Do you remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? It tells you that you shouldn't cry wolf too many times but also that the wolf will eventually come. It illustrates how our destiny as human beings is to always choose extreme viewpoints: either we are too afraid of the wolf, or we believe it doesn't exist. Indeed, Erwin Schlesinger said, "human beings have only two modes of operation: complacency and panic."
This dichotomy is especially visible in the current debate on the "Energy Transition" that recently flared in an exchange between Simon Michaux and Nafeez Ahmed, the first maintaining that the transition is impossible, the second arriving at the opposite conclusion. In my modest opinion, Michaud's work is correct within the limits of the assumptions he made. But these assumptions are not necessarily right.
Models may be perfectly correct, but still unable to predict the future.
If you really believe that they can, you are bound to make enormous mistakes -- as we saw in the way the recent pandemic was (mis)managed. Let me give an example: the story of the "peak oil" movement.
When I stumbled into the peak oil concept some 20 years ago, I thought it was a great idea. I am still thinking it is an incredibly insightful view of how humans exploit natural resources, and I keep studying the subject, as you can read at this link. But you also probably know that peak oil is unpopular nowadays. I have had referees criticizing our work just because it mentioned the term "peak oil." As if we were submitting a paper to "Nature Astronomy" where we argued that the Earth is flat." Why that?
There was nothing wrong with the peak oil concept. It was based on sound models, and it was proposed by some of the best oil geologists in the world. The problem was that the models didn't allow deviations from the stated path. They didn't take into account how the oil extraction system could rearrange itself to react to the scarcity of resources. Even oil extraction is a garden of forking paths, and the system can choose one or another depending on the circumstances. In this case, it chose a path that led to the exploitation of shale oil resources and that delayed the peak by more than 10 years.
Shale oil resources were not taken into account in the input data of the model. So, over and over, the peak was announced to be arriving in a specific year, and it didn't: the earliest estimates had it in 2005. Today, in 2023, we may be finally peaking, but we don't know for sure. Many peakers argue that the peak did arrive, but only for "conventional" oil. Sure, the surgery was successful, but the patient died. No wonder that most people, including the referees of scientific papers, are now convinced that peak oil was a hoax.
The peakers' mistake is typical of the way the role of models is misunderstood. The peak oil models are great to let you understand the cycle of resource exploitation and that you have to expect the peak, sooner or later. But you are making a big mistake if you think they can predict the date of the peak. Instead, that's exactly how the peak oil models were used. I did that, too, regrettably, but we learn from our mistakes (except in politics, of course).
Models are there to understand the future, not to predict it.
The future is a garden of forking paths. Where you go depends on the path you choose. But you still need to follow one of the available paths.
______________________________________
Now, let me try to examine Michaux's work and Ahmed's rebuttal in light of these considerations. I went through Michaux's report, and I can tell you that it is well done, accurate, full of data, and created by competent professionals. That doesn't mean it cannot be wrong, just like the peak oil date was proposed by competent professionals but turned out to be wrong. The problem is evident from the beginning: it is right there, in the title.
Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels
You see? Michaux assumes from the start that we need "extra capacity" from "alternative" energy in order to "completely replace" fossil fuels. If the problem is stated in these terms, the answer to the question of the feasibility of the transition can only be negative.
Alas, we didn't need a report of 985 pages to understand that. It was obvious from the beginning. The limits of mineral resources were already shown in 1972 by the authors of "The Limits to Growth," the report sponsored by the Club of Rome. We know that we have limits; the problem is which paths we can choose within these limits.
This question is often touched on in Michaux's report when he mentions the need to "think outside the box" and to change the structure of the system. But, eventually, the result is still stated in negative terms. It is clear from the summary, where Michaux says, "The existing renewable energy sectors and the EV technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution." This suggests that we should stick to fossil fuels while waiting for some miracle leading us to the "final" solution, whatever that means. This statement can be used to argue that renewables are useless. Then, it becomes a memetic weapon to keep us stuck to fossil fuels; an attitude which can only lead us to disaster.
Nafeez Ahmed perfectly understood the problems in his rebuttal. Ahmed notes several critical points in Michaud's report; the principal ones are underestimating the current EROI of renewables and the recent developments of batteries. That leads him to the statement that renewables are not really "renewable" but, at most, "replaceable." Which is simply wrong. The EROI of renewables is now large enough to allow the use of renewable energy to recycle renewable plants. Renewables are exactly that: renewable.
You could argue that my (and Ahmed's) evaluation of the EROI of renewables is over-optimistic. Maybe, but that's not the main point. Ahmed's criticism is focused on the roots of the problem: we need to take into account how the system can (and always does) adapt to scarcity. It follows different paths among the many available. Ahmed writes:
...we remain trapped within the prevailing ideological paradigm associated with modern industrial civilisation. This paradigm is a form of reductive-materialism that defines human nature, the natural world, and the relationship between them through the lens of homo economicus – a reduction of human nature to base imperatives oriented around endless consumption and production of materially-defined pursuits; pursuits which are premised on an understanding of nature as little more than a repository of material resources suitable only for human domination and material self-maximisation; in which both human and nature are projected as separate and competing, themselves comprised of separate and competing units.
Yet this ideology is bound up with a system that is hurtling toward self-destruction. As an empirical test of accuracy, it has utterly failed: it is not true because it clearly does not reflect the reality of human nature and the natural world.
It’s understandable, then, that in reacting to this ideology, many environmentalists have zeroed in on certain features of the current system – its predatory growth trajectory – and sought out alternatives that would seem to be diametrically opposed to those regressive features.
One result of this is a proliferation of narratives claiming that the clean energy transformation is little more than an extension of the same industrialised, endless growth ideological paradigm that led us to this global crisis in the first place. Instead of solving that crisis, they claim, it will only worsen it.
Within this worldview, replacing the existing fossil fuel energy infrastructure with a new one based on renewable energy technologies is a fantasy, and therefore the world is heading for an unavoidable contraction that will result in the demise of modern civilisation. ... Far from being a sober, scientific perspective, this view is itself an ideological reaction that represents a ‘fight or flight’ response to the current crisis convergence. In fact, the proponents of this view are often as dogmatically committed to their views as those they criticise. ....
