To elaborate on the madness of European leaders: Remember that the Ukraine war is really about its joining NATO, announced 2008 in Bucarest. This was Bushs US-cowboy politics to expand their hegemonic system to the other side of the globe into the heartland of Russia. Two US-ambassadors in Moscow (Kennan, Burns) clearly warned against these plans and Putin already then declared openly that this would put Ukraines existence into question and that he would annex Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Nobody listened and now we have a proxy war (consider that after WW2 with 30 mio deliberately killed slaws - much more than the holocaust - no Russian leader can afford to tolerate Germany in Ukraine, not even in the sheepskin of NATO).
As Ugo pointed out the natural interest of Europeans would be to cooperate with Russia to secure their food resources. But even now, when Trump has backed out, they prefer to continue the US-cowboy project at their own cost, rearm and even seriously talk about general war, actions which put into question not only their economy but their existence.
The problem is that Russians seem less detestosteronised than we are. Also the leading decision makers are less detestosteronised than the young men who actually would have to go to war (today I read that only something like 20 percent of young Germans would fight for their country). As much as I am sceptical of Mrs LePen and the AfD it is probable that they soon will participate at power and decisions and this could perhaps put an end to this barking with a packleader who has left the pack (Trump).
Nothing makes senses. Europe leaders are totally at lost.
They (ie Germany) decided to phase out nuclear power and switch to (so called) renewable. But, as they also wanted to keep an economy (and the population's purchasing power hence political support that goes with it) that would not depend on mere weather, they decided to pair it with Russian gaz. And spent billions on the necessary infrastructures despite being repeatedly warned by the US that it will not be tolerated.
But suddenly, as, quite predictably if not provoked, Russia takes charge of Ukraine's long-standing issues the Russian way, they decide that Russian gaz is now politically untouchable.
So, after they banned any shale gaz extraction in Europe because it is way to polluting down here, they want to go for US shale gaz which is, on top of that, twice as expensive. So they promise to import huge quantity of US LNG while making laws to deter importation as much as possible in the name of climate policies...
Indeed... and it is worth remembering the colour revolution in Georgia 2003 followed by Georgia's NATO ambitions (opposed at the time by Germany and France) leading to Russia's 2008 military intervention in breakaway regions. Inadequacies revealed in Russian military capability led to serious modernisation from 2010... ongoing. Propaganda about 'Putin's expansion' has been profoundly misleading in the rest of Europe, especially leading up to the present leadership. Putin's initial national deals with oligarchs, the latter having potential to split the Russian Federation (see an example in a failing Ukraine and NATO ambitions to 2014), essentially focussed on securing fossil fuel production and ownership, as I understand it.
That's not true. Putin started war not because of expansion of NATO, but because his imperialist plan 'Russian World'. And that's not proxy war. You don't understand what are you talking about.
Two US-ambassadors to Moscow (Kennan, Burns) warned that expanding the NATO to the East and Ukraine would cause conflict. Do you deny this? When the 2008 NATO-conference in Bucarest decided to get Ukraine into NATO Putin publicly warned that this would put the existence of Ukraine into question. Do you deny this? And Putin at the same time in Moscow said that he would then annex Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. But Bush went ahead, Obama ridiculed Russia as a local power, Biden went along and conflict it was as predicted by everybody. Then Trump backed out again. And now Ukrainians are used to destroy their country by consuming weapons sold by the US and paid for by the Europeans, a very good deal for Trump's US and a miserable one for everybody else. I know very well what I am talking about.
It is only about, exclusively, the seizing by Russia of Ukrainian resources, industrial power and people to advance Putin's imperialistic plan, and to move on invading other countries to re-make the USSR (or the russian empire, be what you like).
All the rest, is just russian propaganda BS, and either you're falling for it, or you're paid to spread it.
So Kennan and Burns were Russian propagandists? :) It is of course too about seizing resources and advancing imperialistic plans (but equally from both sides), But with a more prudent behaviour Ukraine could have hoped to preserve a status like Finland or Belorus and prevent a silly war which cannot be won.
Trump wants reare earths. Trump always wants something. And about winning: Lanchester and Osipov showed in 1916 that an attrition war is won by whoever has more personnel. You can answer yourself.
It is only about, exclusively, the seizing by Russia of Ukrainian resources, industrial power and people to advance Putin's imperialistic plan, and to move on invading other countries to re-make the USSR (or the russian empire, be what you like).
