In the 1920s - 1930s, the initial 'popular' success of police-state regimes in Europe seems to have been predicated on government adopting monetary practice (public investment) in contrast to the existing (failed) international monetary system. Even the USA temporarily adopted some ‘socialist’ features, including the successful command economy in WWII. But, as LTG correctly assumes, (thank you Club of Rome), it is a different and much bigger 'energy world' now. How long will Argentina sustain an economy? Perhaps Milet is taking a wild bet on Malvinas oil?
We still do not have the answer to the question I asked Nate Hagens almost 10 years ago. When will global ‘growth’ of GDP peak? China has injected a large energy increment into the global economy with their vast coal expansion for electrification and the USA fracking has maintained growth of global petroleum energy.
Interestingly, the USA has it seems the most costly per capita health sector in the world. Despite the huge GDP, their relatively poor and declining national health / life expectancy appears due largely to cultural / historical factors: a divided nation coupled with notoriously poor nutrition etc. Eastern Europe including Russia might be recovering from a dire health legacy and collapsed economy, and might at some point gain for a while a more stable base?
I wonder then if the USA will turn out to be the prime indicator of the inflection moment for this Industrial Age, something a great deal bigger than a first ‘canary in the coal mine’.
Good points, Phil. The US empire is still growing on the growth of shale oil production. When that starts declining, the empire will decline with it. Not necessarily a good thing, but not bad, either.
Thanks for the great post--I really enjoyed this one, as it took my thoughts in many different directions.
Regarding Millei, it's sad to see that he's not working out. The long-suffering Argentines really need help; I really can't blame them much at this point for just hoping that any kind of change might be for the better. A member of my extended family went to Argentina last year on vacation, and some of her stories about how desperate some of the ordinary people are getting were really tearjerkers. I really don't know how some of them manage under the extraordinary conditions they are forced to deal with in everyday life.
But you know well, you said in some of your other writings, that there are, in fact, "solutions to a crisis that depends largely on events such as the formation of the oil wells during the Jurassic period". These solutions are, among other things, lithium mining. And Milei is (if not removed from his post for 220% inflation expected this year) likely to deregulate mining.
There is plenty of Lithium in the world, there is no need of Milei to liberalize lithium mining in Argentina to change the situation. Which is good in the medium-long term (indeed there ARE solution to our Jurassic problems), but very bad in the short term. It doesn't seem that Milei considers renewables and EVs as goals; which makes things even worse for the short term in Argentina. Or so I think... Who knows what he really has in mind?
Milei himself, out of his own mind, is probably interested mostly in his idealized version of capitalism not in EVs, that's true. But he also seems to be open to Elon Musk's influence/investment (from what I see looking deeper at the news), and that is the face of the new capitalist style of development (literally richest man etc). So that's complicated.
When Milei was elected my first thought was: "These Argentinians just don't know what they did. The extreme libertarian economic policies will just ruin them faster without solving any of the problems they have." But people are that desperate and not only in Argentina but here in Serbia too. Only in Serbia people understand that huge changes are usually destructive and they rather tolerate existing evil in hope that status quo will last as long as possible.
Ugo, this is bs. The private companies are growing steadily, they hover over States (yearly turnover vs GDP), it is them that want to take down welfare provisions so that everything, especially education and healthcare and our bodies (particularly female sex and reproductive capacities), can become a market. It is called capitalism, these policies were decided 20 years ago at the WTO
Sure. But why didn't the peakers predict the rise? I would take them much more seriously if they sounded the knell of 2030 or 2040 or whatever peak. And included a prediction of the DOUBLING in gas flow from 2010.
Q: Why didn't they?
A: Because of confirmation bias--they want to degrowth politically. It is very common with both the left AND the right to predict what you WANT to happen, versus making shrewd estimates. It's a very human failing. It's even more present with Internet commenters and bloggers. The "near peak" sells a lot better to the choir than the "far peak".
But one a scientist should know enough to watch out for confirmation bias, including in himself. Peakers ignored the vast history of failed peak predictions (including Hubbert...he got SPANKED by natural gas production) and ignored the history of exploration finding new areas and technology improving ability to extract resources. And just assumed, without validity that that was all in the past.
