‘Dangerous delusion’: High demand for oil, gas impedes green transition, expert says
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ย. 2024
- Despite at least $5 trillion of spending on non-hydrocarbon globally, the world’s dependence on hydrocarbons remains high, hampering the global energy transition as a result, an expert tells Al Arabiya in an interview on the ‘Future of Energy’ TV show.
Read more:
english.alarab...
_________________________________________________________________
Like us on Facebook: / alarabiya.english
Follow us on Twitter: / alarabiya_eng
Follow us on Instagram: / alarabiya_eng
Like us on Google+: goo.gl/L5Nqcx
Al Arabiya English website: english.alarab...
Subscribe to our TH-cam channel: goo.gl/fQ0RkI
__
The English site of the Arab world's leading news channel
![[FULL EP.16] เซียนพาลุย "เผือก-ฟรอยด์" กรี๊ดลั่น จนปูหนี | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FsqUvwS3b-Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Finally someone with a brain on the subject,
A very sensible man with facts, not fiction
Something out politicians don't have
Our politicians don't deal with facts unfortunately
This will end in tears, with us paying the price
Folks thrive on delusion - it makes them feel that they are doing the right thing and that they're making the world a better, and safer, place.
Unless DELUSIONAL THINKING is understood, my words will be interpreted as illogical.
He just summed it up brilliantly: "it doesn't matter what you think about gravity".
Maybe we should slow down the rush to windmills, solar farms, electric cars etc, and just spend more time appreciating the wonderful standard of living made possible by oil, gas and coal. Electric cars are clever, however this climate action nonsense has gone far enough. The world aint gonna end due to a bit more carbon in the air. In fact, as I look out in the back garden everything is looking green
Mark has much in depth to say about the real emissions story on renewables. Follow/search on youtube or better yet, buy his books.
It is immensely difficult to identify in simple terms the nuances to support the case that bad energy policy is damaging our economy. This is one of the best presentations I have discovered that covers this issue.
You flunkies don't get it. Damaging our economy? Eventually the climate is going to be so messed up, there's not going to be an economy. It'll be a downward spiral.
Odd he didn't mention the trillions in ongoing oil and gas subsidies when talking about doing it for old tech.
The silver reserves do not exist to make a solar world. Solar only works with silver. It doesn't matter what people want or governments decree, unless they find more silver reserves, it won't occur.
@@chrisbea49 Subsidies make energy affordable. You want it to be unaffordable so the poor starve. When poor starve they tend to create civil wars because once the government is dead its policy that harms them is over. This, the poor understand very well.
@@donaldkasper8346 Oil and gas has been heavily subsidized for more than a century despite being hugely profitable. It's not the poor being subsidized, it's the wealthy owners. The poor starve when their fields are alternately flooded then parched by the hidden costs of oil and gas that they did not create.
In the field of "climate change" religious faith rather than reality rules the debate. In fact for most people, they are blissfully unaware of the hard realities that are in the way of these religious aspirations.
Good Grief! Nothing about faith is involved in the transition to renewables, and that is a FACT. smh Why are Republicons content to remain 'blissfully unaware' of reality?
You would be wise to have Mark Mills on your show more frequently. Never have I heard such a concise and erudite explanation of the current energy situation, and the lack of factual evidence to support the green new deals which are presently all the rage. It's too bad most Western governments, apparently, do not listen to him, or choose to ignore the facts.
Well, who cares about what "Western governments" think? But scientists and engineers understand that his ideas are crankpot BS.
Western governments say they will support new green deals, then look at the cost, then nothing happens. So no problemo.
@@sevencostanza3931 The plan is working, China coal usage is now at a record to manufacture all of the solar panels and wind turbines to make our power grid completely unreliable. This will lead to a large peasant population struggling to support the wealth and privileges of the denizens of Washington DC, a city that produces NOTHING for the people whose wealth is robbed by these criminals in charge of everything.
Everything he says is a delusional lie.
Geoengineering is the cause of our environmental problems, NOT our hydrocarbon use.
Large countries are behind this weather manipulation, NOT the average citizen.
Modern agriculture is oil dependent.
Artificial fertiliser and other chemicals made from oil and gas enhance food production.
Farm machinery is oil powered.
Transport to our local shops is also oil powered.
An oil crisis means a food crisis.
