I am from Kenya, and this conversation is incredibly depressing. If the Western world should be preparing to make do with much less, that means that those of us who live in the greater part of the world that is barely making it as it is will be reduced to a wasteland. Most of Africa is barely even out of the tribal warfare stage of evolution! I can guarantee you that the first instinct will be to band back into tribes and go into overdrive raiding mode! The things we still fight over to the death in Africa still have to do with basic resources such as water, livestock, and agricultural land. With our burgeoning populations, it is easy to see how all hell could break loose if all the things you predict come true world-wide. One telling indication is going on right now. As the price of fuel and gas, for cooking, has risen drastically within the last few years, the forests are disappearing even faster than before because the vast majority of people still use firewood just to cook their food. In the cities, the cheapest domestic fuel is charcoal, which is made from hardwoods. The advent of natural gas actually was a source of hope for the environment in Africa because it began to reduce the dependence on firewood for domestic food preparation. You can bet your bottom dollar that the wealthy elites of Africa will not stand for a reduction in their high consumption lifestyles. They will whip up the fear of deprivation in members of their own tribes to raid the resources from other tribes and, by extension, from neighboring countries if need be. Also, the poor people, who are the majority, will not let their children starve while the gameparks are teeming with wildlife. I can see animals being hunted to extinction by people who are just looking to survive. Poaching is already a big problem with trophy animals like rhinos and elephants. No one will be able to stop hungry people from killing the animals for food. I really fear for us in Africa. If the problem had been addressed maybe 20 years ago, maybe a more peaceful transition would have been possible. If the breakdown and unavoidable simplification happens in a short span of time, fear, not rational altruism, and "working together" will rule the day.
I am sorry man for the situation on Kenya. Hang on, situation can only get better there. Not the case for west, you should see how we live here it's disgusting how new graduates expect to have everything just because of their piece of paper worth 3 years: they get graduates, and they PRETEND to have a chance to prove themself. They don't accept any job that is lower thant what THEY THINK they deserve. They want an high payed job, of high responsibility and decision-making power, but when it comes to being accountable for their responsibilities and decisions they HIDE behind the system, finding footholds thanks to their study. And thats all what they are using their study for, nothing else. Whoever study doesnt look for solution, is looking for more money. We have too much commodity, we don't even want to mine natural resources because we think we can have only more, If we maintain this standard of living, we will neither be able to help the rest of the world progress nor support ourselves.
I agree with your fear, BUT in fact Africa is theoretically wonderful place. Africa has a lot of sun and deserts to put solar panels. Since solar panels are cheap, and inverters could be made cheap as well, Africa could get energy almost at zero costs. If the surplus energy is used to make hydrogen (or hydrogen derived products like methanol, ammonia, etc.) then those products can be used for making electricity at times where there is no sun. In addition Africa can sell the hydrogen products to Europe and others. This scenario is starting already as Morocco is preparing to sell electricity to the UK.
As a guy who worked in Africa back in the days of the British Empire. What this man is saying is dead right, and we wanted to do whatever we could to help the African people. They need us, and we need what Africa can produce.
I also grew up in the empire - the claim that we "wanted to help" is at best descriptive of behaviour that is better described as a misplaced belief in the "white man's burden". My parents were Quakers - the chocolate bankers - the most skilled disingenuous self-delusionists - by which I mean experts in telling some it's raining while urinating in their back pocket @@stanyeaman4824
Africa should use her Gas. West cannot build a Green Grid there before building one for ourselves. Gas is better than coal. Africa could cover the landfills with .5 of as meter of dirt. Habitat for methane eating bacteria Almost free to do that
When my parents saw trouble on the horizon they didn't continue to live beyond their means. They prepared for tighter times. They made do with what they had, they did away with the excesses, they grew more food, they foraged more, the borrowed, repaired, loaned and bought only what we needed. They explained to us why we were tightening belts and our parents, neighbours, our communities included us and our environment in these activities. We all supported each other we, got on our bikes and we made things more sustainable. We sowed solidarity and we reaped hope.
I love this guy he's a realist about our situation but also a problem solver. Too many doomers and too much hopium out there. Good to get some middle ground.
millions of year of natural selection has evolved us to consume and crave more because prior to agricultural systems humans lived surviving each day snagging a meal as if it may be the last one we eat for a long time.............we do that with food and resources now since they are plentiful but we have no evolved system to manage that in our evolutionary hardwiring....................we are clever apes........but not wise ones.
Energy storage for renewables. If the UK goes renewable, then we will need 18,000 gwh of backup energy, to allow for unreliable renewables (probably pumped storage systems). But at present we only have 10 gwh (the Dinorwig plant). . But remember that Dinorwig was the most expensive power station in the world - because the Greeneys insisted it was built INSUDE a mountain. We need to cost in that missing 17,990 gwh of backup (which will cost £trillions), before saying renewables are cheap. And these backup storage systems will take decades to build. And where will we put them?? And if we run out of electricity and heating during a cold winter anticyclone, there will be no food, water, sew.erage, petrol, transport etc. So we will probably loose hundreds of thousands of people, just in one winter. And we will have ten or twenty of those devastating winters, before these backup systems are completed. CO2 not primary feedback agent. Please see my peer review paper on ice ages. This demonstrates that the primary feedback aged controlling ice ages, is dust on Arctic ice sheets, lowering their albedo. Strangely, this dust is caused by LOW CO2, which causes CO2 deserts, and therefore lots of dust. Thus it is LOW CO2 that causes interglacial warming. Modulation of ice ages by dust and albedo. I cannot post links, but it is: sciencedirect dot com S1674987116300305 Ralph
Why do critics of battery storage for renewable energy confuse Lithium evaporation salt ponds with subsurface mining. Lithium (Salt) is easily accessible and abundant on the Earths surface. Oil extraction and coal mining and refining is historically far more destructive to the planet and less efficient than mineral mining for battery storage. The fossil fuel industry is definitely using extreme and expensive methods to extract oil from under the sea that is not economically sustainable
"information rich" really is an understatement. I went through the almost 1000 pages report, Prof. Michaux published; it's all 100% worked out, but it takes a PhD in Physics to grasp the scale of all of it (which I happen to hold). I AM really impressed by the depth of his work, and as much as I dislike the conclusion, it's absolutely undeniable. Also aout calculating the storage capacity: that actually IS my job, and it all comes out at roughly the same value, you NEED 1/5 of your annual consumption, to cover the shortfall of January to make it to spring (I calculate for Germany, in Finland it's worse). 28 days of storage capacity indeed is too little. I come out at 70 days, no matter how I try to tweak the numbers. And including surge power, not only energy makes everything even more complicated. Feasable, but we are way too late to produce and install all the hardware. I cooperate with a local energy supply company. They see no way, to install, what would be required soon enough. The Hirsch report of 2005 was right: we are way too late, to build a live-boat before the Titanics upper deck meets the water line....
This is complete garbage, and illustrative of why these talking heads wind up so far out in left field. Its a function of garbage in, garbage out. One obviously does NOT need 1/5 of total annual consumption to bridge winter. That is just plainly absurd. We already have years worth of statistics from large-state geographies... particularly Texas and California, from which ACTUAL winter renewables generation and consumption can be compared. Same thing with storage requirements... nobody is contemplating having 70 days of storage, that's just stupid. When you make calculations that ignore economics, you wind up with nonsense and that is precisely what has happened in your "70 days" number. There is a balance between renewables generation, energy storage, and base-load generation. The three work off of each other. The more you have one entity, the less you need of the others. There is a basic cost and pollution function to these entities. Renewables are the absolute lowest-cost, then energy-storage, and base-load is the highest cost. What you wind up with is essentially an average of 100% generation from renewables across winter, one week's worth of storage, and no base-load. OR something like 80% generation from renewables, one weeks' worth of storage, and 20% worth of base-load. For example. it turns out that energy storage, in particular, is far far less expensive than simply its build cost because it does more than just provide energy storage. A lot more. Adding energy storage directly de-congests transmission lines and removes the cost of having to build more in many locales, and it completely removes the need for peaker plants, allowing peaker plants to be decomissioned. For example. The thing people don't understand about winter is that renewables generation across large geographical areas is actually quite deterministic. So even someone get weeks of storms where they live, that usually is NOT true across an entire state, or an entire region. So over-building renewables for average winter operation actually does work despite the storms as long as there is enough energy storage as a buffer and enough base-load to reduce the amount of energy storage required. Much of that base-load capability already exists, in fact, and doesn't have to be built. With appropriate energy storage, the base-load that remains can run at 100% sans nominal fossil fuel maintenance regimes (which is usually about 50% of the plants lifetime in maintenance). It does not require a PhD in Physics to work out any of this. It does not require any physics at all. Just a basic understanding of energy, electricity, storage, and LCOE.
Would you be kind to point out some reports that back the thesis and synthesis of Professor Michaux? I am interested to see the depth of the predicament the humanity is staring at blindly. I did skim through the same synthesis produced by the Professor, but my non-physical mind could not comprehend the logos.
I predict that in less than the next 15 years wind turbines and solar panels will become obsolete. At that point landfills will be overrun with these behemoths and create a greater environmental disaster than what we have today.
Every minute of this interview was riveting and enlightening for me. Please invite him back again soon. Thank you for the ongoing education, Rachel. Your podcasts are among the finest on TH-cam.
Energy storage for renewables. If the UK goes renewable, then we will need 18,000 gwh of backup energy, to allow for unreliable renewables (probably pumped storage systems). But at present we only have 10 gwh (the Dinorwig plant). . But remember that Dinorwig was the most expensive power station in the world - because the Greeneys insisted it was built INSUDE a mountain. We need to cost in that missing 17,990 gwh of backup (which will cost £trillions), before saying renewables are cheap. And these backup storage systems will take decades to build. And where will we put them?? And if we run out of electricity and heating during a cold winter anticyclone, there will be no food, water, sew.erage, petrol, transport etc. So we will probably loose hundreds of thousands of people, just in one winter. And we will have ten or twenty of those devastating winters, before these backup systems are completed. CO2 not primary feedback agent. Please see my peer review paper on ice ages. This demonstrates that the primary feedback aged controlling ice ages, is dust on Arctic ice sheets, lowering their albedo. Strangely, this dust is caused by LOW CO2, which causes CO2 deserts, and therefore lots of dust. Thus it is LOW CO2 that causes interglacial warming. Modulation of ice ages by dust and albedo. I cannot post links, but it is: sciencedirect dot com S1674987116300305 Ralph
Do you know? Simens - maker of wind mills lost money the last 4 quarters, most recently 2 billion. Faulty turbines(?) on their wind mills. (Reported on Nobody Special Finance) last week. 😮😂
Re: Total BS. 40:00 Re: EV & Mass Storage Battery Recycling. Sorry, but not mentioning that these sources are 95+% recyclable, plus that those materials are considered “pure,” requiring very little processing aside from their mechanical separation from their containers, plus the fact that their unexpected longevity indicates there will be another 5-10 years before they will be available in usable quantities, plus battery technologies’ advancement at Wright’s Law speeds will extend those timeframes significantly, belies his competencies to comment on this & other matters being discussed. Sure, he knows a lot (as do many of us), but his discourse raises questions as to his ability (or inclination) to synthesize them into other than the ever attractive (& easy) doom & gloom scenarios (his tee logo should’ve clued me). Having heard nothing actually usable here, I’m having none of it & regret having had taken the time to put up with it.
I like this host. She is sharp and knows her stuff, but she is not afraid to ask questions when she doesn't know something Simon talks about. Most hosts pretend and just nod their head when they haven got a clue. So she digs in and gets the answers in lay terms which is good for us. And as for Simon, the guy is a genius, but a practical one, who actually knows how to add up. It's a crying shame (but not surprising) that all the academics in the world couldn't do some simple math and realise we don't have the minerals to do the net zero bullshit. I have seen many of Simons presentations and some of them are staggering. To think it will take 7100 years to mine the vanadium we need for storage batteries, and 9900 years to mine the Lithium for EV batteries is an eye opener.
It is a very important and sobering contribution that Prof Michaux and the team at the Finnish Geological Survey make in their 1000 pages report. We need more modelling like that. Sure, there may be some assumptions that need to be tested such as the buffer amount. Is it 6 hours (highly unlikely), 48 hours (unlikely), 28 days (likely, especially in northern hemisphere contexts), or 2 months? It is difficult to believe that the USA, Australia, Europe and to a lesser extent, China, have hitched their energy bandwagons to a “renewable” energy future as opposed to a sustainable energy future WITHOUT detailed modelling of this alternative energy system. Here in Australia we have just begun to deal with what to do with “dead” Solar panels which are failing, sometimes as early as 8 to 10 years after installation. The ones that aren’t “dead” but are no longer at full efficiency we are exporting to Africa so they can have a second life. What happens to them after that? Landfill? We have been doing the same thing to Africa with our discarded clothing, much of which ends up in African dumps or rivers and eventually the ocean. There is no such place as “somewhere else” and it is high time we realised that. All proposed energy system solutions ought to be subject to statutory Life Cycle Assessments using the relevant International Standards Organization Guidelines. Manufacturers should also have to state the the Eneregy Return On Energy Invested (EROI or EROEI) using a new international standard developed for that purpose. Such assessments need to factor in the environmental, social and economic costs of all energy systems from the beginning with mineral and resource extraction to the disposal/recycling. The problem with much of the current discourse around the energy transition is that it very poorly informed and is driven, in part, by business and vested interests. It takes no account of earth sysytems science and will actually contribute additional greenhouse gases in the short to medium term (10 to 20 years). It will help to drive the global Superorganism further over the nine global planetary boundaries. Here in Australia, the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, has estimated that the electricity high voltage transmission grid will have to be duplicated to deal with the disparate locations of the diffuse “renewable” electricity generating sources (read wind, solar and pumped storage). That figure mean an extra 10,000kms of high voltage transmission line for Australia. It is possible that rather than a doubling, the high voltage network may need to be increased 3 to 4 fold. That means higher energy costs because someone has to pay. It also means the production of massive quantities of steel, aluminium, and concrete, all of what have production processes that contribute substantially to greenhouse gas emissions, to say nothing of the environmental impacts of all that production and erection and maintenance of the power grid. And that is for 27,000,000 people, 0.33% of the global population. If that were scaled up globally the impact would be catastrophic. We need to shift the discourse of all talk of a global energy transition to a new framework. There are alternatives but the hegemony of growth oriented capitalism means that these alternatives are marginalised. A couple of recent books are worth looking at. The first is by Assoc Prof Kohei Saito from Japan. His book, SLOW DOWN: HIW DEGROWTH COMMUNISM CAN SAVE THE EARTH, makes a cogent argument for an alternative to growth driven, consumer oriented, resources depleting, environment destroying capitalism. The second is a book that everyone will need to consult if we remain locked into our current capitalist system. It is HOW EVERYTHING CAN COLLAPSE: A MANUAL FOR OUR TIMES. By Pablo Servigne and Raphael Stevens (2020, French original in 2015). If we continue locked into a growth paradigm, it is inevitable that there will be collapse as Christopher Clugston argues in his latest book, INDUSTRIALISM: OUR COMMITMENT TO IMPERMANENCE (2023). It is a cause for great concern that our public discourse is so poorly informed. As someone, when asked what he thought was the greatest threat, responded: “THE GLOBALIZATION OF SUPERFICIALITY”. Surely this is a time for rigorous, well informed critical thinking rather that the group think of being driven by the pedal to the metal, growth oriented, profit driven, economic system that is quite literally devouring the earth, our home that we ought to share with every other creatures and species. A retired and very frustrated engineer!
Making it worse: planned obsolescence manufactured into our current cell phones & computers hastens the use of the rare minerals. Also appliances last half as long as they did 30 years ago. (In the US). I'm curious if it's the same elsewhere. There should be quality/longevity laws here, but there aren't.
Apart from our self righteous freedom to consume evermore sophisticated products the built in obsolescence is a great disservice to society. Anyone remember Ralfh Nader .
You hit the nail right on the head when you wrote that products must last for a long time in order to reduce the amount of damage we are causing by making cheap short-lived products. Big business tells how to make products last longer, every time they say "it's too expensive to make this kind of change". They are inadvertently telling us that Mankind has misinterpreted the meaning of 'profit'. We are living by 'profit = income - expenses'. This profit model says cash equals profit and everything else is expenses. Unfortunately, cash is not profit. All of our actual gains come to us from the environment. The present profit model forces businesses to ignore the damages that we cause to the environment, and it tells us to fire as many people as possible in order to keep employment expenses as low as possible in order to maximize profit. But cash is nothing more than a permission slip to get our actual profit. In the real world 'profit equals protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides for all of us'. Now all we have to do is get the rest of the world to agree with us... don't worry, I'm on it but I can sure use a lot of help. Any responses will be helpful.
Our Fiat Currency is the PetroDollar - it's tied to energy and genocide. That's why Noam Chomsky predicted the U.S. would invade Iraq again. I wrote a graduate paper based on Chomsky - in 1998 - predicting the U.S. would invade Iraq again. My instructor commented my paper was "too aggressive." - hilarious. So I printed out a couple hundred copies of my paper and passed them out at the University - and I hung a banner on campus, "Stop U.S. Genocide in Iraq" - and the University center of Genocide director walked past me to complain that it was not genocide in Iraq. haha. I got arrested twice to protest against the U.S. led sanctions on Iraq. The Two-Headed Depleted Uranium Babies of Iraq are the future of our renewable economy.