Recognising the flaws in Michaux’s approach does not vindicate the idea that the current structures and value-systems of the global economy should simply stay the same. On the contrary, accelerating the energy and transport disruptions entails fundamental changes not only within these sectors, but in the way they are organised and managed in relation to wider society.
My critique of Michaux doesn’t justify complacency about metals and minerals requirements for the clean energy transformation. Resource bottlenecks can happen for a range of reasons as geopolitical crises like Russia's war in Ukraine make obvious. But there are no good reasons to believe that potential materials bottlenecks entail the total infeasibility of the transition.
... we face the unprecedented opportunity and ecological necessity to move into a new system. This system includes the possibilities of abundant clean energy and transport with diminishing material throughput, requiring new circular economy approaches rooted in respect for life and the earth; and where the key technologies are so networked and decentralised that they work best with participatory models of distribution and sharing. This entails the emergence of a new economy with value measured in innovative ways, because traditional GDP metrics focusing on ever-increasing material throughput will become functionally useless.
If you can, please, try to examine these statements by Ahmed with an open mind because he perfectly frames the problem. And never forget one thing: the future is not a single path toward catastrophe. It is a garden of forking paths. We are bound to follow one of these paths: we don't know which one yet, but not all of them lead to the Seneca Cliff. In the transition to a renewable energy system, we can adapt, reduce demand, improve efficiency, deploy new technologies, and simply be happy with a more limited supply of energy at some moments. It is only the rigidity of our mental models that make us think that there are no alternatives to fossil fuels.
This post was revised on May 8th 2023 to improve clarity
So glad, Ugo, you are revisiting those peak oil days. "There was nothing wrong with the peak oil concept." Indeed.
ReplyDelete"The mistake of the "peakers" (let me call them this way) was the same one as that of the boy who cried wolf. They called the peak too early and too many times."
Nope. The mistake of the peakers was that they assumed they can know the future, and call it. Like Jehovah's Witnesses, they fell for hubris. They used their models to manipulate their audience.
Everybody manipulates their audience. I don't think that peak oilers are more guilty than others.
DeleteBut not everybody pretends to know the future, and is so full of hubris to actually call it. That's what killed the peak oil movement.
DeleteUgo: "Everybody manipulates their audience."
DeleteOut of the mouths of babes.
As for the "clean energy transition" I am partially in agreement with the citation. Too many assumptions. But at the same time, offhand, I think there is nothing "clean" about giant wind turbines or solar panels (in terms of manufacture or disposal), and I have developed doubts that a) giant turbines can be made without fossil fuels, and that they are on balance useful (in mass applications); and b) that efficient solar panels can be made without recourse to hyper-modern technologies. Could be wrong. I am a big fan of passive solar houses and mini-solar turbines not requiring any new hi-tech components, used in a decentralized fashion. But that is not where the efforts have gone. And the Russians are said to have a nuclear plant running on used uranium? Hm.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I would say the argument is plagued by the fact that the whole "green energy" field has been overtaken by the sort of charlatans that are pushing electric vehicles as the savior of us all. And who have just turned off nuke plants in Germany while siphoning electricity from France and other surrounding countries, mining dirty brown coal surreptitiously, and pulling off other shenanigans. Ugh. Key question: can "clean energy" happen among people (us) who have let all their institutions be overrun by psychopaths and their minions?
"Over and over, the peak was announced to be arriving on a specific year, and disaster was guaranteed..."
ReplyDeleteToday, drug consumption in Iraq, Syria and the Persian Gulf has reached unprecedented rates (Iraq has been drug-clean up to 2003)...
"Sure, the surgery was successful" - but more and more nations are falling victims to war and drug consumption - and this is the sign of energy hyperthymia - the very peak oil in flesh and blood...
What's called Shale Oil has been reaching unprecedented production levels in news reports since the US invaded Iraq in 2003, too...
It doesn't need a model to predict that - the now war-torn - Sudan will be the nation invaded by drug consumption - like no tomorrow - next - ha ha ha
Owing to how deeply our global system has become addicted to oil, unable to confront reality - Peak oil has been morphed into an Energy Musical Chairs Game - you count in it disappearing Chairs not disappearing Barrels of oil, Tonnes of coal and Atmosphares of natural gas*...
"No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores"
Wailing.
* A medical doctor wonders how billions of drug doses could possibly be manufactured in a very short time during the pandemic (10:30).
So if life-critical mass medicines can be manufactured this quick, how about non medicinal drugs - where a deteriorating wellbeing of a person taking them, or death - is not an issue - ha ha ha - https://www.bitchute.com/video/qAb3ajl3inOH
Hyperthymia should have been written - Hypothermia - too much ChatGPT - ha ha ha!
DeleteHyperthymia is defined as excessive emotional sensitivity
DeleteHypothermia is defined as low body temperature
"Sure, the surgery was successful" - but more and more nations are falling victims to war and drug consumption - and this is the sign of energy **hyperthymia** - the very peak oil in flesh and blood...
I'm going out on a limb here as say the hyperthymia is the correct word.
The truth is that models cannot predict the future ... and probably never will. The most that they can do is show us that what we are doing probably won't turn out well if nothing changes, and the "peakers" got that part right decades ago.
ReplyDeleteBut something always changes. Mother Jones just did an ( USA focused article ) on what actually needs to be done to hit the environmental targets, and it's a real moonshot .... quote " we must rebuild most of the physical energy infrastructure of this country " ...
and we will have to do it in 20 or 30 years, not the roughly 150 years it took to build it.
Not much point in wondering why we didn't start sooner, because we never do start soon enough to avoid a predictable crisis ... complacency and greed must give way to panic and determination before anyone can actually do anything.
So do we have enough time left ? Unfortunately, only if we think we don't, will we even make an attempt. So hopefully we pick the right path through the garden the first time, and follow it perfectly. Humans must really love cliffhangers. ArtDeco.
A Seneca Cliff is a kind of launch pad shooting the system toward the future. The problem is that it points down.
Delete"Over and over, the peak was announced to be arriving on a specific year, and disaster was guaranteed..."