Which is why it's time to stop foolishly and needlessly burning 80 million barrels of the stuff per day when electric will do that so much better. And leave more of the product left to use for the other things we need from oil. Like lubricating the wheels on my EV.
@@pianodarr Unfortunately, it's neither foolish nor needless. To fully transition to renewables would require us to burn 6-7 times the fossil fuels that we currently do. For example, even if there was enough copper, lithium and cobalt on the planet (which there isn't) you have to use fossil fuels to extract, refine and transport them - it takes a lot of energy to extract metal from ore when there is only about 1-2% in there at best. So it's never going to happen. Even if we did make the transition there is nothing higher yielding, nor utilisable, as gas & oil - there would have to be a population decline to adjust to the lower yield and utility. By the way there are vegetable based lubricants - this is really not a problem!
@@dudeatx None of that's true. We're not going to run out of copper (we're very good at capturing it), more lithium on land than we could ever use (there's very little in a battery, my plugin hybrid has 2lbs worth) and the ocean has 5,000 x as much. The new batteries don't need cobalt and most cobalt is used for oil processing anyway. Less oil processing, less cobalt needed (also easily recycled).
Read:
"Assigning all 328 million Americans equal share of our fossil fuel use, every American burns 1.6 tons of coal, 1.5 tons of natural gas, and 3.1 tons of oil every year. That becomes around 17 tons of carbon dioxide, none of which is captured. It is all tossed like trash into the atmosphere.
The same US lifestyle could be achieved with around 110 pounds each of wind turbines, solar modules, and batteries per person per year, except that all of those are quite recyclable (and getting more recyclable all the time) so there is reason to believe it will amount to only 50-100 pounds per year of stuff that winds up as trash.
That is a huge difference: 34,000 pounds of waste for our lifestyles the old way versus 100 pounds the new, electrified way.
…the scale of resource extraction in a decarbonized world will be vastly, vastly smaller than what’s required to sustain a fossil-fueled society. Close to 40% of all global shipping is devoted to moving fossil fuels around, a gargantuan source of emissions (and strain on the ocean) that clean energy will almost wipe out. In a net-zero economy, there will be, on net, less digging, less transporting, less burning, less polluting.
The fact is, fossil fuels are a wildly destructive and inefficient way to power a society. Two thirds of the energy embedded in them ends up wasted.”
www.volts.wtf/p/minerals-and-the-clean-energy-transition?
@@pianodarr There is nothing with greater energy yield and utility than oil & gas are you denying this basic fact?
@@pianodarr ...also for a time there must be more digging, more transporting, more burning and more polluting until all this was brought on line. I'm still waiting to see how exactly a battery powered earth mover looks. And fossil fuels dump co2 into the atmosphere but scrapped hardware will all end up land fill - tell me how, for example, one would recycle the fibreglass that wind turbines are made from? Have you ever tried to dismantle a solar panel? If we can't recycle panels and turbines now - how do you suppose we ever will - especially when energy has become more expensive and precious?
Politicians don't develop new energy sources, scientists do. In a world where politicians fund science less and less because it provides "the Real Inconvenient Truth" four year or eight year politicians can have aspirational goals, but they provide no solutions.
Appreciate Mr. Mark Mills for bringing up some important facts. Hopefully they are facts. Mr. Mark Mills seems to make sense and he seems to be a technically oriented person. I noticed he was asked whether he believes in climate change, and Mr. Mills indicated that he studies energy and not climate. Mr. Mills seems to be a honest science-oriented person and not a pseudo-scientist with an agenda that has nothing to do with energy. Thank you Mr. Mills and Al Arabiya English.
We climbed to the top of the food chain because we were the first animal to manage fire - our first use of "externalized" energy. Now 300,000 years later, we continue to use externalized energy, in ever greater quantities.
We need to go directly to the source and focus our machines that gather energy on the Sun. Burning the intermediaries have to many side effects.
If 5 Trillion had been invested in various types of Nuclear Power would more than 2% of the problem have been solved?
You put it right. At planet level, not little local markets, there is no and never was energy transition. Humanity simply kept piling up wood, coal, oil, natural gas, wind and solar, geothermal equipment over hundreds of years.
Anyone applying the simple Kaya equation to United Nations development goals, in a world where population will gain another billion people before 2050, will see that reducing GHG emissions by cutting the use of fossil fuels will simply not happen. There is no judgement, this is not a political opinion, just basic arithmetics.
What about whale oil.
