Also from Grok: " Some will fight—over the last barrels, over pipeline control, over who gets the green tech first. Others will adapt, either by choice or necessity, scaling down energy use and rethinking daily life. The wildcard is how fast it happens. A slow decline gives time to adjust; a sudden drop could ignite chaos. Either way, human history suggests we’re not great at sharing nicely when the pie shrinks."
Also from Grok, about "Mousetopia":
"In the final phases, particularly after day 600, the mice’s interactions became deeply dysfunctional. Many females turned aggressive, abandoning or even attacking their young, leading to infant mortality rates as high as 90% in some areas. Males exhibited a range of extreme behaviors: some became hyper-aggressive, engaging in unprovoked violence, cannibalism, and abnormal sexual activity, including assaulting both males and females. Others, dubbed “the beautiful ones,” withdrew entirely—sleek and healthy from constant grooming, they avoided all social interaction, including mating or fighting, and lived in isolation, eating and sleeping alone.
By the end, the colony was a shadow of its early days. The few remaining mice showed no interest in rebuilding social bonds or reproducing. Even when some were removed and placed with normal mice, they remained withdrawn, unable to reintegrate. The last births occurred around day 600, and the population dwindled until the colony went extinct by day 1,720, in May 1973. In essence, the mice treated each other with either violent hostility or complete indifference, marking the collapse of their once-thriving society."
We're already seeing elements of both.
Solar panels can be stolen and wind turbines and their infrastructure will cost a lot in maintenance and security
Finally, there is NO REPLACEMENT for diesel or jet-fuel. Those who have it will have the military to force their own pathological ideas about who deservers to live or die (see Israel/Gaza).
However, all this calculation remains perfectly theoretical...
Nothing says that these 800 billion actually exist. Not just that they could exist on paper, but that they could correspond to tangible resources and energy that could be imported into Europe...
So much of this is theoretical; the money, the renewable infrastructure that doesn't yet exist and whether or not EROI over 10 is possible in the aggregate. All the while the underlying problems intensify.
Your point about the disconnect between physical resources and the link to ethereal 1 and 0s on a computer is critical and frequently ignored. I believe we are at or around an infliction point where this is going to become impossible to maintain.
European leaders say they will pledge 8 hundreds billions of their euros to weapons or whatever. Why not 5, why not 12 ? Nobody knows…
But Europe is broke.
So they will borrow this amount. That means, in the end, they expect to get copper, iron, energy, solar panels, weapons and everything else on their words. For nothing. For free.
And still someone is supposed to mine it or build them… But who's that exactly ? I wonder. Really.
So much of this is theoretical; the money, the renewable infrastructure that doesn't yet exist and whether or not EROI over 10 is possible in the aggregate. All the while the underlying problems intensify.
Your point about the disconnect between physical resources and the link to ethereal 1 and 0s on a computer is critical and frequently ignored. I believe we are at or around an infliction point where this is going to become impossible to maintain.
It's not "just" because humans are stupid. It is part of the cycle with Elite Overproduction. Weapons have the potential to kill off other elites' children. Renewable energy, OTOH, only creates happiness and human flourishing.
Unlike the US, you do not seem to have anything resembling an effective group of counter-elites. So your children must die because of the crazy foolishness of your leadership. But it might help if you consider writing (as I have) about these larger cycles. "Stupid" is not good enough.
I used the term "stupid" not to refer to the elites -- they are doing what they know how to do: Spending public money and taking their cut. What always amazes me is how ordinary people are so stupid that they will repeat to you what they heard on tv the evening before as if they were expressing a deep thought of theirs.
I think there are crowd-mind dynamics that the sociopathic elites manipulate to turn populations to their wills. 70% of people will believe what the 3 people around them believe. It is a human set-point, the most common one. It's important for us getting along in groups.
It's not my set point. I have this relatively low percentage set point where I don't care what other people think, and I only want to figure out how it really works and what is really true. I'm weird, probably like about 7% of people, or so.
The thing about the whole big population game is that we are managed like herds by the 3% sociopaths, our "apex-predators", who don't mind killing a whole lot of us when we overgraze.
That's not what the herds believe, because it would just disturb them.
You don't have to say what you think our ecosystem management system is...
There's a complex dynamic going on that functions on culture and sensing, that affects the poor and elites. Elites seem to be better tuned into the Wealth Pump -- the societal forces driving wealth upward into their bank accounts that is often in the subconscious, as well as the conscious mind. The Poors seem to not grok this.