All the rest, is just russian propaganda BS, and either you're falling for it, or you're paid to spread it.
We are all going to die horribly, either quickly vaporised by thermonuclear weapons or slowly if still alive uninjured but fighting for survival in darkening world. But if not death by thermonuclear means, then most likely for those below the age of 45 by the poly and meta crisis as humanity enters the bottleneck of the great simplification the result of ecological overshoot. Want a peek into what that bottleneck might look like then check out Kurt Dahl’s book “An American Famine - (subtitle) A Rosetta Stone for the coming collapse”, the opening quotation by Thomas Hobbes should be one to remember “Hell is the truth seen too late”, it’s said biblically that the meek shall inherit the earth” but the question is would they🤔
I follow you on the general picture, a bit provocative, I think, but that's not the point. However, a few corrections to the models you describe would make picture less dark grey. I would try to take into account the results of the progress in energy efficiency during the last 10 years, and lower consumption due to milder winters. The figures can be obtained from the various countries "bureau of statistics". Any insulation of a building (for now, it's only a few %, but going on, not strong enough), any replacement of a car burning 8 l/100 km by one burning 5 l /100 km decreases the "country's fossil fuel consumption. This is probably more than compensated by the increase in the number of new buildings, new cars., etc. (8 years ago, I moved to a different canton and received a 471'000 car license plate, now its above 590'000!). I can hardly believe! )
So it would be nice to be able to isolate the fossil fuel consumption by the industry, agriculture, and services only.
Otherwise, I share some of the points mentioned in other comments.
Paul, it is a fundamental point. It is the "Jevons' Paradox" which is not a paradox but the basis of how an economy works. If we become more efficient, we do not reduce energy consumption. We simply re-allocate the energy available to other tasks. It is one of the many things economists never understood, and probably never will.
I'm sorry Ugo. I loved this essay but I don't understand "fraction of imported fossil fuels they import" Fraction of what? X over Y and what is Y?
Also, the recent time period has a gentler slope but I would expect a greater one, or not? Sorry, confused. And why double up the periods in the first place? Why not 2009 to 2024 (25 years) and 1993 to 2008 previous period, or something like that?
Good article. Another factor here is the ridiculous carbon accounting rules where emissions are counted where they are sourced. This leads to European countries prioritising imports over local resources. For example, Ireland has a potential gas field - Inishkea. Instead of using it, we are importing gas from the UK who are importing it as LNG from the US. The lifecycle is worse than coal. This is labelled by Ireland as having 0 carbon intensity as the gas came from outside our borders (the real carbon intensity is 43%). Inishkea would be about 1.2% carbon intensity. So we are importing extremely polluting gas, rather than sourcing it locally, in order to say we have reduced our emissions. Globally, emissions go up, electricity prices in Europe go up, and this ridiculous charade goes on.
"I don’t know what your impression is of Trump meeting Ursula von Der Leyen in Scotland. Most commentators were not nice to Europe’s first lady. They spoke of “humiliation,” of “surrender,” and the like."
We must listen to very different commentators.
The ones I've been reading viewed the whole thing as a triumph over the US, not acceptance of defeat. The EU accepted 15% tariffs — which Convicted Felon Cat Meat was going to do anyway — in exchange for empty promises it is either already doing, or that it has no control over.
The EU cannot force private businesses to spend money in the US. It cannot force member nations to spend their military budget in the US. They necessarily *must* spend more on military, because the US is abdicating its role as world policeman, and the Europeans see the wolf (Russia) at their door.
World leaders have learned how to manage Trümp: suck up bigly to his ultimate greatness, act like you're cowering in the corner, make a lot of empty and meaningless "concessions". Then after he leaves, get busy finding other trading partners, and enjoy watching the US circle the bowl in the toilet.
I agree that it's all about energy, but I disagree that electricity is the ultimate energy form. It is a very refined source, full of what Howard Odum called "emergy" or embedded energy, even while being less capable than diesel.
While it is true than you cannot run your computer on diesel, neither can you do mining, long-haul transportation, or agriculture with electricity. And if it comes down to really needing electricity, you *can* turn diesel into electricity to run your computer.
But better is to turn diesel into solar panels and wind turbines to run your computer, because you don't have to use it all at once.
Don't get me wrong; I'm highly skeptical of the "green energy transition" as a way of "saving" our profligate life-styles. But it may serve as a bridge to a future based on current photosynthesis.
