The “largest rocket” also peaked in the 1970s and is now getting smaller. . Rocket fuel is basically made of kerosene.

Fun fact. Notice that on rockets designed to get farther out into space that the actual capsule is tiny and the rocket is essentially an enormous fuel tank needed to carry all the fuel you need to carry all the fuel you need?

So the fun fact is that if planet earth was 1.5 diameters larger, gravity would be stronger. If gravity was just that much stronger, humanity would still be unable to get to space. Right now, we discovered oil, which had just barely enough energy per mass to allow a launch to orbit. But if gravity was a little more, we would not have any technology that could do it. This tells a story about the limits of human ingenuity. We were just lucky to discover the resources ready to go, we did not invent the resources.

A friend of mine was a social worker in senior leadership for a national hotline that was a resource for youth who were struggling with problems.

Over the years, the nature of the calls shifted away from typical teenage problems around parents, friends, school, dating etc.

The number 1 call coming from the teens was about a sense that there was no future and that older generations were engaging in gaslighting youth about how things are still ok.

For my friend, this posed a major dilemma because it became increasingly difficult to obtain the essential operating fund donations. How do you ask for funding from older generations who had a strong desire to avoid hearing that message?

THIS is why we need green energy, fossil fuel infrastructure is far too brittle.

There is actually a report that does a deep dive into some of these details:

https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-perspectives-2024

Warning, this is a svelte 400-page report!

I was mentioning this because of the content of Chapter 5 & 6.

In summary, in Chapter 5 the case is made that the global supply chains for the renewables economy require an order of magnitude more shipping because most of the resources are very material intensive. For example, we will need much more dry bulk ocean freighters to transport ore, metals, coal and so on.

In Chapter 6 on the strategic considerations, it turns out that multiple new shipping lane chokepoints will be created, many of them in socially unstable and dangerous areas. In some of these areas huge ships will be passing through 100s of times a day. The location of these chokepoints shifts dramatically from the fossil fuel paradigm.

The report concludes that the “just in time” fossil fuel markets are more susceptible to short term disturbances, but the post-carbon economy will be vastly more reliant on massive massive transport supply chains with lots of lower density materials. Where already installed energy systems are not disturbed in the short term, the supply chain will be exponentially more vulnerable to shocks and there are much larger attack surfaces.

The report analyses 10 marine shipping chokepoints starting at page 385. In the charts that follow, you can see how a lot of petro shipping passes through one or more chokepoints, but the cleantech will have 3X more chance of the shipping supply chain passing through chokepoints. Solar, EVs, batteries and heat pumps are the tech that is particularly vulnerable to passing through these chokepoints.

Whenever a shipping lane is disrupted, ships have to take longer journeys to bypass the issues, and longer voyage times has the same effect as reducing the total amount of ships available globally. It also raises costs and creates domino effects in supply chains.

In summary, the cleantech economy is a massive increase in supply chain complexity. I really don’t think most people understand how much low density material will need to be moved around the globe in the future. Cleantech is a much more intense global industrial supply chain.

That’s because the whole theory is wrong.

The renewables/EVs are being made in factories that are a long term investment in coal powered manufacturing. They are being shipped in oil powered ships and driven by diesel trucks on asphalt roads and mounted on concrete foundations or whatever.

The entire supply chain is the exact same supply chain that was designed in the fossil fuel era.

The renewable energy system is less than 3% of the whole thing and the system isn’t being redesigned.

Unfortunately, what we were doing was always childish and superficial.

… what I am saying is replay Fallout New Vegas, Hardcore mode, just in case.

I just ordered a case of Nuka-Cola.

Why did they need refurbishing if they weren’t broken?

Used coffee grinders get oily / have grinds inside that need cleaning. About half of them had a missing hopper, lid, knob, canister etc.

I have had a dozen+ BARATZAS, but only about 5 or so Encores.

Out of all of the machines I’ve had, I had one that had a failing motor, and one had a failed timer switch from someone forcing it to far. However I’ve replaced multiple timer switches because on 20 - 30 year old machines the new knobs don’t fit without changing the timer also (different shaft shape, same timer). It’s super cool that you can install the updated parts with no issues.

Once I had a machine where the wire had been knocked off the momentary micro switch.