What if you live in a corner of your zone, and can only go in two directions, while someone in the center of their zone will have access to twice as many resources?
I thought Ugo Bardi was a scientist. I don't understand his petulant crossness with an individual (however boorish or extreme) who he himself has labeled a "slave of history".
When a "slave of history" slashes budgets, Ugo says he is "nasty", while "typical supporters of degrowth" would apparently allow for slashing budgets "gently".
Gentle degrowth would not slash budgets. Ever. At all.
All the DEI ministers would get a raise, in fact.
---
Ten years ago or so, I was talking degrowth with some acquaintances, and I said to deal with it I would be a "kinder, gentler, Pol Pot". But there really is no way of being a kinder, gentler Pol Pot. People will be faced with a decline of material well-being and will dislike it. Any government that steps in and tries to direct the decline in the "best" way, whatever way that is, is going to be criticized.
The ultimate "best" way to decline, as we increasingly see, is where vampiric entities increasingly make bank (Tony Blair a good recent example) while blocking all exits for the rank and file. That is how it will actually play out. Milei was installed to bolster Israeli banksters (austerity for thee, but not for me) and to avoid Argentina's joining BRICS. Mission accomplished, and he got the golden menorah bestowed upon him by Zelensky to seal the deal.
With Blogger you can give yourself moderator power to label comments spam and junk them unpublished. They can comment again but the comment won't be seen unless you approve. After a while they get tired and go away.
While I love the idea of living in a walkable town plan - and promote New Urbanism for a variety of great reasons - I'm not sure it's from any lack of materials or ability to maintain the modern suburban world? (Oooh that hurt to type - because even though I live in it there's so much about tacky Australian suburbia that I dislike.) That is - I'm close to accepting that along with the Energy Transition we are about to see an equivalently powerful materials transition as the Industrial Ecosystem evolves.
I'll go over a few details but I'm NOT a Techno-Utopian - but more of a Bright Green Ecomodernist type (except now embracing renewables) that hopes we'll see the "Demographic Decoupling" of society as we meet all human needs through a saner, cleaner Industrial Ecosystem. I'm not sure what other parts are required - and why you are still calling yourself a Degrowther? I'm enjoying the Club of Rome podcast and there is SO much there I agree with. But I'm not ready to embrace the Degrowth term yet - because I see us as needing 'Clean growth' for a little while - until that Demographic Transition kicks in. (I'm going to be slowly, thoughtfully reading all the Earth4All documents over the next few months.)
But as for me being "Bright Green" - that is - hoping for a cleaner Industrial Ecosystem. The EROEI of renewables is fine. I think you covered some of this very briefly in your debate with Dennis Meadows about Simon Michaux. But the EROEI arguments from even Graham Turner's paper were based on REALLY old papers. Things are changing so fast 5 years is a really long time in the energy transition. The papers Turner quoted are 12 to 13 years old now. David Murphy has since completely turned around the whole study of EROEI. Everything's changed. Consider how back in the 2000's solar cells required 3 TIMES the high-energy silicon they do today - and yet somehow the materials magicians get 22% efficiency today! Less material, more energy - sometimes with a much longer life as well!
Quoting old EROEI studies is a crime worthy of Weissbach himself! He published in 2013, but referred to solar EROEI's from 2005 IN GERMANY which is outside of the Sunshine Belt! What IS it with renewable sceptics cherry-picking Germany when 3/4 of the human race live between the 35 parallels north and south and have AMPLE solar at 29% capacity factor? Graphic of belt here. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/overbuild/
Selecting Germany as representing GLOBAL solar or renewables generally is cherry-picking worthy of Simon Michaux! Indeed - with HVDC lines now sending power with only a 1.6% loss - we could send power from the equator to the poles with only a 16% loss. Powering Europe is not a problem trading clean northern wind with clean southern solar.
But I note from your conversation with Dennis Meadows you're not convinced by Simon Michaux? You seemed to be saying all the right things. And now that big industry have caught on to the fact that they can Electrify Everything in mining and smelting etc, and run their own renewables decoupled from the global energy crisis, we'll end up in a vastly more efficient civilisation that only requires 40% of the original thermal value of the fossil fuels.