ReplyDeleteToday, drug consumption in Iraq, Syria and the Persian Gulf has reached unprecedented rates (Iraq has been drug-clean up to 2003)...
"Sure, the surgery was successful" - but more and more nations are falling victims to war and drug consumption - and this is the sign of energy Hypothermia - the very peak oil in flesh and blood...
What's called Shale Oil has been reaching unprecedented levels in news reports since the US invaded Iraq in 2003, too...
It doesn't need a model to predict that - the now war-torn - Sudan will be the nation invaded by drug consumption - like no tomorrow - next - ha ha ha
Owing to how deeply our global system has become addicted to oil, unable to confront reality - Peak oil has been morphed into an Energy Musical Chairs Game - you count in it disappearing Chairs not disappearing Barrels of oil, Tonnes of coal and Atmosphares of natural gas*...
"No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores"
Wailing.
* A medical doctor wonders how billions of drug doses could possibly be manufactured in a very short time during the pandemic (10:30).
So if life-critical mass medicines can be manufactured this quick, how about non medicinal drugs where a deteriorating wellbeing of the person taking them, or death - is not an issue - ha ha ha - https://www.bitchute.com/video/qAb3ajl3inOH
It's Michaux.
ReplyDeleteOops.... thanks!
DeleteInteresting. Michaux basically says that the Renewable Energy Transition cannot prevent civilisational collapse, unless it is accompanied by systemic change. Ahmed criticises Michaux, but basically comes to the same conclusion: "we face the unprecedented opportunity and ecological necessity to move into a new system."
ReplyDeleteI believe that if you want to achieve systemic changes, you have to know what the goal of a system is. If you know the goal, you know the dynamic (the power through which the goal is achieved). If you know the dynamic, you can change it.
What's the ultimate goal of our system?
We don't know if the universe has a purpose. Maybe. But for what we can say, the only purpose of complex systems is to maximize the dissipation of energy potential. And that can be done in several creative ways.
DeleteAhmed aside, when systemic changes are forced by lack of energy, the system cannot change itself by itself to its former footprint, it has to shrink down to the maximum amount of energy available. The more it shrinks, the more geographies drift apart and go their way. Wasn't it smarter keeping fossil fuels reserves in the ground, let everyone go their way and facing their future, rather than everyone now will face their future anyway - but no fossil fuels are left in the ground?
DeleteThis really needs to be understood in the future - why humans have (collectively?) resorted to take first behavioural path?
Isn't the ultimate goal of our system to concentrate wealth? That's the end result, isn't it?
DeleteIf this is so, it logically follows that a systemic change would entail the curbing of limitless concentrating of wealth. This could be done by putting a cap on how much wealth an individual can own. Whether that cap is 10 million or 10 billion dolars/euros, is irrelevant. The point is to stop the dynamic of wealth concentration.
In other words: You can't have a successful renewable energy transition, while at the same time turning a handful of billionnaires into trillionnaires.
No... the system just dissipates energy at the fastest possible rate. The concentration of wealth is not a way to dissipate fast -- it is the opposite. A good system distributes energy among all the cells of the network to make dissipation faster. In any case, the system decides, not you or anyone else.
DeleteMaybe there's a misunderstanding or I've jumped too far ahead.
DeleteI'm not referring to the universe or energy systems per se, but rather to the societal level. As said, despite their differences, Michaux and Ahmed agree that a new system is needed to prevent civilisational collapse. I assume that they mean a new system on a societal level. Hence, my question about what the system is doing, right now, what is its goal. Or is the goal of every system to dissipate energy potential?
Either way, if only systemic change can prevent civilisational collapse, but the system decides, this means that things are hopeless and we're just wasting time talking about it. I accept that this may be true, but I don't accept that it is.
If things aren't hopeless, it means the system (on a societal level) can be changed. Which brings me back to my initial question: Isn't wealth concentration the main driver of the system? If so, wouldn't the systemic change need to be undertaken in that direction?
Neven, I think that the extreme wealth concentration you point out is downstream from the takeover by the psychopaths and their minions. That is where the fulcrum is, I am convinced. Any other reform will be scuttled by them.
DeleteWhether it's the dynamic of wealth concentration that selects the psychopaths to do its bidding, or the psychopaths that automatically strive for wealth concentration, the conclusion is the same: Stop the endless concentrating of wealth, and you create the conditions for solutions to have a chance of succeeding. Solutions like the renewable energy transition, curbing consumer culture, steady state economics (which the West should've started implementing 2-3 decades ago).
DeleteSo, how much wealth is enough for one individual? 10 million, 100 million, 1 billion?
I think the only way to avoid wealth concentration is to go for renewable energy. It is a naturally dispersed form of energy. It does not, in itself, avoid wealth concentration but, at least, it does not favor it. Think of the idea of a highly concentrated energy production based on very large nuclear breeder plants. An old project by Cesare Marchetti had only three of them sufficient to power the whole world. Now, controlling these plants means controlling the world. Think of concentrated wealth....
DeleteWhatever has been thought of - a solution - during the fossil fuels age, is not a solution - after the age is behind.
DeleteNuclear is fossil fuels-derivative.
Nuclear Fusion - too.
Big hydro dams - as well - and on and on...
Fossil fuels push humans to make the same mistake they make with Time.
They think there could be another Time - but they don't count seconds since they have made the statement.
Humans remain humans.
Ugo Bardi: "I think the only way to avoid wealth concentration is to go for renewable energy. It is a naturally dispersed form of energy. It does not, in itself, avoid wealth concentration but, at least, it does not favor it. Think of the idea of a highly concentrated energy production based on very large nuclear breeder plants. An old project by Cesare Marchetti had only three of them sufficient to power the whole world. Now, controlling these plants means controlling the world. Think of concentrated wealth.... "
DeleteI am sorry. You've lost your mind. You've become self-obsessed, or you always were.
With the introduction of the US Inflation Reduction Act tax credits/subsidies for wind and solar farms, the mega wealthy can now build them at Zero Capital and Production Cost for the life of the plant. Then sell that electricity at any price they can get. See the new LCOE v16.