I am a mechanical engineer and have been talking similarly for years and most of my college engineers think the same. They just don't understand it that you need time to `transit`.
But that's not his argument, or his agenda, which are actually: renewables and EVs are bad and we should forget about the whole idea.
@@jonb5493 then you don't understand wah he says. He simply claims that at this moment this is a bad idea, and it is. I am an engineer, and I apply what is possible at this moment - it sucks. Scientists should do the research and slowly make progress toward applied engineering. You need time to transit.
Engineering with Rosie doesn’t agree lol
Dumbest post of the year. 'They' don't understand. lol
EVs are inevitable because $10.00/gallon gas is eventually coming due to the continued depletion of oil, a finite resource, and a worldwide population growth. This is Economics 101. And this is in the not too distant future.
EVs are a waste of money....Where does the energy come from that will charge them up?...Wind mills and solar panels? What will supply the energy for ships, planes, trucks, heavy equipment and heavy industry? The only EV that makes sense is an EV golf cart. Just like the wind and solar industry the EV industry will collapse, it's just a matter of when.
Did you not listen to this video? There aren’t enough mined materials. Period.
@@Propelled Right..The WHOLE concept of EVs is terminally flawed...Whether you see the collapse of EVs due to raw material limitations or whether EV collapse will be due to failed attempts at large scale wind and solar energy the people who believe EVs are the answer are clueless. If you charge up an EV with energy from a fossil fuel power plant you defeat the purpose of an EV. If you believe the world will change to non-continuous, expensive and unreliable wind and solar energy "to save the planet" you are likewise clueless. The bottom line is we all better hope hi-tech can get fusion on line before fossil fuels run out.
It is not a matter of high demand or whether we want a transition or not: we will change our behavior or perish. This is a typical example of well informed and educated people who simply are not (yet) able to connect the dots.
You cannot do anything effectively without taking into account all considerations and consequences of actions of your plan - he's laying out the limitations of the green energy plan. It's absolutely about joining dots. Hidden ones, that aren't getting talked about. If you think the world is going to perish, then shouldn't you at the very least want to have the most refined plan in order to attempt for it to not?
Clean energy is NOT clean
To be a superpower requires energy. Being a superpower increases your standard of living.
Very worthwhile discussion!
very informative discussion by your guest!
Net zero is a dumb target. The proposed time frames to 'solve' climate disruption are completely unrealistic.
The amount of base metals required for this wished 'transition' is mind boggling. Average copper mine grades have been declining. It will take 100s of massive open-pit mines to come anywhere close to satisfying the amount of copper required for the 'transition'.
Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) politics are already making it difficult if not impossible to commission greenfield mines in so-called friendly jurisdictions such as Alaska and British Columbia. The Pebble Mine project in Alaska has ground to a halt. Future copper mines in Argentina and Chile will likely require large desalination plants.
The 'transition' is a good idea for reasons unrelated to anthropogenic climate disruption: health and declining hydrocarbon reserves.
The easy cheap energy is gone, more oil producing countries have peaked than have not. Every opec country has overstated reserves since the 1970s. Nothing on the horizon can replace this energy. We're about to find out the party doesn't last forever.
There has never been a greater ratio in history between known reserves and consumption. We are awash in oil and finding it everywhere.
@@anthonymorris5084 wishful thinking
@@jrstsb1353 This is born from data, easily found, from authoritative sources. Climate zealots have a propensity to invalidate, dismiss and willfully ignore any science, data, or evidence that they don't like. You have no interest in truth, your sole interest is to defend the narrative at all costs.
No shortage of Malthusians.
@P Davison No shortage of eternal optimist either, it can go on forever..lol
The contrast in intelligence and knowledge between Mark and this interviewer is like day and night.
This man is right 1000%
THIS SAUDI CHANNEL IS SALIVATING ABOUT ANYONE WHO OPINES THAT THE WORLD WILL CONTINUE TO DEPEND ON SAUDI OIL. NOT EXACTLY IMPARTIAL.
This whole argumentation is non sensical in many ways. He speaks for the current reality, it's like in 2000s someone saying that renewables are very expensive so they won't satisfy energy needs without going bankrupt in the long run. What used to be a reality now it's changed. No one can predict the future, also the previous time we had an energy source transition there were many doomsayers saying that oil won't work and coal it's cheap, more easily transferred etc etc. Every time there is a transition you will always have people (for whatever interest) saying it's wrong
Dumb questions...Smart answers.
misleading title. Mark Mills argues that there is no transition. Oil, gas and coal ( & indeed wood ) all increasing. Green energy is an addition. 82% the world,s energy is from oil, gas and coal. All needed to fuel the green machine. And mining is a limiting factor. Just watch what happens to demand for Cu.
