I so love Mark Mills comical but eye awakening research done on this Green Energy Blindness Also Professor Simon Michaux and Art Berman I highly recommend watching for you shareholders too Other investment future sources of the future podcasts are Luke Gromen and Steve St. Angelo🕊🌏😇
Am i going mad thought i saw this guy chatting on Nate Hagen's Channel, but i cant find it. I was going to go back & listen because my gut said so - things wernt adding up & i felt Nate should have called him out on a few things. Im all for green realism - inc use the FF & ICEs weve got in the narrow window to transition, but my ben shapiro feeling is this guy is off. I might be wrong especially since i cant find the original Nate chat & I havent even finished this one.
The arguments of Mark Mills have lots of holes. See my other comment to this video where I critique it. Simon Michaux's problem is that he is making calculations of metal consumption without considering how the EVs, wind turbines, solar panels and energy storage are evolving, and he thinks that we need a lot more energy capacity than we do, because he isn't considering where the technology will be in 15-20 years time with e-micromobility, smart grids, autonomous taxis, AI-controlled charging, etc. The current switch from NMC/NCA battery chemistry to LFP is going to eliminate the cobalt and nickel shortage and the future switch to sodium ion batteries will eliminate the need for lithium and copper in batteries. We will have a copper storage, but we will switch to aluminum for many uses and ramp up copper mining. We will have shortages of rare earth metals (neodymium, dysprosium, praseodymium, etc), but we can switch EVs to ferrite magnets. Likewise, we can switch from silver to copper busbars in solar panels and the wind industry is already switching from direct drives to semi-direct and geared drives, which dramatically reduces the amount of copper and rear earths which are needed.
There are lots of holes in Mark Mills' arguments and he totally ignores how the energy transition is already happening in the power industry and how S-curve tech disruptions work. See my comment where I critique his presentation for more details.
The important things to note are: (1) fossil fuels generate CO2. (2) CO2 causes global heating. (3) We are at 427 ppm CO2 (growing approx +4 ppm per year), and roughly +2C since 1850. (4) We are accelerating the use of fossil fuels. (5) When the Earth hits between 400 - 450 ppm CO2 this bakes in +2.5C to +3.0C above 1850. (6) Above +2.5C re 1850, self-driving negative CO2 & CH4 feedback loops trigger decreased albedo, increased oceanic warming & acidification, and off-gassing of permafrost (CO2 & CH4), seabed & swamps (CH4), and reduction in natural CO2 CCS by forests and grasslands. (7) The dramatic swings of temperature and rainfall expected in the +2.5C to +3.0C will have a radical negative impact on global food production - driving massive price spikes, and social, economic, and political disruption. We can argue about how, funding, timing etc. but we must get off fossil fuels as soon as humanly possible if we want to maintain any semblance of a modern system of life. 8. Overall food production drops by about 25% globally at around +2C (new estimates @ 2035), and it gets worse as things get hotter. SO, if you ignore all of this and go FULL on increasing fossil fuels, you guarantee the listed negative outcomes and more. What is "nonsensical" is ignoring the physics of fossil fuel global heating.
Yes, increased tech increases energy consumption, climate change and ecological collapse is on going and accelerating now. The future is now. Reality 101.
And he spends endless time on the problems of EV's which are nor even a partial answer. Oil is essential for our civilization and it will kill us. End of story.