Thank you, hostess, for not pretending to be more knowledgeable than you are. You slowed Simon down just the right amount. He knows so much and talks so fast, so it's sometimes difficult to keep up with the flow of information.
Regenerative farming practices combined with industrial scale factory fermentation based processing of plant material to protein is the only viable, sustainable solution to replace the current destructive and unsustainable industrial agriculture system.
Localised small scale food production has shown to be almost 30x more productive than agriculture at scale. Global supply chains can't be addressed by agriculture at scale
Blood protein is higher in vegans than meat eaters so the plant fermentation isn't necessary. Legumes and nuts are enough for a complete protein rich diet
Cows are supper efficient protein converting animals. When used in perma culture/ regenerative farming. They additionally improve soil massively. BTW cows provided EFA’s hard to find in any plant. That is ESSENTIAL FATTY ACIDS ❤
dad's a mining engineer. How Mr Simon describes the processes is the _nice_ version. The _proper_ version. What happens in actual mines is worse. Not extremely worse, but quite worse. It's a very, very toxic process for everyone and everything, involved or not... A mine is a literal wound on the earth, a wound that will never heal :(
"In order to globally reach net zero (eliminate fossil fuels) by 2050, you would need 180 year's worth of the 2019 world production of copper, 380 year's worth of the production of nickel, 1600 year's worth of the production of cobalt, 6700 year's worth of graphite, and 9400 year's worth of lithium. (Associate Research Professor Simon Michaux from Geological Survey of Finland) GTK (published August 20, 2021). The most interesting statistic to me is the amount of lithium needed. With states like California outright banning any car that is not electric by a certain date, it is extremely obvious that that law is impossible, it cannot work. We cannot get there in 7 years."
@@armamentarmedarm1699 This "there" you speak of is non-existent! People love to talk about hypothetical policies before confronting the well-proven natural science facts already. The Guy McPherson Paradox of the Aerosol Masking Effect being twice as bad as previously thought (as per Daniel Rosenfeld - NOTICE this "interview" didn't mention the Aerosol Masking Effect?!) AND the East Siberian Arctic Shelf 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane (also not discussed in this interview) precludes any kind of "there." As Oceanographer Jim Massa has detailed there's over 250 Zettajoules of EXTRA heat in the oceans since 1995 building up - with only 30 zettajoules in the atmosphere as extra heat that's already causing havoc. Just a 5 gigaton release or 'abrupt eruption" is highly likely yet the IPCC ar6 didn't even DISCUSS the ESAS methane! Hilarious. The policy fixation is a total joke without any real discussion of the empirical evidence of doom. The mathematics of civilization is based on exponential growth - since Plato! It's the wrong math and that's the structural drive of "progress" - it's been a scam for a long time. Hilarious.
Peter Zeihan had a recent short update where he talked about Germany (and most of Europe) surviving the winter mostly through being lucky with the mild weather. Also, they imported something like half a trillion (dollars? euros?) worth of fossil fuels to replace the usual Russian supplies. If that amount of money had been invested in nuclear power generation instead, they could have completely replaced all their current coal and other power infrastructure with non-polluting power [assuming that you could magically construct a bunch of power plants in under six months fo course]. (Caveat: Zeihan is a bit like ChatGPT, in that he sounds authoritative, but you never know if he is accurate, using hyperbole, or just making up the numbers.)
I've never once heard of a nuclear power plant getting built in a years time. And I doubt nuclear is even reliable enough given the fiasco France just went through large parts of its grid basically being shutdown.
What isn't about sustainable or unsustainable ? Whatever you mean I think I can tackle one of your points. Which is population control: Sustainability involves population control, always. They are not mutually exclusive, but necessarily connected. A certain environment can sustain a certain population. If the population goes above the regenerative rate of that environment's resources, then you reach a point at which the population starves and it rapidly drops through violent conflict and famine. IF you are consciously aware of these things, you can then control your population limit before you hit resource limits, and that way you can avoid miserable violent decline in your population, and instead keep it healthy and steady in size. In short, you either control population consciously to avoid massive suffering, or be blind to resource limits, grow exponentially and then the population will get lowered by nature whether you like it or not, usually in a violent and miserable way.
He apparently doesn't know about the Aerosol Masking Effect! He's fixated on the "economy" without understanding it's from ECOlogy! Hilarious. He's just riding on his Western NeoColonial Coat-tails and he's trying to be all self-righteous about it. Maybe he should adopt a Two-Headed Depleted Uranium Baby to promote his mining career. hilarious.
Energy storage for renewables. If the UK goes renewable, then we will need 18,000 gwh of backup energy, to allow for unreliable renewables (probably pumped storage systems). But at present we only have 10 gwh (the Dinorwig plant). . But remember that Dinorwig was the most expensive power station in the world - because the Greeneys insisted it was built INSUDE a mountain. We need to cost in that missing 17,990 gwh of backup (which will cost £trillions), before saying renewables are cheap. And these backup storage systems will take decades to build. And where will we put them?? And if we run out of electricity and heating during a cold winter anticyclone, there will be no food, water, sew.erage, petrol, transport etc. So we will probably loose hundreds of thousands of people, just in one winter. And we will have ten or twenty of those devastating winters, before these backup systems are completed. CO2 not primary feedback agent. Please see my peer review paper on ice ages. This demonstrates that the primary feedback aged controlling ice ages, is dust on Arctic ice sheets, lowering their albedo. Strangely, this dust is caused by LOW CO2, which causes CO2 deserts, and therefore lots of dust. Thus it is LOW CO2 that causes interglacial warming. Modulation of ice ages by dust and albedo. I cannot post links, but it is: sciencedirect dot com S1674987116300305 Ralph
These two are promoting the fake climate crisis psy-op. There is no independent evidence that there is a climate crisis. Michaux is speaking mostly nonsense. Where he gets his facts from, one can only imagine !.
Thank you! Water Vapor (WV) is a greenhouse gas as potent as CO2 according to theory. On average there is 50 times as much WV in the atmosphere as CO2. The fact that it is non -persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much.
We all keep hearing about the necessity to conserve and manage our energy resources. The problem arises when the least among us do the managing. Government is renown for it's incredible inefficiency who worry mostly about bureaucracy expansion and self aggrandizement.
40:00 Re: EV & Mass Storage Battery Recycling. Sorry, but not mentioning that these sources are 95+% recyclable, plus that those materials are considered “pure,” requiring very little processing aside from their mechanical separation from their containers, plus the fact that their unexpected longevity indicates there will be another 5-10 years before they will be available in usable quantities, plus battery technologies’ advancement at Wright’s Law speeds will extend those timeframes significantly, belies his competencies to comment on this & other matters being discussed. Sure, he knows a lot (as do many of us), but his discourse raises questions as to his ability (or inclination) to synthesize them into other than the ever attractive (& easy) doom & gloom scenarios (his tee logo should’ve clued me). Having heard nothing actually usable here, I’m having none of it & regret having had taken the time to put up with it.
1. nuclear power using the thorium cycle 2. No till agriculture 3 Design of products to make recycling simple 4. Use renewable energy for the production of liquid fuels 5. Petroleum and coal for chemical feedstocks 6. Mining city dumps for metals and chemicals from discarded products from petroleum (plastics)
We need to make Thorium work. There's no guarantee that it will. It might do but until then, Uranium. And find out if Uranium extraction from sea water is scaleable. Rather than spending 500 million on another offshore windfarm build an offshore Uranium plant. Greenpeace would go nuts, but the windfarms impact on just the UK's carbon emissions would be negligable, but the Uranium plant potentially could fix our climate problem.
@@colinmacdonald5732 We know that the thorium cycle will work. There was an experimental reactor at Oak Ridge using thorium that ran for approximately 2 years in the 1070s.
The Chinese are about to roll thorium reactors out in a big way, they ‘got’ the idea and ran with it sone time ago, we are continuing to play at it, while our options diminish.
Totally agree with the lack of contact the financial world has with reality... Bill Rees talks about the need our stories have in mapping accurately reality and neoliberalism or more generally the stories of our economics don't map onto reality at all... On the energy transition mining energy requirements i knew this 15 years ago when i did the energy profiles for a number of mines in NSW in Australia ... It's a shocking story emerging on how little work has been done on the energy transition 😢
Contact with reality? No one wants it. ==> Water Vapor (WV) is a greenhouse gas as potent as CO2 according to theory. On average there is 50 times as much WV in the atmosphere as CO2. The fact that it is non -persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much.
What we need to understand is that WHAT we do today - is very important and should not be relegated to politicians who look first at reelection, great sounding words.
As minerals and oil becomes more scarce, prices for everything will rise inexorably creating financially inequitable and exclusionary costs for everything else. Income inequities are already a reality, even in "advanced" nations. It will only continue to worsen. We are already living in an unstable "house of cards" that is vulnerable to indiscernable and unpredictable zephyrs of human presumption and hubris.
Especially with El Nino kicking in this summer and an expected 1/2 degree global Celsius increase average - with the center of the continents as the bread baskets to grow food. The 22 million people in Horn of Africa facing extreme food shortage will be nothing compared to what will happen in five years.
And yet we still import millions of people into places that we are now thinking will be unsustainable even with the original populations. It is amazing how people are incapable of putting two and two together to get four. They would rather virtue signal and Bury their heads in the sand.
All these people still seem locked into the idea that somehow industrial civilisation is viable on any level even as they're explaining how it's not. hahah. Humans are funny.
In 1980 we prospected for wind power with an anemometer connected to a PET computer. We found the wind completely impractical in the greater Seattle Area. We built a super insulated solar home in 1982 to reduce our energy needs. We were looking at $100/watt photovoltaic panels that did not pencil out. So we never did produce our own energy. In 2023, we could no longer legally cut down enough trees to get the sunshine for a solar home.
So what Mr. Michaux is saying is commodities are still king and as they become more scarce, it will creating hyper-inflation. I appreciate how he describes the problem in real terms. Usually this issue is only spoken theoretical which make it seem long off and far away.
Say your finger is in a house. Several hundred tons of material were dug out for the basement, and 100 tons of concrete were hauled in to make a foundation.
Say you have a gold ring on your finger. To mine enough gold for that ring results in three tons of mining waste --------------- What is mining waste to Sauron 🤨🤔😑
Jad Some mines have 2,000 ounces a ton! 2000 one ounce rings can be formed from one ton of ore in some mines. You need to follow geologists that actually go to mines and share history. Please don’t be ignorant and naive simply because you watched one video so now you’re “educated” on the matter. Yes there’s some large open pit gold mines that get very little gold per ton. So what? The point is the government has huge red tape and makes it super expensive to mine because ya know the environment. So technically the rules and laws mean large deposits are more economical in some ways simply because oh you have the mine permitted okay now you can mine it for a century. Tons of small mines could be opened but unless if you have millions for a reclamation bond most mines won’t be opened. One miner in silverton Colorado told me most mines won’t be reopened until a ww3 or after a Great Depression resets things. But some mines
I seem to remember all these doom merchants once saying that oil will run out soon and civilisation will come to an end. They proved to be completely wrong! I think this guy is the same.
I don't think he's suggesting that we'll run out, more that it will be become unaffordable for most people. That said, oil's down to $75, about where it was 20 years ago.
Simon shows how absolutely vital it is that we develop new materials and new methods that don't require rare (or increasingly rare) metals. Things like sodium-sulfur batteries and iron nitride batteries. The highest-quality copper "ore" is the electronic devices we currently toss into landfills. We need to develop better methods for copper recovery than we currently use, which is third-world scavengers burning the insulation off of scrap wiring. The thing about electrical storage is that we can start small and gradually add capacity - we don't need to find 200 TW-Hr immediately.
This was fantastic. Interestingly no mention of nuclear as a less mineral thirsty option to harden a green grid. But, still very good stuff. Especially the return to nature agricultural concepts.
None of these hippies being up nuclear because they KNOW it will immediately take up an insane amount of the load, basically making it worth switching back to fossil fuels for a portion of your energy.
Shit is getting real right now as far as the cost of energy, businesses are closing in mass all around the world partially because of the low returns that become negative returns because of the high cost of energy. Countries go nuclear or go broke in the future. Thank god some people are telling the truth.
I love this podcast! And not just because Rachel is beautiful. This interview with Simon Michaux was phenomenal, the best yet. We should all spread the word about what's really happening and what really needs to be done!
Too bad they don't really discuss the Aerosol Masking Effect. A 40% reduction of sulfur pollution from coal heats up Earth another 1 degree Celsius global average. oops!
I have been waiting for that permaculture world to come around my entire adult life-since the 90’s-and it never seems to arrive. It becomes harder to believe in the longer I have to wait.
The 'solutions' which Simon appears to suggest as being the final 2 paradigms are a bit contradictory in 2 ways. 1, the 4th paradigms requires totally centrally controlled society to work but that is unrealistic as no centralised system has prospered so human nature suggests that it will not in the future (unless we all want to live in North Korea) utopia where everyone agrees to get along and 'share and share alike' is not real. Also who will be in charge, Simon, Rachel, there's always somone who wants to rule the world!. 2, the 3rd paradigm looks alike self sufficiency, subsistence existence, which small scale use of resources is the least efficient way to use resources so in an attempt to maximise beneficial outcomes of resource usage a system of least efficiency is proposed!
The first sentence, which applies to the evolution of organisms undergoing starvation over millennia and not what climate change mitigation requires, tells me about the honesty and integrity of this channel (more accurately, the lack thereof). Thanks for not wasting my time.
Open Veins of Latin America is a good book on mining. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent is a book written by Uruguayan journalist, writer, and poet Eduardo Galeano, published in 1971, that consists of an analysis of the impact that European settlement, imperialism, and slavery have had in Latin America.
@@phillipknechtel9894 Oh so when you say "we" you don't mean the billions of people living on less than $5 a day and in slave wage conditions - and having be bombed and dumped on? You've never been to Pine Ridge reservation I guess? By "we" you don't mean the two-headed depleted uranium babies per chance? hahaha. I love that use of "We" as the Royal misplaced pronoun modifier - very quaint of you! Try googlescholaring "biological annihilation" and see if the we includes you or not. thanks
@46:40 - Mr. Michaux is also missing the obvious. If you go buy a whole salmon - that salmon can range from a few pounds (like 2-5lbs) or it could be some of the really large salmons (up to 20lbs). If it is just you and your wife - what are you going to do with all of that salmon? Not only that - but he did not have to skin the fish, take the guts out, get rid of the eggs (if it is a female), cut off the head, and divide up the meat and get rid of any bones. There is a lot of work just to prepare the fish. This doesn't take into account that the man or woman would have to drive to the fish market, look around, make a selection, get it wrapped up (if the person at the fish market would even do that), put it in their vehicle (smells like fish now), drive home, and cart the thing into the kitchen and IMMEDIATELY prepare it. After all, they probably do not have any way to store that big of a fish. So now, you have fish scales in your car, your house, the trash, and the trash stinks so you have to take it out. Naw. Me? I'll buy the tin. You have your salmon and the (I believe you said) Vietnamese know how to use the rest of the fish. They make fish gut stew, fry the skin, and use the bones to make things. Oh yeah - and they also like fish head soup. So both countries profit from doing this.
The world's largest copper mine, in the Ataconda Desert of Chile, has been degraded on average to 1/3 the original ore grade. Simon makes it out to be 1/40th. The giant new copper mine in Peru has an average head grade of 0.67%, almost 7X Simon's claimed 0.1%. These are examples of Simon's overstatements. He is apparently looking for the worst numbers in his "research", and probably doesn't even grasp the subtle details.
"A small country has fewer people. Though there are machines that can work ten to a hundred times faster than man, they are not needed. The people take death seriously and do not travel far. Though they have boats and carriages, no one uses them. Though they have armor and weapons, no one displays them. Men return to the knotting of rope in place of writing. Their food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple, their homes secure; They are happy in their ways. Though they live within sight of their neighbors, And crowing cocks and barking dogs are heard across the way, Yet they leave each other in peace while they grow old and die." - Lao Tzu, chapter 80 (Translated by Jane English, 1972)
This is a great interview that explains the down falls of so called renewable energy. It would seem plausable that nucleer power is the logical answer to the energy proplem.
As I watch from the comfort of my home with lights and computer on and I live as spartan as possible. I think this transition is not going to go smoothly
Great conversation. Derrick Jensen, co-author of "Bright Green Lies", would also be a good guest on these issues. Some of his positions are considered pretty radial but he has a lot of good points as this talk confirmes. Edit: I see Max Wilbert has already been on here, nice
This is even more so ==> Water Vapor (WV) is a greenhouse gas as potent as CO2 according to theory. On average there is 50 times as much WV in the atmosphere as CO2. The fact that it is non -persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much.
@@msimon6808 This is true and well known, so what are you trying to tell us? The relationship between water vapor emissions and removals (the higher the temperature, the more water evaporates, the more it rains) is quite robust, almost linear, and the tipping point is so far away that it doesn't matter. None of this is the case with CO2. The current half-life of 120 years for CO2 could well become millennia on a hot Earth, because the relationship between CO2 emission and depletion is *not* linear (but the relationship between CO2 and temperature is).