Mark is far more intelligent than most people, and more rational in his discussions and evidence. The interviewer is less intelligent than most people. The gap is difficult to understand in it's extent.
I heard it best described my Simon Michaux:
_Oil and gas are like a sirloin steak wrapped in bacon, renewables are like lettuce_
Solid analysis - he knows energy, and geo-politics as well...
Is there a limit to fossil fuels?
Chicken and egg.
To create a new energy system requires energy and materials.
The energy available today is fossil fuels.
So we'll need fossil fuels for a while.
Yeah they'll be telling us cars will replace horses, PCs replace typewriters and mobile phones replace phone boxes next!!!! The idea that a grey, cold miserable country like Australia could ever create significant amounts of energy from putting solar panels on roofs is CRAZY!!!! Why ever should African villages use solar panels coupled with LED lights right now when they could wait years for coal power stations to be built and transmission lines to be put in to eventually bring in electricity they struggle to pay for? It's only development when the usual suspects can still keep the money rolling in stuff the actual poor. Tar sands, open cast coal mines, oil spills, deep drilling and oil refining are of course not even worth mentioning compared to mining for additional minerals for renewables and batteries IF that has to happen.
The over building of wind energy is destroying the environment faster than its fixing anything.
I’m with you on this point. Wind turbines are great, but only if they are out at deep sea where you can’t see them. This way they can tap into ocean currents as well. Wind is way more consistent and reliable over the oceans.
5 trillion spent for 2% total energy used is stupid waste of money.
Poverty would drop incredibly with that kind of support!
I disagree with him since there was a radical transition in 2005 to move to fracking and tar sands. This caused a 6 to 7 fold increase in everything, infrastructure, energy and electricity as well as millions of tons of toxic chemicals. And it ruined our economy. A frack site has a 30 year ROI, but is worthless after 18 months. So it's sold off to a Pension Fund or another bank. They blamed the 2008 crisis on homeowners, and it's ongoing. In 2019 they were giving $1 Trillion dollars a day, and then stopped talking about it.
And Fossil Fuel Fools like this guy say that renewables have to replace today's levels. We only have to replace the levels before the 1990s.
Also why the hell is the guest not properly accredited , like what's his name, what paper is he taking about why are these not in the description?
True, OPEC has 80% of the oil underground and they are producing full capacity. The world challenge is the world and OPEC included has recoverable oil reserves limited to around 1.7-1.8 trillion barrel and the world need 100 millions barrel oil every day (probably more). This all together is around 50 years supply with these rates. Unfortunately the technologies used from oil industry shows a decline 5-7%/year and pumping more dollars and drilling more wells accelerate even more the decline and on addition to these more salty water is produced. Pumping this underground again need more and more energy and oil industry ERoEI is declining. On other side the world is experiencing CO2 emission and on the same time investing on renewable energies which suck capital and have even lower ERoEI. This may be adjusted by "phasing out" light vehicles and peoples using public transportation which must increase the fleet, let say with electric buses or hydrogen buses, but all these need energy generation and storing. The discussion goes on and on and the world is running out for energy scarcity. Phasing out fossil fuel industry is not a solution, it is suiciding or better "killing" working peoples who work and get less. The future always is better, but the world need solution at least for these century and beyond. The real solution is new technology which increase oil production from existing reservoirs where the world has more than 13 trillion barrel underground, but existing technologies have "damaged" the reservoirs by injecting water without criteria, and this has made wells today to produce more water than oil. To have an idea about depletion of oil reservoirs get around 1 million striping wells in USA which may produce 5-10 bbl/d each and altogether around 5 mm bbl/d oil and more than 58 mm bbl/d salty water. These reservoirs have oil underground but water is produced more than oil. This need inventions and innovations, this is the solution to keep the economy running.
Our energy goals should be security, affordability, and environmental protection. Unfortunately, many, including governments have made our energy goal renewable energy instead.
Fossil FUEL Rules. Natural Gas is natural (clean and cheap). Wind/Solar are unnatural acreage HOGS. Wells have low surface blueprint.
