You says that " transition requires mineral resources, but not necessarily rare ones". It might be true to some extend as it seems that some technologies might works well without the famous and so-called "rare earths".
But what is your opinion about copper ?
It is said that we will need a huge quantity of copper for an energy transition *at scale* based mainly on electrification. In any case much more than what have been extracted so far (making recycling a moot point at least for the time being).
Some say it is not so much a problem because this copper exists on earth and we will just have to extract it. And even if it might no be so easy, we will manage to do it by improving technologies and investing whatever money will be needed. They say it's a matter of political will. Especially if we decide we have no other choice. (Some even dream of mining asteroids in a not so distant future to sort out the matter but let's leave it at that)
But some say that whatever we decide, it's just no possible for quite a few reasons. First among them, it will means to open tens of new giant mines to extract ore showing a much too poor concentration. Making the whole process of moving so much rocks for so little way to expensive. And beside, too ecologically destructive to be rightfully imposed on local ecosystems and populations. Some say that we will not have enough cheap diesel to do so anyway (unless much of the copper and other ressources are diverted for electrification of copper extraction and refining, making the whole thing eating its own tail and loosing any practical use).
Funnily enough, I've read people rejoicing one week to the news that there is much enough copper on earth for any renewable transition we can dream of. If only we decide to extract it. And rejoicing the next week that some huge mine project in some distant tropical country was abandoned for the good of its poor local population. And say that they will never accept any such a destructive project near their own place either.
Which is of course, one more reason for me to lean for the second option... Which means that it only leave us with some degrowth of some sort. But it is something that the vast majority of people will never accept nicely for themself. Especially since there will always be some people to tell them it is not necessary. So I'm afraid it can only turn quite ugly...
Tris, you are right, there is a problem with Copper. But in large part it is a question of time scale. For the time being, we have enough copper to make the transition move forward and gain enough moment to be unavoidable. And it is critically necessary to go that way before the PTB decide to solve the problem in a drastic manner -- as I am afraid they may have already decided to do. Ugly, indeed.
Then, if we face a copper shortage, there hold the "three laws of depletion," that I wrote in several of my papers: 1) Use sparingly, 2) Use only what's abundant, 3) Recycle ferociously. These three laws have been applied by the biosphere over the past 4 billion years, and it is still going strong. It means we'll use less copper, replace it with aluminum, and recycle most of it. For energy applications in form of wires and cables, copper is easily recyclable. The moment when we won't be able to use electricity anymore because of lack of copper is far away in the future, and perhaps will never occur.
But let me say it again: what we do NOT need, absolutely not need, ferociously not need, desperately not need, is that a shortage of copper, real or claimed, will be used by the PTB as an excuse to solve the problem the way they know how to solve problems.
Thanks for your answer. Yes, indeed, it's a matter of time scale.
But it is pretty much like oil. It is not that we might not have enough copper to use electricity. It's more like we could not have enough *cheap* copper to generate and deliver enough electricity to maintain a functional and peaceful(enough) society...
Local electricity from solar makes sense, with local buffers. The off-grid approach uses less copper, and learns to deal with limitations of electricity at various times. Enough battery to keep the refrigerator and climate control heat pump going is a good start. Good insulation and a white roof are good investments.
Individuals who begin to adapt will find ways forward.
I think we are going into times of much less, myself.
I don't see new forms of abundant, cheap energy, or critical resources, and I don't see the current level of industrial creation and output as being sustained. Essential expertise is already going away in many fields...
Yes, you're right. Renewable energy have interesting and useful applications at the individual or small group level. Providing these people have the will and the money to do it, a suitable location and accept some constraints and limitations.
But the question is still how it can it be scaled at the collective level ? If only it's possible. The recent events in Spain seems to show that it might not be so easy. Maybe not without cost that would cripple the economy and/or limitations that will not be politically acceptable...
I think the problem in Spain is a network reaction to a solar wind flux to the planet inducing voltage and current in 400kV lines and tripping a bunch of breakers, crashing the network in seconds. Please see here (scrolling 15% down, past Ukraine war) https://drjohnsblog.substack.com/p/here-comes-the-sun
This problem would not likely present in a small scale solar + battery installation.
Hum… I've read several articles on the subject with no definitive explanation. Perhaps because it was a combination of several phenomena. And while it might have been triggered by solar wind, it has to be said that no other countries were affected.
Because the consensus remains that in a country-wide grid, the more renewable energy it is supplied with, the more unstable it is due to the lack of frequency inertia usually conferred by the huge turbines of conventional power plants.
It's possible to add devices to restore stability and inertia (batteries, flywheels...) but of course, at an additional cost that wasn't really anticipated and accounted for.