I think you aren't seeing the grander scheme here, so I will try to help you understand better why ReArm Europe shall be the greatest of all Northern European initiatives that our superior genius minds have ever invented in the whole of our history.
With 800 billion Euro of weapons backed by the ferocious and proven European fighting spirit, those pesky Slavs will poop their Kulak trousers, prostrate themselves and hand to us the currently estimated 70 Trillion in natural resources beneath their filthy feet that rightfully belong to us - as per divine law dictates.
It matters little that that 70 Trillion isn't yet in the physical form of gold bars and cut diamonds, no, in fact it is worth more in the ground because then, through the fried-air magic of quantum mechanical financial speculation, we can turn the 70 into 200, 500 or whatever number we desire, then use those numbers to collateralize money creation and make ourselves richer than the God Croesus himself. You see, we will again be in our God-appointed position of the masters of the planet. Even those homogeneous Chinamen and the Mc-Fatmericans will be forced to submit to the majesty of the Thousand-year rule of the New European Plenary Assembly Council.
"He/she/them who rules the numbers, shall inherit the Earth" -Jesus, sermon on the hill, behind the paywall, 0032.43 CE
If you need proof that ReArm Europe will bring us the wealth we deserve, look no further than how wealthy we have already become from collateralizing the mineral and agricultural potential of just the Ukraine! (Plus, we disposed of its young men and get to keep its hot women for ourselves).
And since that windfall of wealth goes to overwhelmingly fund our Green Party, you see, we are saving the planet without having to view from our Bavarian mountaintop retreats those unsightly windmills!
What if the Slavic tribes resist our mighty flex and don't give us what we want, you ask?
Well, no problem! We make ourselves victims of a little border conflict that lasts 5 weeks, maybe suffer a drone strike on a major city then make a cease-fire (not a peace treaty, no, NEVER that!) then we shall have the causam repudiare to renounce all those little state debts and debt obligation to social programs, re-configure the monetary system, institute the wonderful DigiEuro, criminalize the use of evil cash that only criminals use anyway, institute capital controls, and transfer all property to the Superior Management bureau of the State Sovi. . er. . ., "Transitory Authority" that will remove the onerous burden of ownership from your life.
Everyone will be happy! Happy!
So, you see? Either way, ReArm Europe Makes Europe Great Again
It's party time! The wealth is in the pipeline - lets go on a shopping spree today!
We need to continue prompting Grok to get the whole picture. How much oil, gas, and coal will be required to build and renew the infrastructure after its lifecycle? From where will the European States steal the oil and gas, what State will help them, and how much will they wind up owing that State? Will supporting the "Greater Israel Project" by bouncing the rubble in the Middle East help secure the energy needed to build the energy infrastructure we are discussing—infrastructure that is only renewable with more energy and materials? They will borrow money to build weapons because that's how they keep their status and careers. If they cared about this, they would have started investing in alternative energy structures and systems decades ago. Ordinary, domesticated, and pacified people don't listen, or they would elect and empower leaders who understand reality. The revolving door seems to be powered by war.
Yes, in principle you are right. In practice, in my opinion, producing energy is much more important. We need transportation, manufacturing, machinery, and more much more than we need insulation. Which is not a bad thing, but it is a consequence, not a driving force
That's indeed one of the grand plan in France. Dully marketed as de-carbonation to make it more palatable to the mass.
The idea was to make poorly insulated houses more and more difficult to let or to sell so the landowners will have incentive to do the work with some subsidies from the state.
Only the state is broke so the promised subsidies are reduced every year and landowners cannot expect their tenants to pay the higher rent. So there is less and less houses on the market making rent more and more expensive...
1) As at least one other commenter mentioned, maintenance and depreciation will consume a significant portion of the "profit".
2) Conventional power stations, by their nature, are much better hardened against acts of nature such as storms/tornadoes/hurricanes (wind turbines?) or hailstorms (solar farms). There needs to be some kind of reserve for this.
3) Perhaps the biggest gripe about renewables such as solar and wind is that their intermittency. This is perhaps the fatal drawback for certain industries (semiconductor manufacturing immediately comes to mind) where suspension of the industrial process in mid-stream requires the entire process output to be thrown out and the process started over again.