Why would you need to be throwing such obscene subsidies to a RE transition that was already considered the cheapest and most reliable long term energy available?
"Obscene subsidies" my ass. The truly obscene subsidies (to the tune of $5 TRILLION per year) are to the fossil fuel industry, plus countless billions over the decades (and for millennia into the future) to the nuclear industry.
DeleteThe renewable industry absolutely should be encouraged and accelerated with subsidies, incentives, whatever will speed the transition so desperately needed.
If "The truly obscene subsidies (to the tune of $5 TRILLION per year) are to the fossil fuel industry" then please enlighten us:-
Deletea) how much land would be needed to "speed the transition so desperately needed" so that the "renewable industry absolutely should be encouraged and accelerated with subsidies, incentives [etc.] ?
Harvesting solar energy flows with solar and wind farms require between 400 and 750 times more land than nuclear and natural gas plants. And they require many times the amount of steel and concrete to build generating plants than thermal sources, such as nuclear, coal & gas.
https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/whats-the-land-use-intensity-of-different-energy-sources
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/04/why-renewables-cant-save-the-climate/#4d6416113526
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/03/21/green-new-deal-is-dead-without-nuclear-power/#6292d1ed69db
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1610381114
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1610381114
b) How you intend to build infrastructure for industry, transport, mine and refine metals and other minerals, fuel for heavy transport, tar for road surfaces, helium for microchips, etc. etc. with only electricity ?
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-05-19/helium-is-a-finite-resource-who-knew/
c) and what global population numbers you have calculated can be sustained within these limits?
You haven't calculated these numbers nor reviewed others who have (see links above) or you wouldn't be making the emotional call you do above. So let me give you a hint. This pale blue spot supported under 1 billion humans back in 1800 as the industrial fossil fuel age began. And there were a lot more trees back then too.
What Michaux says is, in the summary
ReplyDelete"There is simply just not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target set by the World’s most influential nations. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today. Inevitably, this leads to the conclusion that the existing renewable energy sectors and the EV technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution. It is recommended that some thought be given to this and what that something else might be."
Which, in my modest opinion, simply makes no sense. He seems to say that the "solution" is to return to the current "social contract" by means of something that doesn't exist. But we should think about that (??)
Ugo, in my modest opinion you appear to be reading far more into what Michaux says in his abstract (summary): "a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance" is hardly a call for a return to "the current "social contract". "
DeleteHi, I think he makes perfect sense, but I have read much more than a paragraph or a summary of his work. I understand where he is coming from. He is not recommending maintaining the current social contract, everywhere he says it is already doomed/flawed. That expecting to replacing FF with RE (in IPCC, COP goals EU goals) and expecting the same economic social contact / systems to prevail is flawed, must fail. Therefore both a different social contract and different economic / energy systems are required -- and what those are we need to quickly and collectively think about what they might be. If Michaux has a "solution" at all it is that we had better hurry up and find one. Best, Sean
DeleteNafeez M Ahmed's LinkedIn bio reads: “I am leading and developing the Unitas Futures Lab, a new systems transformation consultancy [...]” in other words he has a commercial “investor story time” axe to grind and his analysis can't be trusted as impartial. His article (May 2023) has many errors, omissions and misrepresentations of Michaux (August 2021) paper.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Michaux stresses (in his abstract on page 4) that the implication of his paper is that “a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today” will be needed going into the future.
However Ahmed misrepresents this by stating that “Michaux is attempting to calculate a one-for-one substitution of the entire existing energy output of the current fossil fuel system. But this ignores the fact that a renewable energy system is an entirely new system with different dynamics, rules and properties.”
Ahmed also ignores land needed for mining raw materials for solar panels manufacture when comparing them to coal: "[...] calculations done a decade ago showed that a solar thermal plant can produce 18 Gigawatt per hour (GWh) per acre of land over a 60-year period; compared to a coal plant producing 15GWh per acre of mined land.”
Even Wikipedia tells us the last few decades commercial panel efficiencies have been in the 25%-28% range. Yet Ahmed writes that “[...] the efficiency of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is improving exponentially” !
Ahmed is perfectly right.
DeleteWhich of Ahmed's statements is "perfectly right"? They seem somewhat "perfectly wrong" to me, and typical of voices with little hands on building practical industrial production experience, often blind to the impacts and demands of whole system industrial supply chains, such as process heat, remote mining transport, and land use being an order or more intensive for solar flow harvesting infrastructures.
DeleteI spell out here a particular blind spot. Lets start with the first line of the 6 page summary of Michaux's report, which reads:
"This report addresses the challenges around the ambitious task of phasing out fossil fuels (oil, gas, & coal) that are currently used in vehicle Internal Combustion Engine technology (ICE) and for electrical power generation."
And the third paragraph reads:
“[...] The general plan [which the report's analysis is based upon] can be summarized as follows: ICE vehicles are to be phased out and substituted with Electric Vehicles (EV) and Hydrogen Fuel cell powered (H2-Cell) vehicles. EV’s are to be powered with lithium ion batteries. Coal- and gas- fired electrical power generation is to be phased out and substituted with by solar photovoltaic, wind turbine, hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal or biowaste to energy power stations.”
I agree that the title of Michaux's report "Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels" is open ended. But for Ahmed to then claim that:
"Michaux is attempting to calculate a one-for-one substitution of the entire existing energy output of the current fossil fuel system"
... seems patently false and/or deliberately misleading - a blind spot - especially since "Electrical Power Systems" in 2021 supplied only 16.28% of global primary energy, with fossil's supplying the remaining 83.68% ('substitution method').
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-source-bar?stackMode=relative&country=GBR~FRA~OWID_WRL~DEU~Europe
NB [just noticed a typo / error in my above comment, which should read "Ahmed also ignores land needed for mining raw materials for solar THERMAL PLANT manufacture when comparing them to coal"]
You spotted some of the errors in Nafeez Ahmed's critique and Ugo Bardi's response was unhelpful. I also spotted some of those errors and others. For example, he performs an exponential assumption about lithium production rates without further analysis. As we learned from mining other minerals, the highest quality, easiest to get at ores are mined first. Ore quality decreases over time, with (exponentially) more overburden needed to be mined to keep production increasing.