It may well be that electricity becomes intermittent in the first world — as it has always been in the third world. This will eventually include the US, as the Permian Basin is showing early signs of collapse.
But those solar panels and wind turbines built out of today's diesel will continue working — intermittently — for decades, whereas the US is busy burning it all up as fast as they can suck it out of the Earth.
China's ascendance is built on coal, although they're also leading on so-called "renewables", too.
Meanwhile, the Earth cooks. Expect more events like the Guadalupe flash floods to kill many people and to remove infrastructure faster than we can re-build it.
Well, we all live in different knowledge bubbles. In the one I inhabit, people tend to hate Ursula Von der Leyen more than they hate Trump. It seems that in your bubble it is the opposite! :-)
You can't pick 2023 as an arbitrary standard year. That's Year 1 of the Ukraine mess. Italy's gas imports fell 15% between 2022 and 2023 alone. But between 2008 and 2024 gas consumption went up something ridiculous like 3000% (from millions to billions of metric tons), but it's not like Italy in 2024 produced 3000% more electricity than in 2008: gas is mostly used for heating, so who knows what % of electricity in 2008 was used for heating.
Then there's the issue of energy efficiency, from consumer goods to industry.
As for pricing, you can also look into the self inflicted clusterfuck of European gas pricing through a unified financial market based in Holland, which went parabolic after the Ukraine mess started.
The basic premise of your article (energy production as a proxy for GDP) at a high level has been established in economic literature for a while, but it's not the whole story. These are interesting proxies and definitely worth considering with more nuanced research. But suggesting Italy's real GDP has contracted by around 15% since 2008 because electricity production has decreased, excluding heat (a small but significant omission) that's asking a bit much.
Corrupt von Der Leyen deserves nothing but public humiliation. She's been destroying EU by imposing nefarious agendas of the globalist unelected and unaccontable 'elites'.
Side statement: Trump probably reminded her that NSA has the (Pfizergate) messages she wants to hide...
She runs the show because she has be appointed to do so. And confirmed by a majority of the various factions at the (so called) Euro parliament not so long ago...
You correctly state that interest in energy transitions has disappeared from the debate. In the United States that interest has morphed into outright opposition in many quarters. (The oil company BP is the poster child here ― they moved to ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and then back to being an oil company.)
This is not necessarily all bad ― renewable energy and other new technologies now have to justify themselves on economic grounds. But a deeper reason for this shift is that people are increasingly aware that the new technologies will not allow us to maintain a first-world lifestyle. Sacrifice is called for, and people do not want to think about that.
I understand the article, but I feel like we are missing something, energy consumption alone is a limiting factor if we didn't consider efficacy of use: like a heat pump could heat more than using a resistor (conversion at almost 100%) so heating an insulted, hermetic container is less energy expensive compared to an open, uninsulated one.
In my opinion, Europe is quite conscious of his precarious energy situation, so a lot of unpopular decisions could be traced to a double root: energy from within (renewable) and a better use of it (energy efficiency). We could foresee a lot of the possibilities, and we are not alone, China too is in a similar situation so is pushing in the same direction!
What Europe could get being ahead is to get before other one working exit strategy from the end of fossil energy, the dream of infinite, cheap and easy energy is just an illusion, new fields could be found but is still kicking the can a little more. The only realistic exit from our overconsumption of fossil energy are the use of renewable sources and nuclear fusion.... in both case still fusion is the key because the sun is fusion powered!
Our time of disruption is the natural consequence of a shift in paradigm, we probably are past the peak of hi EROEI conventional sources, we have still some island of EROEI good enough to keep some dreams running (AI is one, crypto another and so on) because we are still misunderstanding money as energy. Reality is winning by persistence over dreams fueled by money.
As a rule of thumb, being ahead is fall before other but also having more incentive to find a solution when others can still help and "necessity is the mother of inventions"...
Ugo. Is there such a close correlation between electricity and fossil fuels? From my perspective, electricity, as a secondary energy source, isn't closely related to fossil fuels enough to validate the analysis from an electrical perspective alone.
I have the plots for primary energy, too. They are about the same. Personally, I think electricity is the crucial factor; it is what powers everything that's important. But the basic concept of biophysical economics, that society is an engine, does not change.
dear professor will the collapse by very soon or do we still have a few years left because dr nafeez ahmed says that crude shale oil will reach a peak this year to 13.4 million barrels a day and for next year and the year after on 13.3 million barrels a day ?