4) I seriously question whether the storage battery backup would be anywhere near sufficient to make this power non-interruptible. I have seen calculations showing that many, many times more storage capacity would be needed for these to be truly non-interruptible. And these large storage batteries are increasingly coming under fire for being hazardous. Here in California we have had several major fires at one such facility, each burning for days and emitting toxic fumes because it was too difficult to put out. The locals are protesting against another proposed facility down the coast because of this.
5) If construction really gets thrown into high gear, costs will skyrocket. Is there even enough raw material to scale up our current effort, especially with respect to batteries? For a good example, look at what happened to the price of artillery rounds when the EU pushed out a bunch of money to buy these for Ukraine. Without increasing production whatsoever, all it succeeded in doing is quadrupling the price of from $2K to $8K per round.
6) When taking output from AI, very careful checking is required. I saw the following disappointing article a few days ago:
All of the foregoing aside, I have absolutely no argument that any money spent on weaponry against a largely imagined enemy would be far better spent on infrastructure, which, any way you look at it, is sorely in need of investment and is far more likely to improve peoples' lives.
Your enumerated points of thought on the subject seem pretty calibrated to me.
I don't know about you, but my observation is that most of us who even are looking at the issues are afraid to plot what will come next. Perhaps it is because we know in our guts that it won't be great and the transition downward will likely be accompanied by violence.
Mostly, I think, we fear that if we enunciate the scary, we evoke it into being, like inviting demon possession through the innocent act of talking about demons.
Here is my practical proposal for a new energy and economic paradigm:
In the near-term, we would be smart to invest heavily in insulation (this mostly applies to the latitudes with serious seasonal changes, but all can benefit) and re-adjust to co-habitation with extended family. More persons under the same roof sharing expenses.
"Collapse now and avoid the rush" -The Archdruid
There won't be a replacement to fossil fuels, but electricity - even intermittent, will be of value to humanity. You can cook food, cool food, pump water, heat your house and run productive machinery with electricity. Combine even intermittent electric service with very high insulation values and humanity will have many more options than we had before the advent of electrical generation and transmission.
In the longer term, I think we will have to transition back to lifestyle that is within the realm of the solar economy. We won't have to go completely back in time to a medieval way of life, but the scarcity of non-renewable resources and other factors will dictate a manner of living that has many of the pre-industrial revolution qualities.
Humanity could still forge ahead technologically, but we'll also have to keep one foot in the vegetable garden and an eye on the livestock while we figure out how to get to the stars - or how to more efficiently annihilate each other, or whatever.
Nicely put. One major complaint I have about the transition to renewables is the failure of those leading the charge to acknowledge that there won't be as much energy in the future as there is now. Whether this is due to wishful thinking, sheer ignorance, or a deliberate misleading of the public is hard to say. With respect to the general public, I'd say it is likely the first two. But "leadership" is likely to be deliberately leaving this out of the public discourse for fear of losing popular support for the transition.
At the same time people are being told to cut back, we read endless stories about the massive energy requirements of future data centers, AI, and cryptocurrency mining. Most seem content to just assume that it will somehow all work out.
I think your theme of being wiser with our consumption is spot on. We should all be thinking more about how much we waste and how we might improve in that area.
I would rather not spend it on defense either but the reality is that we are threatened not only by Russia but by the USA as well. We spend billions on defense anyway so if we spend it I’d rather have it be on defense weapons we produce and can relied upon if our former ally betrays us.
I think like the comment from passed away James Lovelock in his book The Revenge of Gaia: “Manufacturing hydrogen isn't difficult, but I see it as highly unlikely that we'll see it reaching industry and homes soon as a replacement for natural gas. It's also unlikely that hydrogen will ever be distributed on a significant scale as a transport fuel, and even if it were feasible, building the infrastructure necessary to manufacture, transport, and release hydrogen would take more time than we have available.” […] “Furthermore, hydrogen mixed with air explodes when ignited, rather than burning rapidly but progressively, like methane. Furthermore, the hydrogen flame is invisible, so the ignition of a small leak can cause severe overheating of valves before it is detected. Engineering can address these problems, but the cost of establishing a hydrogen-based economy cannot be ignored.”
So, there is no time available for more 'savana monkeys's' dreams.