Where possible, copper already has been substituted with aluminum. Here, the 120V cables to the house plus the ground cable, 100% Al. The coaxial cable I use to connect radios to antennas, inner cable is copper clad iron which (due to skin effect) has no negative effect on high frequencies but physically is much stronger than copper alone. The outer conductor is aluminum braid. Although it has somewhat lower conductivity than copper, for practical purposes the difference matters little.
So no reason to worry, apart from people losing their mind and wasting even more lives and resources on wars.
Yes, apparently, in quite a few situation, aluminium can used instead of copper even if it's not as efficient. Meaning, one way or an other, a bit more costly.
Beside extracting aluminium ore and processing it is as polluting as copper. And maybe even more energy-intensive. So I'm not sure it really change the situation...
What matters in metal production is the chemical composition of the ore and the percentage of the metal available. Copper ore contains ~1% Cu whereas bauxite can contain up to 70% Al. The latter is present as Al2O3 so only needs electrolysis to produce Al. Hence the major requirement is electrical power, preferably renewable.
Copper is a bit more complicated (and polluting), see
As I said before, the main issue is not availability (everybody agree that the quantities do exist) but whether or not the extraction and processing will economically be affordable in respect of the purchasing power of the population. As a rule ressources that cannot be sold for a price that cover their extraction cost are NOT extracted.
And on that matter, the jury is still out. Even if there are already some signs that should be worrying.
But it's funny you mention Our World in Data because, even if they show quite interesting data on many subject, they are definitely on the cornucopian and techno-solutionist side, trying to convince people that indeed there are all the ressources we need. Look at who's working on the project and who is funding it.
And of course, you're right about war and the waste of ressources it is. But can hungry wolves become vegetarians ? Small chance...
Extraction, refining and production only depends on available energy and cost of it. In the course of events the % of metal in available ore will decline (best ore used first) which makes the energy issue dominant. Best understood in China which successfully designed and built thorium reactor, is the number 1 re fusion reactor and solar power development and also the most advanced in recycling technology.
The issue always overlooked is that the global economy is run on "compulsive buying", the reason why web pages are bombarded with ads. Without that and with "intelligent use of existing stuff" instead, far less resources would be used.
But that's the same "humans are irrational" issue as that of "full spectrum dominance / warfare" of neocons & ilk.
Aluminum wiring burns if you hit it with too much current. It used to be used in American houses for awhile, but this problem became apparent. Good protection circuits to prevent overload are critical.
The problem is the fuse: it has thermal inertia so takes time to heat up. Even though the specific heat of Al is higher than Cu (so requires more energy for the same increase in temperature (same weight)), the indoor risk using Al is too high. A household fuse has to be able to carry a peak current many times the avg. current (compressors in AC, fridges etc.) whereas the Al transmission lines are calculated for peak current which often isn't even exceeded by lightning.
Thank you Professor Bardi for your macro view of our deplorable situation. As you say, the rich can (and do) think of "something worse": I think immediately of Trump and DOGE eliminating or crippling the parts of the US government tasked with saving lives and improving health while the military machine and corporate subsidies remain fully funded.
I can't help but be less than charitable about this civilization's use of energy: we're blind to inputs, outputs, and waste, and we're hyperconsumptive to feed not just basic necessities, but ego, status, dopamine hits, luxury, narcissism, and lately, AI (which is expected to supercharge these uses of energy, while consuming immense amounts of energy).
On top of this, we have a growing population that will expect more and more of these things indefinitely.
We can debate all day about how electricity can be conducted (copper or aluminum and if there's enough of either) or how we can keep generating that electricity, but we cannot forget the continued destruction and devastation of what's left of the planet's ecosystems (the only true renewables and the basis for ALL life).
Whether we're generating electricity from coal, natural gas, wind, solar, hydro, or nuclear, infinite extraction and consumption cannot go on forever on a finite planet.
It does not matter how these reckless activities are powered. Killing everything (the endgame of modern civilization) using the cleanest and greenest power sources still leaves nothing.
We're quibbling about what will power the last giant earth moving machine when it scrapes away the final scoop of living soil to get to the last chunk of ore just to satisfy the final insatiable consumer.
I just created a new site depletioncurve.com. Does that make me a "depletionist"? If it does, we are such a small part of the population I don't see what difference it makes what solution we have. After all, Bush didn't ask ASPO to work with him on a plan. He simply took facts that fit into some worldview he had, and acted. Perhaps he only wanted to slow Middle East oil down to improve the price of U.S. oil. Who knows.
Humans were killing themselves in wars long before they started depleting anything.
We can't even get anyone (truly) interested in the problem. Why do we expect them to look to us for a solution? GREAT ESSAY THOUGH!