In a similar way - architects and engineers are looking at how to create greener building materials across the industry. From more efficient less carbon intensive concrete to new ways to build with old materials - like CLT allowing timber skyscrapers for the first time in human history. Wood seems to be inspiring a ready-made modular building code - prefab buildings that can go up with vastly less labour in faster time - storing carbon for a century or so. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/tall-timbers/
Food has huge innovations coming - like Precision Fermentation which bypasses inefficient 6% photosynthesis of crops requiring fertiliser and water and worst of all, arable land - for solar panels at 22% efficiency that split water and feed hydrogen and minerals to bacteria that produce all the fats and proteins and carbs we want. Google "Solein" for more.
Or - even if that doesn't arrive on time - SEAWEED FARMS COULD FEED THE WORLD WHILE SAVING THE OCEANS! Dr David King was the chief scientific adviser to the UK government, and Dr Tim Flannery held the same position down in Australia. Both have done lots of work on this.
JUST 2% OF THE OCEANS COULD FEED 12 BILLION PEOPLE while repairing the oceans.
The dried seaweed protein yield per area (in the ocean) is 2.5 to 7.5 times higher than wheat or legumes (on land). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7221823/ They also grow shellfish like oysters, scallops, and muscles in baskets under the seaweed lines.
SO MY QUESTION IS - why the Hobbit village image - as much as I love Tolkien? While I almost long for a reason to believe suburbia is destined to collapse back to more urban forms - with the arrival of the EV and new building materials - I'm not sure it is inevitable. I think New Urbanism in more European public-transport cities is more preferable and sane to Australian and American suburbia. Your thoughts? After climate change - what is the most urgent limit?
Haha yes in this day and age of social media algorithms and AI - anything is possible. And I listened to another good episode of Club of Rome podcast where I mostly agreed. So it seems this Degrowth label is very, very broad.
Climate change is most definitely a fraud as shown by every legitimate measurement of global tem;peratures...It has been much warmer several times in the near past..In the US, 1936 remains the hottest year on record...I'm not sure what your point is about Milei..Elimating 12 of 21 bureaucracies must be very positive...Renewables have never generated a positive ROE, and have proven to be just another scam fueled by debt..Healthcare in the US is far better than it is in Canada or the UK, where patients wait months just to see a doctor and don't get referred to specialists until too late..Last I saw, 5 year cancer survival rate was 43% for those National Health countries, and more than 70% in the US...Finally, I don't think humanity has to worry about survival...It did just fine before fossil fuels became a primary source of energy....
So, the way to keep the system alive and not too nasty is to feed it with cheap energy, and that means we have to grow the production of renewable energy. It is unlikely that it can avoid decline, but it can make it less steep and less unhappy.
You don't think that this makes the problem worse? 'Renewable' energy and EVs are put forward as solutions - yet they just add costs to a system that is already reeling due to high cost inputs
The alternative is to go back to a technological level similar to that of the Middle Ages. It may not be such a bad idea, but a few billion people will have to starve to death in the process. Think about that.
True, but no existing "renewable energy" sources have proven to be capable of substituting for fossil fuels and nuclear, and most are actually energy negative, like electric cars...
In any case, it is remarkable how easily people become convinced of their own fantasies without worrying about checking them against reality. Once someone decides that renewables are not renewable, no data will change his/her mind. And that, I think, is one of the best arguments in favor of human extinction
I have a cousin who is the chief engineer in charge of safety at one of these plants... I asked him what would happen if the power was permanently turned off... he said 'that can't happen'... but what if... well .. we'd be f789ed...
How do you keep the power and the computer systems etc running... when BAU collapses?
There are 4000 Spent Fuel Ponds Around the Globe…
If you don’t cool the spent fuel, the temperature will rise and there may be a swift chain reaction that leads to spontaneous combustion–an explosion and fire of the spent fuel assemblies. Such a scenario would emit radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Pick your poison. Fresh fuel is hotter and more radioactive, but is only one fuel assembly. A pool of spent fuel will have dozens of assemblies.
One report from Sankei News said that there are over 700 fuel assemblies stored in one pool at Fukushima. If they all caught fire, radioactive particles—including those lasting for as long as a decade—would be released into the air and eventually contaminate the land or, worse, be inhaled by people. “To me, the spent fuel is scarier. All those spent fuel assemblies are still extremely radioactive,” Dalnoki-Veress says.