Thanks @JonathanLoganPDX. My 2€. 1) According to Dr. William Happer, The burning of fossil fuels releases embodied carbon which was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago by plants and animals. 2) This carbon in the form of atmospheric CO2 absorbs a percentage of the radiation from the sun, which makes it commonly referred to as a greenhouse gas. 3) There is currently around 420 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere which is up from 180 ppm in 1850. That’s averages about 1.4 ppm increase per year. Please share with us the science which proves that increase is due entirely to the burning of fossil fuels rather than the offgassing of carbon dioxide from the world’s oceans. The IPC ha Thanks @JonathanLoganPDX. My 2€. 1) According to Dr. Patrick Moore, The burning of fossil fuels releases embodied carbon which was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago by plants and animals. 2) This carbon in the form of atmospheric CO2 absorbs a percentage of the radiation from the sun, which makes it commonly referred to as a greenhouse gas. Dr. Van Wijngaarden and Dr. William Happer have found in their paper on radiative transfer for five greenhouse gases that a 100% increase of CO2 (doubling) in the atmosphere only reduces radiation to space by 1%. Therefore, increases in CO2 could only account for a small fraction of the current temperature increase. 3) There is currently around 420 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere which is up from 180 ppm in 1850. That’s averages about 1.4 ppm increase per year. Please share with us the science which proves that increase is due entirely to the burning of fossil fuels rather than the offgassing of carbon dioxide from the world’s oceans as stated by Dr. Patrick Moore. The IPC has recently revised its of atmosphere temperature rise since 1850 down to 1.5 C. Dr. Willy Soon et al has proven in a recent paper that the IPCC data has been tainted by the urban heat island effect of some weather stations being increasingly surrounded by urbanization over that time. His analysis shows that the actual increase is 0.7 C. In another study, he shows that increase in temperature coinciding with increased solar activity. More study is necessary. 4) Yes, the use of fossil fuels is increasing as the world’s poorest are lifted out of abject poverty at the rate of 160,000 people per day! Also, and more importantly, the energy needs for cloud computing and AI are increasing exponentially. 5) My understanding from Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Steve Koonin is that the basis for this “prediction“ comes from climate models, which the IPCC admits are unsuitable for policy. In fact, these models disagree with each other more than the margin of error of their predictions. 6) Same reply as in 5. Also, Dr. Patrick Moore states that it is inaccurate to say that the seas are becoming more acid and that the increase of CO2 has fostered the greening of formally desert land in an amount equal to the continental United States since 1980. 7) Same reply as in 5. Also, according to Bjorn Lomborg who does not doubt that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming, it is the increased CO2, the widespread use of fertilizer, and the slightly warmer climate with longer growing seasons which has led to ever increasing crop yields making food much more affordable and thereby has dramatically increased nutrition in the third world which has led to better health and longer lives. His research estimates that the population will be 445% richer in the year 2100 rather than 450% richer, the slight loss being due to the negative impacts of global warming. 8) Same reply as in 7. Dr. Richard Lindzen states in part ‘…that the research literature does not support the claim of a climate emergency. Nor will there be one. None of the lurid predictions - dangerously accelerating, sea-level rise, increasingly extreme weather, more deadly forest fires, unprecedented warming, etc. - are any more accurate than the fire-and-brimstone sermons used to stoke fanaticism in medieval crusaders.’
Mark Mills: "You don't get to cut the energy footprint without cutting wealth." Me: "If we don't cut our energy footprint, advanced civilization is doomed by 2050". Consumption society: "So be it".
Nope its the false problem, its always the behaviour, as south park might put it compare 1000 starvin marvins & their families in Africa resource consumption vs 1 CEO. People who worry about overpopulation are about 40+ years out of date on the research & tend to blame other usually poor countries & poor people. And strangely dont blame the rich & their ill gotten gains & resisitance to changing their behaviour.
We have lots of food and energy for everyone. We are just artificially preventing the people in the third world from using fossil fuels. Why is that I wonder.
@@chrisconklin2981 Not sure what you're getting at. If everyone has an AC, doesn't global warming sky rocket? Does having an AC matter in some way? Shouldn't you be more worried about those who don't have a heater since more people die from cold temperatures than from warm?
@@hunterseufert8066 You are correct, according to Our World more people die from the cold and I would add: at the present time. The issue is that with global warming induced high temperatures this will lead to many areas becoming uninhabitable. Poor people cannot afford mechanical cooling (AC).
Amazing looking at these comments. Mark is not debating climate change. That is not the purpose of his presentation. The reason for this presentation is to bring to light what the reality of transitioning to solar and wind. Thats it. Nothing elase.
Cherry picked, misrepresented & incorrect data all over the place here. EG chart at 46:34 no mention of lifetime materials use. Statement at 47:12 is wrong: 'An EV is '80% by weight Nickel, Cadmium, Copper, Lithium, Aluminum, all the exotic stuff'. A Tesla Model 3 can weigh up to 1800kg. The battery is 480kg. I don't know how heavy the motors are but I can lift them & I'm no athlete. So let's say the battery & motors weigh 900kg* all up and that they are all ' exotic stuff'** that's still only 50% of the weight. *They don't, but let's be kind to the poor guy. As he said, he likes his alcohol & is probably not as sharp as he once was. **They're not. For example, the battery is mainly steel (steel case, steel cells cans are the majority of the weight in it). The motors have a lot of steel in them.