And he whines about renewables being only 3% of global POWER - but if he had said electricity it would be different. As a fraction of electricity renewables are at 30%. Add nuclear and we’re 40% there! After all - we are going to Electrify Everything. Also, that 40% of clean energy achieves more per unit of energy. As we Electrify Everything, more gets done with less. Electric motors turn the energy they get into more work than fossil fuels you carry somewhere only to burn. EG: Petroleum cars waste 80% of their energy - electric cars use nearly 80% of theirs! In other words - those solar panels on your roof get more done per unit of energy to the car.
Watch it again and listen this time.
@@jamesalexander3893 Mark Mills makes me sick with his simplistic lies. EG: Who cares how much money got spent on wind and solar to get it to the point where the economies of scale have kicked in and now they're the cheapest form of power we've EVER had? It's so cheap it's doubling every 4 years. Did you know that so many solar panel FACTORIES are being built that by 2025 they will be able to produce 2.5 million metric tonnes of solar. That’s about 940 GW of solar every year - or the same as the TOTAL solar in the world built till the end of 2022 - but being built EVERY YEAR! This is FOUR times as much solar as was built in 2022. It’s enough to meet 5.8% of the world’s electricity demand. It’s well in excess of the 630 GW solar per year that the IEA wants to meet the world’s 2050 deadlines. They explain that just because the capacity is there doesn’t mean all those panels will immediately be deployed, as there are various permitting hurdles and other market things that can go wrong. But it’s encouraging. 5.8% from 2025 basically ALL THE WORLD’S power in 17 years, so from 2025 that’s 2042. But then almost every other kind of renewable energy is also accelerating - and we’re going to need it as we Electrify Everything and replace most transport fuels and industry with electric variations. xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-184-eroi-of-re/
More on Mark Mill's lies here:
eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/02/06/mike-quotes-mark-mills-its-michaux-2-0/
Green is foolish look at the EV deal burning up and not able to get charged and not much range
No mention pf the economics of overshoot
"Despite at least $5 trillion of spending on non-hydrocarbon globally" .. that should read..
"Despite at least $5 trillion of corporate welfare / subsidies to oil industry .. or socialism, or whatever you want to call it"..
How did these climate alarmists manage to make the argument about just the climate changing, instead of about whether the climate is changing enough to be a bad thing?
The use of Solar and Wind Energy Technologies certainly will be constrained by the availability of mineral resources; however, the expansion of Algae "use-"Processes with circular re-use of nutrients minerals will remove that constrain on green energy use expansion as well as the imposition in the availability of the minerals for use in other economic activities.
So let’s talk about the minerals scare tactic. Let’s compare: ev vs gasoline cars. An electric car uses about 2 tons of minerals, 4 solar panels will power average driving of about 14000 miles per year. Scarcely 100 pounds in 4 solar panels.
The ice car uses about 1.5 tons of minerals to make it but then oil the fuel is considered a mineral too. The average car on the road gets 28 miles to the gallon so 500 gallons of fuel. How much does a gallon of gas weigh 6 lbs. so total weight for fuel minerals is 3000 pounds. Yeah! That’s right. You’re burning your cars weight in gas every year! So after the 2 months mark you’re breaking even on the amount of minerals consumed.
I hope that shows how back of the envelope math shows that the minerals argument is flawed completely. It’s a scare tactic.
Mark Mills makes me sick with his simplistic lies. EG: Who cares how much money got spent on wind and solar to get it to the point where the economies of scale have kicked in and now they're the cheapest form of power we've EVER had? It's so cheap it's doubling every 4 years. Did you know that so many solar panel FACTORIES are being built that by 2025 they will be able to produce 2.5 million metric tonnes of solar. That’s about 940 GW of solar every year - or the same as the TOTAL solar in the world built till the end of 2022 - but being built EVERY YEAR! This is FOUR times as much solar as was built in 2022. It’s enough to meet 5.8% of the world’s electricity demand. It’s well in excess of the 630 GW solar per year that the IEA wants to meet the world’s 2050 deadlines. They explain that just because the capacity is there doesn’t mean all those panels will immediately be deployed, as there are various permitting hurdles and other market things that can go wrong. But it’s encouraging. 5.8% from 2025 basically ALL THE WORLD’S power in 17 years, so from 2025 that’s 2042. But then almost every other kind of renewable energy is also accelerating - and we’re going to need it as we Electrify Everything and replace most transport fuels and industry with electric variations. xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-184-eroi-of-re/
More on Mark Mill's lies here:
eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/02/06/mike-quotes-mark-mills-its-michaux-2-0/
And after 20 years, where do all those panels go?