Your observation about Europe paying for its fossil fuels from the profits of its exports, with higher prices of energy making its products less competitive begs one to speculate a bit about what the future might hold.
A case can be made that renewable energy alone, fully built out, will only provide a (likely very small) fraction of what traditional sources produce today. Tim Watkins (a UK economist) theorizes that the surplus appropriated by capitalists consists mostly not of that produced by labor, but has been the "labor equivalent" produced by energy sources like coal, oil, and gas, which we collect for a tiny fraction of their "labor equivalent". One common figure is that 1 gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 100-200 hours of human labor.
It follows that as traditional energy sources start to disappear, and not all of them can be fully replaced by renewables, energy costs will start to soar until humanity adjusts to the new reality and seriously cuts back its use. Many products made today will likely disappear, as due to the cost of (now mostly manual) production, they will not find buyers.
The future ambitions of some "leaders", if carried through to realization, would not take LESS energy, but on the contrary, require vastly MORE energy than even today, for things including AI data centers, cryptocurrency mining, and all-encompassing digital cocoons for everyone. Someone is going to end up disappointed in the end.
You say "There is no thermodynamic reason why, when decline starts, leaders should go mad and squander the few remaining resources of their countries on a military buildup." I can think of two motives for this, and one might possibly qualify as "thermodynamic"; that would be the desire to take what is left of something from someone who still has some--in this case, Russia is seen as the largest remaining resource bonanza on the planet, and someone hopes that what they can take is more than they will expend by the getting of it. Makes about as much sense as the Alberta tar sands, but there it is.
The other reason, of course, is that the low-wattage crowd running the EU and the US these days has hypnotized itself into believing its own bogus narrative.
dear ugo bardi when will the european union start collapsing and when will the human population start collapsing according to worldometer population is stil growing and to my information eu is stil setting the green deal through renewable energy is growing in the european union and china but is stagnating in the us ?
but what is soon in scientist terms a couple of month's or a few years because sandrine dixson decleve stil says it is the decisive decade and this olduvai theory says als collapse from 2030 onwards ?
what i really mean is will european citizen's or the european union all by death before 2030 because the olduvai theory says we will collapse from 2030 onward meaning we will start to die off ?
oh i get it you mean if the doctor says you have 10 years to life it can also by that you die in the 9th year but the club of rome forecasted 3 collapse time lines 2030 2040 and 2050 most people say 2040 or 2050 dr nafeez ahmed thinks that population will maybe grow until 2040 and that if we do our best the renewable energy transition will by completed by than without losing anybody but we have to overbuild it we can have 3 times to 5 times more energy that today in some regions he says ?
no ugo i do not know this joke i think i even do not know the meaning of what you mean i can write videogame/movie english but i speak dutch like in the nederlands but i am born in belgium flemish region in poperinge by ypres where the talbot house is
Can the US actually deliver on the LNG agreement? Trump has little or no control over supplies, prices, and existing export capacity. Maybe the EU is smarter than you think, making a deal for lower tariffs in exchange for purchase guarantees it does not ever expect to fulfill. Of course manipulating Trump's ego does not solve the fundamental energy problem or, as others have commented, the misappropriation of energy resources. Presumably the EU could use coal at the level China does, but modern democracies don't have much tolerance for trade offs (the resulting air and soil pollution).
To elaborate on the madness of European leaders: Remember that the Ukraine war is really about its joining NATO, announced 2008 in Bucarest. This was Bushs US-cowboy politics to expand their hegemonic system to the other side of the globe into the heartland of Russia. Two US-ambassadors in Moscow (Kennan, Burns) clearly warned against these plans and Putin already then declared openly that this would put Ukraines existence into question and that he would annex Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Nobody listened and now we have a proxy war (consider that after WW2 with 30 mio deliberately killed slaws - much more than the holocaust - no Russian leader can afford to tolerate Germany in Ukraine, not even in the sheepskin of NATO).
As Ugo pointed out the natural interest of Europeans would be to cooperate with Russia to secure their food resources. But even now, when Trump has backed out, they prefer to continue the US-cowboy project at their own cost, rearm and even seriously talk about general war, actions which put into question not only their economy but their existence.