Building 2000 (or 1000) wind farms is certainly the moral equivalent of war. Off Brighton where I live, the Rampion 1 offshore wind farm of 116 units each rated at 3.45MW each. Its output of 400 MW is remarkably close to the ones you propose. A second farm adjacent is planned with 90 larger units that may therefore be more powerful, but even with the precedent of the existing farm the process is expected to take 7 years and there have been delays caused by further environmental assessments. Then for the other 1999 ( or 999), you have to find suitable sites, not all of which are as shallow and windy as the English Channel. Approximately 0.6 sq.km is needed for each turbine. So with maybe 265 x 265 km of the North Sea Britain, Norway and Denmark could corner the market in electricity (desolé EDF). If only we could stop preparing for war ... This afternoon they screened Korda's 1936 movie 'Things to come', scripted by H G Wells himself, a future where the hegemonic power of 'Wings Over The World' (based in of all places Basra) banished war for ever. What offer could we (and the Finns, Polish and Estonians) make to Putin that he could not refuse? President of Europe?
But, as an argument, I ask for an examination of the word "need" and its quantitative relation to our actual needs.
How much transportation, manufacturing, machinery and etc. did your ancestors need up in Vernio? The Bardi Bank thrived, for a time, in glory without the benefits of Volvo trucks on AutoStrade, Internet, telephony, drones, printing presses or, probably even domestic piped water.
How much do we NEED? What about readjusting our definition and expectation of "need"?
and
Is building more and more a solution to the pollution problems, among others, that we've created because of an ever-expanding definition of needs that MUST be satisfied.
Maybe its time to reevaluate our operating philosophies. . .
Also from Grok: " Some will fight—over the last barrels, over pipeline control, over who gets the green tech first. Others will adapt, either by choice or necessity, scaling down energy use and rethinking daily life. The wildcard is how fast it happens. A slow decline gives time to adjust; a sudden drop could ignite chaos. Either way, human history suggests we’re not great at sharing nicely when the pie shrinks."
Also from Grok, about "Mousetopia":
"In the final phases, particularly after day 600, the mice’s interactions became deeply dysfunctional. Many females turned aggressive, abandoning or even attacking their young, leading to infant mortality rates as high as 90% in some areas. Males exhibited a range of extreme behaviors: some became hyper-aggressive, engaging in unprovoked violence, cannibalism, and abnormal sexual activity, including assaulting both males and females. Others, dubbed “the beautiful ones,” withdrew entirely—sleek and healthy from constant grooming, they avoided all social interaction, including mating or fighting, and lived in isolation, eating and sleeping alone.
By the end, the colony was a shadow of its early days. The few remaining mice showed no interest in rebuilding social bonds or reproducing. Even when some were removed and placed with normal mice, they remained withdrawn, unable to reintegrate. The last births occurred around day 600, and the population dwindled until the colony went extinct by day 1,720, in May 1973. In essence, the mice treated each other with either violent hostility or complete indifference, marking the collapse of their once-thriving society."
We're already seeing elements of both.
Solar panels can be stolen and wind turbines and their infrastructure will cost a lot in maintenance and security
Finally, there is NO REPLACEMENT for diesel or jet-fuel. Those who have it will have the military to force their own pathological ideas about who deservers to live or die (see Israel/Gaza).
Sorry to be the wet blanket ;)
However, all this calculation remains perfectly theoretical...
Nothing says that these 800 billion actually exist. Not just that they could exist on paper, but that they could correspond to tangible resources and energy that could be imported into Europe...
Very much this
So much of this is theoretical; the money, the renewable infrastructure that doesn't yet exist and whether or not EROI over 10 is possible in the aggregate. All the while the underlying problems intensify.
Your point about the disconnect between physical resources and the link to ethereal 1 and 0s on a computer is critical and frequently ignored. I believe we are at or around an infliction point where this is going to become impossible to maintain.
Yes. That's exactly my point.
European leaders say they will pledge 8 hundreds billions of their euros to weapons or whatever. Why not 5, why not 12 ? Nobody knows…
But Europe is broke.
So they will borrow this amount. That means, in the end, they expect to get copper, iron, energy, solar panels, weapons and everything else on their words. For nothing. For free.
And still someone is supposed to mine it or build them… But who's that exactly ? I wonder. Really.
We know why 800 Billion. It comes from Mario Draghi's report of last year
Very much this
So much of this is theoretical; the money, the renewable infrastructure that doesn't yet exist and whether or not EROI over 10 is possible in the aggregate. All the while the underlying problems intensify.