@@gviehmann Water vapor (WV) is a GHG equal to CO2 according to theory. CO2 at 400 ppm is a great danger. Water vapor at 20,000 ppm (for an equal GHG) is no problem. The fact that WV is non-persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much. Non-persistent ==> Definition - only heat trapped by CO2 molecules can evaporate water vapor molecules. The heat water vapor traps doesn't cause water evaporation.
@@msimon6808 I still don't understand what you are trying to say. You will find most of the 0.25% H2O in the atmosphere is in the troposphere, not at high altitudes where it would be much more effective. Nevertheless, there is a theoretical (Clausius-Clapeyron equation) and observed (e.g., doi:10.1038/nature1424) feedback loop between temperature and total water vapor content in the atmosphere. On a per unit weight basis, the radiative forcing of CO2 is estimated to be about 1000 times greater than the water vapor emitted from ground level by human activities. This means that the Global Warming Potential for water vapor is 0.001 (CO2=1). This is due to the fact that various processes are associated with the formation and effects of this water vapor, such as evaporation (cooling), condensation (warming), cloud formation (cooling), the greenhouse effect by water vapor molecules (warming), whose temperature effects partially cancel each other out.
Absolutely riveting information. I am so happy that Simon mentioned Jacques Fresco and the Venus Project. I just find it frustrating that most people are not even aware of all the effort and thinking that went on to try and give us a new way to live our lives on this beautiful planet. Thank you Simon for being so involved in finding solutions. We really do all need to get involved directly.
I liked listening to this, I liked the calm and rational approach. It did make me think about the potential of both geothermal and nuclear energy. I can’t imagine we’d let our society collapse as such without thoroughly exploring and developing those energy solutions.
Why do the policy makers not see the issue, WEALTH, they are all so wealthy that nothing of the reality of a life of less will ever touch THEIR, living years.
Time for a pilot project on a distinct community level. How about say, Long Island, or somewhere similar, where the entire community enrol for a net zero year? It would be educational, surely.
I would like to see these good people list references in the show notes. That way we could figure out where they’re getting their information from. Blind trust is a very precious commodity. Especially when listening to random Talking Heads on the Internet.
Do your own research. It's the only way to know for sure. 3 separate sources of information on each subject (minimum) You could start with the website where he works. But you know you didn't need me to tell you this did you 😊
Which is exactly the same reply I would give to alarmists. Blind trust in obvious agendas is not for me, so I base my thoughts on my own knowledge and apply logic to what I am hearing compared to what I am seeing and experiencing over 67 years.
@@johnware8850 the most expensive thing you can do is destroy the Earth’s ecosystem. That’s what we’re doing now. Abrupt climate change is causing insurance companies to cancel homeowners insurance along the coast. This abrupt climate change is directly affected by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to our burning of fossil fuels. If you think about it, EVERYTHING ELSE IS CHEAPER! Especially renewable energy. There is absolutely nothing expensive about renewable energy when you compare it to crop killing drought and flooding, massive destruction of real estate, and infrastructure due to hurricane and fires. People who want everything cheap are just not thinking hard enough.
Mining, like most major corporate enterprises, often sees major subsidies from governments when their products/services are a desired part of "economic policy". So, if mining companies cry "not profitable" with minerals/metals extraction, and these are considered "critical" (like often done for oil, gas, and coal in the past), then government will prop up the mining companies. Regardless of the costs to the public and the environment. And we have seen that in the past (the world is replete with examples of mining companies coming in and pillaging and area, creating all sorts of damage short- and long-term) and the goverment, the public and the environment suffers the costs while the mining companies get a free pass on cleanups. Our Superfund sites in the U.S. are prime example of these. So, with the extraordinary political (crrupt) bonds between government and major private industry, this mining of the earths resources, regardless of their location or how damaging the results, the mining WILL go on. So the damage will likely become exponentially greater if in fact resource depletion is occurring. We, especially the Global South and the environment, are screwed.
The rapid growth of power demand as countries develop is shocking. What about solutions in which we use much much less power without shrinking the economy. We need heating technologies which don't waste most of the heat, some kind of AI managed system which reduces consumption by turning lights on and off as cars travel roads at midnight...and that kind of thing, and a shift in culture. People in Europe want to walk around in T-shirts in their homes in winter. Why can't they cover up and save power ? We do that in countries where the cold is intermittent and having central heating is a real waste. It is actually better for health to sleep in a cold room. I've slept with weather below zero and the window open. A good duvet still leaves you sweating. I've cycled in the snow with naked legs... I mean good gracious... why all the comfort, its so unhealthy. As Simon said we need less ridiculous and wasteful supply chains. In South Africa we have daily blackouts. We have a backup battery for the wifi. Our computer batteries bridge the gap, our rechargeable lamps get us through the dark, and hot water bottles through the cold. We time our cooking carefully. Sometimes if we drop the ball we go to a neighbouring area where the lights are on and buy take out.
Without petroleum....the fact is, that large swaths of human beings will do without needed energy. The solution to date?.....resource wars. The American Deep State/CIA plan is working. Take from which we can take from.
@@sonnyeastham ok, the voice of logic ? but looky here.... there were lots of sumptions, which one got you ......thermodynmics I doubt its the enemy ????... the biggest hurdle is our own self indulgence n greed
An issue that is forgotten is that enginners that have ideas cannot get funding just to tinker about.There has to be a minimal viable product that investor's will buy into. Very frustrating for myself that would like to do just that when I am done with the classical startup model.
The US has stolen up to 5000 patents based on improving or inventing new energy sources under the guise of national security. Look it up. Something more sinister is happening behind the scenes.
Simon remained stable for two thirds of the conversation, but then spun off into paranoia and crazy theories that are outside his core expertise again. I enjoyed the less paranoid parts.
His understanding of the US/Europe war capacity and collaboration is way off. USA is burning through $5 billion a month to protect europe by paying for most of the war. Europe has been technically insolvent for a decade and would have being fiscally sunk if the US had not gone into debt to pay for over 70% of NATO for the last 70 years. Europe has basically been getting a free ride. The only European country arming itself at an accelerated rate is Poland. Germany and france have been burying their heads in the sand. Time to pay the piper.
He's talking about a country with no mining industry starting to mine resources for itself. Starting from scratch with no personnel or organised framework, laws around mining etc.,
Much of this was a trip down memory lane, for example, I think Dinorwig pumped strorage was being planned when I was at university. I studied geology, oceanography, and materials processing, and worked in mineral processing, including calculating economic feasability, and other calculations mentioned. That was before Simon Michaux was born, so this subject has been troubling me for well over 40 years, and each year the problem becomes more urgent and more intractable. If we had started the transition to a low carbon economy with associated changes in lifestyle 40 years ago, we would have more of a chance, but that has been prevented by fossil fuel interests and their client media and politicians. Simon is certainly right about all of us contributing to the problem, and I admit to being a total hypocrite, but we are all trapped in a system over which we have little control. I recognise the problem in Australia with its "she'll be right" culture. I I knew a little about resource wars, but I learned a lot of new and useful stuff from this. Re transport: I was born in a fairly sparsely populated area of south east England where the nearest bus stop was a mile away, so we walked or cycled almost everywhere. Even before I started school, I was used to walking anywhere within about a three mile radius of home. That would be unthinkable for most people today, but we haven't changed anatomically or physiologically so it is still possible. The structure of society proposed is similar to what I've always understood as political anarchism. So much food for thought. Thank you.
Dinorwic was built in the days of the centralised CEGB that could theoretically manage the whole electrical system as it was all theirs. Now everything is supposedly market driven and balkanised, but it isn't really as government always interferes eg with net zero. Dinorwic was built for peak lopping ie covering the power shortfall during short periods when demand exceeded generation eg believe it or not when a popular TV program had an advert break and everyone turned on their electric kettles at the same time or when everyone got home from work and fired up the electric cookers. Remember that back then there was only two or three TV channels in the UK and therefore this was easily capable of happening. The point is that it was never intended to supply for more than say an hour at a time if that. It was never intended to last for hours or days. And the water was returned to the top using the cheap excess power at night when less is used. But that assumes that cheap power will be available, which can't be counted on without dispatchable nuclear or fossil fuel power.
To make plastic you need oil, to make glass you need sand, to make cardboard you need trees. You need a lot of energy to make aluminium, a lot of aluminium plants have their own power stations. I wonder if the money spent on renewables would be better spend on can deposit schemes, giving people money to return aluminium cans. This would save a lot of energy, as in producing new aluminium.
We have already been using vast amounts of expensive metals in manufacturing. Why couldn't this be repurposed for the new green revolution? I understand as spoken of in the conversation with Simon that a lot of the mining and smelting is now done in China. We have nearly become addicted to Chinese manufacture because of their cheapness of labor and the Chinese unit of currency been regulated a bit lower in value than the American dollar. Consumers buy Chinese made stuff because there is not as much wealth now in Western countries with less manufacturing. We also have not built a recycling industry from old phones solar panels computers etc, to get rare metals returned into the system instead of mining more. Everything is forcing on us now with climate change and general pollution. One thing that did not seem to get mentioned in the talk with Simon was the possibility of having an intercontinental connected grid so when it is winter in one hemisphere the opposite hemisphere can make up the difference in wind or solar or even within a large continent make up for differences in local weather. Small island nations might have a problem unless they were integrated energy wise with an intercontinental network. There might be political problems preventing this or hard to get agreements.
Michaux is basically constructing much (if not most) of his argument out of one, arbitrary, assumption: according to him the world would need 28 days worth of total energy consumption in storage... well, maybe Finland where I believe he now works does.... That assumption is wrong by nearly an order of magnitude! The consensus is somewhere around 220 TWh of storage is needed... which is perfectly doable with either batteries (not the ones with nickel, lithium or cobalt, but rather chemistries out of exclusively widely abundant elements), or pumped storage (there are sites for perhaps as much as 100 times that amount of storage), or rather a combination of both: batteries for short-term storage (minutes to a few hours, perhaps one day), and pumped-hydro for middle- to long-term storage (days to weeks, even a couple of months). Any other economic energy storage methods will be icing on the cake. As he starts from a demonstrably false premise, his conclusions are naturally erroneous. He is like those "experts" who predicted that EVs would account to less than 10% of automobile sales by... 2040!!! I recommend reading Tesla's Master Plan Part 3, as well as Rethinkx' Energy Report. Both sources have an outstanding record at predicting the trends of this unrolling energy transition!
@@liamhickey359 Is this affirmation coming from an American to a Swiss? That would be the ultimate irony! Yes, I would agree with you, public transport are in most cases much preferable to individual motoring. I use our superb public transportation network every day of the week, and my car basically only on weekends and on vacations. In Switzerland, we can go form the tiniest of towns to anywhere else, in great comfort and safety, and with at least an hourly connection... if not 2, 3 or even 4 times per hour! BUT, Switzerland is an exception. Many European countries have public transportation that are notoriously lacking... and North America basically has none... save for some Greyhound buses... outside a few of its largest cities. So, whether a good or bad idea, mass motoring will stay with us for a few more decades. And, during this time, EVs are the "least bad" idea to clean up the atmosphere that we all breathe! Unless you have a genius proposal... which your comment is surprisingly lacking?! I personally believe that ICE cars will be largely replaced, at least in urban areas, by on-demand autonomous vehicles. An intermediary solution between individual motoring and public transport, which is 5-10x cheaper than the former, and much more flexible than the latter... and which could reduce by 75% the number of vehicles on the streets of cities, and their air pollution by close to 100%! It's no science-fiction... it's starting! So, have I grown a brain since my last comment? 😉
No. Cars ,EVs etc are a disaster. I've seen car use explode in the last 30 years where I'm at. At least half the adult population has a car. The congestion, the people digging up their front gardens to turn them into car parks, the bad urban planning, , ruined cities , the traffic ruined cities ,towns and the countryside. They are triumph of marketing and little else. I used to drive myself. Gave it up not out of a conscious trying to save the planet piety. Just happened to be between cars and never got around to buying another one. Do not miss them at all Dont miss the expense and up keep. Dont miss the traffic jams and trying to park them. Have shed that sense of detachment they inculcate. Not having a car made me realise consumerism is almost a religion, something ,you become so unthinkingly accepting of . Cars are a prime example of how consumer culture can so easily brain washus into certain types of " norms" that we would far better off without. The same thing has happened with plastics. An awful lot of people when they find out I dont drive, give me this almost pitying look of incomprehension. It's kind of funny when you think about it.
@@liamhickey359 Two of my four adult sons don’t drive. Not by choice, but because they are visually impaired. They suffer from the lack of independence that their two brothers have, and can’t wait for autonomous cars to become a reality. I understand and respect your choice. But it is obviously not the one of the vast majority! But to sole things, the chances of convincing that majority to your way of living are very precisely ZERO. So, we have to find another solution, and AUTONOMOUS EVs are that solution… and it is coming… very fast! Where do you live, may I ask! Certainly not in a US suburbia, where one dies without a car!
@@st-ex8506 sorry but your wrong about cars.. They are the reason why amercan style suburban sprawl is possible. A total waste of land , resources, money and time. It is a manifestation of the effect cheap oil has had on advanced economies for the last 70 years. Can well understand why people dont want the party to stop. But I suspect it may do and of it's own accord sooner or later. I'm not advocating people go around on bicycles or that it is the future. We are immersed in a culture that doesnt encourage people to question how all this affluence is logistically possible into the future. I dont want to go back to old days whatever they happened to be. Neither by the same token do I look to the future with any optimism to a planet dominated by human civilisation. Tara mines: a place not far from where I live. A zinc and lead mine. 400 acre tailings dam full of toxic mud that cant be allowed to dry out. Apparently it was the second largest dam of it's kind in the world. Theres probaly bigger ones now.Mining is a filthy business. Electric vehicles are going to make this problem far worse. It's not " saving" the planet.Meanwhile most people are more worried about finding a parking space outside a Walmart. That about as environmental as it gets for them.
I would say society has already split into the cornicopians, vikings, and preppers but each of these groups thinks they are arcadians in one way or another...
@35:11 - Spinning Flywheel. Most of the larger generators use a spinning flywheel NOT because it just "spins and spins". Remember friction? Yeah. Flywheels do slow down and stop. The reason they use spinning flywheels is because if the power goes out - the flywheel keeps the electricity flowing for long enough so the GAS powered generator can take over. This is usually somewhere around five minutes maximum. Hopefully Mr. Michaux will not suggest we just use a flywheel to charge batteries and to keep them going indefinitely. Won't work. Doesn't happen.
He knows a flywheel is a very temporary way to produce power. Obviously. Same for heating sand. Both use power to make power but Chemical battery is a far better option.
I love this realist. I’ve intuitively understood this problem for 10 plus years which has ruined my life. We are heading where we are heading and famines and war are the future we will have.
1:19:10 I loved the transition paradigms described as "Cornucopia, Pirates, Preppers, and Arcadians" (of which I assume that the latter refers to people striving for a pastoral Utopia). However, keep in mind that there will also be "scavengers", i.e. the hunter-gatherer remnants of people in failed state regions, which have either failed politically or economically or due to some other crisis, possibly including running out of fossil fuels without any backup/transition system in place. These people will fill the traditional role of the barbarian outsiders, picking away at the edges of remaining pockets of civilization, somewhat similar to the Pirates, but with much less organization and reach. One of the most important issues for any transition is the maintenance of supply chains. High tech items (computers, mobile phones, network routers etc.) require hundreds of different components, each of which has a complex supply chain of many different steps where materials are mined, processed, refined, converted into parts, used as inputs for other parts, and eventually assembled into a final product. Each of these steps requires transportation (usually by sea) between facilities which also require factory machinery sourced from other countries, a stable workforce and economy, never mind the reliable energy supply system. In the case of electronics, we mostly rely on a very complex tapestry of trade and processing of components in many different South-East Asian countries. This is at risk because of both increased shipping costs (if fuel prices rise or fuel is scarce) and politicial issues. Europe and the USA have realized that they are vulnerable in this respect, and are trying to re-shore SOME of that manufacturing capacity, but it will be very hard (and expensive) to try replicate the entire supply chain process in other regions. That is, prices for electronics are likely to be much higher in future. However, if the Pirates start making raids ANYWHERE, shipping supply chains are at risk of breaking down much faster. The Cornucopians (mostly USA) might intervene to try stop Pirate thefts and incursions, but might not feel any need to do so if they have setup a replacement system already. In this scenario, complex products like computers will not be expensive anymore, they will simply not be available (outside the USA and possibly Europe). Roll this forward for 10-15 years, when all the old gear dies after being heavily used, and you can assume that most of Africa, Russia, and many other poorer parts of Asia and the Middle East will have neither computers, phones, nor internet anymore. They will rapidly be forced into regressive industrialization, ie. revert to pre-1980's level technology. Many will rapidly collapse further into Amish-level technology and social patterns, at least among the survivors. I would imagine that the process would involve a lot of chaos, poverty, and probably civil wars; and remember that communication technologies will be among the first to die. It's hard to see green-tech energy working in that scenario; it's much more likely that coal power would make a come-back, at least in those regions that cannot maintain their trading networks in the face of Pirate (and later Scavenger) incursions.
Agree with everything except the Organic farming issues. With 8 billion souls on this planet, I am not convinced that permaculture is viable. Sri Lanka is an example of what happens when governments make bad farming policy. China, unintentionally, is doing their best to destroy their population and India's birth rate is falling but their population is huge. If things turn nasty and another famine hits, they will be in trouble. Africa, who knows?