About the "depletionists" I would say I am not sure to be happy to be part of a club that accepts people like me as members. But, hey, there is space for everyone!
I think depletion of one sort of another was behind every war I can think of back to the ancient past; depletion or preemptive war to avoid it. Even primitive cultures fought/fight over access to resources like hunting grounds, etc.
Yes, I don't think there were many wars fought only for ideological or political reasons. Most of them were fought for control of resources, either to use them or to deny them to rivals. After all, war is just too expensive.
Semantics plays a large role in human affairs. In English at least, men vs. women and female vs. male means that women will be regarded as an adjunct, requiring qualifying letters, to the centrality of the male condition. The word "renewable" is no different. To a large degree, it is a marketing term that ignores all of the myriad financial and eçological costs of bringing the energy to market and in this respect is preferable to the once common term "alternative energy." Obviously Ugo understands this, but most people encountering the word "renewable" will react just as the semantacists hoped. It's some sort of free lunch. But just how renewable is renewable energy? Energy Return on Energy Invested (or it's surrogate, the Money invested - EROEI or EROI) is the relevant measure and many scientists use it to assess energy resources. The parameters, especially the denominator of the ratio, are in need of standardization, which is the current work of Ugo's friend and mine, Prof. Charlie Hall. So I think the terminology we use does matter, but Ugo is, I think, absolutely right about the main thesis of this essay. The science does not suggest a real, practical solution to the problem under study, which is an element we have come to expect of "scientific progress." That Colin Campbell's "oil age" will end seems certain, but how is anyone's guess. The best guesses take energy availability into account, but the future will probably come to realize that our concept of "solutions" was a product of the oil age as well.
There is currently no real large-scale solution to replace our energy model. Nuclear energy, which could have been a sustainable alternative, is itself at an impasse: the so-called Generation IV reactors, expected to revolutionize the sector by closing the fuel cycle and using resources more efficiently, were not built in time. Yet building Generation IV reactors would require a fully functional heavy industry — an industry that still heavily relies on fossil fuels.
It’s important to remember a simple but often overlooked fact: we have used fossil fuels for the past two centuries precisely because they can directly and massively supply not only thermal and electrical energy, but also a whole range of essential services that renewables are unable to provide. Fossil fuels enable the reduction of raw materials (metal production), the carbon-based chemical industry (petrochemicals for plastics, solvents, pharmaceuticals, infrastructure), and global logistics. Renewables, on the other hand, cannot replace these functions and, more critically, are entirely dependent on fossil fuels for their construction, maintenance, renewal, and even expansion.
In short, it is an illusion to believe that renewables will ever be able to sustain a complex industrial society on their own. They will never generate enough net energy to maintain their own infrastructure while simultaneously supporting the energy needs of a modern society. Even projects aiming to capture carbon from the air to manufacture fuels or materials are merely highly energy-intensive theoretical exercises — in France, such ideas are often compared to a "Shadok system": pumping endlessly to achieve almost nothing.
Moreover, it is very likely that the peak of oil production will also coincide with the peak of renewable installations. Since renewables are deeply dependent on fossil energy for their deployment, maintenance, and scaling, a decline in fossil fuel availability will inevitably stall their expansion, precisely when they would be most needed.
Thus, without Generation IV nuclear reactors available in time and without abundant fossil fuels, the gradual collapse of our industrial capabilities seems inevitable.
The Monkey's Paw: indeed, it is a cautionary tale, and I caution Prof. Bardi, and others, not to be deceived by the false promises regarding what is very poorly termed 'renewable' energy.
Reality matters. Telling a 'noble lie' that somehow collapse is avoidable, 'if we would only support the right technologies', is a violence against peoples and places. And telling the lie won't stop runaway climate change, ecosystem collapse, spermageddon, or mass-extinction either.
As many already know, the extractive, pollutive, and ecologically destructive efforts to procure the various ores, are in themselves an act of #unsustainability. That these acts of extractavism and exploitation are performed by diesel-fueled machines can surely not have escaped Prof Bardi's notice? Likewise the refining with various acids and chemicals, the transport across continents for smelting (with coal) and manufacture.... packaging... more transport... and on and on... all #unsustainable.
Rapid expansion to meet impossible demand is the promise of yet more extractive, diesel soaked, environmentally destructive practices to supply more humans with 'clean' energy in order to "maintain business-as-usual by alternative means." (Rees). This effort is an extraordinarily foolish endevour considering the complexity of our predicament.
Our human predicament cannot be solved by energy transformation, nor by any other method. Although a pervasive untruth, the idea that 'clean energy' can save us from ecological overshoot is both, an intellectually impoverished, and desperate delusion.
The truth is always sweet, no matter how bitter the taste.