What burns in combustion is, in fact the hydrogen component. Just make hydrogen, and use it broadly. Moreover, NASA has given the world any number of useful spinoffs; namely, running shoes, electrolyzers, microwave ovens, solar panels, superglasses, et cetera.. The R&D was well spent. Let's think more broadly, and in a far more collaborative fashion.
Ha ha limtis to growth of any organism is the limitation of ANY essential element. This is the case for bacteria up. Copper deficit graph sinks the whole fantasy
Mr. Mills tells lots of interesting stories. However, he misrepresents the data. If he made this presentation before an audience of renewable energy experts he would be booed off the stage. This symposium is sponsored by the oil and gas industry.
@@rjbiker66 Mr. Mills thinks that we will always need hydrocarbons. Saying you can't decarbonize society. However, we are well on our way to doing so. He berates subsidies to renewables but does not mention the tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry Then he berates the transition to renewables because of mineral scarcity. Somehow fossil fuels are not part of his scarcity model. He tries to discredit climate warming by attacking climate models. These models are highly credible. The issue is the effect of releasing a billion years worth of buried carbon back into the atmosphere. Four of the last six mass extinctions were caused by high levels of atmospheric CO2.
@@rjbiker66 Mr. Mills thinks that we will always need hydrocarbons. Saying you can't decarbonize society. However, we are well on our way to doing so. Then he berates the transaction to renewables because of mineral scarcity. Somehow fossil fuels are not part of his scarcity model. He tries to discredit climate warming by attacking climate models. These models are highly credible. The issue is the effect of releasing a billion years worth of buried carbon back into the atmosphere. Four of the last six mass extinctions were caused by high level of CO2.
@@rjbiker66 Mr. Mills thinks that we will always need hydrocarbons. Saying you can't decarbonize society. However, we are well on our way to doing so. Then he berates the transaction to renewables because of mineral scarcity. Somehow fossil fuels are not part of his scarcity model. He tries to discredit climate warming by attacking climate models. These models are highly credible. The issue is the effect of releasing a billion years worth of buried carbon back into the atmosphere. Four of the last six mass extinctions were caused by high level of CO2.
Mr. Mills is not completely honest but he's preaching to the converted in this Energy and "Environment" Symposium. This seems to be a talking point trainning. Interestingly he says a lot of things I agree (need for nuclear, wind&solar not sufficient, PHEV much better than EV ...) but a guy with his training knows dynamic control theory and knows that climate change is real. He's a sell-out.
Why would anyone listen to a paid propagandist for the fossil fuel industry? Mark Mills created his think tank, the National Center for Energy Analytics, as a way to milk money from all the incumbent industries which are threatened by green tech, and he's a very good propagandist, because he presents himself as a scientist and energy analyst, but don't be fooled by his song and dance. In this presentation, Mills presents graphs showing renewables as a tiny percentage of total energy, making it seem impossible to transition to 100% renewables. However, he is comparing primary energy, which is a very misleading way to compare fossil fuels to renewables, because roughly 60% of the potential energy in fossil fuels is lost as heat during combustion. It is downright deceptive to use primary energy when talking about the energy consumed in transportation, because an internal combustion vehicle is only 26% - 28% energy efficient, compared to an electric vehicle which is about 85% energy efficient. Electric heating with a heat pump is 3 to 5 times more energy efficient than a gas boiler. In other words, in the transition to 100% renewable energy, we can dramatically reduce the total amount of energy required, so we don't need all the energy that Mill claims. At 30:00, Mills claims that we will need to build a thousand 3MW wind turbines every day for the next 30 years, which would be 32.85 TW of capacity. Taking into account all the energy efficiencies that can be gained with electric motors, heat pumps, etc. and the ability to time shift with battery and hydrogen storage, Mark Jacobson et al. (2017) calculate that we only need 11.8 TW of generating capacity to reach 100% renewable energy by 2050, compared to 8.3 TW of global generating capacity today. I think Jacobson et al. may be underestimating the amount of generating capacity that will be needed since wind and solar do have low capacity factors, but we clearly don't need 33 TW of capacity, as Mills claims. Mills claims that there is no energy transition taking place by showing graphs of global fossil fuel consumption, but he totally ignores how S-curve tech disruption actually works. We can already see how fast renewable energy is taking over the power generation industry. According to EMBER, in Jan-Jul of 2024, 80.4% of new global electricity generation was low-carbon (renewables and nuclear), and the vast majority of that was solar and wind. The global power industry has figured out that solar and wind are now the cheapest energy, and the price of batteries keeps dropping making time shifting