No need to change into electric concept. Forbidden knowledge should be given to the sheepo. Poeple of the world weak up to the new world of free energy. It always been here.
It is poorly explained and poorly understood that is 100% correct.... This is why our society is going to collapse from climate change destroying agricultural yields ....
The reporter asks the questions from the mainstream perspective ....
I have yet to see any of these electrical meters go up for the general public. Oh sure some parking garage will put in 15 & some workplace will install 20 but the govt really does not want to do the stuff for the little people. They want you to use your own electricity.
Asking if a scientist or anyone else if they're a climate denier is a reflection of intelligence, whilst assuming man can control a complex system of many variables by reducing a gas is a very dangerous belief.
Much better than this is the full associated white paper: The “Energy Transition” Delusion: A Reality Reset by Mark P. Mills. Just run a search and read it.
Yes, "better" in the sense that it has even more straw-men, non-sequiturs, stale data , and simple falsehoods.
Excellent
Oh I have perfect solution for reduction of hydrocarbons use. Ban private cars. And stop overconsumption. Stop consumer culture. We will reduce number of oil use for private transportation, mostly in overpopulated cities, and the same for transporting too much goods by cargo transport. Plus will hugely reduce number of energy used by production facilities to produce extra goods that may or not may be bought. Or consumed for the sake of consuming, not because it's necessity.
Here is your solution that you will never accept or implement.
LESS PEOPLE .
Any genuine political leader would be championing small, scalable nuclear reactors. We have none.
It has always been very clear, human populations have become to high because of hydrocarbons. One orientation or another human populations will decrease eventually because of hydrocarbons.
An international market in oil (or any other commodity) is like a lake with a water level. It does not much matter where the water enters or exists the lake, the level is uniform regardless. Imagine, for example, how a country like Russia might hedge their own product by buying and selling on the futures markets. The oil probably (in some cases) does not even have to be physically exported.
Some old guy never heard about innovations, technology and disruptions (also S-curve) and is talking gibberish. Nobody can dethrone Kodak, Nokia, Horse cars, Landline phones, Fax machine, CRT monitors/TVs, Magnetic harddisk, floppy disks, Steam engine, Coal plants, etc.- good luck with that.
People who want to stop oil and gas do not realise that it just isn't about burning oil and gas.
Both these products have by-products like nitrogen for fertiliser, oil has other by products like natural gas. Spirits, grease/oil for engines electric or otherwise and for metal working in general. It's not a choice of one or the other. We need all of the above. Even hydrogen is made from natural gas, hence why these fuels are called hydro-carbons, the clue is in the name, you ain't getting your hydrogen without releasing carbon. Back to the drawing board *big time*
Agreed. Oil produces energy, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and plastics. There are over 6000 individual products made from oil. People could not get through their day without them.
If you don't know the difference between an electric motor in any configuration and a diesel engine or any ice. then you might as well stop offering an opinion supporting a transition.
Let’s see,most of the western countries are de-industrializing ,decreasing the supply of reliable energy resources through expenditures that are almost unfathomable and still having no impact on fossil fuel production or demand.Meanwhile the world’s largest Co2 emitters continue to industrialize and expand energy production,using coal and oil and gas . These countries continue to supply our inefficient,ridiculously expensive 19th century technologies which have virtually no impact on energy production.The good thing is that the Co2 producers are in many cases our geopolitical enemies.Yeah,that sounds like a brilliant plan for future success in the west.
Gosh, you mean we actually can't live without fossil fuels? Go figure.
Europe imports 14 million barrels a day
China 11 million
USA 6 million
no such thing as clean energy
😅 Someone should tell this dude about Jevons paradox. If we get more efficient at burning fossil fuels, we'll burn more fossil fuels, not less.
Nothing like a presentation by someone that knows what the heck he is talking about.
The fossil fuel industry loves the green new deal, because they understand it will lead to MORE fossil fuel consuption and not less. The financial industry also loves the green new deal because they know it will lead to MORE debt and deficits, not less. That's also why the climate emergency is promoted from the top down throughout society, even when it's been repeatedly debunked over and over again.