Disclaimer: I am a electrification detractor in all its forms, whether it is by renewables or by nuclear. This is the key argument:
You say "the rich can think of even worse things" if we don't insist on the renewable transition. It's too late, they have already think of such worst things, and it's not because of depletion, but because of the expected absense of it. It's in the expectation of the "best" outcome possible (plenty of energy and plenty of minerals to electrify) that they have concocted their fevered dreams of annihilation of everything else.
The judgement should not be based on the theoretical best uses electrical energy could have; it must come from the ones that is most likely to have, especially the bad ones. We can already see how the ruling elite is already bent on powering the future "data centers" whose main purpose is to drive Artificial Intelligence forward, so much that they are not only considering all future renewable energy expansion for it, but also reverting fossil fuel abandonment. None of it is for the relief of global warming for the people most affected by it, especially in the Global South. It's all about pushing the ruling elite's crazy visions forward.
We have already seen in Gaza they are capable of the most abominable atrocities. We have already seen in Ukraine how the human soldier has turned out to be mere fodder to the newest killer drones. In the absense of depletion, all "progress" is directed toward this future: not better batteries for civil transportation but for more effective killer drones. We are better off if Peter Thiel and its ilk, the transhumanists, the effective accelerationists, and the real power behind Trump, are depleted rather than well provided of resources, for they are eager to press the kill everyone red button as soon as they can.
So about being careful what we wish for: better have depletion and deal with much less powered nefarious elite, than wishing for non depletion and having to deal with all the killer drones and AI backing them.
Probably is also useful to remember human that nature is quite found to slow and efficient compared to our fast, energy intensive and disposable.
We need a lot of energy just because we want things "here and now", resistance and dispersion are regulated by the square law (F=MV^2... valid also for temperature that) so "faster" we do things more dispersion we get paid to entropy. Refining could be done with bacteria but is not economical because is slow, fitomining is a reality for a lot of different elements but still too slow for real reasoning as industrial system and we could go. A lot of this strategies are fit also as recycling methods but still same problem.
Steel and iron seems to be taking a good route with electrolysis (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/materials/articles/10.3389/fmats.2022.1010156/full), slow but working at almost room temperature (compared to regular routes) and probably a lot of other possibilities lie around, lithium is mined from old, fossilized, brine but is also in sea water as uranium and a lot of other useful resources and spearing it from the ocean is a win/win strategy: the first step is separating water from salts so one mayor goal is obtained as drinking water, the salt brine could be processed as is the fossil one for useful elements but is also probably possible to use some more benigne routes getting a lot of useful industrial resources and a lot of table salt...
We could also think about the use of the ancient strategies of "industrial ecology", during pre-industrial and early industrial era usually industries cluster one beside other to use the waste of one as input for the other: slaughterhouses waste is leather but also bone (ceramic industry, chemical and fertilizer), hoofs and un'editabile elements (glue and bluing of steel) and water carrying blood and leftovers (fertilizer and cattle supplement), any of this production also made other waste used by other as hairs from leather and so on. Today we have long supply chains because we "feel" more "economic" to transport things around the world, until WW2 that was quite the opposite so clustering and commensality was better, shipping was only for hi value final goods!
Probably renewable and some reduced fossile as backup could be good for our "normal people" standard of living, slower solutions are good for the ordinary middle class family. What we couldn't afford is a "over the top" living of "showing up"!
It is interesting that China chose electrification (coal) and leveraged oil to urbanise and build infrastructure and step jump into IT efficiencies.
The US is left it seems needing essentially extravagant use of petroleum that looks to be a huge impediment to future productive electrification. (Gas and LNG could be a separate discussion?)
I would agree that deployment of electrification, solar / small scale / local with IT connection is probably the way that Africa might go, despite the problems of megacities growth and low returns from being extractive economies where value is accrued elsewhere in the current globalised economy?
I believe this is exactly what the ecological movement (whatever its political flavor) will be accused of in the future. Actually and quite logically, it's already started.
Playing Cassandra is never a confortable role as it is always the scape-goat of choice...
You says that " transition requires mineral resources, but not necessarily rare ones". It might be true to some extend as it seems that some technologies might works well without the famous and so-called "rare earths".
But what is your opinion about copper ?
It is said that we will need a huge quantity of copper for an energy transition *at scale* based mainly on electrification. In any case much more than what have been extracted so far (making recycling a moot point at least for the time being).