A lot of the machines I’ve had have been heavily used… Like in a university break room or a corporate coffee area. Like probably equivalent to 5-10X what a home used would do.

Back around 2005-2010 I also owned one for my own use.

On the second one, the plastic burr collar broke and Baratza told me it was a common failure.

Isn’t that a $5 semi-external part that you can change without tools and without opening the machine? Like just twist off the hopper by hand and it’s accessible?

I’ve never fixed a broken Encore or Forte, I thought you were going to teach me what goes wrong on them.

So it’s the gears that break?

I know you said you have never even looked at the Forte, so how do you know they can be recommend as a BIFL grinder?

The Forte (Baratza’s semi-commercial model at around $800 new) might be a plausible BIFL grinder for the average person.

Interesting opinion.

What makes this a better grinder than the $60 Encore? Like how is it so vastly better?

https://www.baratza.com/en-us/product/100-120v-d-shaft-motor-for-flat-burr-grinders-sp0100771?sku=SP0100771

https://www.baratza.com/en-us/product/100-120v-motor-for-conical-burr-grinders-sp0100799?sku=SP0100799

Because they use the same internals. Same exact motor. Just has a different shape on the output shaft.

I wonder if the Forte breaks as easily as the Encore?

The OP is in Canada.

The Canadian version of Timbuk2 would be PAC Designs, but PAC Designs are much higher quality and a bit more expensive also. They are professional level products. Literally every element on a PAC bag is higher quality… Fabric, stitching, hardware, straps, padding etc. PAC is literally top quality possible.

Getting ahold of these bags is a bit of a dark art (always has been) but I think they have a Facebook contact.

https://www.facebook.com/100064306441241/

Encore isn’t much of an espresso grinder either.

Incorrect. The encore has 40 grind size levels. It is literally an espresso grinder.

In the range of 1-20, the entire grind output adjustment is around 400 microns. The slope on the burr adjustment in these first 20 clicks is 80 degrees. The actual vertical movement of the burrs across the range is only 70 microns (or about 3.6 microns per click!!!), but because the plane between the burrs is angled, each click registers about 20 microns in grind fineness adjustment.

It might not be the best espresso grinder made but it’s the best entry level brand at this price. You will only be disappointed by comparing it to machines multiple times the cost. It is not a 5 star machine but its not terrible.

Do you know what the difference is? Between a general purpose grinder and an espresso grinder?

The OP was asking for a BIFL grinder with a maximum budget of $100.

Exactly. I use one during camping and when the power is out.

The skerton is a funny grinder where it makes a very consistent finer grind (like espresso levels), but does a lot worse for coarse grind (drip / french press / pour over) where it loses consistency when the burrs are further open.

Its exactly opposite of most hand grinders where its strong at the one thing that many cheaper manual grinders don’t get right.

I have a camping espresso press so it suits my scenario.

I resell electronics and a lot of related stuff so I have gone through a lot of items over my career. My insight into what breaks and what doesn’t comes from seeing hundreds of used items weekly. I’ve handled many many brands of grinders and refurbished a bunch of them. I have 2 Baratzas I’m selling right now and sold a Hario earlier today. I also sold another Baratza part this week.

I never claimed the Baratzas don’t ever break, but the motors last decades and everything else is cheap and simple on them, they are made to be serviced, which makes them extremely good value. This is why they are a good recommendation for the super cheap price. I know iof no sub $100 grinders that don’t have some problem eventually. Think of the price tag. A $60 grinder is dirt cheap.

Baratza Encores currently cost about $60-75 on eBay on the lower side of the price range That would be a used working machine covered by a money back guarantee. A couple have sold for just $50-55 in the past 90 days.

I don’t dispute some of what you’re saying about a commercial grinder like that $1200 Bunn G1, but that grinder only has 7 grind adjustment settings. It’s really not comparable to an espresso grinder. The special feature of the Bunn is grinding a pound of coffee in 30 seconds. Like you can’t get an espresso shot calibrated with that style of machine. Of course, that’s not a home machine and it’s not really designed for the purpose of a careful grind size / weight. However, end of the day, that grinder is $475 for a used model. If a Baratza lasts 20 years for $60, is a Bunn 10X as good?

Lazy. Weak argument.

No, I didn’t make it up.