DeleteI was disappointed by his opening which suggests Michaux doesn't have the experience to author such a report, implying that Ahmed has the experience to critique it. Both may or may not be true but is irrelevant to whether the report is accurate or not (oddly, Bardi said is was "accurate" but contained many errors).
Michaux isn't the only one who thinks that even building the first generation in a time relevant to addressing climate change is infeasible. Mark P Mills also believes it would be a challenge, with 10 times the amount of materials needed for renewable energy and batteries, compared with the same energy from fossil fuels.
Ugo, it seems to me that this post rhymes with your post from last week (https://www.senecaeffect.com/2023/05/the-problem-with-galileo-surrogate.html).
ReplyDeletePrediction of the future state of a system requires two things: 1) the rules (laws) are known and 2) the current status is known sufficiently well. A good example is planetary motion. As a sailor, I can look up the tide weeks or even years in advance, and it's really accurate.
Social "Science" on the other hand satisfies neither condition. It seems to me that the problem with predicting the development of e.g. energy systems is that we don't really know how the social system works either globally or even at local level ("The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable" - JK Galbraith) . And even if we did, despite all the economic data, it doesn't really give us a snapshot of the state of 8billion people.
Given the uncertainty in the governing rules and the initial conditions, the best we can get from models of social development is a sense of the dynamics and maybe the what's possible (or impossible as Michaux tried). As George Box said "All models are wrong, but some are useful".
Craig
As George Box said "All models are wrong, but some are useful". ... I heard that was from Gavin Schmidt NASA-GISS quote TedX talk - …Models are not right or wrong; they’re always wrong. They’re always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells you more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it’s skillful….
DeleteMichaux's "models" are not predictions, they are not even forecasts, but they are skillful when used as intended. Better than what existed before, which was nothing.
Best Sean
Models are always wrong. That makes sense. Yet it's become fashionable to use models to push various agendas as though they were true.
DeleteI have been wondering why Ugo told the story of the boy who cried wolf in such a skewed way. The boy's problem was not that he cried an alarm too soon or too often. His problem was: he lied. Repeatedly. Consequently, he could not be trusted.
What about this interpretation?
DeleteThe problem was: he sees patterns in his surroundings (behavior of prey) revealing a wolf. When he cries “wolf”, the wolf leaves (certainly when other people arrive who did not necessarily see the patterns). When people did not arrive anymore, the wolf understood that there was no threat any more. The problem thus was: the community cannot be trusted.
The standard version of the story has that the boy lied to amuse himself. But nothing would have changed if the boy really believed he saw a wolf. It is a fairy tale, so we can retell it in ways that have a specific meaning for our situation. I discussed that in some detail here: https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-boy-who-called-wolf-bayesian-drama_16.html
DeleteA disadvantage of the story using Bayes statistics is that it ends with a formula and people accept this as “a new truth” but do not see the dynamics.
DeleteTherefore I prefer to interpret the “boy who cried wolf” as a self-denying prophecy. A self-denying prophecy is less well known than the self-fulfilling prophecy.
The prediction is the result of knowledge about many aspects (“if this, then that” from each agent's point of view and this is the Bayesian flavor of the insight) as well as an anticipation of a possible future. The central pattern that I would highlight is the coordination of the actions of agents (i.e. it is an effect that transcends the influence of an individual agent) that is enabled by the prediction. That coordination may be unintentional or intended, it doesn't matter, but when using concepts in standard language, an intention is sometimes implied.
I will compare the self-denying prophecy with the self-fulfilling prophecy. The predicted situation may be desirable or avoidable, it doesn't matter.
(A) The self-fulfilling prophecy is an example of positive feedback. To be able to express this properly in the standard language, I will make this explicit in two ways:
(1): the more agents communicate about the predicted situation (i.e. the more agents want to believe in the prediction), the more (unintentional and intended) coordination between their actions (i.e. the greater the chance that the predicted situation will occur).
(2): the fewer agents communicate about the predicted situation (i.e. the fewer agents want to believe in the prediction), the less (unintended and intended) coordination between their actions (i.e. the less likely the predicted situation will occur).
The self-fulfilling prophecy leads to an exponential increase or decrease of the probability that a predicted situation will occur. It is the engine of change, evolution, birth and destruction and it breaks stability. Examples are the suddenly exponentially increasing new possibilities of coordination due to the communication over the internet and also the sudden disappearance of dictatorships.
(B) The self-denying prophecy is an example of negative feedback. To be able to express this properly in the standard language, I will also make this explicit in two ways:
(1): the more agents communicate about the predicted situation (i.e. the more agents want to believe in the prediction), the less (unintended and intended) coordination between their actions (i.e. the less likely the predicted situation will occur).
(2): the fewer agents communicate about the predicted situation (i.e. the fewer agents want to believe in the prediction), the more (unintentional and intended) coordination between their actions (i.e. the greater the chance that the predicted situation will occur).
The self-denying prophecy leads to stabilization of the probability of the situation at a higher or a lower level than where it was originally.
Examples: The “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin) in which the pursuit of individual profit makes coordination between agents impossible and thus limits individual profit. The more agents communicate that they care about individual gain, the less likely they will realize it. An immediate consequence is thus that openness of government in a democracy (such that the population can take actions to achieve the intended goal at a certain level or to avoid a certain level) is a stabilizing measure and always counteracts change.
I am glad you quote Borges who used to be my preferred author when I was in my 20s. But I was way too young to understand him. And nobody had talked about the multiverse yet, which has become since then a new fashion, for some time. In the short story, the Garden of Forking Paths is presented as a Chinese conception of time. A non linear time. The problem is that introducing exotic, alien philosophies in Occident has always led to many kinds of disasters because western people just cannot fully grasp the meaning of them. Look what Marvel did with this (I am not even talking about the many sects or political organizations during the 20th century).
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how anybody can think that global industry can continue in any recognizable form for much longer. How much longer might be a question.
ReplyDeleteIn my view alternative energy sources are not an alternative at all, they simply add to a mix of possible energy sources. This, of course, makes perfect sense when considering the implications of the MPP, etc.