Some say it is not so much a problem because this copper exists on earth and we will just have to extract it. And even if it might no be so easy, we will manage to do it by improving technologies and investing whatever money will be needed. They say it's a matter of political will. Especially if we decide we have no other choice. (Some even dream of mining asteroids in a not so distant future to sort out the matter but let's leave it at that)
But some say that whatever we decide, it's just no possible for quite a few reasons. First among them, it will means to open tens of new giant mines to extract ore showing a much too poor concentration. Making the whole process of moving so much rocks for so little way to expensive. And beside, too ecologically destructive to be rightfully imposed on local ecosystems and populations. Some say that we will not have enough cheap diesel to do so anyway (unless much of the copper and other ressources are diverted for electrification of copper extraction and refining, making the whole thing eating its own tail and loosing any practical use).
Funnily enough, I've read people rejoicing one week to the news that there is much enough copper on earth for any renewable transition we can dream of. If only we decide to extract it. And rejoicing the next week that some huge mine project in some distant tropical country was abandoned for the good of its poor local population. And say that they will never accept any such a destructive project near their own place either.
Which is of course, one more reason for me to lean for the second option... Which means that it only leave us with some degrowth of some sort. But it is something that the vast majority of people will never accept nicely for themself. Especially since there will always be some people to tell them it is not necessary. So I'm afraid it can only turn quite ugly...
Tris, you are right, there is a problem with Copper. But in large part it is a question of time scale. For the time being, we have enough copper to make the transition move forward and gain enough moment to be unavoidable. And it is critically necessary to go that way before the PTB decide to solve the problem in a drastic manner -- as I am afraid they may have already decided to do. Ugly, indeed.
Then, if we face a copper shortage, there hold the "three laws of depletion," that I wrote in several of my papers: 1) Use sparingly, 2) Use only what's abundant, 3) Recycle ferociously. These three laws have been applied by the biosphere over the past 4 billion years, and it is still going strong. It means we'll use less copper, replace it with aluminum, and recycle most of it. For energy applications in form of wires and cables, copper is easily recyclable. The moment when we won't be able to use electricity anymore because of lack of copper is far away in the future, and perhaps will never occur.
But let me say it again: what we do NOT need, absolutely not need, ferociously not need, desperately not need, is that a shortage of copper, real or claimed, will be used by the PTB as an excuse to solve the problem the way they know how to solve problems.
Thanks for your answer. Yes, indeed, it's a matter of time scale.
But it is pretty much like oil. It is not that we might not have enough copper to use electricity. It's more like we could not have enough *cheap* copper to generate and deliver enough electricity to maintain a functional and peaceful(enough) society...
Local electricity from solar makes sense, with local buffers. The off-grid approach uses less copper, and learns to deal with limitations of electricity at various times. Enough battery to keep the refrigerator and climate control heat pump going is a good start. Good insulation and a white roof are good investments.
Individuals who begin to adapt will find ways forward.
I think we are going into times of much less, myself.
I don't see new forms of abundant, cheap energy, or critical resources, and I don't see the current level of industrial creation and output as being sustained. Essential expertise is already going away in many fields...
Yes, you're right. Renewable energy have interesting and useful applications at the individual or small group level. Providing these people have the will and the money to do it, a suitable location and accept some constraints and limitations.
But the question is still how it can it be scaled at the collective level ? If only it's possible. The recent events in Spain seems to show that it might not be so easy. Maybe not without cost that would cripple the economy and/or limitations that will not be politically acceptable...
I think the problem in Spain is a network reaction to a solar wind flux to the planet inducing voltage and current in 400kV lines and tripping a bunch of breakers, crashing the network in seconds. Please see here (scrolling 15% down, past Ukraine war) https://drjohnsblog.substack.com/p/here-comes-the-sun
This problem would not likely present in a small scale solar + battery installation.
Hum… I've read several articles on the subject with no definitive explanation. Perhaps because it was a combination of several phenomena. And while it might have been triggered by solar wind, it has to be said that no other countries were affected.
Because the consensus remains that in a country-wide grid, the more renewable energy it is supplied with, the more unstable it is due to the lack of frequency inertia usually conferred by the huge turbines of conventional power plants.
It's possible to add devices to restore stability and inertia (batteries, flywheels...) but of course, at an additional cost that wasn't really anticipated and accounted for.
Where possible, copper already has been substituted with aluminum. Here, the 120V cables to the house plus the ground cable, 100% Al. The coaxial cable I use to connect radios to antennas, inner cable is copper clad iron which (due to skin effect) has no negative effect on high frequencies but physically is much stronger than copper alone. The outer conductor is aluminum braid. Although it has somewhat lower conductivity than copper, for practical purposes the difference matters little.
So no reason to worry, apart from people losing their mind and wasting even more lives and resources on wars.
Hum...
Yes, apparently, in quite a few situation, aluminium can used instead of copper even if it's not as efficient. Meaning, one way or an other, a bit more costly.
Beside extracting aluminium ore and processing it is as polluting as copper. And maybe even more energy-intensive. So I'm not sure it really change the situation...
