated your clouds are darker than mine, if you get 10% power on cloudy days, then this overbuilt system would provide 1.28 kWh/(cloudy day) which might be sufficient to compensate for conductive heat loss. If you use less than 15 gallons of hot water per day, then these numbers would scale down.

In summary dealing with 4 consecutive cloudy days in an off-grid PV system will require a sizable increase in the PV array and size of the tank.

It's amazing how people get caught up in a big number without asking what is the eroei, or ever at least ask why it has not been extracted in large quantities before. They must think we are just sitting on two trillion barrels of oil because we are testing our ability to resist the temptation to make trillions of dollars in profits. No people we are not that capable of resisting making lots of money, but we are capable of resisting huge losses.

Is he uninformed? Or is he just being strategic? (He is a Kuwaiti expert in oil strategies after all.) As a person who's job depends on selling oil, he wants his suckers customers to believe there is plenty of oil. Go ahead and buy that big SUV, Mr. American.

Humanity -- all seven million of it (and counting).

Seraph,

Indeed.

And remember that the civil rights department of the DOJ has both a civil and a crimial section.

Hence, the criminal indictment against Oil-Qaeda.

"Because humanity should not be held hostage by a profit-obsessed fossil-fuel cartel."

Complicating the issue is that humanity is standing there waving money at anyone who can deliver those same fossil fuels because humanity loves the benefits they bring. As a friend of mine use to put it; "They support my bad habits of eating and living indoors."

When I was in New York many years ago, I remember reading about a deposit of radioactive soil they found. They thought it must be some kind of spill of nuclear material, so they started excavating it and hauling it away.

Then they discovered that it was part of a trend of naturally radioactive soil that continued on well into neighboring Pennsylvania. So they filled in the excavation and did their best to pretend they had never found the radiation.

It's not unusual to have radioactive well water in some areas, and most people who have it don't know they have it. It has nothing to do with the oil industry, it's just that their drinking water happens to flow through a naturally-occurring deposit of radioactive ore.

If the water is radioactive, is the NG also radioactive? And if so, what happens the radiation when the NG is burned?
Rgds
WP

Well, that's one way of countering a helium shortage.

NAOM

From my personal experience, it appears that AGW has already had an effect on insurance rates. Unless, of course, one believes that wildfires have nothing to do with AGW. Either way, insurance is one the rise and there is no end in sight.

What they meant, was that if we actually tried to prevent/limit climate change, we would force these companies to leave much of it in the ground. That would indeed cost them big time.

Strange, climate change may well kill billions of people, but they're concerned about the effects on energy companies.

"Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled," International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde told participants at Davos.

What happens when people actually realise that climate change is going to start destroying their lives in as little as a decade or so from now?

The article did make at least one good point, I have to say, that is that buyers are probably now accustomed to higher base fuel prices.

People do get used to higher gasoline prices. Not sure how they do it, go deeper into debt, or drive less, or buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, or ditch the vehicle all together. What surprised me on trip to Norway about 6 month ago was the price of fuel there: up to 16.00 NOK/litre = 16.00 NOK * 1 US$/5.45540 NOK * 3.785412 litre/gallon = $11.10 US$/gallon. In other words, 4 dollars a gallon is nothing. Bring the price up to 11 dollars a gallon and you will see way fewer SUVs and pickup trucks.

I suspect that the fraction of the public which is most concerned by the present prices for oil products aren't going to have enough money to buy a new car. Besides, the price of gas is less than half that of Europe (we've been paying about $3.40 a gallon around here). Furthermore, the usual low cost econo-box hatch back design has rather poor gas mileage because of the high aero drag from the cutoff rear end. Take a look at the SCION IQ mentioned in the story, which is rated at only 36/37 city/highway and that's with a 1300cc engine and a CVT. Those "sports car" models with a "fast back" design would do better if they has small engines, but they are relatively rare these days, except as gas hog pony cars, like Camaros, Mustangs and the Toyota FR-S, rated at 25/34 city/highway with AT...

E. Swanson

That article was indeed mostly crap. No one changes their car buying based on a week to week change in price of gasoline.

But it did point out one truth . . . many micro-cars do have crappy aerodynamics because they are too short to be tapered. However, such cars are largely designed for city driving where aerodynamics really don't matter. Aerodynamics really only matters when you do fast freeway driving. If it is just city driving, having a lighter car is more more important than aerodynamics. Accelerating all that weight from frequent starts & stops hits efficiency.

What probably matters more than the absolute price level is the rate of change. Let's assume a person drives 15,000 miles/year in a 30mph car. That is 500 gallons per year, 9.6 gallon per week. Even if gas goes up a buck that is 10 bucks/week, the price of 2 lattes (if you like those things).
Rgds
WeekendPeak

The US is currently importing about 2.5 million barrels per day of crude oil from Canada while producing about 6.9 mbpd itself. That's a total of 9.4 mbpd - but around 27% of it comes from Canada. It's something to think about when listening to pundits discussing "American energy self-sufficiency" - they usually mean North American energy self-sufficiency.

Canadian crude oil production is about 3.5 mbpd, which added to US production to US production gives 10.4 mbpd of North American crude oil production - close to an all-time record - but 1/3 of that is in Canada and 2/3 in the US. No wonder Rockman is worried about all that Canadian crude showing up on his home turf of Texas.

The USA can't afford that!

That's what 9 months in Iraq cost...

Ethanol production is very low EROEI. I have heard it said that it is even negative EROEI and only works because of subsidies. Then ethenol is used to fuel very low efficiency ICE vehicles that waste most of it. That doesn't seem like a very smart thing to do.