Calling them renewable seems to be blantant propoganda, misinformation. They are replaceable, at best, and then only within the confines of a larger industrial system, powered mostly by fossil fuels.
And, of course, the problem is not an energy problem, per se. It is a resource problem. It can best be understood, on a visceral and mathematical basis, by considering the Law of the Minimum.
Will industry die? Of course. The system that may replace it will be based, unavoidably, on solar flows and available resources. It will not include gimmicks like solar arrays and giant wind tubines and such. I'd say.
HI, I have many problems with your review and even more with the Ahmed critique. Neither are accurately reflecting Simon's position, but are instead misrepresenting it. For one you are reviewing a 2 years old report, while Ahmed calls it "new". It's not new. An example-In Myth 2: Coal, Ahmed creates a lot of assumptions about "intentions" and then makes false accusations against Simon Michaux when all he is doing is showing the physical wind/solar units required to match with 861.3 MW installed capacity of an avg coal power plant output. Michaux does not say they need "be more energetically and materially intensive" at all, he states how many units are needed to get to the 861 MW and that's it. Ahmed makes several other errors like this, probably because he does understand what the framing is, and there is a lack of back end work - but it is a Report commissioned privately for a purpose, not a peer reviewed academic Paper. Michaux's "estimates work/calcs" may be available if requested - Ahmed never asked.
ReplyDeleteYour "interrogation" and interpretation being placed upon the report's heading is extremely off the mark and presumptuous. Your framing is completely wrong as it does not capture the correct intentions or the purpose of the report nor why it was Commissioned and Funded in the first place.
To be fair and respectful, both of you should have invited input from Simon Michaux before publishing your articles. Or at least offered him an automatic public right of reply.
It was Govt Officials and Politicians who were assuming the UNFCCC / EU Goals were valid and achievable in replacing FF energy with Renew. Energy supply out to 2050 and beyond. Fact is no one had ever done the 'work" to see if materially this was feasible - it had only ever been assumed it was until Michaux was asked by EU Officials and then Commissioned by the Finland Geological Survey to find out.
Best Sean
My refs: https://www.simonmichaux.com/
2023 https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/1.%20Simon%20Michaus-Challenges%20and%20Bottlenecks%20for%20the%20Green%20Transition.pdf and from the 2021 report abstract:-
"The global strategic decision adopted by most nations to phase out fossil fuels systems and replace them with renewable energy generation systems is largely driven by CO2 emissions and associated climate change, and not by dwindling resources, although it is well known that oil, gas, and coal reserves are finite."
The most serious errors, and those hardest to see, are usually modelling errors.
ReplyDeleteAn addendem of copy/paste:
ReplyDelete(Limits to Growth) Lead author, Donella Meadows, passed away from cerebral meningitis in 2001, but spoke with Alice Friedemann at Energy Skeptic that year. “We were at MIT,” she said, “we had been trained in science. The way we thought about the future was utterly logical: if you tell people there’s a disaster ahead, they will change course. If you give them a choice between a good future and a bad one, they will pick the good. They might even be grateful. Naive, weren’t we?”
Cassandra, the Trojan priestess of Greek mythology, earned the power to see the future, a gift from her admirer Apollo. When she scorned him, he could not revoke his gift, but took revenge by cursing her that no one would ever believe her.
https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/53539/limits-to-growth-book-eccology-50-years/
Simon Michaux 14 Feb 2023: "...so we can't change our Commodities very easily and we can't change our technology very easily but we can change us. So the analysis is implying a radically different system of governance and a very different social contract than what's in place today. Inevitably this leads to conclusion that the whole green transition plan in its
current form (that's the only plan we've got) it's just not going to work very well and so it's a stepping stone to something else. It's not the plan and so it's recommended that we actually give some thought about what that might be. Ecological reality and biophysical limitations will reassert themselves. We need a better plan. Something that is actually Tethered to reality." [...]
"What do we do? Conduct a Maslow Hierarchy of Needs Analysis Loop not just for society but for also industry which allows our society to function at the moment. So from the point of view of Industry what does industry need to survive in terms of hierarchy, what does food production need to survive in context of (the food needs hierarchy.) Society first, industry, food, energy and you're going to go through a loop again and again. It will become apparent if something's not possible. The whole system crashes and you have to go back to the drawing board. [...] Retool the existing power grid into a networks of micro grids that can transfer power between them and still function if part of the (whole) grid is shut down. [...] Develop an engineering technology that can cope with variable power supply, variable voltage, variable current, variable frequency, power spikes, brown outs, all of that. If we can have a technology that can cope then we won't need the buffer (storage supply), and if we don't need the buffer a lot of our raw material requirements will not be needed. [...] Plan for a systemic merging of energy and raw material feed stock supply with all industrial actions - they are no longer just a cost of doing business they are now rate determining steps. Plan for an economy that can periodically shut down - become more in tune with Seasons, shut down over winter [...] Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ET5j-lqPO0
Another opinion of Michaux is the firm expectation of global GDP pulling back to at least 50% of the current level. Itself being driven by major systemic changes as Reality asserts itself in the next 10-15 years or so. Others see economic activity collapsing to a third or less of what it is now, back to the 1970s level.
Best, Sean
The peak oilers were not wrong and are not wrong now. The physical changes to supply in both absolute and cost terms has been mitigated by debt, first some and now enormous sums added to national and corporate balance sheets to make up for the shortfalls in surplus energy from the various peaks. 1970’s - stagnation until the development of the Alaska North slope and North Sea oil. Massive first conventional peak in 2005 leading to the GFC and the addition of huge debt to the system. All fuels peak 2018, debt added at unprecedented levels under the cover of the ‘pandemic’. The ‘Green’ works mostly as a fig leaf to cover for the unsustainable debt by positing a new economy to take us to wherever and justify the addition of debt. The truly worthless fiat of the western economies has also been used to harvest real resources at way below cost by using a captured trade system, another way of massaging the realities of resource depletion for the golden billion. China industrialised on coal same as Britain, the US, Russia and Germany and the west has exploited this last great industrialisation to keep its standard of living up. Peak oil was and is correct, it’s affects are ongoing and pernicious and when the debt pile collapses the true scale will become apparent.