YES !!
It would be nice if you introduced who Mike Mills was
Mark, not Mike.
Rystad Energy reported that only 4.7 billion barrels of oil were discovered in 2021. Mankind consumes 3 billion barrels a month. 6 billion barrels in 2 months. 36 billion barrels PA. So 4.7 billion barrels is 31.3 billion barrels short of what's needed to maintain our high energy lifestyle.
Our high energy lifestyle is unsustainable..
What transition. The only alternative are salt reactors. Wind and solar is not practicle
1:50
- scientist : "the stats show that we are not transitioning but rather piling up our energy sources"
- "journalist" : "are you a climate change denier?"
........ 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Fun thing, in my country we have 2 pretty famous "green" speakers who talk about how we destroy the environment, and they both very much agree with that first sentence. It's not being a "climate change denier duh" to state that, quite on the contrary it's acknowledging we have a problem.
scientist : "the stats show that we are not transitioning but rather piling up our energy sources"
- "journalist" : "are you a climate change denier?"
- "pol": I don't know my a$$ from my t$$ but EVs+windmills are BAD.
Mark Mills and Doomberg.
Great minds think alike.
What is the USA but one big story of transition? Haven’t we prospered by being a can do nation who can meet challenges with practical solutions? Greenhouse gas emissions are a practical problem we can solve if we don’t defeat ourselves right out of gate.
I watched this guy and appreciate his thoughts but I don't know what his point is? He seems to like the sound of his own voice and . . . OIL... surprise surprise
Fossil fuel shilling 101: downplay transition efforts, set up the energy transition effort to sound insurmountable even if the entire world focused on that as the paramount global issue, conclude that because climate goals are insurmountable/unrealistic (a supposition they literally just assumed by using a couple scary and misleading statistics) that we should all just take a step back, withdraw gov't funding, and slow down all the silly energy transition efforts.
he's not wrong, but he really needs to reconcile his arguments with the equally undeniable need to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible
his argument has nothing to do with CO2
@@robertwells1989 yes, and that's the problem. He did a Bill Kristol interview where he was asked about the carbon implications of his arguments and he fumbled completely.
@@menschkeit1 The conversation is about the feasibility of energy transition, and not to do with the viability of the anthropogenic climate change argument which he clearly professes he is not an expert on. His points are not discredited because he cannot provide a sound answer on something which is not his subject. Classic strawman.
I never said he was wrong or discredited. But it’s a bit it’s a bit like having an opinion that hunting endangered animals is great, and none on the extinction crisis. One goes with the other.
In the next 10 to 15 years we will see exponential growth of all renewables and EV's. Remember how exponential curves start of really slow for a long long time, and then suddenly everything happens at once. EG: The old example of bacteria in a petri dish. Assume you know it doubles every minute, but the dish will be full in an hour. When is the dish half full? In 59 minutes! The bacteria has been almost invisible for 50 minutes then in the last 10 minutes goes from a tiny blotch to 1/16 the dish, 1/8 the dish, 1/4, 1/2, and suddenly the dish is full! Right now - solar is just becoming "visible". It’s been doubling for a while. But now that they are so cheap - the exponential is taking off. We will be SHOCKED at how fast things happen. 10% of all new cars sold globally are EV's. By 2030 that should be about 50%. Australia will be 80 to 90% renewable by 2030!
theconversation.com/theres-a-huge-surge-in-solar-production-under-way-and-australia-could-show-the-world-how-to-use-it-190241
Let’s spend 150 billion dollars on thorium reactors instead of destroying Ukraine!
In the world economy you have to break down into regional and country structure to solve energy problems, so this seems broad in spectrum and wind and solar deliver, like in Texas and California!
Warm periods don't last for ever and this one will end soon enough, will they have a limit on how cold the next period will be?
All previous era's had it warmer than us, the Minoans warmer than the Romans, the Romans had it warmer than the Medieval warm period, the Medieval warm period warmer than us, are we seeing a pattern there. Are we on a cooling rock, yes, do we have a dying star providing light and warmth, yes, it is freezing cold in space, yes. Can they reliably measure the globes temperature, no.
@José Mercado What's that got to do with anything?
This is not a real problem. Otherwise, we would stop wars, which are a huge source of environmental pollution, and we would devote the saved money to the development of new technology and science.