My challenge to the "green transition" is to ask people to show me a single man-made item (including food) that was not absolutely dependent on the availability of fossil fuels or their derivatives in thevprocess of manufacturing.
And what will that prove. You can smelt bauxite into Aluminium using hydropower Norway using fossil fuels to transport it. The key is to use less fossil fuels, which engineers seem to be quite good at.
@@ambassadorfromreality1125 You need carbon anodes which are made from a particular kind of graphite which comes from coal. Some day it will be possible, but that day is a few decades in the future...if we all work really hard to make it happen.
Wow Rachel! Another corking interview! There were so many ideas and points that detonated in my consciousness whilst listening to this, that my brain is a bit of a wasteland at the moment, but it's really opened my eyes. Thank you so much for helping me understand our predicament (though, sometimes, I kinda wish I was more akin to the people around me who seem quite able to go about their lives without having the burden of this knowledge weigh them down!).
Great point on recycling and difficulty collecting. People don't turn in their phones because data is not reliably transferred from old device to new, so people keep their old phone. Better service would help solve recycling collections.
Well, I always understood, that 'build back better' means back to carefully go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle. First by simply closing down the electrical grid for private users after sundown, because the nightime-produced wind or battery-stored electricity needs to go for 100% to industry glass-ovens and metal smelts, (because those can not be cooled down over night and those being the only fully recycleable materials).
@@michah321 nor do I, but having grown up in an area that was first overrun by Hitler and then the Soviets, I very well know politics will be seen after the moment an extremist government, be it left or right, has caught the majority of votes. Then it will be called 'a necessity', be it for 'the community' or 'the nation', and the first protesters will be sent onto work-houses or labour-camps, whatever name they will go by, and if the scare is not strong enough, the police and the army will have the allowance to round up and shoot rioteers. I don't see any people rioting at that point. Just look at the actual polls, and tell me, 'politics' will be a hindrance. Bert Brecht was right: 'The most stoopid calfs vote for their own butchers.'
Fabulous upload! As an ex(retired) futurist I was constantly battling, possible doesn't mean needing and doing new technologies! Yes to no/less polluting, even now ( or yesterday) but with common sense. Pleased this uploading is trying to convey this! Please keep doing this and thank you.
I appreciate Dr Michaux for "discovering" the impending mineral shortages and exorbitant costs, something like a year ago for me. And I appreciate him for participating in interviews to keep it in the public view as an unsolved problem for the present ill-conceived wind-and-solar-only approach. But I have personally calculated that even a week's battery buffer for such an impossible-to-reasonably attain system would cost more than an equivalent nuclear power system, not needing any buffer, any solar, any wind or the vast waste of land they entail. So I find it hard to understand why his "Plan B" is not based on energy from existing nuclear power plant designs, and in the future on more advanced molten salt cooled reactor designs, needing no water supplies nor vast pools of operators to man them. As one of your European advanced reactor design companies says "energy equals prosperity". The bleak future you describe will only befall those not smart enough to use the safest and cleanest of all power sources for energy supply. Certainly France and, in the future, Poland are not going to try the non-nuclear approach and will more likely prosper with adequate energy. Finland also seems to be well on the way to nuclear prosperity and energy independence. Let them be examples. And yes, it will take many years to construct enough nuclear plants, but probably not longer than opening all those mines around the world and trying to gain mineral and manufacturing independence in the process. There is no need for international conflict over energy when it can all be made at home from readily available Uranium and Thorium.
The real key to energy Independence is natural uranium reactors that sidestep the proliferation problems of enriched uranium and thorium. My calculation is that the compact molten salt reactor may be as much as 50 times cheaper than existing types
I have looked at Simons work from the perspective of my industry (rail) where I have some knowledge, and while it's a great piece of work that raises some fair challenges, I found it a bit simplistic on the detail to be honest. The devil is in the detail. Each sector is a whole paper in of itself really, or we cannot capture the whole picture effectively. I'd like to see Simon collaborate with experts in each sector to develop his ideas further and get them out of a minerals silo. I agree with the principle of starting from a baseline of now rather than including aspirational technologies too early. I look forward to a more detailed and collaborative future incarnation. In terms of supporting an intermittent grid, are we talking about installing power walls in all buildings and community storage blocks? It sounds like a great idea in principle and would seem resilient in terms of energy, but could it suffer from the same resourcing limitations? What are the mineral requirements for this? I like Daniel Schmachtenberger's principle: The solution to all of the problems is all of the solutions. This is why I feel that, in focusing on emphasising the limitations of existing wind and solar, Simon may be missing some detail on the advances in power returns of new developments coming online today, and those that started producing a decade ago upon which much of the historical data will be based. Technology is moving fast, so I appreciate it's hard for one person or a small team to keep up with it all. There is potentially much that is omitted from the report that could reasonably be included. I suggest considering a pathway approach so that policy makers that are presented with the work can consider the different alternatives available to them and make fair comparisons on pathway options they might be able to take. Perhaps the way to go is building a dynamic model with all the data in there so they can try patching different options into their own models. This might help translate it for different countries/communities that may have differing resource availability. Power BI would do that easy enough once the data is in.
You are right when you quote “all of the solutions “ and you are double right when you recognise that the data people refer to is often decades out of date.
Talking about cobalt, at least it can be recycled if used in batteries, however the largest user of cobalt is in the refinement of petrol, that's a waste.
Climate mitigation’s mineral bottleneck has been known for more than a decade, and the implications were so disturbing that a whole new paradigm for decarbonization was imagined by a grassroots movement that ultimately led to some of the most important industrial policy in history. Before I dive into a few of the details which are not widely known, let me address something about the Russo-Ukraine war. Putin wrote a manifesto in the summer of 2021 in which he declared that Ukraine was not a real country, and Ukrainians are basically just Russians who have been ‘brainwashed’ by the West. The implications of this are profound and affect all of Europe as Russia’s dictator has set his sights on territorial aggression and mass murder. So the conflict for Ukrainians is about nothing less than survival. For Europe, Russia no longer respects territorial integrity, and it is widely understood that many other nations, including Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Sweden, Romania, Moldova, etc. are now threatened. Russia even violated Sweden’s airspace with nuclear-armed aircraft in March 2022. Putin has set his country on the path of a long war of continental conquest. The West’s survival, and probably that of humanity, depends upon standing up to this maniac as he employs both conventional and unconventional techniques to undermine Western solidarity. A failure to adequately confront this threat will invite territorial incursions across the globe and the chaos that accompanies it. Multiple theories have been suggested regarding the Nord Stream sabotage, and speculation can concoct motives for several state actors. The most compelling evidence to date points directly to Russia as the culprit as a ‘rescue ship’ with a submersible was spotted by Denmark in the vicinity of the sabotage just a few days before. Another pipeline was sabotaged between Finland and Estonia, and again Russia is the prime suspect. Climate mitigation is the greatest technical challenge that civilization has ever faced, and we have merely decades to address it. Thankfully we have a roadmap for rapid decarbonization, which should also greatly reduce the incidence of global poverty. The United States is now committed to developing a series of technologies that are both scalable and relevant for the rest of the planet. Central to this plan are advanced fission reactors, which have incredible untapped economic potential, combined with a sustainable industry based on the Hydrogen Economy. We are just now seeing the very beginning of the development of regional ‘hydrogen hubs’ which will help us rapidly achieve an economy of scale. Several other technologies in development related to fuel cell membranes and solid state storage have the potential to greatly expand its usefulness. The key to meeting our climate goals lies in the rate at which we can grow the supply of sustainable power. This is dependent upon very cheap energy, which will not only accelerate growth, it will provide the 2-3x increase in global energy required for lifting billions out of poverty. With an advanced fuel cycle, nuclear fission can provide a Western European quality of life for 8-10 billion people indefinitely. It also looks probable that we will have several economically viable nuclear fusion reactor types within twenty years. In the meantime, the idea of building a dedicated solar grid in a region of high insolation for H2 production is a good idea, and it will likely see realization in the Southwestern US, Africa, and Australia. These grids could also supply reliable regional power as a byproduct of its production as massive storage is an inherent component of the system. While sustainable carbon-neutral fuels should eventually prove economically viable, carbon-free energy carriers like H2 and ammonia will dominate. Ammonia is critical to modern industrial agriculture, but it is also a fuel, and will probably find a use in maritime, at least until fission becomes more widespread in sea propulsion. Aircraft will use carbon-neutral fuels and H2. Under US Democratic leadership, multiple bills were passed in 2021 which include provisions for the development and deployment of the technologies that will allow us to rapidly grow the sustainable economy over the coming decades. So, while the dominant renewable paradigm awkwardly embraces economic contraction, the only real hope for success is to greatly expand sustainable energy use by making it cheaper and more readily available.
Are you familiar with the compact molten salt reactor that burns natural uranium. My calculation show that it could be 50 times cheaper than typical reactors. would you agree?
@@mikefallwell1301 There is a world-wide effort underway to develop a new generation of advanced high temperature nuclear reactors that are far more scalable than the conventional light water plants in use today. The flip side of scalability includes cost, safety, annd flexibility. Capital costs for the nuclear island should begin around $3/watt at scale, but as the industrial system, and economy as a whole, transition to advanced nuclear, costs will plummet. Molten salt reactors represent, whether with liquid or solid fuel, a very promising pathway, and several variations are being pursued including high efficiency converters, thermal iso-breeders, and fast spectrum machines that, once started, primarily consume U238 or Th232. The hydrogen economy can provide an opportunity for accelerating deployment of this technology, which of course would lead to massive benefits throughout industry. Around a century ago, fossils went through a brief period of peak productivity, and advanced nuclear has the economic potential to exceed and sustain that peak by over an order of magnitude indefinitely. Such a development has profound implications for climate mitigation and the global economy, yet political instability risks derailing the current trajectory putting us all in jeopardy.
@cbarcus so you're saying you've never even heard of the compact molten salt reactor and don't see the advantage of natural uranium and don't care about proliferation and three dollars a watt is is good enough
@@mikefallwell1301 Did you not understand what I wrote? I have been advocating for the pursuit of MSRs since 2011. U238 is natural uranium and Th232 is natural thorium. MSRs were developed at Oak Ridge NL back in the 1960s, which culminated with a 7 MW demonstration reactor, but unfortunately the program was abandoned in the early 1970s. A NASA engineer named Kirk Sorensen had been recommended a book called ‘Fluid Fueled Reactors’, and that led to him becoming an MSR evangelist, which soon led to a wider movement in the 2000s. Later, a grass-roots movement within the technical community formed to push for a nuclear Renaissance based around advanced fission reactor concepts appropriate for climate mitigation. While power plant costs are expected to begin around $3/watt, below $1/watt becomes probable as the economy transitions to advanced nuclear throughout industry. Very low costs will likely be required for carbon capture to be practical at the scale of billions of tons per year. The current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is above 415 ppm. ‘CO2 levels are now comparable to an ancient climate event known as the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 ppm. During that time, sea levels were between five and 25 meters (16 and 82 feet) higher than today, high enough to drown many of the world’s largest cities. Temperatures then averaged 7.7 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than in pre-industrial times, and studies indicate that large forests occupied today’s Arctic tundra.’ - Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Great interview. The final part with the 4 scenarios is similar to Holmgren's FUTURE SCENARIOS. In my opinion our western species will split and all four scenarios will be populated. Local governments (particularly rural shires) will lead the preper societies. Basically the essentials for the future are water, food, shelter and community. We have examples of how we can live succesfully in our recent past. Local councils or entrepreneurs need to find land and encourage simpler living societies. The high rise energy dependant cities will fail.
@@timothyrussell4445 It won't be a choice. Resources will run out (they are finite!) and our economic system (credit/growth) is too entrenched and self interested to react in time. Our policy makers are puppets of that economic system so are not doing anything. This is happening now. We have enjoyed the best of what our unsustainable civilisation can offer. People are intrinsically selfish and greedy. It's downhill from here. Just as the past was a very different place, so will be the future.
Yes, I pretty much agree. I do think though that humanity really can get its act together if the political conditions are right. At the moment we're subsumed in populist nonsense which people are buying into even though it's not in their interests, and global problems call for global solutions. I think we're smart enough, but we're also stupid enough not to, and time is running out. @@davidpalk5010
@@mohd.saifullahmajid6029 They always were, but now our civilisation is totally dependednt on highly vulnerable systems such as the power grid and the internet, and the finite mineral resources which make them possible, and those mineral resources are dependent upon the vulnerable systems. Also, global systems are more vulnerable than territorial or local ones, as there is less compartmentalisation or isolation to provide protections. The panenmic is a perfect example of this. Problems which once would have been locally contained are now global. The Ukranian war is another example. Restricted gas and grain supplies from one region will have economic and political effects right around the world.
Renewable or not is utterly irrelevant. Our energy goals should be security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. Renewable is nothing but a misleading buzzword like all natural or chemical free. It means nothing.
Germany may be looking into viable, scalable geothermal. It can act as a base load. Please have experts and innovators in this industry on your show. A Canadian company called Eavor has a potential game changer in this industry. Way more energy in geothermal than our civilization needs for the foreseeable future.
Famine, hardship, violence and death? Definitely more coming our way. Extinction? How can you be so sure? Humans are very resourceful and ingenious but usually only when we are forced to be, which we will. Don't give up on us.
I am from Kenya, and this conversation is incredibly depressing. If the Western world should be preparing to make do with much less, that means that those of us who live in the greater part of the world that is barely making it as it is will be reduced to a wasteland. Most of Africa is barely even out of the tribal warfare stage of evolution! I can guarantee you that the first instinct will be to band back into tribes and go into overdrive raiding mode! The things we still fight over to the death in Africa still have to do with basic resources such as water, livestock, and agricultural land. With our burgeoning populations, it is easy to see how all hell could break loose if all the things you predict come true world-wide. One telling indication is going on right now. As the price of fuel and gas, for cooking, has risen drastically within the last few years, the forests are disappearing even faster than before because the vast majority of people still use firewood just to cook their food. In the cities, the cheapest domestic fuel is charcoal, which is made from hardwoods. The advent of natural gas actually was a source of hope for the environment in Africa because it began to reduce the dependence on firewood for domestic food preparation. You can bet your bottom dollar that the wealthy elites of Africa will not stand for a reduction in their high consumption lifestyles. They will whip up the fear of deprivation in members of their own tribes to raid the resources from other tribes and, by extension, from neighboring countries if need be. Also, the poor people, who are the majority, will not let their children starve while the gameparks are teeming with wildlife. I can see animals being hunted to extinction by people who are just looking to survive. Poaching is already a big problem with trophy animals like rhinos and elephants. No one will be able to stop hungry people from killing the animals for food. I really fear for us in Africa. If the problem had been addressed maybe 20 years ago, maybe a more peaceful transition would have been possible. If the breakdown and unavoidable simplification happens in a short span of time, fear, not rational altruism, and "working together" will rule the day.
I am sorry man for the situation on Kenya. Hang on, situation can only get better there. Not the case for west, you should see how we live here it's disgusting how new graduates expect to have everything just because of their piece of paper worth 3 years: they get graduates, and they PRETEND to have a chance to prove themself. They don't accept any job that is lower thant what THEY THINK they deserve. They want an high payed job, of high responsibility and decision-making power, but when it comes to being accountable for their responsibilities and decisions they HIDE behind the system, finding footholds thanks to their study. And thats all what they are using their study for, nothing else. Whoever study doesnt look for solution, is looking for more money.
We have too much commodity, we don't even want to mine natural resources because we think we can have only more, If we maintain this standard of living, we will neither be able to help the rest of the world progress nor support ourselves.
I agree with your fear, BUT in fact Africa is theoretically wonderful place. Africa has a lot of sun and deserts to put solar panels. Since solar panels are cheap, and inverters could be made cheap as well, Africa could get energy almost at zero costs. If the surplus energy is used to make hydrogen (or hydrogen derived products like methanol, ammonia, etc.) then those products can be used for making electricity at times where there is no sun. In addition Africa can sell the hydrogen products to Europe and others. This scenario is starting already as Morocco is preparing to sell electricity to the UK.
As a guy who worked in Africa back in the days of the British Empire. What this man is saying is dead right, and we wanted to do whatever we could to help the African people. They need us, and we need what Africa can produce.
I also grew up in the empire - the claim that we "wanted to help" is at best descriptive of behaviour that is better described as a misplaced belief in the "white man's burden". My parents were Quakers - the chocolate bankers - the most skilled disingenuous self-delusionists - by which I mean experts in telling some it's raining while urinating in their back pocket @@stanyeaman4824
Africa should use her Gas. West cannot build a Green Grid there before building one for ourselves.
Gas is better than coal.
Africa could cover the landfills with .5 of as meter of dirt. Habitat for methane eating bacteria
Almost free to do that
When my parents saw trouble on the horizon they didn't continue to live beyond their means. They prepared for tighter times. They made do with what they had, they did away with the excesses, they grew more food, they foraged more, the borrowed, repaired, loaned and bought only what we needed. They explained to us why we were tightening belts and our parents, neighbours, our communities included us and our environment in these activities. We all supported each other we, got on our bikes and we made things more sustainable. We sowed solidarity and we reaped hope.