And we are lucky that they are detestosteronized. Imagine they weren't!
The problem is that Russians seem less detestosteronised than we are. Also the leading decision makers are less detestosteronised than the young men who actually would have to go to war (today I read that only something like 20 percent of young Germans would fight for their country). As much as I am sceptical of Mrs LePen and the AfD it is probable that they soon will participate at power and decisions and this could perhaps put an end to this barking with a packleader who has left the pack (Trump).
Nothing makes senses. Europe leaders are totally at lost.
They (ie Germany) decided to phase out nuclear power and switch to (so called) renewable. But, as they also wanted to keep an economy (and the population's purchasing power hence political support that goes with it) that would not depend on mere weather, they decided to pair it with Russian gaz. And spent billions on the necessary infrastructures despite being repeatedly warned by the US that it will not be tolerated.
But suddenly, as, quite predictably if not provoked, Russia takes charge of Ukraine's long-standing issues the Russian way, they decide that Russian gaz is now politically untouchable.
So, after they banned any shale gaz extraction in Europe because it is way to polluting down here, they want to go for US shale gaz which is, on top of that, twice as expensive. So they promise to import huge quantity of US LNG while making laws to deter importation as much as possible in the name of climate policies...
Indeed... and it is worth remembering the colour revolution in Georgia 2003 followed by Georgia's NATO ambitions (opposed at the time by Germany and France) leading to Russia's 2008 military intervention in breakaway regions. Inadequacies revealed in Russian military capability led to serious modernisation from 2010... ongoing. Propaganda about 'Putin's expansion' has been profoundly misleading in the rest of Europe, especially leading up to the present leadership. Putin's initial national deals with oligarchs, the latter having potential to split the Russian Federation (see an example in a failing Ukraine and NATO ambitions to 2014), essentially focussed on securing fossil fuel production and ownership, as I understand it.
That's not true. Putin started war not because of expansion of NATO, but because his imperialist plan 'Russian World'. And that's not proxy war. You don't understand what are you talking about.
Two US-ambassadors to Moscow (Kennan, Burns) warned that expanding the NATO to the East and Ukraine would cause conflict. Do you deny this? When the 2008 NATO-conference in Bucarest decided to get Ukraine into NATO Putin publicly warned that this would put the existence of Ukraine into question. Do you deny this? And Putin at the same time in Moscow said that he would then annex Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. But Bush went ahead, Obama ridiculed Russia as a local power, Biden went along and conflict it was as predicted by everybody. Then Trump backed out again. And now Ukrainians are used to destroy their country by consuming weapons sold by the US and paid for by the Europeans, a very good deal for Trump's US and a miserable one for everybody else. I know very well what I am talking about.
It is only about, exclusively, the seizing by Russia of Ukrainian resources, industrial power and people to advance Putin's imperialistic plan, and to move on invading other countries to re-make the USSR (or the russian empire, be what you like).
All the rest, is just russian propaganda BS, and either you're falling for it, or you're paid to spread it.
So Kennan and Burns were Russian propagandists? :) It is of course too about seizing resources and advancing imperialistic plans (but equally from both sides), But with a more prudent behaviour Ukraine could have hoped to preserve a status like Finland or Belorus and prevent a silly war which cannot be won.
not "too", but only.
and not "from both sides". When did Ukraine try to steal russian territory and resources?
I agree on the silly war that the Russians will never be able to win.
Trump wants reare earths. Trump always wants something. And about winning: Lanchester and Osipov showed in 1916 that an attrition war is won by whoever has more personnel. You can answer yourself.
It is only about, exclusively, the seizing by Russia of Ukrainian resources, industrial power and people to advance Putin's imperialistic plan, and to move on invading other countries to re-make the USSR (or the russian empire, be what you like).
All the rest, is just russian propaganda BS, and either you're falling for it, or you're paid to spread it.
We are all going to die horribly, either quickly vaporised by thermonuclear weapons or slowly if still alive uninjured but fighting for survival in darkening world. But if not death by thermonuclear means, then most likely for those below the age of 45 by the poly and meta crisis as humanity enters the bottleneck of the great simplification the result of ecological overshoot. Want a peek into what that bottleneck might look like then check out Kurt Dahl’s book “An American Famine - (subtitle) A Rosetta Stone for the coming collapse”, the opening quotation by Thomas Hobbes should be one to remember “Hell is the truth seen too late”, it’s said biblically that the meek shall inherit the earth” but the question is would they🤔
Aglio favaglio, fattura ca nun quaglio, corna, bicorna, aglio favaglio!