It has been known for more than two decades that, in case of a loss of water in the pool, convective air cooling would be relatively ineffective in such a “dense-packed” pool. Spent fuel recently discharged from a reactor could heat up relatively rapidly to temperatures at which the zircaloy fuel cladding could catch fire and the fuel’s volatile fission product, including 30-year half-life Cs, would be released. The fire could well spread to older spent fuel. The long-term land-contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from Chernobyl.
Japan’s chief cabinet secretary called it “the devil’s scenario.” Two weeks after the 11 March 2011 earthquake and tsunami devastated the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, causing three nuclear reactors to melt down and release radioactive plumes, officials were bracing for even worse. They feared that spent fuel stored in pools in the reactor halls would catch fire and send radioactive smoke across a much wider swath of eastern Japan, including Tokyo.
The Chernobyl accident was relatively minor, involved no spent fuel ponds, and was controlled by pouring cement onto the reactor. This was breaking down so a few years back they re-entombed.
Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident
However, many of the radioactive elements in spent fuel have long half-lives. For example, plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, and plutonium-240 has a half-life of 6,800 years. Because it contains these long half-lived radioactive elements, spent fuel must be isolated and controlled for thousands of years.
Good points, Eddy. I cannot imagine what could happen if we lose control of the pools where spent fuel is stored. Maybe it won't be so bad. Maybe it would be worse than anything we could imagine. But, as usual, we plunge into the future head first with our eyes closed
Spent nuclear fuel bundles only need to be stored in pools for a few years. At around the five year point, decay heat has become low enough that they can be moved to a dry fuel storage facility.
Groups of bundles are placed into steel and concrete canisters, which are seal-welded shut, at which point each is then lowered into its own pit. Heat removal takes place via natural air convection, completely passive.
This does not eliminate the waste itself, of course, which indeed remains highly radioactive for centuries. But at least it removes the concerns about losing the liquid in the pools or having the cooling equipment breaking down.
During my career I worked at a number of commercial nuclear generating stations that had such storage facilities on site. They required no attention once the fuel was sealed in.
It's a question of soft landing vs. crash landing. I would prefer soft landing and if renewables can help, why not? But I am afraid that precious time has been lost.
Yes, we could have done a lot more to conserve energy, but the inevitable destination, absent big developments, is an early 19th century civilization, with a population of maybe 1 billion...
.
Thanks Ugo.
In the 1920s - 1930s, the initial 'popular' success of police-state regimes in Europe seems to have been predicated on government adopting monetary practice (public investment) in contrast to the existing (failed) international monetary system. Even the USA temporarily adopted some ‘socialist’ features, including the successful command economy in WWII. But, as LTG correctly assumes, (thank you Club of Rome), it is a different and much bigger 'energy world' now. How long will Argentina sustain an economy? Perhaps Milet is taking a wild bet on Malvinas oil?
We still do not have the answer to the question I asked Nate Hagens almost 10 years ago. When will global ‘growth’ of GDP peak? China has injected a large energy increment into the global economy with their vast coal expansion for electrification and the USA fracking has maintained growth of global petroleum energy.
Interestingly, the USA has it seems the most costly per capita health sector in the world. Despite the huge GDP, their relatively poor and declining national health / life expectancy appears due largely to cultural / historical factors: a divided nation coupled with notoriously poor nutrition etc. Eastern Europe including Russia might be recovering from a dire health legacy and collapsed economy, and might at some point gain for a while a more stable base?
I wonder then if the USA will turn out to be the prime indicator of the inflection moment for this Industrial Age, something a great deal bigger than a first ‘canary in the coal mine’.
Good points, Phil. The US empire is still growing on the growth of shale oil production. When that starts declining, the empire will decline with it. Not necessarily a good thing, but not bad, either.
Thanks for the great post--I really enjoyed this one, as it took my thoughts in many different directions.
Regarding Millei, it's sad to see that he's not working out. The long-suffering Argentines really need help; I really can't blame them much at this point for just hoping that any kind of change might be for the better. A member of my extended family went to Argentina last year on vacation, and some of her stories about how desperate some of the ordinary people are getting were really tearjerkers. I really don't know how some of them manage under the extraordinary conditions they are forced to deal with in everyday life.