possible, but Mills totally ignores how fast the power industry is changing due to S-curve disruption. Yes, Germany's energy transition has been expensive because it invested in renewables when they were expensive and invested a lot in inefficient rooftop solar, but solar and wind plus storage is now competitive with fossil fuel generation in most parts of the world. At any rate, over half of Germany's electricity generation is now renewable, so Germany is now making the energy transition that Mills claims is impossible. Mills claims that we don't have the metal supply to do the transition to 100% renewable energy and electric transport. Yes, the demand for metals is going to increase with EVs, wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. However, Mills totally ignores the switch from NMC/NCA to LFP batteries in the present day which eliminates the need for cobalt and nickel, and the future switch to sodium ion which will eliminate the need for lithium and copper in batteries. He dismisses the idea that EVs can use aluminum in place of copper in the wiring and motor windings and doesn't even address the idea that ferrite magnets can be used in place of rare earth magnets in electric motors, but if we have future metal shortages, those changes will happen. When the price of copper and rare earth metals rose, the wind industry stopped using direct drive turbines and switched to semi-direct and geared turbines that require much less copper and rear earth metals. When the price of silver rose, the solar industry started switching from silver to copper busbars. Mills also totally ignores how electric micromobility (e-scooters and e-bikes), two/three electric wheelers and autonomous taxis can dramatically cut the totally number of automombiles that will be needed in the future. In place of 1.5 billion automobiles in the world today, we can reduce to half a billion vehicles. RethinkX predicts that autonomous taxis will lower the cost of transportation per km by a factor of 10, so the demand for private vehicles will dramatically reduce in the future. Mills claims that the CO2 emissions from producing an EV could be as high as 45 tonnes, and the lower bound in his graph is around 20 tonnes of CO2. Most reputable LCA studies estimate that the CO2 emissions from producing an EV are less than 10 tonnes, and the emissions from battery manufacturing keep falling as it becomes more energy efficient in its drying rooms, so Mills' graph of automobile emissions is misleading propaganda. In the Q&A section, Mills claims that a wind turbine blade only lasts 10 years, but the blades on today's wind turbines are designed to last 30 years, and the average failure rate of blades is low. Another problem with Mills presentation is his dismissal of smart grids and time shifting. He believes that people won't be willing to charge their EVs at times when there is plenty of electric supply, but it isn't that hard to see how people will let their EVs charge at times when the price of electricity is cheap. Just plug in the EV and let it figure out with AI when to charge. Mills has more of an argument about how AI will increase demand for electricity, but he totally ignores how the tech companies are opting to run their data centers on renewable energy today and how that will increase in the future as the price of solar and wind plus battery storage keeps dropping. Notice at the end how Mills dismisses climate change as being a problem. He presents no solutions to reduce GHG emissions and is in denial about the problem. Instead, Mills promotes nuclear as the solution in the distant future, which conveniently allows us to keep burning fossil fuels for many more decades. Anybody who has looked clearly at the costs and long time frames to implement nuclear knows that it has no future. Nuclear will never be able to compete with solar and wind plus storage on costs, and it will always be an excuse to keep using dirty fossil fuels.
It is fallacious to think that electricity and motors have a one-to-one energy relationship with fossil base systems and engines. The energy needed for equivalent work is one third or less, even when using hydrogen, derived from massless energy systems, what is often referred to as renewables. Furthermore, hydrogen and batteries, along with heat batteries, allow the capture and retention of currently lost or surplus grid streams. Thus, with zero new outputs, far more work can be conducted, and far more energy efficacious systems could be devised. This talk may indeed be passe.
Thanks Mr. Mills, it was informative and amazing.
Outstanding! Mark Mills - legend.
Soooo dense some and in particular this talk of Marks….
Been back to it three times!!
Thanks
I so love Mark Mills comical but eye awakening research done on this Green Energy Blindness
Also Professor Simon Michaux and Art Berman I highly recommend watching for you shareholders too
Other investment future sources of the future podcasts are Luke Gromen
and Steve St. Angelo🕊🌏😇
Am i going mad thought i saw this guy chatting on Nate Hagen's Channel, but i cant find it. I was going to go back & listen because my gut said so - things wernt adding up & i felt Nate should have called him out on a few things. Im all for green realism - inc use the FF & ICEs weve got in the narrow window to transition, but my ben shapiro feeling is this guy is off. I might be wrong especially since i cant find the original Nate chat & I havent even finished this one.
@@garrenosborne9623 You must be thinking of Art Berman.