Pizza e mozzarella, la tua fattura è na schifezza, corna flosce, il malocchio ti sconosce—ma io pozz' sbaglià!🤔
I follow you on the general picture, a bit provocative, I think, but that's not the point. However, a few corrections to the models you describe would make picture less dark grey. I would try to take into account the results of the progress in energy efficiency during the last 10 years, and lower consumption due to milder winters. The figures can be obtained from the various countries "bureau of statistics". Any insulation of a building (for now, it's only a few %, but going on, not strong enough), any replacement of a car burning 8 l/100 km by one burning 5 l /100 km decreases the "country's fossil fuel consumption. This is probably more than compensated by the increase in the number of new buildings, new cars., etc. (8 years ago, I moved to a different canton and received a 471'000 car license plate, now its above 590'000!). I can hardly believe! )
So it would be nice to be able to isolate the fossil fuel consumption by the industry, agriculture, and services only.
Otherwise, I share some of the points mentioned in other comments.
Paul, it is a fundamental point. It is the "Jevons' Paradox" which is not a paradox but the basis of how an economy works. If we become more efficient, we do not reduce energy consumption. We simply re-allocate the energy available to other tasks. It is one of the many things economists never understood, and probably never will.
I'm sorry Ugo. I loved this essay but I don't understand "fraction of imported fossil fuels they import" Fraction of what? X over Y and what is Y?
Also, the recent time period has a gentler slope but I would expect a greater one, or not? Sorry, confused. And why double up the periods in the first place? Why not 2009 to 2024 (25 years) and 1993 to 2008 previous period, or something like that?
Thanks, Max. I wasn't clear, and there was a typo. Let me correct and explain!
Thanks, I'll come back later today!
Good article. Another factor here is the ridiculous carbon accounting rules where emissions are counted where they are sourced. This leads to European countries prioritising imports over local resources. For example, Ireland has a potential gas field - Inishkea. Instead of using it, we are importing gas from the UK who are importing it as LNG from the US. The lifecycle is worse than coal. This is labelled by Ireland as having 0 carbon intensity as the gas came from outside our borders (the real carbon intensity is 43%). Inishkea would be about 1.2% carbon intensity. So we are importing extremely polluting gas, rather than sourcing it locally, in order to say we have reduced our emissions. Globally, emissions go up, electricity prices in Europe go up, and this ridiculous charade goes on.
"I don’t know what your impression is of Trump meeting Ursula von Der Leyen in Scotland. Most commentators were not nice to Europe’s first lady. They spoke of “humiliation,” of “surrender,” and the like."
We must listen to very different commentators.
The ones I've been reading viewed the whole thing as a triumph over the US, not acceptance of defeat. The EU accepted 15% tariffs — which Convicted Felon Cat Meat was going to do anyway — in exchange for empty promises it is either already doing, or that it has no control over.
The EU cannot force private businesses to spend money in the US. It cannot force member nations to spend their military budget in the US. They necessarily *must* spend more on military, because the US is abdicating its role as world policeman, and the Europeans see the wolf (Russia) at their door.
World leaders have learned how to manage Trümp: suck up bigly to his ultimate greatness, act like you're cowering in the corner, make a lot of empty and meaningless "concessions". Then after he leaves, get busy finding other trading partners, and enjoy watching the US circle the bowl in the toilet.
I agree that it's all about energy, but I disagree that electricity is the ultimate energy form. It is a very refined source, full of what Howard Odum called "emergy" or embedded energy, even while being less capable than diesel.
While it is true than you cannot run your computer on diesel, neither can you do mining, long-haul transportation, or agriculture with electricity. And if it comes down to really needing electricity, you *can* turn diesel into electricity to run your computer.
But better is to turn diesel into solar panels and wind turbines to run your computer, because you don't have to use it all at once.
Don't get me wrong; I'm highly skeptical of the "green energy transition" as a way of "saving" our profligate life-styles. But it may serve as a bridge to a future based on current photosynthesis.
It may well be that electricity becomes intermittent in the first world — as it has always been in the third world. This will eventually include the US, as the Permian Basin is showing early signs of collapse.
But those solar panels and wind turbines built out of today's diesel will continue working — intermittently — for decades, whereas the US is busy burning it all up as fast as they can suck it out of the Earth.