What matters in metal production is the chemical composition of the ore and the percentage of the metal available. Copper ore contains ~1% Cu whereas bauxite can contain up to 70% Al. The latter is present as Al2O3 so only needs electrolysis to produce Al. Hence the major requirement is electrical power, preferably renewable.
Copper is a bit more complicated (and polluting), see
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/base-metals-investing/copper-investing/copper-refining-from-ore-to-market/
Regarding availability of metals on the planet, see
https://ourworldindata.org/countries-critical-minerals-needed-energy-transition
With indirect emphasis that humans should become more rational, prioritize cooperation and abandon warfare.
As I said before, the main issue is not availability (everybody agree that the quantities do exist) but whether or not the extraction and processing will economically be affordable in respect of the purchasing power of the population. As a rule ressources that cannot be sold for a price that cover their extraction cost are NOT extracted.
And on that matter, the jury is still out. Even if there are already some signs that should be worrying.
But it's funny you mention Our World in Data because, even if they show quite interesting data on many subject, they are definitely on the cornucopian and techno-solutionist side, trying to convince people that indeed there are all the ressources we need. Look at who's working on the project and who is funding it.
And of course, you're right about war and the waste of ressources it is. But can hungry wolves become vegetarians ? Small chance...
Extraction, refining and production only depends on available energy and cost of it. In the course of events the % of metal in available ore will decline (best ore used first) which makes the energy issue dominant. Best understood in China which successfully designed and built thorium reactor, is the number 1 re fusion reactor and solar power development and also the most advanced in recycling technology.
The issue always overlooked is that the global economy is run on "compulsive buying", the reason why web pages are bombarded with ads. Without that and with "intelligent use of existing stuff" instead, far less resources would be used.
But that's the same "humans are irrational" issue as that of "full spectrum dominance / warfare" of neocons & ilk.
Aluminum wiring burns if you hit it with too much current. It used to be used in American houses for awhile, but this problem became apparent. Good protection circuits to prevent overload are critical.
It's fine for signals and antennae, of course.
The problem is the fuse: it has thermal inertia so takes time to heat up. Even though the specific heat of Al is higher than Cu (so requires more energy for the same increase in temperature (same weight)), the indoor risk using Al is too high. A household fuse has to be able to carry a peak current many times the avg. current (compressors in AC, fridges etc.) whereas the Al transmission lines are calculated for peak current which often isn't even exceeded by lightning.
Thank you Professor Bardi for your macro view of our deplorable situation. As you say, the rich can (and do) think of "something worse": I think immediately of Trump and DOGE eliminating or crippling the parts of the US government tasked with saving lives and improving health while the military machine and corporate subsidies remain fully funded.
Indeed...
I can't help but be less than charitable about this civilization's use of energy: we're blind to inputs, outputs, and waste, and we're hyperconsumptive to feed not just basic necessities, but ego, status, dopamine hits, luxury, narcissism, and lately, AI (which is expected to supercharge these uses of energy, while consuming immense amounts of energy).
On top of this, we have a growing population that will expect more and more of these things indefinitely.
We can debate all day about how electricity can be conducted (copper or aluminum and if there's enough of either) or how we can keep generating that electricity, but we cannot forget the continued destruction and devastation of what's left of the planet's ecosystems (the only true renewables and the basis for ALL life).
Whether we're generating electricity from coal, natural gas, wind, solar, hydro, or nuclear, infinite extraction and consumption cannot go on forever on a finite planet.
It does not matter how these reckless activities are powered. Killing everything (the endgame of modern civilization) using the cleanest and greenest power sources still leaves nothing.
We're quibbling about what will power the last giant earth moving machine when it scrapes away the final scoop of living soil to get to the last chunk of ore just to satisfy the final insatiable consumer.
I just created a new site depletioncurve.com. Does that make me a "depletionist"? If it does, we are such a small part of the population I don't see what difference it makes what solution we have. After all, Bush didn't ask ASPO to work with him on a plan. He simply took facts that fit into some worldview he had, and acted. Perhaps he only wanted to slow Middle East oil down to improve the price of U.S. oil. Who knows.
Humans were killing themselves in wars long before they started depleting anything.
We can't even get anyone (truly) interested in the problem. Why do we expect them to look to us for a solution? GREAT ESSAY THOUGH!
About the "depletionists" I would say I am not sure to be happy to be part of a club that accepts people like me as members. But, hey, there is space for everyone!
HAHA. I'm a club of one. But you ALMOST got in. Closer than anyone else. So feel free to brag ;)
I think depletion of one sort of another was behind every war I can think of back to the ancient past; depletion or preemptive war to avoid it. Even primitive cultures fought/fight over access to resources like hunting grounds, etc.
Okay, but if that's the case then it still doesn't matter what solutions us "depletionists" have!