Your point about the disconnect between physical resources and the link to ethereal 1 and 0s on a computer is critical and frequently ignored. I believe we are at or around an infliction point where this is going to become impossible to maintain.
It's not "just" because humans are stupid. It is part of the cycle with Elite Overproduction. Weapons have the potential to kill off other elites' children. Renewable energy, OTOH, only creates happiness and human flourishing.
Unlike the US, you do not seem to have anything resembling an effective group of counter-elites. So your children must die because of the crazy foolishness of your leadership. But it might help if you consider writing (as I have) about these larger cycles. "Stupid" is not good enough.
I used the term "stupid" not to refer to the elites -- they are doing what they know how to do: Spending public money and taking their cut. What always amazes me is how ordinary people are so stupid that they will repeat to you what they heard on tv the evening before as if they were expressing a deep thought of theirs.
I think there are crowd-mind dynamics that the sociopathic elites manipulate to turn populations to their wills. 70% of people will believe what the 3 people around them believe. It is a human set-point, the most common one. It's important for us getting along in groups.
It's not my set point. I have this relatively low percentage set point where I don't care what other people think, and I only want to figure out how it really works and what is really true. I'm weird, probably like about 7% of people, or so.
The thing about the whole big population game is that we are managed like herds by the 3% sociopaths, our "apex-predators", who don't mind killing a whole lot of us when we overgraze.
That's not what the herds believe, because it would just disturb them.
You don't have to say what you think our ecosystem management system is...
There's a complex dynamic going on that functions on culture and sensing, that affects the poor and elites. Elites seem to be better tuned into the Wealth Pump -- the societal forces driving wealth upward into their bank accounts that is often in the subconscious, as well as the conscious mind. The Poors seem to not grok this.
You might see a version of what I just replied to Ugo, Chuck
Ah jeez Mr Bardi,
I think you aren't seeing the grander scheme here, so I will try to help you understand better why ReArm Europe shall be the greatest of all Northern European initiatives that our superior genius minds have ever invented in the whole of our history.
With 800 billion Euro of weapons backed by the ferocious and proven European fighting spirit, those pesky Slavs will poop their Kulak trousers, prostrate themselves and hand to us the currently estimated 70 Trillion in natural resources beneath their filthy feet that rightfully belong to us - as per divine law dictates.
It matters little that that 70 Trillion isn't yet in the physical form of gold bars and cut diamonds, no, in fact it is worth more in the ground because then, through the fried-air magic of quantum mechanical financial speculation, we can turn the 70 into 200, 500 or whatever number we desire, then use those numbers to collateralize money creation and make ourselves richer than the God Croesus himself. You see, we will again be in our God-appointed position of the masters of the planet. Even those homogeneous Chinamen and the Mc-Fatmericans will be forced to submit to the majesty of the Thousand-year rule of the New European Plenary Assembly Council.
"He/she/them who rules the numbers, shall inherit the Earth" -Jesus, sermon on the hill, behind the paywall, 0032.43 CE
If you need proof that ReArm Europe will bring us the wealth we deserve, look no further than how wealthy we have already become from collateralizing the mineral and agricultural potential of just the Ukraine! (Plus, we disposed of its young men and get to keep its hot women for ourselves).
And since that windfall of wealth goes to overwhelmingly fund our Green Party, you see, we are saving the planet without having to view from our Bavarian mountaintop retreats those unsightly windmills!
What if the Slavic tribes resist our mighty flex and don't give us what we want, you ask?
Well, no problem! We make ourselves victims of a little border conflict that lasts 5 weeks, maybe suffer a drone strike on a major city then make a cease-fire (not a peace treaty, no, NEVER that!) then we shall have the causam repudiare to renounce all those little state debts and debt obligation to social programs, re-configure the monetary system, institute the wonderful DigiEuro, criminalize the use of evil cash that only criminals use anyway, institute capital controls, and transfer all property to the Superior Management bureau of the State Sovi. . er. . ., "Transitory Authority" that will remove the onerous burden of ownership from your life.
Everyone will be happy! Happy!
So, you see? Either way, ReArm Europe Makes Europe Great Again
It's party time! The wealth is in the pipeline - lets go on a shopping spree today!
Shh…. these things cannot be said to the peasants. They would get worried!!!
I AM worried!