Most people haven’t ever thought about this or checked their assumptions and biases. And I say that because you’re assuming I made it up but YOU don’t actually have the figures. Very interesting.

You want the citation or can you look it up all on your own?

I’ll give you a hint. Its very hard to find any citation that will compare defense to science in a direct way.

What you can easily do is find a number for the science spending as a percentage of GDP, and a number that gives you the defense budget with identical terms.

Once you check you are welcome to report back if you disagree.

So this will really require two citations and some critical thinking

[ * elsewhere I commented that we spend more on science in the USA than rhe transportation sector. Feel free to check that also, but again, you can’t read this anywhere except by asking the questions yourself.]

What would you recommend that not Baratza for a, sub-$100 grinder that’s repairable and maintainable?

Baratza grinders are not the nicest grinders known, but they do sell every part and you can replace the burrs.

Like I recently sold a KitchenAid double burr grinder that runs double the price of a Baratza Encore. New burrs are not available and all the parts of the KA are breakable glass and unobtainable for repairs. That to me seems crazy, but the flip side is that a $60 Encore is a screaming deal at that price level, for the features of being 100% repairable.

I’ve refurbished about a dozen Baratza grinders (many old and heavily used) but I have only ever seen one with a motor issue (worn brushes). The most common issues are damage to the plastic exterior parts from being dropped. The main mechanism is surprisingly durable.

Is there a better $60 grinder you’re aware of?

https://www.baratza.com/en-us/landing/product/parts

Part cost is VERY reasonable and they ship cheap and fast

As far as I can tell, the top line Baratza models use the same gearbox and motor as the base models

Baratza will sell you the main circuit board for under $15 and the gear box rebuild for like $10. In my opinion that’s admirable. Talking like BIFL ethics, the company obviously wants you to be able to repair any issues, versus being disposable.

( Silly question: why do you own a Skerton, and why isn’t it broken?)

For espresso or drip?

The only (finely adjustable) espresso grinders < $100 are probably going to be used or maybe Baratza brand. Baratza does sell many of the replacement parts online, but occasionally the designs get updated and older models can be hard to repair without having to change lots of internals. The models share a lot of their internal designs however and they are quite durable. Used baratza is around $60-75. Burrs can run $40.

Hario makes some good simple hand grinders that you can get new burrs for. The skerton model can screw onto a mason / ball wide mouth jar if you break the glass canister. They can usually make an okay espresso grind but definitely a tier below an electric machine for quality and speed. Hand grinders take about 3 minutes a shot if you are grinding finely. For drip grind levels these are fast enough.

There are plenty of good higher end grinders. I had a Rancilio Rocky that I got second hand, made in 1985, used multiple times daily for years and only needed a small repair to the Doser lever spring. I changed the burrs a couple of times and gave it to a friend and it’s still running perfectly as a 40 year old workhorse. Not fancy but quite solid. The only real weak point is some plastics on the case, but they sell replacements. The designs have been fairly maintained over the years and parts are available. I’m pretty sure that if I bought a new Rocky it would outlive me today. A used rocky is about $125 USD @ eBay, street price for new is about $275. They are not the most finely adjustable if you want to fully nerd out on espresso but you can make a damn good shot.

With all due respect, do you know that more money is spent on Science than the entire defense budget?

Like I take your point, but also it’s more complicated. I’d argue that zero science can be done without policing the worlds shipping lanes and supply chains. There is possibly a lot of waste corruption and destruction in the defense budget BUT…

Further down the comments in this very discussion someone starts talking about how Einstein and the theory of relativity began the development that causes the GPS grid.

I could advance an argument that ALL the current high technology is a product of public defense spending and not science funding. Like virtually all the technology inside the modern cell phone originated as defense spending that was then given over free of charge to large corporations to make consumer products and privatize the profits. (Touch screens computers, radio, satellites, GPS, the internet etc are from military).

Like, it’s not as pure an example as I think you’re hoping to make. There absolutely is a clear high return on investment on part of defense spending. A lot of pure science doesn’t create this kind of result.

I think it’s proof that we are civilizationally pretty broken that this could happen, but also it’s nice to look at it realistically and consider what this means about us.

When people first start looking for gold, they find giant nuggets just sitting there.

Then they use pans, horses and pickaxes to find chunks of gold in rivera and seams in the rock.