At this point in time, it's madness that everyone isn't living 😒 . 😮 the same way as your parents. Now, wealth has altered society. 😢
Excellent, salutations!
Lucky you, even if you weren't entirely happy with that :)
I had a similar experience.
Some cultures lived that permanently. Its all they knew.
I work too much for all of that....
I love this guy he's a realist about our situation but also a problem solver. Too many doomers and too much hopium out there. Good to get some middle ground.
We are making bad decisions as individuals because we are completely disconnected from the resources we consume.
millions of year of natural selection has evolved us to consume and crave more because prior to agricultural systems humans lived surviving each day snagging a meal as if it may be the last one we eat for a long time.............we do that with food and resources now since they are plentiful but we have no evolved system to manage that in our evolutionary hardwiring....................we are clever apes........but not wise ones.
I love that you ask “what does that mean?”. Your podcast becomes more accessible and understandable. Great work, thanks 😊
Energy storage for renewables.
If the UK goes renewable, then we will need 18,000 gwh of backup energy, to allow for unreliable renewables (probably pumped storage systems). But at present we only have 10 gwh (the Dinorwig plant). .
But remember that Dinorwig was the most expensive power station in the world - because the Greeneys insisted it was built INSUDE a mountain. We need to cost in that missing 17,990 gwh of backup (which will cost £trillions), before saying renewables are cheap. And these backup storage systems will take decades to build. And where will we put them??
And if we run out of electricity and heating during a cold winter anticyclone, there will be no food, water, sew.erage, petrol, transport etc. So we will probably loose hundreds of thousands of people, just in one winter. And we will have ten or twenty of those devastating winters, before these backup systems are completed.
CO2 not primary feedback agent.
Please see my peer review paper on ice ages.
This demonstrates that the primary feedback aged controlling ice ages, is dust on Arctic ice sheets, lowering their albedo.
Strangely, this dust is caused by LOW CO2, which causes CO2 deserts, and therefore lots of dust. Thus it is LOW CO2 that causes interglacial warming.
Modulation of ice ages by dust and albedo.
I cannot post links, but it is:
sciencedirect dot com S1674987116300305
Ralph
after he answerd i still didnt grasp what he was talking about
Why do critics of battery storage for renewable energy confuse Lithium evaporation salt ponds with subsurface mining.
Lithium (Salt) is easily accessible and abundant on the Earths surface.
Oil extraction and coal mining and refining is historically far more destructive to the planet and less efficient than mineral mining for battery storage.
The fossil fuel industry is definitely using extreme and expensive methods to extract oil from under the sea that is not economically sustainable
"information rich" really is an understatement. I went through the almost 1000 pages report, Prof. Michaux published; it's all 100% worked out, but it takes a PhD in Physics to grasp the scale of all of it (which I happen to hold). I AM really impressed by the depth of his work, and as much as I dislike the conclusion, it's absolutely undeniable. Also aout calculating the storage capacity: that actually IS my job, and it all comes out at roughly the same value, you NEED 1/5 of your annual consumption, to cover the shortfall of January to make it to spring (I calculate for Germany, in Finland it's worse). 28 days of storage capacity indeed is too little. I come out at 70 days, no matter how I try to tweak the numbers. And including surge power, not only energy makes everything even more complicated. Feasable, but we are way too late to produce and install all the hardware. I cooperate with a local energy supply company. They see no way, to install, what would be required soon enough. The Hirsch report of 2005 was right: we are way too late, to build a live-boat before the Titanics upper deck meets the water line....
This is complete garbage, and illustrative of why these talking heads wind up so far out in left field. Its a function of garbage in, garbage out. One obviously does NOT need 1/5 of total annual consumption to bridge winter. That is just plainly absurd. We already have years worth of statistics from large-state geographies... particularly Texas and California, from which ACTUAL winter renewables generation and consumption can be compared.
Same thing with storage requirements... nobody is contemplating having 70 days of storage, that's just stupid. When you make calculations that ignore economics, you wind up with nonsense and that is precisely what has happened in your "70 days" number.
There is a balance between renewables generation, energy storage, and base-load generation. The three work off of each other. The more you have one entity, the less you need of the others. There is a basic cost and pollution function to these entities. Renewables are the absolute lowest-cost, then energy-storage, and base-load is the highest cost. What you wind up with is essentially an average of 100% generation from renewables across winter, one week's worth of storage, and no base-load. OR something like 80% generation from renewables, one weeks' worth of storage, and 20% worth of base-load. For example.
it turns out that energy storage, in particular, is far far less expensive than simply its build cost because it does more than just provide energy storage. A lot more. Adding energy storage directly de-congests transmission lines and removes the cost of having to build more in many locales, and it completely removes the need for peaker plants, allowing peaker plants to be decomissioned. For example.
The thing people don't understand about winter is that renewables generation across large geographical areas is actually quite deterministic. So even someone get weeks of storms where they live, that usually is NOT true across an entire state, or an entire region. So over-building renewables for average winter operation actually does work despite the storms as long as there is enough energy storage as a buffer and enough base-load to reduce the amount of energy storage required.
Much of that base-load capability already exists, in fact, and doesn't have to be built. With appropriate energy storage, the base-load that remains can run at 100% sans nominal fossil fuel maintenance regimes (which is usually about 50% of the plants lifetime in maintenance).
It does not require a PhD in Physics to work out any of this. It does not require any physics at all. Just a basic understanding of energy, electricity, storage, and LCOE.
Would you be kind to point out some reports that back the thesis and synthesis of Professor Michaux? I am interested to see the depth of the predicament the humanity is staring at blindly.
I did skim through the same synthesis produced by the Professor, but my non-physical mind could not comprehend the logos.
I predict that in less than the next 15 years wind turbines and solar panels will become obsolete. At that point landfills will be overrun with these behemoths and create a greater environmental disaster than what we have today.
Sure sure another theory
Things get even more tricky when involving ramping up/down the power generation 😅
Every minute of this interview was riveting and enlightening for me. Please invite him back again soon.
Thank you for the ongoing education, Rachel. Your podcasts are among the finest on TH-cam.
Energy storage for renewables.
If the UK goes renewable, then we will need 18,000 gwh of backup energy, to allow for unreliable renewables (probably pumped storage systems). But at present we only have 10 gwh (the Dinorwig plant). .
But remember that Dinorwig was the most expensive power station in the world - because the Greeneys insisted it was built INSUDE a mountain. We need to cost in that missing 17,990 gwh of backup (which will cost £trillions), before saying renewables are cheap. And these backup storage systems will take decades to build. And where will we put them??
And if we run out of electricity and heating during a cold winter anticyclone, there will be no food, water, sew.erage, petrol, transport etc. So we will probably loose hundreds of thousands of people, just in one winter. And we will have ten or twenty of those devastating winters, before these backup systems are completed.
CO2 not primary feedback agent.
Please see my peer review paper on ice ages.
This demonstrates that the primary feedback aged controlling ice ages, is dust on Arctic ice sheets, lowering their albedo.
Strangely, this dust is caused by LOW CO2, which causes CO2 deserts, and therefore lots of dust. Thus it is LOW CO2 that causes interglacial warming.
Modulation of ice ages by dust and albedo.
I cannot post links, but it is:
sciencedirect dot com S1674987116300305
Ralph
Do you know?
Simens - maker of wind mills lost money the last 4 quarters, most recently 2 billion. Faulty turbines(?) on their wind mills.
(Reported on Nobody Special Finance) last week. 😮😂
@@kirstinstrand6292Actually the probability is that the wind turbines are too big. Too tall, with a too large propeller.
@@wheel-man5319 out of balance, wishing for greater momentum? Thx!
Re: Total BS. 40:00 Re: EV & Mass Storage Battery Recycling. Sorry, but not mentioning that these sources are 95+% recyclable, plus that those materials are considered “pure,” requiring very little processing aside from their mechanical separation from their containers, plus the fact that their unexpected longevity indicates there will be another 5-10 years before they will be available in usable quantities, plus battery technologies’ advancement at Wright’s Law speeds will extend those timeframes significantly, belies his competencies to comment on this & other matters being discussed. Sure, he knows a lot (as do many of us), but his discourse raises questions as to his ability (or inclination) to synthesize them into other than the ever attractive (& easy) doom & gloom scenarios (his tee logo should’ve clued me). Having heard nothing actually usable here, I’m having none of it & regret having had taken the time to put up with it.
I like this host. She is sharp and knows her stuff, but she is not afraid to ask questions when she doesn't know something Simon talks about. Most hosts pretend and just nod their head when they haven got a clue. So she digs in and gets the answers in lay terms which is good for us. And as for Simon, the guy is a genius, but a practical one, who actually knows how to add up. It's a crying shame (but not surprising) that all the academics in the world couldn't do some simple math and realise we don't have the minerals to do the net zero bullshit. I have seen many of Simons presentations and some of them are staggering. To think it will take 7100 years to mine the vanadium we need for storage batteries, and 9900 years to mine the Lithium for EV batteries is an eye opener.
It is a very important and sobering contribution that Prof Michaux and the team at the Finnish Geological Survey make in their 1000 pages report. We need more modelling like that. Sure, there may be some assumptions that need to be tested such as the buffer amount. Is it 6 hours (highly unlikely), 48 hours (unlikely), 28 days (likely, especially in northern hemisphere contexts), or 2 months?
It is difficult to believe that the USA, Australia, Europe and to a lesser extent, China, have hitched their energy bandwagons to a “renewable” energy future as opposed to a sustainable energy future WITHOUT detailed modelling of this alternative energy system.
Here in Australia we have just begun to deal with what to do with “dead” Solar panels which are failing, sometimes as early as 8 to 10 years after installation. The ones that aren’t “dead” but are no longer at full efficiency we are exporting to Africa so they can have a second life. What happens to them after that? Landfill? We have been doing the same thing to Africa with our discarded clothing, much of which ends up in African dumps or rivers and eventually the ocean.
There is no such place as “somewhere else” and it is high time we realised that.
All proposed energy system solutions ought to be subject to statutory Life Cycle Assessments using the relevant International Standards Organization Guidelines. Manufacturers should also have to state the the Eneregy Return On Energy Invested (EROI or EROEI) using a new international standard developed for that purpose. Such assessments need to factor in the environmental, social and economic costs of all energy systems from the beginning with mineral and resource extraction to the disposal/recycling.
The problem with much of the current discourse around the energy transition is that it very poorly informed and is driven, in part, by business and vested interests. It takes no account of earth sysytems science and will actually contribute additional greenhouse gases in the short to medium term (10 to 20 years). It will help to drive the global Superorganism further over the nine global planetary boundaries.
Here in Australia, the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, has estimated that the electricity high voltage transmission grid will have to be duplicated to deal with the disparate locations of the diffuse “renewable” electricity generating sources (read wind, solar and pumped storage). That figure mean an extra 10,000kms of high voltage transmission line for Australia. It is possible that rather than a doubling, the high voltage network may need to be increased 3 to 4 fold. That means higher energy costs because someone has to pay. It also means the production of massive quantities of steel, aluminium, and concrete, all of what have production processes that contribute substantially to greenhouse gas emissions, to say nothing of the environmental impacts of all that production and erection and maintenance of the power grid.
And that is for 27,000,000 people, 0.33% of the global population. If that were scaled up globally the impact would be catastrophic.
We need to shift the discourse of all talk of a global energy transition to a new framework. There are alternatives but the hegemony of growth oriented capitalism means that these alternatives are marginalised.
A couple of recent books are worth looking at.
The first is by Assoc Prof Kohei Saito from Japan. His book, SLOW DOWN: HIW DEGROWTH COMMUNISM CAN SAVE THE EARTH, makes a cogent argument for an alternative to growth driven, consumer oriented, resources depleting, environment destroying capitalism.
The second is a book that everyone will need to consult if we remain locked into our current capitalist system. It is HOW EVERYTHING CAN COLLAPSE: A MANUAL FOR OUR TIMES. By Pablo Servigne and Raphael Stevens (2020, French original in 2015). If we continue locked into a growth paradigm, it is inevitable that there will be collapse as Christopher Clugston argues in his latest book, INDUSTRIALISM: OUR COMMITMENT TO IMPERMANENCE (2023).
It is a cause for great concern that our public discourse is so poorly informed. As someone, when asked what he thought was the greatest threat, responded: “THE GLOBALIZATION OF SUPERFICIALITY”.
Surely this is a time for rigorous, well informed critical thinking rather that the group think of being driven by the pedal to the metal, growth oriented, profit driven, economic system that is quite literally devouring the earth, our home that we ought to share with every other creatures and species.
A retired and very frustrated engineer!
I share the same views. And, am as frustrated. Alas, I'm not retired 😊
Making it worse: planned obsolescence manufactured into our current cell phones & computers hastens the use of the rare minerals. Also appliances last half as long as they did 30 years ago. (In the US). I'm curious if it's the same elsewhere. There should be quality/longevity laws here, but there aren't.
Apart from our self righteous freedom to consume evermore sophisticated products the built in obsolescence is a great disservice to society. Anyone remember Ralfh Nader .
If it’s made in China it often doesn’t work the first time you try it. The most usual failure is a rubber seal, and all the rubber seals are garbage.
In addition, we need the “right to repair”
It's the same all over Europe.everthing has built in obsolescence
You hit the nail right on the head when you wrote that products must last for a long time in order to reduce the amount of damage we are causing by making cheap short-lived products.
Big business tells how to make products last longer, every time they say "it's too expensive to make this kind of change". They are inadvertently telling us that Mankind has
misinterpreted the meaning of 'profit'.
We are living by 'profit = income - expenses'. This profit model says cash equals profit and everything else is expenses. Unfortunately, cash is not profit. All of our actual gains
come to us from the environment. The present profit model forces businesses to ignore the damages that we cause to the environment, and it tells us to fire as many people
as possible in order to keep employment expenses as low as possible in order to maximize profit. But cash is nothing more than a permission slip to get our actual profit.
In the real world 'profit equals protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides for all of us'.
Now all we have to do is get the rest of the world to agree with us... don't worry, I'm on it but I can sure use a lot of help.
Any responses will be helpful.
Our Fiat Currency is the PetroDollar - it's tied to energy and genocide. That's why Noam Chomsky predicted the U.S. would invade Iraq again. I wrote a graduate paper based on Chomsky - in 1998 - predicting the U.S. would invade Iraq again. My instructor commented my paper was "too aggressive." - hilarious. So I printed out a couple hundred copies of my paper and passed them out at the University - and I hung a banner on campus, "Stop U.S. Genocide in Iraq" - and the University center of Genocide director walked past me to complain that it was not genocide in Iraq. haha. I got arrested twice to protest against the U.S. led sanctions on Iraq. The Two-Headed Depleted Uranium Babies of Iraq are the future of our renewable economy.
Chomsky. The enabler of the Bosnian genocide. Did the US dig Mass graves in Iraq?
Thank you, hostess, for not pretending to be more knowledgeable than you are. You slowed Simon down just the right amount. He knows so much and talks so fast, so it's sometimes difficult to keep up with the flow of information.
1:15:00 YES - finally someone mentioning Permaculture as literally the only viable solution and backed with science and engineering!
Regenerative farming practices combined with industrial scale factory fermentation based processing of plant material to protein is the only viable, sustainable solution to replace the current destructive and unsustainable industrial agriculture system.
Localised small scale food production has shown to be almost 30x more productive than agriculture at scale. Global supply chains can't be addressed by agriculture at scale
Blood protein is higher in vegans than meat eaters so the plant fermentation isn't necessary. Legumes and nuts are enough for a complete protein rich diet
@@tomatao.Have you actually looked at the reality of veganism!
The vegans are malnourished.
Cows are supper efficient protein converting animals. When used in perma culture/ regenerative farming. They additionally improve soil massively. BTW cows provided EFA’s hard to find in any plant. That is ESSENTIAL FATTY ACIDS ❤
It is quite technically possible to repair the pipeline, just not possible politically.
Politicians are not followers of what is popular, they are followers of the money.
They aren't followers they are slaves to what the rich tell them to do.
dad's a mining engineer. How Mr Simon describes the processes is the _nice_ version. The _proper_ version. What happens in actual mines is worse. Not extremely worse, but quite worse. It's a very, very toxic process for everyone and everything, involved or not... A mine is a literal wound on the earth, a wound that will never heal :(
Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without
As a olde man said to me if you satisfied with a little you'll always have enough
It's going to be more like The Flintstones than The Jetsons isn't it?
"In order to globally reach net zero (eliminate fossil fuels) by 2050, you would need 180 year's worth of the 2019 world production of copper, 380 year's worth of the production of nickel, 1600 year's worth of the production of cobalt, 6700 year's worth of graphite, and 9400 year's worth of lithium. (Associate Research Professor Simon Michaux from Geological Survey of Finland) GTK (published August 20, 2021). The most interesting statistic to me is the amount of lithium needed. With states like California outright banning any car that is not electric by a certain date, it is extremely obvious that that law is impossible, it cannot work. We cannot get there in 7 years."