China's ascendance is built on coal, although they're also leading on so-called "renewables", too.
Meanwhile, the Earth cooks. Expect more events like the Guadalupe flash floods to kill many people and to remove infrastructure faster than we can re-build it.
Well, we all live in different knowledge bubbles. In the one I inhabit, people tend to hate Ursula Von der Leyen more than they hate Trump. It seems that in your bubble it is the opposite! :-)
My apologies! The link I posted was apparently a convincing AI deep fake.
----------------
It's worth viewing Rachel Maddow's smackdown of Convicted Felon Cat Meat versus Canada.
Perhaps Italy can do the same to the EU that Canada is trying to do with Trümp.
[link deleted]
(Since I watched this, they've turned off access in Canada! YouTube is part of the evil empire now! You may have to watch it via a US proxy server.)
Your analysis is misleading.
You can't pick 2023 as an arbitrary standard year. That's Year 1 of the Ukraine mess. Italy's gas imports fell 15% between 2022 and 2023 alone. But between 2008 and 2024 gas consumption went up something ridiculous like 3000% (from millions to billions of metric tons), but it's not like Italy in 2024 produced 3000% more electricity than in 2008: gas is mostly used for heating, so who knows what % of electricity in 2008 was used for heating.
Then there's the issue of energy efficiency, from consumer goods to industry.
As for pricing, you can also look into the self inflicted clusterfuck of European gas pricing through a unified financial market based in Holland, which went parabolic after the Ukraine mess started.
The basic premise of your article (energy production as a proxy for GDP) at a high level has been established in economic literature for a while, but it's not the whole story. These are interesting proxies and definitely worth considering with more nuanced research. But suggesting Italy's real GDP has contracted by around 15% since 2008 because electricity production has decreased, excluding heat (a small but significant omission) that's asking a bit much.
Thank you. It looked like nonsense to me too.
Corrupt von Der Leyen deserves nothing but public humiliation. She's been destroying EU by imposing nefarious agendas of the globalist unelected and unaccontable 'elites'.
Side statement: Trump probably reminded her that NSA has the (Pfizergate) messages she wants to hide...
She's not there by chance.
She runs the show because she has be appointed to do so. And confirmed by a majority of the various factions at the (so called) Euro parliament not so long ago...
EU is not a real democracy.
The people elect a parliament that has no right for independent lawmaking.
The EU Comission, totally controlled by corporate interests and organizations like WEF, etc, is appointed and controls the legislative process.
It's not much different from the USSR (and is getting similar by the day).
Exactly the point I have been making! But the EU is worse.
You correctly state that interest in energy transitions has disappeared from the debate. In the United States that interest has morphed into outright opposition in many quarters. (The oil company BP is the poster child here ― they moved to ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and then back to being an oil company.)
This is not necessarily all bad ― renewable energy and other new technologies now have to justify themselves on economic grounds. But a deeper reason for this shift is that people are increasingly aware that the new technologies will not allow us to maintain a first-world lifestyle. Sacrifice is called for, and people do not want to think about that.
I understand the article, but I feel like we are missing something, energy consumption alone is a limiting factor if we didn't consider efficacy of use: like a heat pump could heat more than using a resistor (conversion at almost 100%) so heating an insulted, hermetic container is less energy expensive compared to an open, uninsulated one.
In my opinion, Europe is quite conscious of his precarious energy situation, so a lot of unpopular decisions could be traced to a double root: energy from within (renewable) and a better use of it (energy efficiency). We could foresee a lot of the possibilities, and we are not alone, China too is in a similar situation so is pushing in the same direction!
What Europe could get being ahead is to get before other one working exit strategy from the end of fossil energy, the dream of infinite, cheap and easy energy is just an illusion, new fields could be found but is still kicking the can a little more. The only realistic exit from our overconsumption of fossil energy are the use of renewable sources and nuclear fusion.... in both case still fusion is the key because the sun is fusion powered!
Our time of disruption is the natural consequence of a shift in paradigm, we probably are past the peak of hi EROEI conventional sources, we have still some island of EROEI good enough to keep some dreams running (AI is one, crypto another and so on) because we are still misunderstanding money as energy. Reality is winning by persistence over dreams fueled by money.
As a rule of thumb, being ahead is fall before other but also having more incentive to find a solution when others can still help and "necessity is the mother of inventions"...