The arguments of Mark Mills have lots of holes. See my other comment to this video where I critique it.
Simon Michaux's problem is that he is making calculations of metal consumption without considering how the EVs, wind turbines, solar panels and energy storage are evolving, and he thinks that we need a lot more energy capacity than we do, because he isn't considering where the technology will be in 15-20 years time with e-micromobility, smart grids, autonomous taxis, AI-controlled charging, etc. The current switch from NMC/NCA battery chemistry to LFP is going to eliminate the cobalt and nickel shortage and the future switch to sodium ion batteries will eliminate the need for lithium and copper in batteries. We will have a copper storage, but we will switch to aluminum for many uses and ramp up copper mining. We will have shortages of rare earth metals (neodymium, dysprosium, praseodymium, etc), but we can switch EVs to ferrite magnets. Likewise, we can switch from silver to copper busbars in solar panels and the wind industry is already switching from direct drives to semi-direct and geared drives, which dramatically reduces the amount of copper and rear earths which are needed.
Thanks Mark!
We can't get off oil and we can't live with it. And they call ME a doomer!
Mark is on point but it is strange how he completely ignores the heating of the atmosphere. Path to destruction on unstoppable train.
There are lots of holes in Mark Mills' arguments and he totally ignores how the energy transition is already happening in the power industry and how S-curve tech disruptions work. See my comment where I critique his presentation for more details.
He is not a climatologist and that is not the point of his presentation.
He doesn't ignore it. He is just showing that soil and wind are not the solution because they can't be the solution.
44:30 i sense a recycling boom in the world.
So in a sense he's saying no scarcity of non renewable resources now.. just let the folks worry about it in 200 years instead of 100.
The important things to note are: (1) fossil fuels generate CO2. (2) CO2 causes global heating. (3) We are at 427 ppm CO2 (growing approx +4 ppm per year), and roughly +2C since 1850. (4) We are accelerating the use of fossil fuels. (5) When the Earth hits between 400 - 450 ppm CO2 this bakes in +2.5C to +3.0C above 1850. (6) Above +2.5C re 1850, self-driving negative CO2 & CH4 feedback loops trigger decreased albedo, increased oceanic warming & acidification, and off-gassing of permafrost (CO2 & CH4), seabed & swamps (CH4), and reduction in natural CO2 CCS by forests and grasslands. (7) The dramatic swings of temperature and rainfall expected in the +2.5C to +3.0C will have a radical negative impact on global food production - driving massive price spikes, and social, economic, and political disruption. We can argue about how, funding, timing etc. but we must get off fossil fuels as soon as humanly possible if we want to maintain any semblance of a modern system of life. 8. Overall food production drops by about 25% globally at around +2C (new estimates @ 2035), and it gets worse as things get hotter. SO, if you ignore all of this and go FULL on increasing fossil fuels, you guarantee the listed negative outcomes and more. What is "nonsensical" is ignoring the physics of fossil fuel global heating.
Yes, increased tech increases energy consumption, climate change and ecological collapse is on going and accelerating now. The future is now. Reality 101.
That is the popular narrative but it is wrong.
@@donbowen7826 really what specifically is wrong about it? Because the last time I looked scientific facts aren't narrative
And he spends endless time on the problems of EV's which are nor even a partial answer. Oil is essential for our civilization and it will kill us. End of story.