You are either naive or ignorant - and FAR TOO TRUSTING.
So ignorant it is stunning. Intermittent wind and solar are not stable so not a base load solution. It overproduces when not needed and can not produce when critically needed.
This is actually an objective expert. But the headline is purposefully deceptive.
Wildly excess intermittent ends up producing no real power. As the superior dispatch generation must be kept warm and spinning producing nothing. THen gun it to meet the nightly duck curve. Gross inefficiency and why excess intermittent does not reduce co2 nor material reduce fuel demand.
We were sold a science-based energy transition managed by informed experts. What we have is trillions wasted on assets that do not produce anything. Worse still, no hope to make it all work as claimed.
But the will-to-power Jessica Tarloof type Karen zombies will say anything. Sadly it seems the progressive Karen zombie herd will believe anything.
Despite the observed reality. One has to be politically zombified not to notice reality.
You need energy to transition. So unless you conserve drastically as you transition, you will need more fossil fuel energy. Oops.
Good job fighting cheaper electricity....keep up the good work Mr. Energy Expert. Wind and solar keep demand for Nat Gas down. Which keeps the price of Nat Gas down. Hence the name Inflation Reduction Act. Nat Gas jumper 300% last year. Caused 90% of inflation.
Listening to the interview host is nauseating The Scientist is intelligent. Destroying the planet with windmills that created by using fossil fuels destroying marine life and migrating birds is perfectly ok to the questioner because his incorrect belief that ongoing Climate fluctuations going on since long before mankind figured out how to light a match are somehow going to stop.
We need the energy transition to nuclear powerplants
This is correct.
99.999% of vehicles on the roads use internal combustion engines and burn fossil fuels...fact.
Also the same for aeroplanes. and ships, heating etc...
So one can say we burn fossil fuels for 100% everythig today and little will change over the coming decades.
It is obvious that the quickest way to deal with this, is and cut down the use of fossil fuels is simply to cut down to use of motor vehicles.....But the opposite is happening as most people now work in cities and because the cost of living and housing in cities is growing exponentially as is the number of people living there, more and more people use more and more fossil fuels to travel back and forth to work as they live further and further away from the centres.
The roads have never been busier.
The use of all forms of transport using fossil fuels have never been higher and it will increase unless drastic action is taken,
The demand for Energy (which uses fossil fuels) rises exponentially....
In reality therfore, there is no action being taken by any governments other than encouraging the use of EVs which as we know is driven by money and profit and nothing else. (same with heat pumps, solar energy and wind turbines).
If climate change is real, then there is nothing being done about it, other than seeing it as a way of making money and profit.....
That is the reality...
The science of geology of fossil fuels especially but commodities geneally has been understood for decades. More exploration spending will find little more. So declining production of fossil fuels, minerals and metals is the future reality.
Kind of sucks when one of the organisations considered evil amongst the tree huggers a voice of reasoning arises. Expect other”evil corps” to echo the real facts, maybe because the time is ideal, the time being “too late” so move on.
wind and solar already at 14% last year. 20% next year. maybe higher.
I showed mr Mills work to a mate who teaches economics to 14-16 year olds
He’s been giddy on alternatives for years and after giving him Mr Mills book he’s not been in touch with me again 👶🏻
Hi John...people who think we're switching to wind and solar power do not understand the big picture. It's not going to happen.
5 Trylion dollars will be better spend on new Nuclear Power plants
Well now prices are dropping on oil and minerals. Even with production losses from Russia. Who could have predicted that. 😂
Plasma based technology offers far more energy density, along with ease of access. There are no collateral damage portfolios, or toxic flows, as well.
Burning things, via incineration will become passe within a generation. Go with pyrolysis, instead.
The smart money will cash in.
Think ahead.
Mark Mills is wrong, it is a money allocation issue. Algae Cultivation Process Companies funded pervasively will definitely change the dynamics. The key word here is "Process" and not "Farming". Money had been unwisely spent to fund Algae Farming instead of Algae Growth Processes hence the stark failures as recorded.
u want to industrialize the landscape and produce things that way? oh great....
I doubt that wind/solar have reduced need for fossil fuels at all. Any calculation must include the fossil fuels used both to create wind/solar plants and to run the backup generation. In the end, it is likely little more than a dead loss. The fact that they need to be heavily subsidized to come into creation and operation should tell us all we need to know. I would like to be proved wrong on this.
Brilliant