It's all thermoeconomics with different masks and Kabuki.
ENERGY: The complete lack of common sense control and lack of law enforcement upon immigrate/invaders, yes that mental Energy/Acuity
Ugo. Is there such a close correlation between electricity and fossil fuels? From my perspective, electricity, as a secondary energy source, isn't closely related to fossil fuels enough to validate the analysis from an electrical perspective alone.
I have the plots for primary energy, too. They are about the same. Personally, I think electricity is the crucial factor; it is what powers everything that's important. But the basic concept of biophysical economics, that society is an engine, does not change.
dear professor will the collapse by very soon or do we still have a few years left because dr nafeez ahmed says that crude shale oil will reach a peak this year to 13.4 million barrels a day and for next year and the year after on 13.3 million barrels a day ?
Keep fighting. Victory is unavoidable.
Your observation about Europe paying for its fossil fuels from the profits of its exports, with higher prices of energy making its products less competitive begs one to speculate a bit about what the future might hold.
A case can be made that renewable energy alone, fully built out, will only provide a (likely very small) fraction of what traditional sources produce today. Tim Watkins (a UK economist) theorizes that the surplus appropriated by capitalists consists mostly not of that produced by labor, but has been the "labor equivalent" produced by energy sources like coal, oil, and gas, which we collect for a tiny fraction of their "labor equivalent". One common figure is that 1 gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 100-200 hours of human labor.
It follows that as traditional energy sources start to disappear, and not all of them can be fully replaced by renewables, energy costs will start to soar until humanity adjusts to the new reality and seriously cuts back its use. Many products made today will likely disappear, as due to the cost of (now mostly manual) production, they will not find buyers.
The future ambitions of some "leaders", if carried through to realization, would not take LESS energy, but on the contrary, require vastly MORE energy than even today, for things including AI data centers, cryptocurrency mining, and all-encompassing digital cocoons for everyone. Someone is going to end up disappointed in the end.
You say "There is no thermodynamic reason why, when decline starts, leaders should go mad and squander the few remaining resources of their countries on a military buildup." I can think of two motives for this, and one might possibly qualify as "thermodynamic"; that would be the desire to take what is left of something from someone who still has some--in this case, Russia is seen as the largest remaining resource bonanza on the planet, and someone hopes that what they can take is more than they will expend by the getting of it. Makes about as much sense as the Alberta tar sands, but there it is.
The other reason, of course, is that the low-wattage crowd running the EU and the US these days has hypnotized itself into believing its own bogus narrative.
dear ugo bardi when will the european union start collapsing and when will the human population start collapsing according to worldometer population is stil growing and to my information eu is stil setting the green deal through renewable energy is growing in the european union and china but is stagnating in the us ?
Soon.
but what is soon in scientist terms a couple of month's or a few years because sandrine dixson decleve stil says it is the decisive decade and this olduvai theory says als collapse from 2030 onwards ?
what i really mean is will european citizen's or the european union all by death before 2030 because the olduvai theory says we will collapse from 2030 onward meaning we will start to die off ?
Aaron, do you know this joke? A guy goes to see a doctor, and the doctor tells him. I have your analysis, you have about 10 to live."
"But, doctor, 10 of what?"
"9.... 8.... 7....."
oh i get it you mean if the doctor says you have 10 years to life it can also by that you die in the 9th year but the club of rome forecasted 3 collapse time lines 2030 2040 and 2050 most people say 2040 or 2050 dr nafeez ahmed thinks that population will maybe grow until 2040 and that if we do our best the renewable energy transition will by completed by than without losing anybody but we have to overbuild it we can have 3 times to 5 times more energy that today in some regions he says ?
no ugo i do not know this joke i think i even do not know the meaning of what you mean i can write videogame/movie english but i speak dutch like in the nederlands but i am born in belgium flemish region in poperinge by ypres where the talbot house is
Can the US actually deliver on the LNG agreement? Trump has little or no control over supplies, prices, and existing export capacity. Maybe the EU is smarter than you think, making a deal for lower tariffs in exchange for purchase guarantees it does not ever expect to fulfill. Of course manipulating Trump's ego does not solve the fundamental energy problem or, as others have commented, the misappropriation of energy resources. Presumably the EU could use coal at the level China does, but modern democracies don't have much tolerance for trade offs (the resulting air and soil pollution).