Thanks @JonathanLoganPDX. My 2€. 1) According to Dr. William Happer, The burning of fossil fuels releases embodied carbon which was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago by plants and animals. 2) This carbon in the form of atmospheric CO2 absorbs a percentage of the radiation from the sun, which makes it commonly referred to as a greenhouse gas. 3) There is currently around 420 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere which is up from 180 ppm in 1850. That’s averages about 1.4 ppm increase per year. Please share with us the science which proves that increase is due entirely to the burning of fossil fuels rather than the offgassing of carbon dioxide from the world’s oceans. The IPC ha Thanks @JonathanLoganPDX. My 2€. 1) According to Dr. Patrick Moore, The burning of fossil fuels releases embodied carbon which was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago by plants and animals. 2) This carbon in the form of atmospheric CO2 absorbs a percentage of the radiation from the sun, which makes it commonly referred to as a greenhouse gas. Dr. Van Wijngaarden and Dr. William Happer have found in their paper on radiative transfer for five greenhouse gases that a 100% increase of CO2 (doubling) in the atmosphere only reduces radiation to space by 1%. Therefore, increases in CO2 could only account for a small fraction of the current temperature increase. 3) There is currently around 420 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere which is up from 180 ppm in 1850. That’s averages about 1.4 ppm increase per year. Please share with us the science which proves that increase is due entirely to the burning of fossil fuels rather than the offgassing of carbon dioxide from the world’s oceans as stated by Dr. Patrick Moore. The IPC has recently revised its of atmosphere temperature rise since 1850 down to 1.5 C. Dr. Willy Soon et al has proven in a recent paper that the IPCC data has been tainted by the urban heat island effect of some weather stations being increasingly surrounded by urbanization over that time. His analysis shows that the actual increase is 0.7 C. In another study, he shows that increase in temperature coinciding with increased solar activity. More study is necessary. 4) Yes, the use of fossil fuels is increasing as the world’s poorest are lifted out of abject poverty at the rate of 160,000 people per day! Also, and more importantly, the energy needs for cloud computing and AI are increasing exponentially. 5) My understanding from Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Steve Koonin is that the basis for this “prediction“ comes from climate models, which the IPCC admits are unsuitable for policy. In fact, these models disagree with each other more than the margin of error of their predictions. 6) Same reply as in 5. Also, Dr. Patrick Moore states that it is inaccurate to say that the seas are becoming more acid and that the increase of CO2 has fostered the greening of formally desert land in an amount equal to the continental United States since 1980. 7) Same reply as in 5. Also, according to Bjorn Lomborg who does not doubt that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming, it is the increased CO2, the widespread use of fertilizer, and the slightly warmer climate with longer growing seasons which has led to ever increasing crop yields making food much more affordable and thereby has dramatically increased nutrition in the third world which has led to better health and longer lives. His research estimates that the population will be 445% richer in the year 2100 rather than 450% richer, the slight loss being due to the negative impacts of global warming. 8) Same reply as in 7.
Dr. Richard Lindzen states in part ‘…that the research literature does not support the claim of a climate emergency. Nor will there be one. None of the lurid predictions - dangerously accelerating, sea-level rise, increasingly extreme weather, more deadly forest fires, unprecedented warming, etc. - are any more accurate than the fire-and-brimstone sermons used to stoke fanaticism in medieval crusaders.’
Mark P Mills and Vaclav Smil
Mark Mills: "You don't get to cut the energy footprint without cutting wealth." Me: "If we don't cut our energy footprint, advanced civilization is doomed by 2050". Consumption society: "So be it".
We are too many people in the world, thats the real problem
It depends what lifestyle you think people should expect
Nope its the false problem, its always the behaviour, as south park might put it compare 1000 starvin marvins & their families in Africa resource consumption vs 1 CEO.
People who worry about overpopulation are about 40+ years out of date on the research & tend to blame other usually poor countries & poor people.
And strangely dont blame the rich & their ill gotten gains & resisitance to changing their behaviour.
We have lots of food and energy for everyone. We are just artificially preventing the people in the third world from using fossil fuels. Why is that I wonder.
So what do you suggest? We all run into climate catastrophe?
*hypothetical climate catastrophe
There is no conequence of climate change that we can't handle with our current solutions.
@@hunterseufert8066 Not if you don't have an A.C.
@@chrisconklin2981 Not sure what you're getting at. If everyone has an AC, doesn't global warming sky rocket? Does having an AC matter in some way? Shouldn't you be more worried about those who don't have a heater since more people die from cold temperatures than from warm?
@@hunterseufert8066 You are correct, according to Our World more people die from the cold and I would add: at the present time. The issue is that with global warming induced high temperatures this will lead to many areas becoming uninhabitable. Poor people cannot afford mechanical cooling (AC).
By the way scientist James Hansen knows our true ecosystem crisis 🕊🌏😇💖
This symposium is sponsored by the oil and gas industry.
Amazing looking at these comments. Mark is not debating climate change. That is not the purpose of his presentation.
The reason for this presentation is to bring to light what the reality of transitioning to solar and wind. Thats it. Nothing elase.
1974 the best yr ever!
I love how google add their BS propaganda to this video. God I hate them
Cherry picked, misrepresented & incorrect data all over the place here. EG chart at 46:34 no mention of lifetime materials use.
Statement at 47:12 is wrong: 'An EV is '80% by weight Nickel, Cadmium, Copper, Lithium, Aluminum, all the exotic stuff'. A Tesla Model 3 can weigh up to 1800kg. The battery is 480kg. I don't know how heavy the motors are but I can lift them & I'm no athlete. So let's say the battery & motors weigh 900kg* all up and that they are all ' exotic stuff'** that's still only 50% of the weight.