Can't argue with that
HAHA Good 'cause I don't like my chances arguing with you ;)
Yes, I don't think there were many wars fought only for ideological or political reasons. Most of them were fought for control of resources, either to use them or to deny them to rivals. After all, war is just too expensive.
Semantics plays a large role in human affairs. In English at least, men vs. women and female vs. male means that women will be regarded as an adjunct, requiring qualifying letters, to the centrality of the male condition. The word "renewable" is no different. To a large degree, it is a marketing term that ignores all of the myriad financial and eçological costs of bringing the energy to market and in this respect is preferable to the once common term "alternative energy." Obviously Ugo understands this, but most people encountering the word "renewable" will react just as the semantacists hoped. It's some sort of free lunch. But just how renewable is renewable energy? Energy Return on Energy Invested (or it's surrogate, the Money invested - EROEI or EROI) is the relevant measure and many scientists use it to assess energy resources. The parameters, especially the denominator of the ratio, are in need of standardization, which is the current work of Ugo's friend and mine, Prof. Charlie Hall. So I think the terminology we use does matter, but Ugo is, I think, absolutely right about the main thesis of this essay. The science does not suggest a real, practical solution to the problem under study, which is an element we have come to expect of "scientific progress." That Colin Campbell's "oil age" will end seems certain, but how is anyone's guess. The best guesses take energy availability into account, but the future will probably come to realize that our concept of "solutions" was a product of the oil age as well.
There is currently no real large-scale solution to replace our energy model. Nuclear energy, which could have been a sustainable alternative, is itself at an impasse: the so-called Generation IV reactors, expected to revolutionize the sector by closing the fuel cycle and using resources more efficiently, were not built in time. Yet building Generation IV reactors would require a fully functional heavy industry — an industry that still heavily relies on fossil fuels.
It’s important to remember a simple but often overlooked fact: we have used fossil fuels for the past two centuries precisely because they can directly and massively supply not only thermal and electrical energy, but also a whole range of essential services that renewables are unable to provide. Fossil fuels enable the reduction of raw materials (metal production), the carbon-based chemical industry (petrochemicals for plastics, solvents, pharmaceuticals, infrastructure), and global logistics. Renewables, on the other hand, cannot replace these functions and, more critically, are entirely dependent on fossil fuels for their construction, maintenance, renewal, and even expansion.
In short, it is an illusion to believe that renewables will ever be able to sustain a complex industrial society on their own. They will never generate enough net energy to maintain their own infrastructure while simultaneously supporting the energy needs of a modern society. Even projects aiming to capture carbon from the air to manufacture fuels or materials are merely highly energy-intensive theoretical exercises — in France, such ideas are often compared to a "Shadok system": pumping endlessly to achieve almost nothing.
Moreover, it is very likely that the peak of oil production will also coincide with the peak of renewable installations. Since renewables are deeply dependent on fossil energy for their deployment, maintenance, and scaling, a decline in fossil fuel availability will inevitably stall their expansion, precisely when they would be most needed.
Thus, without Generation IV nuclear reactors available in time and without abundant fossil fuels, the gradual collapse of our industrial capabilities seems inevitable.
We're doomed :D
The Monkey's Paw: indeed, it is a cautionary tale, and I caution Prof. Bardi, and others, not to be deceived by the false promises regarding what is very poorly termed 'renewable' energy.
Reality matters. Telling a 'noble lie' that somehow collapse is avoidable, 'if we would only support the right technologies', is a violence against peoples and places. And telling the lie won't stop runaway climate change, ecosystem collapse, spermageddon, or mass-extinction either.
As many already know, the extractive, pollutive, and ecologically destructive efforts to procure the various ores, are in themselves an act of #unsustainability. That these acts of extractavism and exploitation are performed by diesel-fueled machines can surely not have escaped Prof Bardi's notice? Likewise the refining with various acids and chemicals, the transport across continents for smelting (with coal) and manufacture.... packaging... more transport... and on and on... all #unsustainable.
Rapid expansion to meet impossible demand is the promise of yet more extractive, diesel soaked, environmentally destructive practices to supply more humans with 'clean' energy in order to "maintain business-as-usual by alternative means." (Rees). This effort is an extraordinarily foolish endevour considering the complexity of our predicament.
Our human predicament cannot be solved by energy transformation, nor by any other method. Although a pervasive untruth, the idea that 'clean energy' can save us from ecological overshoot is both, an intellectually impoverished, and desperate delusion.
The truth is always sweet, no matter how bitter the taste.
so if we reached peak crude shale oil i expect a lot of people will die than ?