@@armamentarmedarm1699 This "there" you speak of is non-existent! People love to talk about hypothetical policies before confronting the well-proven natural science facts already. The Guy McPherson Paradox of the Aerosol Masking Effect being twice as bad as previously thought (as per Daniel Rosenfeld - NOTICE this "interview" didn't mention the Aerosol Masking Effect?!) AND the East Siberian Arctic Shelf 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane (also not discussed in this interview) precludes any kind of "there." As Oceanographer Jim Massa has detailed there's over 250 Zettajoules of EXTRA heat in the oceans since 1995 building up - with only 30 zettajoules in the atmosphere as extra heat that's already causing havoc. Just a 5 gigaton release or 'abrupt eruption" is highly likely yet the IPCC ar6 didn't even DISCUSS the ESAS methane! Hilarious. The policy fixation is a total joke without any real discussion of the empirical evidence of doom. The mathematics of civilization is based on exponential growth - since Plato! It's the wrong math and that's the structural drive of "progress" - it's been a scam for a long time. Hilarious.
One of the better discussions on the topic I have watched.
Peter Zeihan had a recent short update where he talked about Germany (and most of Europe) surviving the winter mostly through being lucky with the mild weather. Also, they imported something like half a trillion (dollars? euros?) worth of fossil fuels to replace the usual Russian supplies. If that amount of money had been invested in nuclear power generation instead, they could have completely replaced all their current coal and other power infrastructure with non-polluting power [assuming that you could magically construct a bunch of power plants in under six months fo course]. (Caveat: Zeihan is a bit like ChatGPT, in that he sounds authoritative, but you never know if he is accurate, using hyperbole, or just making up the numbers.)
Haha, nice assessment of Zeihan, I'd concur.
Atomkraft Nein Danke.😊☀️☀️☀️☀️☀️👍
I've never once heard of a nuclear power plant getting built in a years time. And I doubt nuclear is even reliable enough given the fiasco France just went through large parts of its grid basically being shutdown.
And they've just shut down their last three nuclear reactors. Greens can indeed shoot themselves in the foot.
If Zeihan predictions had come tru, we would all be dead 3 times over already.
I am begining to think it isn't about energy sustainable or unsustainable, its about population control, its politics and murder.
What isn't about sustainable or unsustainable ?
Whatever you mean I think I can tackle one of your points. Which is population control:
Sustainability involves population control, always. They are not mutually exclusive, but necessarily connected. A certain environment can sustain a certain population. If the population goes above the regenerative rate of that environment's resources, then you reach a point at which the population starves and it rapidly drops through violent conflict and famine. IF you are consciously aware of these things, you can then control your population limit before you hit resource limits, and that way you can avoid miserable violent decline in your population, and instead keep it healthy and steady in size.
In short, you either control population consciously to avoid massive suffering, or be blind to resource limits, grow exponentially and then the population will get lowered by nature whether you like it or not, usually in a violent and miserable way.
Ignorant comment. You are so clueless it's beyond repair.
@@mitkoogrozevExcellent reply. Exactly 💯
The best way to stop population growth is increasing quality of life and female education.
@kolbyking2315 I agree but I think the op is a right winger that thinks Simon is a lizard person conspiring to kill everyone.
Simon is awesome! Glad Rachel had him back
He apparently doesn't know about the Aerosol Masking Effect! He's fixated on the "economy" without understanding it's from ECOlogy! Hilarious. He's just riding on his Western NeoColonial Coat-tails and he's trying to be all self-righteous about it. Maybe he should adopt a Two-Headed Depleted Uranium Baby to promote his mining career. hilarious.
Energy storage for renewables.
If the UK goes renewable, then we will need 18,000 gwh of backup energy, to allow for unreliable renewables (probably pumped storage systems). But at present we only have 10 gwh (the Dinorwig plant). .
But remember that Dinorwig was the most expensive power station in the world - because the Greeneys insisted it was built INSUDE a mountain. We need to cost in that missing 17,990 gwh of backup (which will cost £trillions), before saying renewables are cheap. And these backup storage systems will take decades to build. And where will we put them??
And if we run out of electricity and heating during a cold winter anticyclone, there will be no food, water, sew.erage, petrol, transport etc. So we will probably loose hundreds of thousands of people, just in one winter. And we will have ten or twenty of those devastating winters, before these backup systems are completed.
CO2 not primary feedback agent.
Please see my peer review paper on ice ages.
This demonstrates that the primary feedback aged controlling ice ages, is dust on Arctic ice sheets, lowering their albedo.
Strangely, this dust is caused by LOW CO2, which causes CO2 deserts, and therefore lots of dust. Thus it is LOW CO2 that causes interglacial warming.
Modulation of ice ages by dust and albedo.
I cannot post links, but it is:
sciencedirect dot com S1674987116300305
Ralph
The guy is an idiot!! Look up Steve Kenion! For an honest perspective!
These two are promoting the fake climate crisis psy-op. There is no independent evidence that there is a climate crisis.
Michaux is speaking mostly nonsense. Where he gets his facts from, one can only imagine !.
Wow, this blows 99.999% of interviews out of the water.
Simon is one of my favorites.
Thank you! Water Vapor (WV) is a greenhouse gas as potent as CO2 according to theory. On average there is 50 times as much WV in the atmosphere as CO2.
The fact that it is non -persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much.
We all keep hearing about the necessity to conserve and manage our energy resources. The problem arises when the least among us do the managing. Government is renown for it's incredible inefficiency who worry mostly about bureaucracy expansion and self aggrandizement.
We handed the planet to the Reagan Thatcher junta on a platter, It has failed utterly
That sums it up.
Yep, we can't merely conserve till the last drop. Gov't needs to listen to the people (that are smart enough to understand the concept of EROEI).
Conservation is always a good idea however that is impossible to conserve your way out of a growing shortage
40:00 Re: EV & Mass Storage Battery Recycling. Sorry, but not mentioning that these sources are 95+% recyclable, plus that those materials are considered “pure,” requiring very little processing aside from their mechanical separation from their containers, plus the fact that their unexpected longevity indicates there will be another 5-10 years before they will be available in usable quantities, plus battery technologies’ advancement at Wright’s Law speeds will extend those timeframes significantly, belies his competencies to comment on this & other matters being discussed. Sure, he knows a lot (as do many of us), but his discourse raises questions as to his ability (or inclination) to synthesize them into other than the ever attractive (& easy) doom & gloom scenarios (his tee logo should’ve clued me). Having heard nothing actually usable here, I’m having none of it & regret having had taken the time to put up with it.
Love Simon Michaux. Wonderful interview!
1. nuclear power using the thorium cycle
2. No till agriculture
3 Design of products to make recycling simple
4. Use renewable energy for the production of liquid fuels
5. Petroleum and coal for chemical feedstocks
6. Mining city dumps for metals and chemicals from discarded products from petroleum (plastics)
We need to make Thorium work. There's no guarantee that it will. It might do but until then, Uranium. And find out if Uranium extraction from sea water is scaleable. Rather than spending 500 million on another offshore windfarm build an offshore Uranium plant. Greenpeace would go nuts, but the windfarms impact on just the UK's carbon emissions would be negligable, but the Uranium plant potentially could fix our climate problem.
@@colinmacdonald5732 We know that the thorium cycle will work. There was an experimental reactor at Oak Ridge using thorium that ran for approximately 2 years in the 1070s.
The Chinese are about to roll thorium reactors out in a big way, they ‘got’ the idea and ran with it sone time ago, we are continuing to play at it, while our options diminish.
@@freeforester1717 fingers crossed!
🤣🤡
Totally agree with the lack of contact the financial world has with reality... Bill Rees talks about the need our stories have in mapping accurately reality and neoliberalism or more generally the stories of our economics don't map onto reality at all...
On the energy transition mining energy requirements i knew this 15 years ago when i did the energy profiles for a number of mines in NSW in Australia ...
It's a shocking story emerging on how little work has been done on the energy transition 😢
Contact with reality? No one wants it. ==> Water Vapor (WV) is a greenhouse gas as potent as CO2 according to theory. On average there is 50 times as much WV in the atmosphere as CO2.
The fact that it is non -persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much.
Derrick Jensen has it right, the only way to fix things is to adopt a lower-energy lifestyle for everyone.
I have learnt a lot from this talk. Simon is a fascinating guest.. many thanks..
What we need to understand is that WHAT we do today - is very important and should not be relegated to politicians who look first at reelection, great sounding words.
As minerals and oil becomes more scarce, prices for everything will rise inexorably creating financially inequitable and exclusionary costs for everything else. Income inequities are already a reality, even in "advanced" nations. It will only continue to worsen. We are already living in an unstable "house of cards" that is vulnerable to indiscernable and unpredictable zephyrs of human presumption and hubris.
Especially with El Nino kicking in this summer and an expected 1/2 degree global Celsius increase average - with the center of the continents as the bread baskets to grow food. The 22 million people in Horn of Africa facing extreme food shortage will be nothing compared to what will happen in five years.
I noticed how the privileged have gotten all the choicest positions with very little merit
And yet we still import millions of people into places that we are now thinking will be unsustainable even with the original populations. It is amazing how people are incapable of putting two and two together to get four. They would rather virtue signal and Bury their heads in the sand.
Amazing interview! Thank you Rachel 💚🌎
All these people still seem locked into the idea that somehow industrial civilisation is viable on any level even as they're explaining how it's not. hahah. Humans are funny.
I refuse to bury 40% of my kids before they turn 5. Most Western people would agree that it's either industrial or nothing.
In 1980 we prospected for wind power with an anemometer connected to a PET computer. We found the wind completely impractical in the greater Seattle Area. We built a super insulated solar home in 1982 to reduce our energy needs. We were looking at $100/watt photovoltaic panels that did not pencil out. So we never did produce our own energy. In 2023, we could no longer legally cut down enough trees to get the sunshine for a solar home.
So what Mr. Michaux is saying is commodities are still king and as they become more scarce, it will creating hyper-inflation. I appreciate how he describes the problem in real terms. Usually this issue is only spoken theoretical which make it seem long off and far away.
Quote of the video: "Say you have a gold ring on your finger. To mine enough gold for that ring results in three tons of mining waste."
Say your finger is in a house. Several hundred tons of material were dug out for the basement, and 100 tons of concrete were hauled in to make a foundation.
@@RandyTWester Yeah, but housing is a necessity. Gold jewelry is not.
Say you have a gold ring on your finger.
To mine enough gold for that ring results in three tons of mining waste --------------- What is mining waste to Sauron 🤨🤔😑
Jad
Some mines have 2,000 ounces a ton! 2000 one ounce rings can be formed from one ton of ore in some mines. You need to follow geologists that actually go to mines and share history.
Please don’t be ignorant and naive simply because you watched one video so now you’re “educated” on the matter.
Yes there’s some large open pit gold mines that get very little gold per ton. So what? The point is the government has huge red tape and makes it super expensive to mine because ya know the environment. So technically the rules and laws mean large deposits are more economical in some ways simply because oh you have the mine permitted okay now you can mine it for a century.
Tons of small mines could be opened but unless if you have millions for a reclamation bond most mines won’t be opened. One miner in silverton Colorado told me most mines won’t be reopened until a ww3 or after a Great Depression resets things.
But some mines
Best episode yet.
I seem to remember all these doom merchants once saying that oil will run out soon and civilisation will come to an end. They proved to be completely wrong! I think this guy is the same.
Its not oil that will end civilization. Stay tuned...
I don't think he's suggesting that we'll run out, more that it will be become unaffordable for most people. That said, oil's down to $75, about where it was 20 years ago.
Exactly
Michaux is still riding that peak oil train hard. These guys will take a long time to realise that demand for oil has peaked.
Wrong or early?
Simon shows how absolutely vital it is that we develop new materials and new methods that don't require rare (or increasingly rare) metals. Things like sodium-sulfur batteries and iron nitride batteries. The highest-quality copper "ore" is the electronic devices we currently toss into landfills. We need to develop better methods for copper recovery than we currently use, which is third-world scavengers burning the insulation off of scrap wiring.
The thing about electrical storage is that we can start small and gradually add capacity - we don't need to find 200 TW-Hr immediately.
This was fantastic. Interestingly no mention of nuclear as a less mineral thirsty option to harden a green grid. But, still very good stuff. Especially the return to nature agricultural concepts.
None of these hippies being up nuclear because they KNOW it will immediately take up an insane amount of the load, basically making it worth switching back to fossil fuels for a portion of your energy.
Thorium fuel cycle Small Modular Reactors
Shit is getting real right now as far as the cost of energy, businesses are closing in mass all around the world partially because of the low returns that become negative returns because of the high cost of energy. Countries go nuclear or go broke in the future. Thank god some people are telling the truth.
I love this podcast! And not just because Rachel is beautiful. This interview with Simon Michaux was phenomenal, the best yet. We should all spread the word about what's really happening and what really needs to be done!
Too bad they don't really discuss the Aerosol Masking Effect. A 40% reduction of sulfur pollution from coal heats up Earth another 1 degree Celsius global average. oops!
Don't worry, Bill Gates is going to dim the skies anyway.
I have been waiting for that permaculture world to come around my entire adult life-since the 90’s-and it never seems to arrive. It becomes harder to believe in the longer I have to wait.
The 'solutions' which Simon appears to suggest as being the final 2 paradigms are a bit contradictory in 2 ways. 1, the 4th paradigms requires totally centrally controlled society to work but that is unrealistic as no centralised system has prospered so human nature suggests that it will not in the future (unless we all want to live in North Korea) utopia where everyone agrees to get along and 'share and share alike' is not real. Also who will be in charge, Simon, Rachel, there's always somone who wants to rule the world!. 2, the 3rd paradigm looks alike self sufficiency, subsistence existence, which small scale use of resources is the least efficient way to use resources so in an attempt to maximise beneficial outcomes of resource usage a system of least efficiency is proposed!
The first sentence, which applies to the evolution of organisms undergoing starvation over millennia and not what climate change mitigation requires, tells me about the honesty and integrity of this channel (more accurately, the lack thereof). Thanks for not wasting my time.
Open Veins of Latin America is a good book on mining. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent is a book written by Uruguayan journalist, writer, and poet Eduardo Galeano, published in 1971, that consists of an analysis of the impact that European settlement, imperialism, and slavery have had in Latin America.
I think they have had enough time to sort themselves out! Can’t keep blaming the culture that has provided all that we now have
@@phillipknechtel9894 Oh so when you say "we" you don't mean the billions of people living on less than $5 a day and in slave wage conditions - and having be bombed and dumped on? You've never been to Pine Ridge reservation I guess? By "we" you don't mean the two-headed depleted uranium babies per chance? hahaha. I love that use of "We" as the Royal misplaced pronoun modifier - very quaint of you! Try googlescholaring "biological annihilation" and see if the we includes you or not. thanks
@46:40 - Mr. Michaux is also missing the obvious. If you go buy a whole salmon - that salmon can range from a few pounds (like 2-5lbs) or it could be some of the really large salmons (up to 20lbs). If it is just you and your wife - what are you going to do with all of that salmon? Not only that - but he did not have to skin the fish, take the guts out, get rid of the eggs (if it is a female), cut off the head, and divide up the meat and get rid of any bones. There is a lot of work just to prepare the fish. This doesn't take into account that the man or woman would have to drive to the fish market, look around, make a selection, get it wrapped up (if the person at the fish market would even do that), put it in their vehicle (smells like fish now), drive home, and cart the thing into the kitchen and IMMEDIATELY prepare it. After all, they probably do not have any way to store that big of a fish. So now, you have fish scales in your car, your house, the trash, and the trash stinks so you have to take it out. Naw. Me? I'll buy the tin. You have your salmon and the (I believe you said) Vietnamese know how to use the rest of the fish. They make fish gut stew, fry the skin, and use the bones to make things. Oh yeah - and they also like fish head soup. So both countries profit from doing this.
The world's largest copper mine, in the Ataconda Desert of Chile, has been degraded on average to 1/3 the original ore grade. Simon makes it out to be 1/40th. The giant new copper mine in Peru has an average head grade of 0.67%, almost 7X Simon's claimed 0.1%. These are examples of Simon's overstatements. He is apparently looking for the worst numbers in his "research", and probably doesn't even grasp the subtle details.
Still means a sh!t load of spoil and tailings.
"A small country has fewer people.
Though there are machines that can work ten to a hundred times faster than man, they are not needed.
The people take death seriously and do not travel far.
Though they have boats and carriages, no one uses them.
Though they have armor and weapons, no one displays them.
Men return to the knotting of rope in place of writing.
Their food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple, their homes secure;
They are happy in their ways.
Though they live within sight of their neighbors,
And crowing cocks and barking dogs are heard across the way,
Yet they leave each other in peace while they grow old and die."
- Lao Tzu, chapter 80 (Translated by Jane English, 1972)
The only sort term fix is the Atom, 1Kg of Uranium has the same energy density as 1 Million kg of coal.
This is a great interview that explains the down falls of so called renewable energy. It would seem plausable that nucleer power is the logical answer to the energy proplem.
How does nuclear solve the problems named here? For example, can we scale up uranium consumption by 50x? And how long will that last?
As I watch from the comfort of my home with lights and computer on and I live as spartan as possible. I think this transition is not going to go smoothly
Great conversation. Derrick Jensen, co-author of "Bright Green Lies", would also be a good guest on these issues. Some of his positions are considered pretty radial but he has a lot of good points as this talk confirmes.
Edit: I see Max Wilbert has already been on here, nice
This was just beyond incredible. Thank you so much.