What if an equal amount of acreage that is used to produce corn ethanol was installed with PV panels and used to power electric vehicles. What would be the comparison of overall efficiency and energy produced per land area?

I know it will never happen but it is interesting to think about such a thing.

I want to see how long these fracked fields produce. They put sand in the fracking mix to keep it open. There is a company publicly traded Carbo Ceramics that makes money selling materials that do just that.

I think that we may see a fracking bubble that encourages people, but may be short lived. I hope it works out, but I have my doubts. It is like saying that we discovered a large oil field, so 10 MPG is fine. That is just plain stupid and wasteful.

It's a typically misleading MSM article on the subject, obfuscated by the fact it's a German magazine, and German reporters know even less about it than American ones. It confuses the Bakken Formation, which is a tight oil play, with the shale gas formations of the Eastern and Southern US. There's a difference - in the Bakken companies are flaring the gas from their new wells while producing only the oil.

The Bakken Formation is not a new discovery - it was discovered over 50 years ago, and hydraulic fracturing has been used to produce oil and gas for over 50 years, too. What is new is the high price of oil. It is true that the Russians will not develop their shale gas resources any time soon because of their political system, and the Europeans will not do so because of their hostile environmental movements. In large parts of the US, the political system encourages unfettered resource development, and the environmental lobby largely toothless, so "drill baby drill" is the order of the day.

They are focused on Russia, but that has very little to do with it. The Russians and Americans are not competing in the same market area, and it is highly unlikely the Americans will be selling NG in Europe or Asia any time soon. Selling American oil outside the US is basically illegal, so the US "shale oil" boom will not have much effect on European oil prices.

I was just reading that online article on Der Spiegal International ( US Tips Global Power Scales with Fracking )and came straight over here looking for comments. Glad (but not surprised) to see folks here are on top of it already. In reading that article I have exceeded my daily dose of surreality...Some other "memorable quotes",

..."We have a hundred years' worth of energy right beneath our feet."
..."The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that the United States will replace Russia as the world's largest producer of natural gas in only two years. The Americans could also become the world's top petroleum producers by 2017."

Full Denial, or "Big Lie" mode?

Note the following in the article:

The delay in transporting equipment resulted from a battle Imperial Oil lost in Idaho and Montana, where residents urged local officials to reject the company’s plans to move enormous, South Korean-made pieces of the Kearl project on their highways. Critics focused on traffic delays, as well as environmental concerns.

Imperial had to take more than 200 of the modules apart so they could be moved on an alternate route. They were later reassembled, a process which required hundreds of people. This pushed up costs and delayed the project, even though the company was previously adamant the damage would not be severe.

A little more detail I can add: Imperial is sufficiently fed up about the delays and increased costs caused by moving the equipment from Korea through the US that it is going to fabricate the equipment for its next project in Canada. It has purchased land in an industrial suburb of Edmonton to build the factory, and from there it's a straight drive up Hiqhway 63 to Fort McMurray.

Also note the following:

Imperial on Friday said it will now cost $6.80 per barrel to develop the first and second phase of the project. That is a 10-per-cent increase from its last estimate of $6.20 per barrel. The company originally predicted it would cost $5 per barrel.

$6.80/bbl is Imperial's Finding and Development costs (F&D), a key oil patch indicator. It also has operating costs, plus taxes, depreciation, amortization, etc. etc. However, compare that to Shell's costs for its recent Arctic gong show, where it spent billions of dollars, ran the drilling rig aground, and had to send it to Asia to be repaired, meaning next year's drilling season is history already. $Billions / 0 Oil = Infinite F&D cost per barrel. Which giant multinational had the best results?

Risk is probably the biggest difference between oil sands and conventional oil. In oil sands you are betting on a sure thing because you know the oil is there. You just have to keep your costs down below revenues so the project stays in the black. In conventional oil, a wildcat well is a big big gamble, and your chances of winning are about the same as it would be at a Roulette wheel, assuming you put all your money on one number for one spin of the wheel. In the past, you won often enough at conventional oil and got a big enough payoff that it was a better bet than oil sands, but I doubt that is true any more.

Yeah I get the feeling that housing is going to be like musical chairs. Except the strategic thinking people are going to lock up the homes with the best natural energy saving properties. (A nice southern face for solar, no trees blocking PV, good hook-ups for natural gas and electricity etc.)

UN "Agenda 21 Hobbit Home" ? :)

Superinsulation is only part of the story. The is a strong diminishing return on energy investment. At some point, you are probably better to spend your energy than trying to save it.

I written a paper about that (http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/8/1711) and I just writing one about passivhaus.

How does the economics compare with the current solution for electric trains with a wire?

I'm an EV fan but battery-powered trains sounds pretty silly to me. Perhaps a battery would be good for dealing with short sections between electrified segments. But batteries are just not going to be a good idea for big massive heavy loads going long distances.

GE is producing batteries for hybrid locomotives and for various stationary applications where kWhr/l matters more than kWhr/kg.

http://geenergystorage.com/

http://www.getransportation.com/rail/rail-products/locomotives/hybrid-lo...

There's a good one where Lisa pretty much jumps on to anti-depressants after thinking about ecological collapse from a few years ago. Probably the first one to make me think since the golden age ended in the late nineties.

He added "life" to "dead soil" and after years turned it into "live soil" so that more potatos could be grown. Maybe there is hope then for feeding the population when it reaches 10 billion. "Here, have a post-permafrost potato and don't complain. At least you get one a day, some don't."

They're still not sure what went wrong. Maybe the halftime show special effects tripped a breaker or something.

Not really unusual, though. At least one regular season NFL game was interrupted by a power outage this season. I've also seen it happen at many a baseball game.