*They don't, but let's be kind to the poor guy. As he said, he likes his alcohol & is probably not as sharp as he once was.
**They're not. For example, the battery is mainly steel (steel case, steel cells cans are the majority of the weight in it). The motors have a lot of steel in them.
What burns in combustion is, in fact the hydrogen component. Just make hydrogen, and use it broadly.
Moreover, NASA has given the world any number of useful spinoffs; namely, running shoes, electrolyzers, microwave ovens, solar panels, superglasses, et cetera.. The R&D was well spent.
Let's think more broadly, and in a far more collaborative fashion.
Oh boy. You are so energy blind.
Superabundance why not?how can
Superabundance barely an inconvenience
Ha ha limtis to growth of any organism is the limitation of ANY essential element. This is the case for bacteria up. Copper deficit graph sinks the whole fantasy
I don't doubt most of the date presented here, but this guy is funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Mr. Mills tells lots of interesting stories. However, he misrepresents the data. If he made this presentation before an audience of renewable energy experts he would be booed off the stage. This symposium is sponsored by the oil and gas industry.
That's because the "renewable energy experts" are intolerant pseudo-scientists.
Give examples.
@@rjbiker66
Mr. Mills thinks that we will always need hydrocarbons. Saying you can't decarbonize society. However, we are well on our way to doing so. He berates subsidies to renewables but does not mention the tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry Then he berates the transition to renewables because of mineral scarcity. Somehow fossil fuels are not part of his scarcity model. He tries to discredit climate warming by attacking climate models. These models are highly credible. The issue is the effect of releasing a billion years worth of buried carbon back into the atmosphere. Four of the last six mass extinctions were caused by high levels of atmospheric CO2.
@@rjbiker66 Mr. Mills thinks that we will always need hydrocarbons. Saying you can't decarbonize society. However, we are well on our way to doing so. Then he berates the transaction to renewables because of mineral scarcity. Somehow fossil fuels are not part of his scarcity model. He tries to discredit climate warming by attacking climate models. These models are highly credible. The issue is the effect of releasing a billion years worth of buried carbon back into the atmosphere. Four of the last six mass extinctions were caused by high level of CO2.
@@rjbiker66 Mr. Mills thinks that we will always need hydrocarbons. Saying you can't decarbonize society. However, we are well on our way to doing so. Then he berates the transaction to renewables because of mineral scarcity. Somehow fossil fuels are not part of his scarcity model. He tries to discredit climate warming by attacking climate models. These models are highly credible. The issue is the effect of releasing a billion years worth of buried carbon back into the atmosphere. Four of the last six mass extinctions were caused by high level of CO2.
Mr. Mills is not completely honest but he's preaching to the converted in this Energy and "Environment" Symposium. This seems to be a talking point trainning. Interestingly he says a lot of things I agree (need for nuclear, wind&solar not sufficient, PHEV much better than EV ...) but a guy with his training knows dynamic control theory and knows that climate change is real. He's a sell-out.
he thinks we have infinite oil and gas because he is going to die in < 10 years
We have oil and gas left for over a century at least.
Why would anyone listen to a paid propagandist for the fossil fuel industry? Mark Mills created his think tank, the National Center for Energy Analytics, as a way to milk money from all the incumbent industries which are threatened by green tech, and he's a very good propagandist, because he presents himself as a scientist and energy analyst, but don't be fooled by his song and dance.
In this presentation, Mills presents graphs showing renewables as a tiny percentage of total energy, making it seem impossible to transition to 100% renewables. However, he is comparing primary energy, which is a very misleading way to compare fossil fuels to renewables, because roughly 60% of the potential energy in fossil fuels is lost as heat during combustion. It is downright deceptive to use primary energy when talking about the energy consumed in transportation, because an internal combustion vehicle is only 26% - 28% energy efficient, compared to an electric vehicle which is about 85% energy efficient. Electric heating with a heat pump is 3 to 5 times more energy efficient than a gas boiler.