This is even more so ==> Water Vapor (WV) is a greenhouse gas as potent as CO2 according to theory. On average there is 50 times as much WV in the atmosphere as CO2.
The fact that it is non -persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much.
@@msimon6808 This is true and well known, so what are you trying to tell us? The relationship between water vapor emissions and removals (the higher the temperature, the more water evaporates, the more it rains) is quite robust, almost linear, and the tipping point is so far away that it doesn't matter. None of this is the case with CO2. The current half-life of 120 years for CO2 could well become millennia on a hot Earth, because the relationship between CO2 emission and depletion is *not* linear (but the relationship between CO2 and temperature is).
@@gviehmann Water vapor (WV) is a GHG equal to CO2 according to theory. CO2 at 400 ppm is a great danger. Water vapor at 20,000 ppm (for an equal GHG) is no problem.
The fact that WV is non-persistent is often mentioned. It doesn't have to be. You can AVERAGE (integrate) the effect. There is on AVERAGE 50 times as much.
Non-persistent ==> Definition - only heat trapped by CO2 molecules can evaporate water vapor molecules. The heat water vapor traps doesn't cause water evaporation.
@@msimon6808 I still don't understand what you are trying to say. You will find most of the 0.25% H2O in the atmosphere is in the troposphere, not at high altitudes where it would be much more effective. Nevertheless, there is a theoretical (Clausius-Clapeyron equation) and observed (e.g., doi:10.1038/nature1424) feedback loop between temperature and total water vapor content in the atmosphere.
On a per unit weight basis, the radiative forcing of CO2 is estimated to be about 1000 times greater than the water vapor emitted from ground level by human activities. This means that the Global Warming Potential for water vapor is 0.001 (CO2=1). This is due to the fact that various processes are associated with the formation and effects of this water vapor, such as evaporation (cooling), condensation (warming), cloud formation (cooling), the greenhouse effect by water vapor molecules (warming), whose temperature effects partially cancel each other out.
@@gviehmann CO2 = WV for GHG effect. 400 ppm CO2 is a problem. 20,000 ppm WV is not. I'd call that bunk.
What has been said is extremely wise . Getting other people on board is another matter?
Absolutely riveting information. I am so happy that Simon mentioned Jacques Fresco and the Venus Project. I just find it frustrating that most people are not even aware of all the effort and thinking that went on to try and give us a new way to live our lives on this beautiful planet. Thank you Simon for being so involved in finding solutions. We really do all need to get involved directly.
Nice to see a genuinely scientific way of looking at the problems!
I liked listening to this, I liked the calm and rational approach. It did make me think about the potential of both geothermal and nuclear energy. I can’t imagine we’d let our society collapse as such without thoroughly exploring and developing those energy solutions.
"thoroughly exploring and developing those energy solutions" will only accelerate collapse further. Development is what is destroying the biosphere.
So your vote would be to do what then…? Depopulate the planet?
@@AlanDavidDoaneIs there a solution without technological development that doesn't require forced "population reductions?"
Why do the policy makers not see the issue, WEALTH, they are all so wealthy that nothing of the reality of a life of less will ever touch THEIR, living years.
Time for a pilot project on a distinct community level. How about say, Long Island, or somewhere similar, where the entire community enrol for a net zero year? It would be educational, surely.
Great job performing an in-depth analysis of "going green"!
I would like to see these good people list references in the show notes. That way we could figure out where they’re getting their information from. Blind trust is a very precious commodity. Especially when listening to random Talking Heads on the Internet.
Do your own research.
It's the only way to know for sure.
3 separate sources of information on each subject (minimum)
You could start with the website where he works.
But you know you didn't need me to tell you this did you 😊
Which is exactly the same reply I would give to alarmists. Blind trust in obvious agendas is not for me, so I base my thoughts on my own knowledge and apply logic to what I am hearing compared to what I am seeing and experiencing over 67 years.
🌟Agree totally.
Make alternative cheaper than existing technology.
That" a cheaper way reality "will get big money to adapt cheaper.
@@johnware8850 the most expensive thing you can do is destroy the Earth’s ecosystem. That’s what we’re doing now. Abrupt climate change is causing insurance companies to cancel homeowners insurance along the coast. This abrupt climate change is directly affected by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to our burning of fossil fuels.
If you think about it, EVERYTHING ELSE IS CHEAPER! Especially renewable energy.
There is absolutely nothing expensive about renewable energy when you compare it to crop killing drought and flooding, massive destruction of real estate, and infrastructure due to hurricane and fires.
People who want everything cheap are just not thinking hard enough.
Mining, like most major corporate enterprises, often sees major subsidies from governments when their products/services are a desired part of "economic policy". So, if mining companies cry "not profitable" with minerals/metals extraction, and these are considered "critical" (like often done for oil, gas, and coal in the past), then government will prop up the mining companies. Regardless of the costs to the public and the environment. And we have seen that in the past (the world is replete with examples of mining companies coming in and pillaging and area, creating all sorts of damage short- and long-term) and the goverment, the public and the environment suffers the costs while the mining companies get a free pass on cleanups. Our Superfund sites in the U.S. are prime example of these. So, with the extraordinary political (crrupt) bonds between government and major private industry, this mining of the earths resources, regardless of their location or how damaging the results, the mining WILL go on. So the damage will likely become exponentially greater if in fact resource depletion is occurring. We, especially the Global South and the environment, are screwed.
If there was ever an argument to develop lots of nuclear power, this is it!
The rapid growth of power demand as countries develop is shocking. What about solutions in which we use much much less power without shrinking the economy. We need heating technologies which don't waste most of the heat, some kind of AI managed system which reduces consumption by turning lights on and off as cars travel roads at midnight...and that kind of thing, and a shift in culture. People in Europe want to walk around in T-shirts in their homes in winter. Why can't they cover up and save power ? We do that in countries where the cold is intermittent and having central heating is a real waste. It is actually better for health to sleep in a cold room. I've slept with weather below zero and the window open. A good duvet still leaves you sweating. I've cycled in the snow with naked legs... I mean good gracious... why all the comfort, its so unhealthy. As Simon said we need less ridiculous and wasteful supply chains. In South Africa we have daily blackouts. We have a backup battery for the wifi. Our computer batteries bridge the gap, our rechargeable lamps get us through the dark, and hot water bottles through the cold. We time our cooking carefully. Sometimes if we drop the ball we go to a neighbouring area where the lights are on and buy take out.
The Laws of Themodynamics physically prevent your supposition.
Without petroleum....the fact is, that large swaths of human beings will do without needed energy. The solution to date?.....resource wars. The American Deep State/CIA plan is working. Take from which we can take from.
@@sonnyeastham ok, the voice of logic ? but looky here.... there were lots of sumptions, which one got you ......thermodynmics I doubt its the enemy ????... the biggest hurdle is our own self indulgence n greed
An issue that is forgotten is that enginners that have ideas cannot get funding just to tinker about.There has to be a minimal viable product that investor's will buy into.
Very frustrating for myself that would like to do just that when I am done with the classical startup model.
funding is an artificial constraint that can be removed if absolutely necessary. it should not be the thing that prevents progress
The US has stolen up to 5000 patents based on improving or inventing new energy sources under the guise of national security. Look it up. Something more sinister is happening behind the scenes.
I didn't know natural gas could be turned into gasoline until this video. Thanks.
Brilliant podcast. Many thanks to both of you!💚
In a word: Excellent! Thanks very much.
Simon remained stable for two thirds of the conversation, but then spun off into paranoia and crazy theories that are outside his core expertise again. I enjoyed the less paranoid parts.
What crazy theories?
I agree. He leaped from the cliff somewhat. Especially on food production. We create more food on less acreage every year and everywhere in the world
His understanding of the US/Europe war capacity and collaboration is way off. USA is burning through $5 billion a month to protect europe by paying for most of the war. Europe has been technically insolvent for a decade and would have being fiscally sunk if the US had not gone into debt to pay for over 70% of NATO for the last 70 years. Europe has basically been getting a free ride. The only European country arming itself at an accelerated rate is Poland. Germany and france have been burying their heads in the sand. Time to pay the piper.
Awesome discussion.
Thank you so much.
I live in a mining area. It does not take 20 years to open a mine. 🐝🐝
Depends on where you live. If you are in a mining center,not much opposition. But a new mine in a non remote area can be very difficult
He's talking about a country with no mining industry starting to mine resources for itself. Starting from scratch with no personnel or organised framework, laws around mining etc.,
Much of this was a trip down memory lane, for example, I think Dinorwig pumped strorage was being planned when I was at university.
I studied geology, oceanography, and materials processing, and worked in mineral processing, including calculating economic feasability, and other calculations mentioned. That was before Simon Michaux was born, so this subject has been troubling me for well over 40 years, and each year the problem becomes more urgent and more intractable. If we had started the transition to a low carbon economy with associated changes in lifestyle 40 years ago, we would have more of a chance, but that has been prevented by fossil fuel interests and their client media and politicians. Simon is certainly right about all of us contributing to the problem, and I admit to being a total hypocrite, but we are all trapped in a system over which we have little control.
I recognise the problem in Australia with its "she'll be right" culture. I
I knew a little about resource wars, but I learned a lot of new and useful stuff from this.
Re transport: I was born in a fairly sparsely populated area of south east England where the nearest bus stop was a mile away, so we walked or cycled almost everywhere. Even before I started school, I was used to walking anywhere within about a three mile radius of home. That would be unthinkable for most people today, but we haven't changed anatomically or physiologically so it is still possible.
The structure of society proposed is similar to what I've always understood as political anarchism. So much food for thought. Thank you.
Dinorwic was built in the days of the centralised CEGB that could theoretically manage the whole electrical system as it was all theirs. Now everything is supposedly market driven and balkanised, but it isn't really as government always interferes eg with net zero. Dinorwic was built for peak lopping ie covering the power shortfall during short periods when demand exceeded generation eg believe it or not when a popular TV program had an advert break and everyone turned on their electric kettles at the same time or when everyone got home from work and fired up the electric cookers. Remember that back then there was only two or three TV channels in the UK and therefore this was easily capable of happening.
The point is that it was never intended to supply for more than say an hour at a time if that. It was never intended to last for hours or days. And the water was returned to the top using the cheap excess power at night when less is used. But that assumes that cheap power will be available, which can't be counted on without dispatchable nuclear or fossil fuel power.
To make plastic you need oil, to make glass you need sand, to make cardboard you need trees. You need a lot of energy to make aluminium, a lot of aluminium plants have their own power stations. I wonder if the money spent on renewables would be better spend on can deposit schemes, giving people money to return aluminium cans. This would save a lot of energy, as in producing new aluminium.
It is estimated that 95 percent of aluminum cans are recycled in Western nations.
We have already been using vast amounts of expensive metals in manufacturing. Why couldn't this be repurposed for the new green revolution? I understand as spoken of in the conversation with Simon that a lot of the mining and smelting is now done in China. We have nearly become addicted to Chinese manufacture because of their cheapness of labor and the Chinese unit of currency been regulated a bit lower in value than the American dollar. Consumers buy Chinese made stuff because there is not as much wealth now in Western countries with less manufacturing. We also have not built a recycling industry from old phones solar panels computers etc, to get rare metals returned into the system instead of mining more. Everything is forcing on us now with climate change and general pollution. One thing that did not seem to get mentioned in the talk with Simon was the possibility of having an intercontinental connected grid so when it is winter in one hemisphere the opposite hemisphere can make up the difference in wind or solar or even within a large continent make up for differences in local weather. Small island nations might have a problem unless they were integrated energy wise with an intercontinental network. There might be political problems preventing this or hard to get agreements.
Michaux is basically constructing much (if not most) of his argument out of one, arbitrary, assumption: according to him the world would need 28 days worth of total energy consumption in storage... well, maybe Finland where I believe he now works does.... That assumption is wrong by nearly an order of magnitude! The consensus is somewhere around 220 TWh of storage is needed... which is perfectly doable with either batteries (not the ones with nickel, lithium or cobalt, but rather chemistries out of exclusively widely abundant elements), or pumped storage (there are sites for perhaps as much as 100 times that amount of storage), or rather a combination of both: batteries for short-term storage (minutes to a few hours, perhaps one day), and pumped-hydro for middle- to long-term storage (days to weeks, even a couple of months). Any other economic energy storage methods will be icing on the cake.
As he starts from a demonstrably false premise, his conclusions are naturally erroneous.
He is like those "experts" who predicted that EVs would account to less than 10% of automobile sales by... 2040!!!
I recommend reading Tesla's Master Plan Part 3, as well as Rethinkx' Energy Report. Both sources have an outstanding record at predicting the trends of this unrolling energy transition!
EVs are a dead end. Mass motoring was a bad idea in the first place. Grow a brain.
@@liamhickey359 Is this affirmation coming from an American to a Swiss?
That would be the ultimate irony!
Yes, I would agree with you, public transport are in most cases much preferable to individual motoring. I use our superb public transportation network every day of the week, and my car basically only on weekends and on vacations. In Switzerland, we can go form the tiniest of towns to anywhere else, in great comfort and safety, and with at least an hourly connection... if not 2, 3 or even 4 times per hour!
BUT, Switzerland is an exception. Many European countries have public transportation that are notoriously lacking... and North America basically has none... save for some Greyhound buses... outside a few of its largest cities.
So, whether a good or bad idea, mass motoring will stay with us for a few more decades. And, during this time, EVs are the "least bad" idea to clean up the atmosphere that we all breathe! Unless you have a genius proposal... which your comment is surprisingly lacking?!
I personally believe that ICE cars will be largely replaced, at least in urban areas, by on-demand autonomous vehicles. An intermediary solution between individual motoring and public transport, which is 5-10x cheaper than the former, and much more flexible than the latter... and which could reduce by 75% the number of vehicles on the streets of cities, and their air pollution by close to 100%! It's no science-fiction... it's starting!
So, have I grown a brain since my last comment?
😉
No. Cars ,EVs etc are a disaster. I've seen car use explode in the last 30 years where I'm at. At least half the adult population has a car. The congestion, the people digging up their front gardens to turn them into car parks, the bad urban planning, , ruined cities , the traffic ruined cities ,towns and the countryside. They are triumph of marketing and little else. I used to drive myself. Gave it up not out of a conscious trying to save the planet piety. Just happened to be between cars and never got around to buying another one. Do not miss them at all
Dont miss the expense and up keep. Dont miss the traffic jams and trying to park them. Have shed that sense of detachment they inculcate. Not having a car made me realise consumerism is almost a religion, something ,you become so unthinkingly accepting of . Cars are a prime example of how consumer culture can so easily brain washus into certain types of " norms" that we would far better off without. The same thing has happened with plastics. An awful lot of people when they find out I dont drive, give me this almost pitying look of incomprehension. It's kind of funny when you think about it.
@@liamhickey359 Two of my four adult sons don’t drive. Not by choice, but because they are visually impaired.
They suffer from the lack of independence that their two brothers have, and can’t wait for autonomous cars to become a reality.
I understand and respect your choice. But it is obviously not the one of the vast majority!
But to sole things, the chances of convincing that majority to your way of living are very precisely ZERO.
So, we have to find another solution, and AUTONOMOUS EVs are that solution… and it is coming… very fast!
Where do you live, may I ask! Certainly not in a US suburbia, where one dies without a car!
@@st-ex8506 sorry but your wrong about cars.. They are the reason why amercan style suburban sprawl is possible. A total waste of land , resources, money and time. It is a manifestation of the effect cheap oil has had on advanced economies for the last 70 years. Can well understand why people dont want the party to stop. But I suspect it may do and of it's own accord sooner or later. I'm not advocating people go around on bicycles or that it is the future. We are immersed in a culture that doesnt encourage people to question how all this affluence is logistically possible into the future. I dont want to go back to old days whatever they happened to be. Neither by the same token do I look to the future with any optimism to a planet dominated by human civilisation. Tara mines: a place not far from where I live. A zinc and lead mine. 400 acre tailings dam full of toxic mud that cant be allowed to dry out. Apparently it was the second largest dam of it's kind in the world. Theres probaly bigger ones now.Mining is a filthy business. Electric vehicles are going to make this problem far worse. It's not " saving" the planet.Meanwhile most people are more worried about finding a parking space outside a Walmart. That about as environmental as it gets for them.
Ironic that that Escondido, the mine you can see from space, means “hidden” in English.
I would say society has already split into the cornicopians, vikings, and preppers but each of these groups thinks they are arcadians in one way or another...
Yeah he is defining humans based on Nationstates whereas 50% of people in the U.S. age 55 to 65 have ZERO savings for retirement. haha. Hilarious.
@35:11 - Spinning Flywheel. Most of the larger generators use a spinning flywheel NOT because it just "spins and spins". Remember friction? Yeah. Flywheels do slow down and stop. The reason they use spinning flywheels is because if the power goes out - the flywheel keeps the electricity flowing for long enough so the GAS powered generator can take over. This is usually somewhere around five minutes maximum. Hopefully Mr. Michaux will not suggest we just use a flywheel to charge batteries and to keep them going indefinitely. Won't work. Doesn't happen.
He knows a flywheel is a very temporary way to produce power.
Obviously. Same for heating sand.
Both use power to make power but Chemical battery is a far better option.
I love this realist. I’ve intuitively understood this problem for 10 plus years which has ruined my life. We are heading where we are heading and famines and war are the future we will have.
I love smart well spoken people!
