How does Simon respond to some critique around 2 points: - Measuring energy of fossil fuels at point doesn't account for their losses - Aluminium is being touted as a superior replacement for copper in many technologies
I can't speak for SM, but The 'gains' by substituting Cu with Al in battery technology, applies for only for a handful of battery chemistries in development. And chemistry is only 1 family of battery systems. Others might be pumped hydro, methanol or H2. We're at a point where we need to develop and evaluate all sorts of different energy buffer types. The first line on fossil fuels I didn't get, perhaps you need to rephrase.
@@joachimvanwing8741 re the first question. I'm talking about the difference between energy at production Vs energy at use. There is a critique that the measurement of fossil fuel needs is taken at production rather than at consumption (after losses) and we wouldn't need to replace production energy but rather replace the much smaller consumption energy
@@tomatao. If you read his report (on his website which you can google), he is not just calculating primary energy of fossil fuels, ie replacing the thermal energy from fossil fuels directly with electrical energy one to one. For example when calculating how much energy is needed for the global EV fleet, the calculation is done by converting global cumulative distance traveled into how much electricity is needed by electric vehicles to drive that distance. It is NOT done by adding up the thermal energy of all the gasoline/diesel burnt by vehicles. Note that in some cases (mostly industrial), you do actually need to replace fossil heat directly with electric heat. But as he noted, his calculations don't include most industrial heat uses (aside from steel) so he is necessarily understating how much energy we need for the transition.
I used electricity actually delivered to the grid by all systems in the year 2018. What did coal and gas actually deliver? What would be required for wind and solar to do the same thing?
@@simonp.michaux1638 awesome thanks for the reply Simon. I knew you had answers. These questions came up as part of a recent linkedin article and tirade by someone. There's a TH-camr called 'just have a think' who did a recent video about those articles which contend with your papers
DRIFT think as solution a) "Minimise use of energy, materials and space" and b) "Maximize affordability, accessibility and ownership". A simple question: During more than two decades studies what are DRIFT findings say on these regards, what is the minimum of energy per capita, for heating, food and transport need and what are consumption during these decades studies, and what resources and available technologies can secure on the near future. The same is and for "b". The System DRIFT thing as solution what energy (minimum) need.
What "transition"???? “mobility, energy and climate health." One caveat ~80% + of earth’s climate is regulated by the sun, water vapor, and cosmic rays. So, when determining global climate by natural and anthropogenic forcing we are in fact referring to the remaining 20% from oceans + land respiration 19.128 %, and anthropogenic (human-caused) 0.872 % sources. Do capricious selected areas of London have their own private impenetrable atmosphere, oxygen and GHG percentages? People stay enclosed in those ULEZ because of a “mandate” a “decree” conceived in the bathroom by the mayor, or for that matter by anyone in what they call: “governance”? Who pays for public transport? You guess right...the automobile! Eliminating 0.916% CO2 emitted by all vehicles (Zero Vehicles) in London clean the air to “ULTRA” near Zero Carbon? PLEASE!!! The tube or metro emits 1,000 % more pollutants than vehicles per user-trip. Do your government have shit for brains? If you compare the gas (petrol) sales before and after you will prove the level of stupidity ULEZ represents! If sales go up (which they will) it will prove the exact amount of shitt those asssholes have! Life expectancy is directedly related to CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as economic growth and food production. Study the analysis and parallel trajectories and behaviour of CO2 vs life expectancy, food, GDP, causes of death. All coincide in one aspect: CO2 is BENEFICIAL to human and planet well-being! CO2 goes down so does life expectancy, food, evolution, knowledge, GDP, civilization, etc.!! In 2019, the estimated total global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from both natural sources, including oceans + land respiration 95.64%, and anthropogenic (human-caused) 4.36% sources were 0.9156% are emitted by vehicles (21%) of anthropogenic emissions as follows: There is a false argument that states that CO2 from oceans and soils emissions does not count because oceans and soils absorb CO2 well once they emit it that CO2 has exactly the same effect and forcing than any other CO2 the atmosphere does not discriminates CO2 from one source vs another. Nevertheless, is absurd to argue that eliminating all anthropogenic related CO2 emissions including animals, grains, food, coal, oil and gas that account for 21.97% of the total will solve a non-exiting climate crisis since 78.03% will remain in the atmosphere with a potential to doble or triple even without humans. Natural CO2 Emissions (Including Oceans and Land Respiration): Natural CO2 emissions encompass processes such as respiration by plants and animals, as well as the exchange of CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere. The oceans are a significant reservoir of CO2, and their interaction with the atmosphere plays a critical role in the carbon cycle. Natural emissions, including oceans and land respiration, are estimated to be around 800 gigatons of CO2 per year. Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions 36.8 Gt.: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions result primarily from activities such as burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) for energy, deforestation, and industrial processes. In 2022, anthropogenic CO2 emissions were approximately ~22 times less: 36.8 gigatons. 21.97% People dying in countries without oil, are the ones considered has victims of CO2 precisely the opposite! They die because they are oil starving countries! Opposite and distinct from the “energy deprivation and climate change crisis" propaganda, based on the unrestrained errors imposed on our civilization for the last 6 decades. All of them born from prejudiced, arrogant stupidity, dogmatic assumptions, blind faith, and very emotional animosity spawning woke bias, by a select, uncontrolled, cynical, greedy, and very powerful governance elites. Void of genuine scientific rigor, technological acumen, or methodical approach the "climate change crisis" agenda have inflicted irrevocable damage to our present civilization. So far, this chaotic planet-level devastation only rivals the obscene, poisonous economic gains and power amassed by the hipper-greedy globalists who control politicians, planet recourses, funds and taxpayers' money for their self-serving agendas. The globalists know the average person can’t grasp the entirety of those enslaving perverse agendas. Belisario Hernandez Romo
Got the feeling the people did not understanmd the gravity of Simon Michaux presentation
Nope because this guy has much more broad view and it's complex to understand
@@KoDeMondo I don't think so, they find it just to difficult to accept the truth behind his message
How does Simon respond to some critique around 2 points:
- Measuring energy of fossil fuels at point doesn't account for their losses
- Aluminium is being touted as a superior replacement for copper in many technologies
I can't speak for SM, but
The 'gains' by substituting Cu with Al in battery technology, applies for only for a handful of battery chemistries in development. And chemistry is only 1 family of battery systems. Others might be pumped hydro, methanol or H2. We're at a point where we need to develop and evaluate all sorts of different energy buffer types.
The first line on fossil fuels I didn't get, perhaps you need to rephrase.
@@joachimvanwing8741 re the first question. I'm talking about the difference between energy at production Vs energy at use. There is a critique that the measurement of fossil fuel needs is taken at production rather than at consumption (after losses) and we wouldn't need to replace production energy but rather replace the much smaller consumption energy
@@tomatao. If you read his report (on his website which you can google), he is not just calculating primary energy of fossil fuels, ie replacing the thermal energy from fossil fuels directly with electrical energy one to one. For example when calculating how much energy is needed for the global EV fleet, the calculation is done by converting global cumulative distance traveled into how much electricity is needed by electric vehicles to drive that distance. It is NOT done by adding up the thermal energy of all the gasoline/diesel burnt by vehicles. Note that in some cases (mostly industrial), you do actually need to replace fossil heat directly with electric heat. But as he noted, his calculations don't include most industrial heat uses (aside from steel) so he is necessarily understating how much energy we need for the transition.
I used electricity actually delivered to the grid by all systems in the year 2018. What did coal and gas actually deliver? What would be required for wind and solar to do the same thing?
@@simonp.michaux1638 awesome thanks for the reply Simon. I knew you had answers. These questions came up as part of a recent linkedin article and tirade by someone. There's a TH-camr called 'just have a think' who did a recent video about those articles which contend with your papers
Great talk, Thank You!
DRIFT is a good name for a think tank that seems to drift from one idea to another but forever hitting reality walls..
DRIFT think as solution a) "Minimise use of energy, materials and space" and b) "Maximize affordability, accessibility and ownership". A simple question: During more than two decades studies what are DRIFT findings say on these regards, what is the minimum of energy per capita, for heating, food and transport need and what are consumption during these decades studies, and what resources and available technologies can secure on the near future. The same is and for "b". The System DRIFT thing as solution what energy (minimum) need.