Disclaimer: I am a electrification detractor in all its forms, whether it is by renewables or by nuclear. This is the key argument:
You say "the rich can think of even worse things" if we don't insist on the renewable transition. It's too late, they have already think of such worst things, and it's not because of depletion, but because of the expected absense of it. It's in the expectation of the "best" outcome possible (plenty of energy and plenty of minerals to electrify) that they have concocted their fevered dreams of annihilation of everything else.
The judgement should not be based on the theoretical best uses electrical energy could have; it must come from the ones that is most likely to have, especially the bad ones. We can already see how the ruling elite is already bent on powering the future "data centers" whose main purpose is to drive Artificial Intelligence forward, so much that they are not only considering all future renewable energy expansion for it, but also reverting fossil fuel abandonment. None of it is for the relief of global warming for the people most affected by it, especially in the Global South. It's all about pushing the ruling elite's crazy visions forward.
We have already seen in Gaza they are capable of the most abominable atrocities. We have already seen in Ukraine how the human soldier has turned out to be mere fodder to the newest killer drones. In the absense of depletion, all "progress" is directed toward this future: not better batteries for civil transportation but for more effective killer drones. We are better off if Peter Thiel and its ilk, the transhumanists, the effective accelerationists, and the real power behind Trump, are depleted rather than well provided of resources, for they are eager to press the kill everyone red button as soon as they can.
So about being careful what we wish for: better have depletion and deal with much less powered nefarious elite, than wishing for non depletion and having to deal with all the killer drones and AI backing them.
Probably is also useful to remember human that nature is quite found to slow and efficient compared to our fast, energy intensive and disposable.
We need a lot of energy just because we want things "here and now", resistance and dispersion are regulated by the square law (F=MV^2... valid also for temperature that) so "faster" we do things more dispersion we get paid to entropy. Refining could be done with bacteria but is not economical because is slow, fitomining is a reality for a lot of different elements but still too slow for real reasoning as industrial system and we could go. A lot of this strategies are fit also as recycling methods but still same problem.
Steel and iron seems to be taking a good route with electrolysis (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/materials/articles/10.3389/fmats.2022.1010156/full), slow but working at almost room temperature (compared to regular routes) and probably a lot of other possibilities lie around, lithium is mined from old, fossilized, brine but is also in sea water as uranium and a lot of other useful resources and spearing it from the ocean is a win/win strategy: the first step is separating water from salts so one mayor goal is obtained as drinking water, the salt brine could be processed as is the fossil one for useful elements but is also probably possible to use some more benigne routes getting a lot of useful industrial resources and a lot of table salt...
We could also think about the use of the ancient strategies of "industrial ecology", during pre-industrial and early industrial era usually industries cluster one beside other to use the waste of one as input for the other: slaughterhouses waste is leather but also bone (ceramic industry, chemical and fertilizer), hoofs and un'editabile elements (glue and bluing of steel) and water carrying blood and leftovers (fertilizer and cattle supplement), any of this production also made other waste used by other as hairs from leather and so on. Today we have long supply chains because we "feel" more "economic" to transport things around the world, until WW2 that was quite the opposite so clustering and commensality was better, shipping was only for hi value final goods!
Probably renewable and some reduced fossile as backup could be good for our "normal people" standard of living, slower solutions are good for the ordinary middle class family. What we couldn't afford is a "over the top" living of "showing up"!
i always knew we would collapse in 2025 because of peak crude oil eia forecast until 2027 was wrong !
so a lot of people will die off this year than ?
so it is all over this year we will collapse this year then ?
It is interesting that China chose electrification (coal) and leveraged oil to urbanise and build infrastructure and step jump into IT efficiencies.
The US is left it seems needing essentially extravagant use of petroleum that looks to be a huge impediment to future productive electrification. (Gas and LNG could be a separate discussion?)
I would agree that deployment of electrification, solar / small scale / local with IT connection is probably the way that Africa might go, despite the problems of megacities growth and low returns from being extractive economies where value is accrued elsewhere in the current globalised economy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defeating_prophecy
Walter, https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ and
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6TXmcAWkYHPUREmlBeaDwKPv36-o0leBsbHU4XOUjdti6weKisOq5biT0Tbo-pgFzv5oK653g0dEuAjQN7BxuiyUj0bsNbkfaW4W0q7KlAdEUMxnwWnB4dNb8vseYP6ok-hwTdhzH2wYLSuLaiUbl4nUySboZUbRGb3RC0NY0gGF7k2qWKw4shWhmH7A/s680/Earth's-Energy-Imbalance.png
In politics follow the money.
In climate science follow the energy.
I believe this is exactly what the ecological movement (whatever its political flavor) will be accused of in the future. Actually and quite logically, it's already started.
Playing Cassandra is never a confortable role as it is always the scape-goat of choice...
Exactly!