But you know well, you said in some of your other writings, that there are, in fact, "solutions to a crisis that depends largely on events such as the formation of the oil wells during the Jurassic period". These solutions are, among other things, lithium mining. And Milei is (if not removed from his post for 220% inflation expected this year) likely to deregulate mining.
https://www.themercury.com.au/business/stockhead/asx-lithium-stocks-riding-argentinas-new-wave/news-story/77f7d138ff805e138df9becd0009a0d2
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/society-watch-across-globe-indigenous-rights-are-being-trampled-lithium-goldrush-2024-01-02/
There is more future before capitalism (if the peronist model is replaced) in Argentina than you think, just look at their, indeed, resources.
https://apnews.com/article/musk-milei-argentina-interview-conservative-right-3cf75580f818f94d90be03c913bff58d
And another important source if we want to know current capitalist interpretation of the resource issue: https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/blog/master-plan-part-3
There is plenty of Lithium in the world, there is no need of Milei to liberalize lithium mining in Argentina to change the situation. Which is good in the medium-long term (indeed there ARE solution to our Jurassic problems), but very bad in the short term. It doesn't seem that Milei considers renewables and EVs as goals; which makes things even worse for the short term in Argentina. Or so I think... Who knows what he really has in mind?
Milei himself, out of his own mind, is probably interested mostly in his idealized version of capitalism not in EVs, that's true. But he also seems to be open to Elon Musk's influence/investment (from what I see looking deeper at the news), and that is the face of the new capitalist style of development (literally richest man etc). So that's complicated.
Yes, at least he didn't say that renewables are a scam. Not explicitly, at least
I see that he briefly mentions electric cars and renewables (but also fracking) while arguing for techno-optimism and thesis that growth is caused by human capital and system of prices (scarcity causing price increases, making different investments profitable): https://twitter.com/BasedBeffJezos/status/1743874958072463736?t=SioAUKAVYYk9Ey3c8Upp0Q&s=19
It's also somewhat connected to e/acc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_accelerationism
And e/acc is in many ways XXI century version of Cornucopianism
When Milei was elected my first thought was: "These Argentinians just don't know what they did. The extreme libertarian economic policies will just ruin them faster without solving any of the problems they have." But people are that desperate and not only in Argentina but here in Serbia too. Only in Serbia people understand that huge changes are usually destructive and they rather tolerate existing evil in hope that status quo will last as long as possible.
Ugo, this is bs. The private companies are growing steadily, they hover over States (yearly turnover vs GDP), it is them that want to take down welfare provisions so that everything, especially education and healthcare and our bodies (particularly female sex and reproductive capacities), can become a market. It is called capitalism, these policies were decided 20 years ago at the WTO
Milei is not a cause of anything. He is just a symptom. And symptoms may hurt. Badly.
Still waiting for that Seneca Effect with US natural gas:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2m.htm
Not soon, but remember what's said about death and taxes...
what do you mean not soon do you now more in wich year it will occur then ?
The future cannot be predicted. You can only be prepared for it.
Sure. But why didn't the peakers predict the rise? I would take them much more seriously if they sounded the knell of 2030 or 2040 or whatever peak. And included a prediction of the DOUBLING in gas flow from 2010.
Q: Why didn't they?
A: Because of confirmation bias--they want to degrowth politically. It is very common with both the left AND the right to predict what you WANT to happen, versus making shrewd estimates. It's a very human failing. It's even more present with Internet commenters and bloggers. The "near peak" sells a lot better to the choir than the "far peak".
But one a scientist should know enough to watch out for confirmation bias, including in himself. Peakers ignored the vast history of failed peak predictions (including Hubbert...he got SPANKED by natural gas production) and ignored the history of exploration finding new areas and technology improving ability to extract resources. And just assumed, without validity that that was all in the past.
2030
15-minute cities: kinder, gentler...?
https://twitter.com/iluminatibot/status/1743120191301558300
What if you live in a corner of your zone, and can only go in two directions, while someone in the center of their zone will have access to twice as many resources?