Then they build huge floating factories to dredge up entire landscapes and sift for tiny flecks of gold sand.

THEN they gather a massive amount of human slaves to gather host rock and process it with cyanide to leach the gold out of massive amounts of overburden.

At some point whatever new gold is left to go get takes the wealth you already have and lowers it. You will spend more gold mining than you will pull out of the ground. Nobody is saying you can’t go mine new gold today. It’s that it has a negative return on investment. This is beyond the inflection point. Many many things could go into the calculus for what it costs… Your technology, your price of energy, the degree of automation, etc. You might be able to play with your accounting for a long time and find corners of the planet that are favorable…

But to go mine for something that isn’t there and isn’t producing a return make you poor now. In reality / realistic terms this is now different.

So then you end up asking yourself: “what is this gold even for?” And that’s like looking into the abyss because our culture doesn’t have a collective meaning to organize society if this goes away.

Ok, so that’s an analogy. Science used to work, and everything is screaming that we are close to the end now.

Like every government, every company, all our organizations, they all depend on this facade continuing… And so the end of science is extremely damaging to the story we tell ourselves.

If that story were to go away we would have to ask some big questions

It sounds like you are positing that at a certain point, we should be happy with the fruit that we have and not build the next rung in the ladder since that ring is much more expensive than the last.

You almost understand my point.

It’s not JUST that it becomes MORE expensive (than before).

It becomes MORE expensive than THE RETURN. Ie, its actually dependent on the host body which it depletes like a parasitic relationship.

Therefore this acts as a collapse acceleration device.

This is not MY idea, I’m telling you what’s in the scientific literature of the study of collapse.

Like in the middle ages, they would have a whole class of clergy and they can build a beautiful basilica while people are diseased and starving. But it didn’t help their civilization survive. Most of these civilizations collapse due to internal damage to their culture of surviving BEFORE they trigger bio-physical scarcity. Its quite sobering. [ * read Peter Turchin and his theory of elite overproduction causing political economic collapse before physical collapse. The more unproductive members of the society are dependent on the society, the faster and more unstable the collapse becomes.)

Like the last Norse in Greenland didn’t outlive the seals. You get it?

This is why the collapse science people focus on complexity versus simplification

Thought experiment for you: Imagine that we cannot go out and look for any new solutions any more. We would therefore have to solve all our problems with what we already know how to do.

Would there be any point in kicking the can on solving our issues? Or would we need to get started right now? If we couldn’t invest in speculative solutions that will solve our problems tomorrow I think that a great deal of what’s going on today would immediately be suspect.

Like, we hold hope that we can find something NEW that will change how hard survival will be and what it will really cost us.

Precautionary principal today simply gets thrown out if we think we can fix our mistakes in the future.

This is how we created our systemic overshoot in the first place. This is why it pushes peoples buttons to even suggest that this is wrong… The illusion serves a purpose. A lot of people don’t really realize that science failed 50 years ago and that it has been propped up as a secular religion/ideology.

If a person came out of a 50 year coma in 1900 they would not recognize their world at all. In 1950 they would have no clue what’s going on. A person waking up from a 50 year coma in 2026 doesn’t see a new world that they don’t have a basis to understand…

So science is telling us we either bend or break.

Bend means stopping growth and new knowledge production.

Breaking is to push further. Like every new piece of knowledge will be applied to accelerating the damage to the environment and drawing in more planetary boundaries.

The end of growth is guaranteed either way, right?

Science 101 is that the fruit flies in the jar die. Are humans able to consciously reduce their impacts below the carrying capacity or will nature do it for us? Both paths are valid solutions.

I’d argue that you have a cynical view from the perspective that the planet is finite. The theory of black holes will not outlive the last human alive. It’s cynical to kill the humans not yet alive through a fairy tale religious fervor.

There are three ways of looking at it.

1. I don’t want to get the medical test in case it’s a bad diagnosis. I’ll just be happy.

2. I’ll get the test, but if I don’t like the result I’ll just take alternate treatments, not update my will and be happy. Person #2 isn’t in literal denial, but they deny the meaning of what they know. Implicatory denial.

3. I’ll get the test, get my affairs in order, and live realistically.

I’d argue that you are arguing for #2, and I’m arguing for #3. That’s ok, we can disagree.