We need to continue prompting Grok to get the whole picture. How much oil, gas, and coal will be required to build and renew the infrastructure after its lifecycle? From where will the European States steal the oil and gas, what State will help them, and how much will they wind up owing that State? Will supporting the "Greater Israel Project" by bouncing the rubble in the Middle East help secure the energy needed to build the energy infrastructure we are discussing—infrastructure that is only renewable with more energy and materials? They will borrow money to build weapons because that's how they keep their status and careers. If they cared about this, they would have started investing in alternative energy structures and systems decades ago. Ordinary, domesticated, and pacified people don't listen, or they would elect and empower leaders who understand reality. The revolving door seems to be powered by war.
Serious Zhao here Mr Bardi,
Why do I never see insulation as a component of a de-carbonization grand plan?
It is a one-time production and saves on consumption for decades.
Insulation is also important for the storage of food - not just as a quilt around our house spaces.
All the focus seems to be about how we can generate more and more electricity and not about how we can use significantly less.
Yes, in principle you are right. In practice, in my opinion, producing energy is much more important. We need transportation, manufacturing, machinery, and more much more than we need insulation. Which is not a bad thing, but it is a consequence, not a driving force
and russia will never attack how long is the war on now 3 years they did not take meaningfull ground let alone take 27 european states
That's indeed one of the grand plan in France. Dully marketed as de-carbonation to make it more palatable to the mass.
The idea was to make poorly insulated houses more and more difficult to let or to sell so the landowners will have incentive to do the work with some subsidies from the state.
Only the state is broke so the promised subsidies are reduced every year and landowners cannot expect their tenants to pay the higher rent. So there is less and less houses on the market making rent more and more expensive...
1) As at least one other commenter mentioned, maintenance and depreciation will consume a significant portion of the "profit".
2) Conventional power stations, by their nature, are much better hardened against acts of nature such as storms/tornadoes/hurricanes (wind turbines?) or hailstorms (solar farms). There needs to be some kind of reserve for this.
3) Perhaps the biggest gripe about renewables such as solar and wind is that their intermittency. This is perhaps the fatal drawback for certain industries (semiconductor manufacturing immediately comes to mind) where suspension of the industrial process in mid-stream requires the entire process output to be thrown out and the process started over again.
4) I seriously question whether the storage battery backup would be anywhere near sufficient to make this power non-interruptible. I have seen calculations showing that many, many times more storage capacity would be needed for these to be truly non-interruptible. And these large storage batteries are increasingly coming under fire for being hazardous. Here in California we have had several major fires at one such facility, each burning for days and emitting toxic fumes because it was too difficult to put out. The locals are protesting against another proposed facility down the coast because of this.
5) If construction really gets thrown into high gear, costs will skyrocket. Is there even enough raw material to scale up our current effort, especially with respect to batteries? For a good example, look at what happened to the price of artillery rounds when the EU pushed out a bunch of money to buy these for Ukraine. Without increasing production whatsoever, all it succeeded in doing is quadrupling the price of from $2K to $8K per round.
6) When taking output from AI, very careful checking is required. I saw the following disappointing article a few days ago:
https://www.techspot.com/news/107101-new-study-finds-ai-search-tools-60-percent.html
All of the foregoing aside, I have absolutely no argument that any money spent on weaponry against a largely imagined enemy would be far better spent on infrastructure, which, any way you look at it, is sorely in need of investment and is far more likely to improve peoples' lives.
Serious Zhao here,
Your enumerated points of thought on the subject seem pretty calibrated to me.
I don't know about you, but my observation is that most of us who even are looking at the issues are afraid to plot what will come next. Perhaps it is because we know in our guts that it won't be great and the transition downward will likely be accompanied by violence.
Mostly, I think, we fear that if we enunciate the scary, we evoke it into being, like inviting demon possession through the innocent act of talking about demons.
Here is my practical proposal for a new energy and economic paradigm:
In the near-term, we would be smart to invest heavily in insulation (this mostly applies to the latitudes with serious seasonal changes, but all can benefit) and re-adjust to co-habitation with extended family. More persons under the same roof sharing expenses.
"Collapse now and avoid the rush" -The Archdruid
There won't be a replacement to fossil fuels, but electricity - even intermittent, will be of value to humanity. You can cook food, cool food, pump water, heat your house and run productive machinery with electricity. Combine even intermittent electric service with very high insulation values and humanity will have many more options than we had before the advent of electrical generation and transmission.