The well-to-do will just pay the sodding fines.
"it won't solve any problem"
Ugo, for decades you've been publicizing a problem with no solution.
What is the point of this sort of accusation?
I guess it is only human to get sucked into the daily grind of politics-as-usual...
I thought Ugo Bardi was a scientist. I don't understand his petulant crossness with an individual (however boorish or extreme) who he himself has labeled a "slave of history".
When a "slave of history" slashes budgets, Ugo says he is "nasty", while "typical supporters of degrowth" would apparently allow for slashing budgets "gently".
Gentle degrowth would not slash budgets. Ever. At all.
All the DEI ministers would get a raise, in fact.
---
Ten years ago or so, I was talking degrowth with some acquaintances, and I said to deal with it I would be a "kinder, gentler, Pol Pot". But there really is no way of being a kinder, gentler Pol Pot. People will be faced with a decline of material well-being and will dislike it. Any government that steps in and tries to direct the decline in the "best" way, whatever way that is, is going to be criticized.
The ultimate "best" way to decline, as we increasingly see, is where vampiric entities increasingly make bank (Tony Blair a good recent example) while blocking all exits for the rank and file. That is how it will actually play out. Milei was installed to bolster Israeli banksters (austerity for thee, but not for me) and to avoid Argentina's joining BRICS. Mission accomplished, and he got the golden menorah bestowed upon him by Zelensky to seal the deal.
One good thing of Substack is that you can block obnoxious commenters. That wasn't possible with Google Blogger.
With Blogger you can give yourself moderator power to label comments spam and junk them unpublished. They can comment again but the comment won't be seen unless you approve. After a while they get tired and go away.
Yes, but you can't ban single people in Blogger.
Hi Ugo,
While I love the idea of living in a walkable town plan - and promote New Urbanism for a variety of great reasons - I'm not sure it's from any lack of materials or ability to maintain the modern suburban world? (Oooh that hurt to type - because even though I live in it there's so much about tacky Australian suburbia that I dislike.) That is - I'm close to accepting that along with the Energy Transition we are about to see an equivalently powerful materials transition as the Industrial Ecosystem evolves.
I'll go over a few details but I'm NOT a Techno-Utopian - but more of a Bright Green Ecomodernist type (except now embracing renewables) that hopes we'll see the "Demographic Decoupling" of society as we meet all human needs through a saner, cleaner Industrial Ecosystem. I'm not sure what other parts are required - and why you are still calling yourself a Degrowther? I'm enjoying the Club of Rome podcast and there is SO much there I agree with. But I'm not ready to embrace the Degrowth term yet - because I see us as needing 'Clean growth' for a little while - until that Demographic Transition kicks in. (I'm going to be slowly, thoughtfully reading all the Earth4All documents over the next few months.)
But as for me being "Bright Green" - that is - hoping for a cleaner Industrial Ecosystem. The EROEI of renewables is fine. I think you covered some of this very briefly in your debate with Dennis Meadows about Simon Michaux. But the EROEI arguments from even Graham Turner's paper were based on REALLY old papers. Things are changing so fast 5 years is a really long time in the energy transition. The papers Turner quoted are 12 to 13 years old now. David Murphy has since completely turned around the whole study of EROEI. Everything's changed. Consider how back in the 2000's solar cells required 3 TIMES the high-energy silicon they do today - and yet somehow the materials magicians get 22% efficiency today! Less material, more energy - sometimes with a much longer life as well!
Some brands get 40 years of solar with EROEI over 100! https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/05/31/maxeon-solar-eroei-over-100-across-40-year-warranty-period/
Quoting old EROEI studies is a crime worthy of Weissbach himself! He published in 2013, but referred to solar EROEI's from 2005 IN GERMANY which is outside of the Sunshine Belt! What IS it with renewable sceptics cherry-picking Germany when 3/4 of the human race live between the 35 parallels north and south and have AMPLE solar at 29% capacity factor? Graphic of belt here. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/overbuild/
Selecting Germany as representing GLOBAL solar or renewables generally is cherry-picking worthy of Simon Michaux! Indeed - with HVDC lines now sending power with only a 1.6% loss - we could send power from the equator to the poles with only a 16% loss. Powering Europe is not a problem trading clean northern wind with clean southern solar.