Liked Simon's presentation, but everything else looked like "hand vawing" and wishfull thinking.
The solution is we all, globally, become Amish 😂
yes, and the transition will not be funny, i think we will go back to max. 1 Billion people on the planet
Word salad at it's overly educated finest. Techno-Jesus is not coming to save anyone.
What "transition"????
“mobility, energy and climate health."
One caveat ~80% + of earth’s climate is regulated by the sun, water vapor, and cosmic rays.
So, when determining global climate by natural and anthropogenic forcing we are in fact referring to the
remaining 20% from oceans + land respiration 19.128 %, and anthropogenic (human-caused) 0.872 % sources.
Do capricious selected areas of London have their own private impenetrable atmosphere, oxygen and GHG percentages? People stay enclosed in those ULEZ because of a “mandate” a “decree” conceived in the bathroom by the mayor, or for that matter by anyone in what they call: “governance”?
Who pays for public transport? You guess right...the automobile!
Eliminating 0.916% CO2 emitted by all vehicles (Zero Vehicles) in London clean the air to “ULTRA” near Zero Carbon? PLEASE!!! The tube or metro emits 1,000 % more pollutants than vehicles per user-trip.
Do your government have shit for brains?
If you compare the gas (petrol) sales before and after you will prove the level of stupidity ULEZ represents! If sales go up (which they will) it will prove the exact amount of shitt those asssholes have!
Life expectancy is directedly related to CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as economic growth and food production. Study the analysis and parallel trajectories and behaviour of CO2 vs life expectancy, food, GDP, causes of death. All coincide in one aspect: CO2 is BENEFICIAL to human and planet well-being!
CO2 goes down so does life expectancy, food, evolution, knowledge, GDP, civilization, etc.!!
In 2019, the estimated total global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from both natural sources, including oceans + land respiration 95.64%, and anthropogenic (human-caused) 4.36% sources were 0.9156% are emitted by vehicles (21%) of anthropogenic emissions as follows:
There is a false argument that states that CO2 from oceans and soils emissions does not count because oceans and soils absorb CO2 well once they emit it that CO2 has exactly the same effect and forcing than any other CO2 the atmosphere does not discriminates CO2 from one source vs another.
Nevertheless, is absurd to argue that eliminating all anthropogenic related CO2 emissions including animals, grains, food, coal, oil and gas that account for 21.97% of the total will solve a non-exiting climate crisis since 78.03% will remain in the atmosphere with a potential to doble or triple even without humans.
Natural CO2 Emissions (Including Oceans and Land Respiration): Natural CO2 emissions encompass processes such as respiration by plants and animals, as well as the exchange of CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere. The oceans are a significant reservoir of CO2, and their interaction with the atmosphere plays a critical role in the carbon cycle. Natural emissions, including oceans and land respiration, are estimated to be around 800 gigatons of CO2 per year.
Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions 36.8 Gt.: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions result primarily from activities such as burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) for energy, deforestation, and industrial processes. In 2022, anthropogenic CO2 emissions were approximately ~22 times less: 36.8 gigatons. 21.97%
People dying in countries without oil, are the ones considered has victims of CO2 precisely the opposite! They die because they are oil starving countries!
Opposite and distinct from the “energy deprivation and climate change crisis" propaganda, based on the unrestrained errors imposed on our civilization for the last 6 decades.
All of them born from prejudiced, arrogant stupidity, dogmatic assumptions, blind faith, and very emotional animosity spawning woke bias, by a select, uncontrolled, cynical, greedy, and very powerful governance elites.
Void of genuine scientific rigor, technological acumen, or methodical approach the "climate change crisis" agenda have inflicted irrevocable damage to our present civilization.
So far, this chaotic planet-level devastation only rivals the obscene, poisonous economic gains and power amassed by the hipper-greedy globalists who control politicians, planet recourses, funds and taxpayers' money for their self-serving agendas.
The globalists know the average person can’t grasp the entirety of those enslaving perverse agendas. Belisario Hernandez Romo