1:19:10 I loved the transition paradigms described as "Cornucopia, Pirates, Preppers, and Arcadians" (of which I assume that the latter refers to people striving for a pastoral Utopia). However, keep in mind that there will also be "scavengers", i.e. the hunter-gatherer remnants of people in failed state regions, which have either failed politically or economically or due to some other crisis, possibly including running out of fossil fuels without any backup/transition system in place. These people will fill the traditional role of the barbarian outsiders, picking away at the edges of remaining pockets of civilization, somewhat similar to the Pirates, but with much less organization and reach.
One of the most important issues for any transition is the maintenance of supply chains. High tech items (computers, mobile phones, network routers etc.) require hundreds of different components, each of which has a complex supply chain of many different steps where materials are mined, processed, refined, converted into parts, used as inputs for other parts, and eventually assembled into a final product. Each of these steps requires transportation (usually by sea) between facilities which also require factory machinery sourced from other countries, a stable workforce and economy, never mind the reliable energy supply system. In the case of electronics, we mostly rely on a very complex tapestry of trade and processing of components in many different South-East Asian countries. This is at risk because of both increased shipping costs (if fuel prices rise or fuel is scarce) and politicial issues. Europe and the USA have realized that they are vulnerable in this respect, and are trying to re-shore SOME of that manufacturing capacity, but it will be very hard (and expensive) to try replicate the entire supply chain process in other regions. That is, prices for electronics are likely to be much higher in future.
However, if the Pirates start making raids ANYWHERE, shipping supply chains are at risk of breaking down much faster. The Cornucopians (mostly USA) might intervene to try stop Pirate thefts and incursions, but might not feel any need to do so if they have setup a replacement system already. In this scenario, complex products like computers will not be expensive anymore, they will simply not be available (outside the USA and possibly Europe). Roll this forward for 10-15 years, when all the old gear dies after being heavily used, and you can assume that most of Africa, Russia, and many other poorer parts of Asia and the Middle East will have neither computers, phones, nor internet anymore. They will rapidly be forced into regressive industrialization, ie. revert to pre-1980's level technology. Many will rapidly collapse further into Amish-level technology and social patterns, at least among the survivors. I would imagine that the process would involve a lot of chaos, poverty, and probably civil wars; and remember that communication technologies will be among the first to die. It's hard to see green-tech energy working in that scenario; it's much more likely that coal power would make a come-back, at least in those regions that cannot maintain their trading networks in the face of Pirate (and later Scavenger) incursions.
Agree with everything except the Organic farming issues. With 8 billion souls on this planet, I am not convinced that permaculture is viable. Sri Lanka is an example of what happens when governments make bad farming policy.
China, unintentionally, is doing their best to destroy their population and India's birth rate is falling but their population is huge. If things turn nasty and another famine hits, they will be in trouble. Africa, who knows?
My challenge to the "green transition" is to ask people to show me a single man-made item (including food) that was not absolutely dependent on the availability of fossil fuels or their derivatives in thevprocess of manufacturing.
And what will that prove. You can smelt bauxite into Aluminium using hydropower Norway using fossil fuels to transport it. The key is to use less fossil fuels, which engineers seem to be quite good at.
How about an apple from my tree in the garden? Crunch on that one.
@@ambassadorfromreality1125 You need carbon anodes which are made from a particular kind of graphite which comes from coal.
Some day it will be possible, but that day is a few decades in the future...if we all work really hard to make it happen.
@@timothyrussell4445 never used any fertilizer for the apple tree, or any pruning equipment, or any pesticides to deter codlin moth? I'm impressed.
I can honestly say hand on heart I have never used ANY fertilizer on any of the trees, and no pesticides either@@gregvanpaassen
I'd love to have Simon speak with RFK Jr
Wow Rachel! Another corking interview!
There were so many ideas and points that detonated in my consciousness whilst listening to this, that my brain is a bit of a wasteland at the moment, but it's really opened my eyes. Thank you so much for helping me understand our predicament (though, sometimes, I kinda wish I was more akin to the people around me who seem quite able to go about their lives without having the burden of this knowledge weigh them down!).
That's the problem with being red pilled, you can't go back and it's sometimes bloody scary!
Great point on recycling and difficulty collecting. People don't turn in their phones because data is not reliably transferred from old device to new, so people keep their old phone. Better service would help solve recycling collections.
Well, I always understood, that 'build back better' means back to carefully go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle. First by simply closing down the electrical grid for private users after sundown, because the nightime-produced wind or battery-stored electricity needs to go for 100% to industry glass-ovens and metal smelts, (because those can not be cooled down over night and those being the only fully recycleable materials).
I don't see that going over well politically
@@michah321 nor do I, but having grown up in an area that was first overrun by Hitler and then the Soviets, I very well know politics will be seen after the moment an extremist government, be it left or right, has caught the majority of votes. Then it will be called 'a necessity', be it for 'the community' or 'the nation', and the first protesters will be sent onto work-houses or labour-camps, whatever name they will go by, and if the scare is not strong enough, the police and the army will have the allowance to round up and shoot rioteers. I don't see any people rioting at that point. Just look at the actual polls, and tell me, 'politics' will be a hindrance. Bert Brecht was right: 'The most stoopid calfs vote for their own butchers.'
Fabulous upload! As an ex(retired) futurist I was constantly battling, possible doesn't mean needing and doing new technologies! Yes to no/less polluting, even now ( or yesterday) but with common sense. Pleased this uploading is trying to convey this! Please keep doing this and thank you.
Sodium Ion batteries are entering mass production in Chinese EV this year so lithium won't be so critical.
I appreciate Dr Michaux for "discovering" the impending mineral shortages and exorbitant costs, something like a year ago for me. And I appreciate him for participating in interviews to keep it in the public view as an unsolved problem for the present ill-conceived wind-and-solar-only approach. But I have personally calculated that even a week's battery buffer for such an impossible-to-reasonably attain system would cost more than an equivalent nuclear power system, not needing any buffer, any solar, any wind or the vast waste of land they entail. So I find it hard to understand why his "Plan B" is not based on energy from existing nuclear power plant designs, and in the future on more advanced molten salt cooled reactor designs, needing no water supplies nor vast pools of operators to man them.
As one of your European advanced reactor design companies says "energy equals prosperity". The bleak future you describe will only befall those not smart enough to use the safest and cleanest of all power sources for energy supply. Certainly France and, in the future, Poland are not going to try the non-nuclear approach and will more likely prosper with adequate energy. Finland also seems to be well on the way to nuclear prosperity and energy independence. Let them be examples. And yes, it will take many years to construct enough nuclear plants, but probably not longer than opening all those mines around the world and trying to gain mineral and manufacturing independence in the process. There is no need for international conflict over energy when it can all be made at home from readily available Uranium and Thorium.
The real key to energy Independence is natural uranium reactors that sidestep the proliferation problems of enriched uranium and thorium. My calculation is that the compact molten salt reactor may be as much as 50 times cheaper than existing types
I have looked at Simons work from the perspective of my industry (rail) where I have some knowledge, and while it's a great piece of work that raises some fair challenges, I found it a bit simplistic on the detail to be honest. The devil is in the detail.
Each sector is a whole paper in of itself really, or we cannot capture the whole picture effectively. I'd like to see Simon collaborate with experts in each sector to develop his ideas further and get them out of a minerals silo.
I agree with the principle of starting from a baseline of now rather than including aspirational technologies too early. I look forward to a more detailed and collaborative future incarnation.
In terms of supporting an intermittent grid, are we talking about installing power walls in all buildings and community storage blocks? It sounds like a great idea in principle and would seem resilient in terms of energy, but could it suffer from the same resourcing limitations? What are the mineral requirements for this?
I like Daniel Schmachtenberger's principle: The solution to all of the problems is all of the solutions.
This is why I feel that, in focusing on emphasising the limitations of existing wind and solar, Simon may be missing some detail on the advances in power returns of new developments coming online today, and those that started producing a decade ago upon which much of the historical data will be based. Technology is moving fast, so I appreciate it's hard for one person or a small team to keep up with it all.
There is potentially much that is omitted from the report that could reasonably be included.
I suggest considering a pathway approach so that policy makers that are presented with the work can consider the different alternatives available to them and make fair comparisons on pathway options they might be able to take.
Perhaps the way to go is building a dynamic model with all the data in there so they can try patching different options into their own models. This might help translate it for different countries/communities that may have differing resource availability. Power BI would do that easy enough once the data is in.
You are right when you quote “all of the solutions “ and you are double right when you recognise that the data people refer to is often decades out of date.
Talking about cobalt, at least it can be recycled if used in batteries, however the largest user of cobalt is in the refinement of petrol, that's a waste.
ther called smart citys, and i predict ,that muia or the that just burned in hawai will be the one built there.
Rail is always subsidised, it can only exist where other sources support it.
Exactly, his ideas are all nonsense and any real expert would laugh him out of the room
Climate mitigation’s mineral bottleneck has been known for more than a decade, and the implications were so disturbing that a whole new paradigm for decarbonization was imagined by a grassroots movement that ultimately led to some of the most important industrial policy in history. Before I dive into a few of the details which are not widely known, let me address something about the Russo-Ukraine war.
Putin wrote a manifesto in the summer of 2021 in which he declared that Ukraine was not a real country, and Ukrainians are basically just Russians who have been ‘brainwashed’ by the West. The implications of this are profound and affect all of Europe as Russia’s dictator has set his sights on territorial aggression and mass murder. So the conflict for Ukrainians is about nothing less than survival. For Europe, Russia no longer respects territorial integrity, and it is widely understood that many other nations, including Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Sweden, Romania, Moldova, etc. are now threatened. Russia even violated Sweden’s airspace with nuclear-armed aircraft in March 2022. Putin has set his country on the path of a long war of continental conquest. The West’s survival, and probably that of humanity, depends upon standing up to this maniac as he employs both conventional and unconventional techniques to undermine Western solidarity. A failure to adequately confront this threat will invite territorial incursions across the globe and the chaos that accompanies it.
Multiple theories have been suggested regarding the Nord Stream sabotage, and speculation can concoct motives for several state actors. The most compelling evidence to date points directly to Russia as the culprit as a ‘rescue ship’ with a submersible was spotted by Denmark in the vicinity of the sabotage just a few days before. Another pipeline was sabotaged between Finland and Estonia, and again Russia is the prime suspect.
Climate mitigation is the greatest technical challenge that civilization has ever faced, and we have merely decades to address it. Thankfully we have a roadmap for rapid decarbonization, which should also greatly reduce the incidence of global poverty. The United States is now committed to developing a series of technologies that are both scalable and relevant for the rest of the planet. Central to this plan are advanced fission reactors, which have incredible untapped economic potential, combined with a sustainable industry based on the Hydrogen Economy. We are just now seeing the very beginning of the development of regional ‘hydrogen hubs’ which will help us rapidly achieve an economy of scale. Several other technologies in development related to fuel cell membranes and solid state storage have the potential to greatly expand its usefulness.
The key to meeting our climate goals lies in the rate at which we can grow the supply of sustainable power. This is dependent upon very cheap energy, which will not only accelerate growth, it will provide the 2-3x increase in global energy required for lifting billions out of poverty. With an advanced fuel cycle, nuclear fission can provide a Western European quality of life for 8-10 billion people indefinitely. It also looks probable that we will have several economically viable nuclear fusion reactor types within twenty years.
In the meantime, the idea of building a dedicated solar grid in a region of high insolation for H2 production is a good idea, and it will likely see realization in the Southwestern US, Africa, and Australia. These grids could also supply reliable regional power as a byproduct of its production as massive storage is an inherent component of the system.
While sustainable carbon-neutral fuels should eventually prove economically viable, carbon-free energy carriers like H2 and ammonia will dominate. Ammonia is critical to modern industrial agriculture, but it is also a fuel, and will probably find a use in maritime, at least until fission becomes more widespread in sea propulsion. Aircraft will use carbon-neutral fuels and H2.
Under US Democratic leadership, multiple bills were passed in 2021 which include provisions for the development and deployment of the technologies that will allow us to rapidly grow the sustainable economy over the coming decades. So, while the dominant renewable paradigm awkwardly embraces economic contraction, the only real hope for success is to greatly expand sustainable energy use by making it cheaper and more readily available.
Are you familiar with the compact molten salt reactor that burns natural uranium. My calculation show that it could be 50 times cheaper than typical reactors. would you agree?
@@mikefallwell1301
There is a world-wide effort underway to develop a new generation of advanced high temperature nuclear reactors that are far more scalable than the conventional light water plants in use today. The flip side of scalability includes cost, safety, annd flexibility. Capital costs for the nuclear island should begin around $3/watt at scale, but as the industrial system, and economy as a whole, transition to advanced nuclear, costs will plummet. Molten salt reactors represent, whether with liquid or solid fuel, a very promising pathway, and several variations are being pursued including high efficiency converters, thermal iso-breeders, and fast spectrum machines that, once started, primarily consume U238 or Th232.
The hydrogen economy can provide an opportunity for accelerating deployment of this technology, which of course would lead to massive benefits throughout industry. Around a century ago, fossils went through a brief period of peak productivity, and advanced nuclear has the economic potential to exceed and sustain that peak by over an order of magnitude indefinitely. Such a development has profound implications for climate mitigation and the global economy, yet political instability risks derailing the current trajectory putting us all in jeopardy.
@cbarcus so you're saying you've never even heard of the compact molten salt reactor and don't see the advantage of natural uranium and don't care about proliferation and three dollars a watt is is good enough
@@mikefallwell1301
Did you not understand what I wrote?
I have been advocating for the pursuit of MSRs since 2011. U238 is natural uranium and Th232 is natural thorium. MSRs were developed at Oak Ridge NL back in the 1960s, which culminated with a 7 MW demonstration reactor, but unfortunately the program was abandoned in the early 1970s. A NASA engineer named Kirk Sorensen had been recommended a book called ‘Fluid Fueled Reactors’, and that led to him becoming an MSR evangelist, which soon led to a wider movement in the 2000s.
Later, a grass-roots movement within the technical community formed to push for a nuclear Renaissance based around advanced fission reactor concepts appropriate for climate mitigation.
While power plant costs are expected to begin around $3/watt, below $1/watt becomes probable as the economy transitions to advanced nuclear throughout industry. Very low costs will likely be required for carbon capture to be practical at the scale of billions of tons per year.
The current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is above 415 ppm.
‘CO2 levels are now comparable to an ancient climate event known as the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 ppm. During that time, sea levels were between five and 25 meters (16 and 82 feet) higher than today, high enough to drown many of the world’s largest cities. Temperatures then averaged 7.7 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than in pre-industrial times, and studies indicate that large forests occupied today’s Arctic tundra.’ - Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Great interview. The final part with the 4 scenarios is similar to Holmgren's FUTURE SCENARIOS. In my opinion our western species will split and all four scenarios will be populated. Local governments (particularly rural shires) will lead the preper societies. Basically the essentials for the future are water, food, shelter and community. We have examples of how we can live succesfully in our recent past. Local councils or entrepreneurs need to find land and encourage simpler living societies. The high rise energy dependant cities will fail.
Yes, lets all get back to being cavemen
@@timothyrussell4445 It won't be a choice. Resources will run out (they are finite!) and our economic system (credit/growth) is too entrenched and self interested to react in time. Our policy makers are puppets of that economic system so are not doing anything. This is happening now. We have enjoyed the best of what our unsustainable civilisation can offer. People are intrinsically selfish and greedy. It's downhill from here. Just as the past was a very different place, so will be the future.
Yes, I pretty much agree. I do think though that humanity really can get its act together if the political conditions are right. At the moment we're subsumed in populist nonsense which people are buying into even though it's not in their interests, and global problems call for global solutions. I think we're smart enough, but we're also stupid enough not to, and time is running out. @@davidpalk5010
I think in terms of Water-Energy-Food nexus. These 3 are interdependent components
@@mohd.saifullahmajid6029 They always were, but now our civilisation is totally dependednt on highly vulnerable systems such as the power grid and the internet, and the finite mineral resources which make them possible, and those mineral resources are dependent upon the vulnerable systems. Also, global systems are more vulnerable than territorial or local ones, as there is less compartmentalisation or isolation to provide protections. The panenmic is a perfect example of this. Problems which once would have been locally contained are now global. The Ukranian war is another example. Restricted gas and grain supplies from one region will have economic and political effects right around the world.
Great work rachel, my favourite series learn so much
Renewable or not is utterly irrelevant. Our energy goals should be security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. Renewable is nothing but a misleading buzzword like all natural or chemical free. It means nothing.
Exactly. The mineral shortage is just one reason RE only is not feasible nor sustainable.
Germany may be looking into viable, scalable geothermal. It can act as a base load. Please have experts and innovators in this industry on your show. A Canadian company called Eavor has a potential game changer in this industry. Way more energy in geothermal than our civilization needs for the foreseeable future.
I'd like more coverage of topic
He forgets the Doomers who know that there is no solution to near term human extinction.
They know nothing at all wind farms in the ocean kill whales
Yes. It's all hopeless. I failed my grade nine exam.
IT'S SO HARD AND UNFAIR!
(lol.. )
Famine, hardship, violence and death? Definitely more coming our way. Extinction? How can you be so sure? Humans are very resourceful and ingenious but usually only when we are forced to be, which we will. Don't give up on us.