But I note from your conversation with Dennis Meadows you're not convinced by Simon Michaux? You seemed to be saying all the right things. And now that big industry have caught on to the fact that they can Electrify Everything in mining and smelting etc, and run their own renewables decoupled from the global energy crisis, we'll end up in a vastly more efficient civilisation that only requires 40% of the original thermal value of the fossil fuels.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electrification-energy-efficiency
Australia’s industrial giants are sick of the global energy crisis and high gas prices. Big names like BHP, Bluescope steel, etc, worth a full third of our entire stock-market, have a plan to Electrify Everything https://energytransitionsinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Pathways-to-Industrial-Decarbonisation-report-Updated-August-2023-Australian-Industry-ETI.pdf
In a similar way - architects and engineers are looking at how to create greener building materials across the industry. From more efficient less carbon intensive concrete to new ways to build with old materials - like CLT allowing timber skyscrapers for the first time in human history. Wood seems to be inspiring a ready-made modular building code - prefab buildings that can go up with vastly less labour in faster time - storing carbon for a century or so. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/tall-timbers/
Food has huge innovations coming - like Precision Fermentation which bypasses inefficient 6% photosynthesis of crops requiring fertiliser and water and worst of all, arable land - for solar panels at 22% efficiency that split water and feed hydrogen and minerals to bacteria that produce all the fats and proteins and carbs we want. Google "Solein" for more.
Or - even if that doesn't arrive on time - SEAWEED FARMS COULD FEED THE WORLD WHILE SAVING THE OCEANS! Dr David King was the chief scientific adviser to the UK government, and Dr Tim Flannery held the same position down in Australia. Both have done lots of work on this.
JUST 2% OF THE OCEANS COULD FEED 12 BILLION PEOPLE while repairing the oceans.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/01/sea-forest-better-name-seaweed-un-food-adviser
The seaweed powder can be a food supplement that goes in everything from dairy to bread. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833522000302
The dried seaweed protein yield per area (in the ocean) is 2.5 to 7.5 times higher than wheat or legumes (on land). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7221823/ They also grow shellfish like oysters, scallops, and muscles in baskets under the seaweed lines.
SO MY QUESTION IS - why the Hobbit village image - as much as I love Tolkien? While I almost long for a reason to believe suburbia is destined to collapse back to more urban forms - with the arrival of the EV and new building materials - I'm not sure it is inevitable. I think New Urbanism in more European public-transport cities is more preferable and sane to Australian and American suburbia. Your thoughts? After climate change - what is the most urgent limit?
Wow, what a long comment, Eclipse. It is OK. Don't worry, I agree with you nearly 100%. I just hope you are not a bot!
Haha yes in this day and age of social media algorithms and AI - anything is possible. And I listened to another good episode of Club of Rome podcast where I mostly agreed. So it seems this Degrowth label is very, very broad.
Climate change is most definitely a fraud as shown by every legitimate measurement of global tem;peratures...It has been much warmer several times in the near past..In the US, 1936 remains the hottest year on record...I'm not sure what your point is about Milei..Elimating 12 of 21 bureaucracies must be very positive...Renewables have never generated a positive ROE, and have proven to be just another scam fueled by debt..Healthcare in the US is far better than it is in Canada or the UK, where patients wait months just to see a doctor and don't get referred to specialists until too late..Last I saw, 5 year cancer survival rate was 43% for those National Health countries, and more than 70% in the US...Finally, I don't think humanity has to worry about survival...It did just fine before fossil fuels became a primary source of energy....
Which I think demonstrates that pyrrhus is a bot.
So, the way to keep the system alive and not too nasty is to feed it with cheap energy, and that means we have to grow the production of renewable energy. It is unlikely that it can avoid decline, but it can make it less steep and less unhappy.
You don't think that this makes the problem worse? 'Renewable' energy and EVs are put forward as solutions - yet they just add costs to a system that is already reeling due to high cost inputs
The alternative is to go back to a technological level similar to that of the Middle Ages. It may not be such a bad idea, but a few billion people will have to starve to death in the process. Think about that.
True, but no existing "renewable energy" sources have proven to be capable of substituting for fossil fuels and nuclear, and most are actually energy negative, like electric cars...