In other words, in the transition to 100% renewable energy, we can dramatically reduce the total amount of energy required, so we don't need all the energy that Mill claims. At 30:00, Mills claims that we will need to build a thousand 3MW wind turbines every day for the next 30 years, which would be 32.85 TW of capacity. Taking into account all the energy efficiencies that can be gained with electric motors, heat pumps, etc. and the ability to time shift with battery and hydrogen storage, Mark Jacobson et al. (2017) calculate that we only need 11.8 TW of generating capacity to reach 100% renewable energy by 2050, compared to 8.3 TW of global generating capacity today. I think Jacobson et al. may be underestimating the amount of generating capacity that will be needed since wind and solar do have low capacity factors, but we clearly don't need 33 TW of capacity, as Mills claims.
Mills claims that there is no energy transition taking place by showing graphs of global fossil fuel consumption, but he totally ignores how S-curve tech disruption actually works. We can already see how fast renewable energy is taking over the power generation industry. According to EMBER, in Jan-Jul of 2024, 80.4% of new global electricity generation was low-carbon (renewables and nuclear), and the vast majority of that was solar and wind. The global power industry has figured out that solar and wind are now the cheapest energy, and the price of batteries keeps dropping making time shifting possible, but Mills totally ignores how fast the power industry is changing due to S-curve disruption. Yes, Germany's energy transition has been expensive because it invested in renewables when they were expensive and invested a lot in inefficient rooftop solar, but solar and wind plus storage is now competitive with fossil fuel generation in most parts of the world. At any rate, over half of Germany's electricity generation is now renewable, so Germany is now making the energy transition that Mills claims is impossible.
Mills claims that we don't have the metal supply to do the transition to 100% renewable energy and electric transport. Yes, the demand for metals is going to increase with EVs, wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. However, Mills totally ignores the switch from NMC/NCA to LFP batteries in the present day which eliminates the need for cobalt and nickel, and the future switch to sodium ion which will eliminate the need for lithium and copper in batteries. He dismisses the idea that EVs can use aluminum in place of copper in the wiring and motor windings and doesn't even address the idea that ferrite magnets can be used in place of rare earth magnets in electric motors, but if we have future metal shortages, those changes will happen. When the price of copper and rare earth metals rose, the wind industry stopped using direct drive turbines and switched to semi-direct and geared turbines that require much less copper and rear earth metals. When the price of silver rose, the solar industry started switching from silver to copper busbars.
Mills also totally ignores how electric micromobility (e-scooters and e-bikes), two/three electric wheelers and autonomous taxis can dramatically cut the totally number of automombiles that will be needed in the future. In place of 1.5 billion automobiles in the world today, we can reduce to half a billion vehicles. RethinkX predicts that autonomous taxis will lower the cost of transportation per km by a factor of 10, so the demand for private vehicles will dramatically reduce in the future.
Mills claims that the CO2 emissions from producing an EV could be as high as 45 tonnes, and the lower bound in his graph is around 20 tonnes of CO2. Most reputable LCA studies estimate that the CO2 emissions from producing an EV are less than 10 tonnes, and the emissions from battery manufacturing keep falling as it becomes more energy efficient in its drying rooms, so Mills' graph of automobile emissions is misleading propaganda. In the Q&A section, Mills claims that a wind turbine blade only lasts 10 years, but the blades on today's wind turbines are designed to last 30 years, and the average failure rate of blades is low.
Another problem with Mills presentation is his dismissal of smart grids and time shifting. He believes that people won't be willing to charge their EVs at times when there is plenty of electric supply, but it isn't that hard to see how people will let their EVs charge at times when the price of electricity is cheap. Just plug in the EV and let it figure out with AI when to charge. Mills has more of an argument about how AI will increase demand for electricity, but he totally ignores how the tech companies are opting to run their data centers on renewable energy today and how that will increase in the future as the price of solar and wind plus battery storage keeps dropping.
Notice at the end how Mills dismisses climate change as being a problem. He presents no solutions to reduce GHG emissions and is in denial about the problem. Instead, Mills promotes nuclear as the solution in the distant future, which conveniently allows us to keep burning fossil fuels for many more decades. Anybody who has looked clearly at the costs and long time frames to implement nuclear knows that it has no future. Nuclear will never be able to compete with solar and wind plus storage on costs, and it will always be an excuse to keep using dirty fossil fuels.
Mr impossible
It is fallacious to think that electricity and motors have a one-to-one energy relationship with fossil base systems and engines. The energy needed for equivalent work is one third or less, even when using hydrogen, derived from massless energy systems, what is often referred to as renewables.
Furthermore, hydrogen and batteries, along with heat batteries, allow the capture and retention of currently lost or surplus grid streams. Thus, with zero new outputs, far more work can be conducted, and far more energy efficacious systems could be devised.
This talk may indeed be passe.