ReplyDeleteYes. Wholeheartedly agree. Best, sean
DeleteI don't believe that all systems' purpose is to dissipate energy as fast as possible. Were that true, I would be eating non-stop.
ReplyDeleteI think the purpose in any complex system that has existed for a sufficient time is homeostasis.
If there's plenty available energy, I may permit me some extravagances, I may grow. If there isn't, I may decrease my consumption. I may die if I can't find enough. But my primal purpose is to keep existing, not using all the available resources. If I am smart, I try to consume in a sustainable way, since my purpose is to exist as long as possible. Eventually I will fail and die, and all the life I carry inside me will need to find another host or die in their turn.
If you think of our societies and civilizations as holobionts, their role is the same: staying alive. For this, they evolve and adapt as needed, but sometimes they aren't fast enough. This is what we are talking. Will our civilization react in time to keep it alive, or will we need to find another host?
Sometimes I am dismayed by the low level of some of the comments I receive, but this one makes me think that there still exists a certain level of intelligence on this planet. Clearly, you have studied this subject -- on this point, please note that an interpretation of the concept of homeostasis is that it does maximize the entropy dissipation (careful, it is the dissipation of potential energy, not of energy, and potential energy is related to entropy). So, you won't maximize entropy dissipation by eating non-stop, (unless you are a sheep or a cow) because you would probably die and soon stop dissipating. :-)
DeleteAll this is related to the concept of holobiont, indeed. I am still wrestling with several elements of the idea. Granted, holobionts exist, but how exactly do they evolve to maximize energy dissipation? We are discussing this point right now in my holobiont mailing list. Would you like to join it?
About your last question, yes, we are going to reach homeostasis. Maybe it will be homeostasis based on high-tech renewable energy, maybe not. I see it as a real possibility, though.
I am delighted by your compliment. I don't know if I may be of help, if you see my curriculum I might be mr. Nobody. But certainly the topic interests me.
DeletePlease, send me instructions.
I'm not a scientist, but a translator. I lack the intelligence or expertise to participate in complex theoretical discussions, but I am interested in translating this complexity into simpler terms.
DeleteNobody knows how this homeostasis will look exactly on a societal level. People who say they do, are ideologues, and ideologies are nothing but attempts to create utopias, which inevitably fail. Thus, one cannot impose conditions, but one can attempt to create preconditions that allow for a homeostasis to come about.
I believe that an absolute precondition for homeostasis on a societal level, must a limit on how much an individual can own. You cannot ever reach homeostasis, if you allow infinite wealth, because this dynamic will bend everything to its will.
This may be too simplistic, but 'energy dissipation', 'entropy' and 'holobionts' by themselves will not lead to much either. It needs to be translated into something people can understand and then accept.
If you like to participate in the discussion on holobionts, you are both welcome, Neven and Abraham. Send me a message with your email at ugo.bardi(thingiestthing)unifi.it
DeleteThanks, Ugo, but I don't even have a curriculum. ;-)
DeleteMaybe if you post some conclusions some day, I'll try and translate it to Simple. Until that time, I'll continue on my own Quixotic quest.
"the possibilities of abundant clean energy and transport with diminishing material throughput, requiring new circular economy approaches rooted in respect for life and the earth; and where the key technologies are so networked and decentralised that they work best with participatory models of distribution and sharing. This entails the emergence of a new economy with value measured in innovative ways"
ReplyDeleteYet more vague calls for utopian solutions. What are the details that would make this particular 'fork' function effectively? Electric cars, windmills and solar panels clearly aren't going to get the job done. What else have we got?
No miracles needed. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/23/no-miracles-needed-prof-mark-jacobson-on-how-wind-sun-and-water-can-power-the-world
DeleteJacobson's 'plan' has been comprehensively debunked by Clack et al.
Deletehttps://www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Backgrounder_Clacketal_June2017.pdf
"In this paper, we [Clack et al] evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions."
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1610381114
Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson is one of the most infamous of the lobbyists 'voices', who's “outspokenness and solo style … captured the public imagination” following a series (2009 - 2018) 133 of controversial studies. In 2011 Jacobson began vigorously promoting non-Nuclear 'Roadmaps' for countries worldwide via campaigning network 100.org and The Solutions Project.
In 2017 Jacobson filed, then later withdrew a well publicised “unprecedented” lawsuit, demanding $10 million in damages against a group of eminent scientists (Clack et al.) for their study published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) showing that the 'Roadmaps' contained “nonsensical” assumptions, with a “staggering scale of modelling errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions […] seriously impeding the move to a cost effective decarbonized energy system.” For example they “overstated by roughly a factor of ten the ability of the United States to increase its hydropower output” and would require “more than 1,500 square meters of land for wind turbines for each American … a territory nearly twice the size of California” which “render it [Jacobson's 100.org 'Roadmaps' ] unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100 percent wind, solar, and hydroelectric power system.”
[references here]:-
https://archive.org/details/atomichumanismthecasefornuclearpowerv1/mode/2up
Me parecio excelente tu articulo. En verdad la realidad con respecto a las energias renovables es sorprendente dia a dia, y si bien la energia fosil no pueda reemplazarse al 100 por 100, el futuro tiene mas posibilidades que de algun modo, no hara la vida mas facil, pero nos dara el chance de seguir adelante.
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion of the article could have easily been attributed to Simon Michaux - though he would use slightly different words - the message is essentially the same one: This is why I say both of you are misrepresenting him and his work to date. But I will leave it there.
ReplyDeleteAhmed:
... we face the unprecedented opportunity and ecological necessity to move into a new system. This system includes the possibilities of abundant clean energy and transport with diminishing material throughput, requiring new circular economy approaches rooted in respect for life and the earth; and where the key technologies are so networked and decentralised that they work best with participatory models of distribution and sharing. This entails the emergence of a new economy with value measured in innovative ways, because traditional GDP metrics focusing on ever-increasing material throughput will become functionally useless.