A bot is a bot is a bot. As Gertrud Stein said
Which "renewable" technologies are not net energy-negative?
Thanks in advance.
All of them, except some biofuels and some scams about free energy and things like that.
In any case, it is remarkable how easily people become convinced of their own fantasies without worrying about checking them against reality. Once someone decides that renewables are not renewable, no data will change his/her mind. And that, I think, is one of the best arguments in favor of human extinction
I have a cousin who is the chief engineer in charge of safety at one of these plants... I asked him what would happen if the power was permanently turned off... he said 'that can't happen'... but what if... well .. we'd be f789ed...
How do you keep the power and the computer systems etc running... when BAU collapses?
There are 4000 Spent Fuel Ponds Around the Globe…
If you don’t cool the spent fuel, the temperature will rise and there may be a swift chain reaction that leads to spontaneous combustion–an explosion and fire of the spent fuel assemblies. Such a scenario would emit radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Pick your poison. Fresh fuel is hotter and more radioactive, but is only one fuel assembly. A pool of spent fuel will have dozens of assemblies.
One report from Sankei News said that there are over 700 fuel assemblies stored in one pool at Fukushima. If they all caught fire, radioactive particles—including those lasting for as long as a decade—would be released into the air and eventually contaminate the land or, worse, be inhaled by people. “To me, the spent fuel is scarier. All those spent fuel assemblies are still extremely radioactive,” Dalnoki-Veress says.
It has been known for more than two decades that, in case of a loss of water in the pool, convective air cooling would be relatively ineffective in such a “dense-packed” pool. Spent fuel recently discharged from a reactor could heat up relatively rapidly to temperatures at which the zircaloy fuel cladding could catch fire and the fuel’s volatile fission product, including 30-year half-life Cs, would be released. The fire could well spread to older spent fuel. The long-term land-contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from Chernobyl.
http://science.time.com/2011/03/15/a-new-threat-in-japan-radioactive-spent-fuel/
Japan’s chief cabinet secretary called it “the devil’s scenario.” Two weeks after the 11 March 2011 earthquake and tsunami devastated the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, causing three nuclear reactors to melt down and release radioactive plumes, officials were bracing for even worse. They feared that spent fuel stored in pools in the reactor halls would catch fire and send radioactive smoke across a much wider swath of eastern Japan, including Tokyo.
https://energyskeptic.com/2017/the-devils-scenario-near-miss-at-fukushima-is-a-warning-for-u-s/
The Chernobyl accident was relatively minor, involved no spent fuel ponds, and was controlled by pouring cement onto the reactor. This was breaking down so a few years back they re-entombed.
Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16628547/
However, many of the radioactive elements in spent fuel have long half-lives. For example, plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, and plutonium-240 has a half-life of 6,800 years. Because it contains these long half-lived radioactive elements, spent fuel must be isolated and controlled for thousands of years.
Good points, Eddy. I cannot imagine what could happen if we lose control of the pools where spent fuel is stored. Maybe it won't be so bad. Maybe it would be worse than anything we could imagine. But, as usual, we plunge into the future head first with our eyes closed
Spent nuclear fuel bundles only need to be stored in pools for a few years. At around the five year point, decay heat has become low enough that they can be moved to a dry fuel storage facility.
Groups of bundles are placed into steel and concrete canisters, which are seal-welded shut, at which point each is then lowered into its own pit. Heat removal takes place via natural air convection, completely passive.
This does not eliminate the waste itself, of course, which indeed remains highly radioactive for centuries. But at least it removes the concerns about losing the liquid in the pools or having the cooling equipment breaking down.
During my career I worked at a number of commercial nuclear generating stations that had such storage facilities on site. They required no attention once the fuel was sealed in.
It's a question of soft landing vs. crash landing. I would prefer soft landing and if renewables can help, why not? But I am afraid that precious time has been lost.
Yes, this is how things stand
Yes, we could have done a lot more to conserve energy, but the inevitable destination, absent big developments, is an early 19th century civilization, with a population of maybe 1 billion...
It is one possible scenario. But the fan is very large and it starts with the "Olduvai" scenario, all the way to Mars colonies.