In the longer term, I think we will have to transition back to lifestyle that is within the realm of the solar economy. We won't have to go completely back in time to a medieval way of life, but the scarcity of non-renewable resources and other factors will dictate a manner of living that has many of the pre-industrial revolution qualities.
Humanity could still forge ahead technologically, but we'll also have to keep one foot in the vegetable garden and an eye on the livestock while we figure out how to get to the stars - or how to more efficiently annihilate each other, or whatever.
Nicely put. One major complaint I have about the transition to renewables is the failure of those leading the charge to acknowledge that there won't be as much energy in the future as there is now. Whether this is due to wishful thinking, sheer ignorance, or a deliberate misleading of the public is hard to say. With respect to the general public, I'd say it is likely the first two. But "leadership" is likely to be deliberately leaving this out of the public discourse for fear of losing popular support for the transition.
At the same time people are being told to cut back, we read endless stories about the massive energy requirements of future data centers, AI, and cryptocurrency mining. Most seem content to just assume that it will somehow all work out.
I think your theme of being wiser with our consumption is spot on. We should all be thinking more about how much we waste and how we might improve in that area.
I would rather not spend it on defense either but the reality is that we are threatened not only by Russia but by the USA as well. We spend billions on defense anyway so if we spend it I’d rather have it be on defense weapons we produce and can relied upon if our former ally betrays us.
I think like the comment from passed away James Lovelock in his book The Revenge of Gaia: “Manufacturing hydrogen isn't difficult, but I see it as highly unlikely that we'll see it reaching industry and homes soon as a replacement for natural gas. It's also unlikely that hydrogen will ever be distributed on a significant scale as a transport fuel, and even if it were feasible, building the infrastructure necessary to manufacture, transport, and release hydrogen would take more time than we have available.” […] “Furthermore, hydrogen mixed with air explodes when ignited, rather than burning rapidly but progressively, like methane. Furthermore, the hydrogen flame is invisible, so the ignition of a small leak can cause severe overheating of valves before it is detected. Engineering can address these problems, but the cost of establishing a hydrogen-based economy cannot be ignored.”
So, there is no time available for more 'savana monkeys's' dreams.
"How the future was", he? If humans weren't such a chaotic species.
God bless your soul, that you're still fighting for this, man. Seriously now.
I suggest Europe learn to defend themselves and fight their own wars.
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/eu-freeze-learn-to-fight-your-wars
Everything about renewables in this is horseshit.
Of course I agree with you.
“PV and wind now have EROEI of more than 10”? Say what? Ten times the energy output per energy unit invested? Have they changed the laws of physics?
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7098
Building 2000 (or 1000) wind farms is certainly the moral equivalent of war. Off Brighton where I live, the Rampion 1 offshore wind farm of 116 units each rated at 3.45MW each. Its output of 400 MW is remarkably close to the ones you propose. A second farm adjacent is planned with 90 larger units that may therefore be more powerful, but even with the precedent of the existing farm the process is expected to take 7 years and there have been delays caused by further environmental assessments. Then for the other 1999 ( or 999), you have to find suitable sites, not all of which are as shallow and windy as the English Channel. Approximately 0.6 sq.km is needed for each turbine. So with maybe 265 x 265 km of the North Sea Britain, Norway and Denmark could corner the market in electricity (desolé EDF). If only we could stop preparing for war ... This afternoon they screened Korda's 1936 movie 'Things to come', scripted by H G Wells himself, a future where the hegemonic power of 'Wings Over The World' (based in of all places Basra) banished war for ever. What offer could we (and the Finns, Polish and Estonians) make to Putin that he could not refuse? President of Europe?
Perhaps sir. I will cogitate on your assertion.
But, as an argument, I ask for an examination of the word "need" and its quantitative relation to our actual needs.
How much transportation, manufacturing, machinery and etc. did your ancestors need up in Vernio? The Bardi Bank thrived, for a time, in glory without the benefits of Volvo trucks on AutoStrade, Internet, telephony, drones, printing presses or, probably even domestic piped water.
How much do we NEED? What about readjusting our definition and expectation of "need"?
and
Is building more and more a solution to the pollution problems, among others, that we've created because of an ever-expanding definition of needs that MUST be satisfied.
Maybe its time to reevaluate our operating philosophies. . .
I don't think it is a question of "need" -- we use what we have, then the process is dynamic and it grows -- hopefully asymptotically.