Ugo:
If you can, please, try to examine these statements by Ahmed with an open mind because he perfectly frames the problem. And never forget one thing: the future is not a single path toward catastrophe. It is a garden of forking paths. We are bound to follow one of these paths: we don't know which one yet, but not all of them lead to the Seneca Cliff. In the transition to a renewable energy system, we can adapt, reduce demand, improve efficiency, deploy new technologies, and simply be happy with a more limited supply of energy at some moments. It is only the rigidity of our mental models that make us think that there are no alternatives to fossil fuels.
Sorry, anonymous, I disagree. Ahmed, myself, and Michaux agree that we have to adapt to a different situation. But Michaux specifically says in the introduction and in the conclusions that renewables are not a viable technology to sustain a complex civilization. This is the fundamental point of disagreement. We are not disagreeing on geology, we are disagreeing on technology.
ReplyDeleteOK, if you say so. But still isn't he actually saying "that renewables are not a viable technology to sustain THIS CURRENT complex civilization" and Economic activity? Because that's what I have heard him saying.
DeleteDid not you yourself say this Ugo?
10 Jun 2014
"we will never run out of minerals but we
will run out of cheap fossil fuels and
high grade ores. the limits to mineral
extraction are not limits of quantity
but of energy
extracting minerals takes
energy and the more dispersed the
minerals are the more energy is needed.
technology can mitigate the depletion
problem but cannot solve it."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Y29DqzWkc
It is my understanding/interpretation that Michaux says the exact same things as you do. Why don't you ask him yourself?
Best, Sean
Ugo said: "But Michaux specifically says in the introduction and in the conclusions that renewables are not a viable technology to sustain a complex civilization."
DeleteI couldn't find him using those words, in either place, but perhaps the general intent is there re sustaining this CURRENT civilization. Here is what he does say in his conclusion that I think is key, which imp reflects back on your own quoted comment above I found:
"Many of the solutions discussed in the open literature might work quite well at a
comparatively small-scale but cannot function when scaled-up to a GLOBAL scope to mimic the size of the existing fossil fuel sourced system. Usually, the bottleneck making this happen is the quantity of minerals required, the manufacturing capacity, or simply the required time to roll out production. Most analysts examine only one part of the ecosystem or only one function in isolation, where what is really required is a
holistic systems network engineering approach, that honors the inherent complexity. That approach has been presented here.
A fundamental conclusion is that replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system (oil, gas, and coal), using (mainly) renewable technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, will not be possible for the global human population in just a few decades. There is just not the time, nor resources to do this.
What may well happen is a significant reduction of societal demand of all resources of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a very different system of governance to what is in place today.
This report has shown that the widespread trend of funding and developing only a small number of renewable technology solutions (lithium -ion batteries, hydrogen cells, wind turbines and solar panels), to the exclusion of other known, but less developed solutions, is short sighted. We need to continue also seeking alternative TECHNOLOGIES that could be developed and scaled up and overcome the desire for the ‘magic bullet’ solution that will fix everything in one step. The reality is that the industrial ecosystem should consider as many parallel technology options as possible, with each one linked back to the quantity of resources required to apply them.
“What are the chances of successfully solving a problem if we insist on working on solutions that are not scalable, and stop thinking outside of the box?”
Finally, everything points to the existing renewable energy sector and the EV technology system being a steppingstone to something else as opposed to the final solution. It is recommended that some thought is given to this and what that something else might be."
That's all from me, thank you. Sean
Sean, we can all see different things in different texts, but the paragraphs you cite are clearly saying that renewables are not a viable solution, and that we should strive to a "final solution" -- without saying what it could be. But this is being understood (also in these comments) that renewables are not renewable (he says exactly that, they are "replaceable"), that they are a hoax, and that they should not be developed. This means, in my opinion, striving for the pie in the sky, and risking a truly fatal civilizational collapse.
DeleteHi again Ugo. I have no problems with Michaux's nomenclature. I believe he lifted that term from Nate Hagens who also uses it. Both words only tell part of the story - this is surely true. Both are singularly wrong. Renewable energy may well be sourced from the wind, the sun and geothermal heat, but the manufactured goods which capture that energy are not renewable in any way. A better description may well come along which better conveys the truth by stating: 'Renewable energy is captured, redirected or stored and deployed using highly recyclable, rebuildable equipment and infrastructures. A bit wordy but at least logically accurate.
DeletePlease keep an open mind here when I say you are misreading what is written:
Simon says " as opposed to the final solution " - you rewrite that incorrectly as " should strive to a final solution " - two completely different concepts. It is you Ugo who is insisting "your current renewable" solutions are the "only final solution".
More importantly no where in any of his material or commentary does Simon ever say or infer that renewable energy options "are a hoax" nor that "they should not be developed."
It's classic strawman fallacy, putting words into another's mouth not said nor intended.
These statement of yours are completely untrue. Seriously. They are. But I have no idea how to convince of of this, or even why you have come to such conclusions on your own. So I will let you alone with your own devices.
Best, Sean
Sean, I am trying to understand your point, but it is unclear to me what you mean. The use of the term "replaceable" instead of "renewable" has a clear meaning, the way Nate Hagens uses it. It means "you can replace renewable plants as long as you have fossil energy to rebuild them" -- which is not the same thing as "renewable" which means "you can replace renewable plants using energy produced by the plants. The renewable solution is, indeed, the only possible ("final") solution. What I say is that the current PV and wind technologies are truly renewable in the sense that they produce sufficient energy to replace themselves. They could be replaced by other technologies that exploit solar energy, but the only possible "solution" to have a long-term energy supply is to exploit solar energy (you could also argue for tidal energy or geothermal energy, but solar energy is more abundant and easily exploitable). This is a fundamental point that many people fail to understand.
DeleteHi Ugo, Ok I'll try and clear it up.
Delete1) Simon does not say or believe: "you can replace renewable plants as long as you have fossil energy to rebuild them" --
Not at all. It makes no difference if that energy comes from FF or renewable / alt energy sources. They still need to be replaced, rebuilt at end of life.
2) You say: The renewable solution is, indeed, the only possible ("final") solution.
I understand that is your view today.
3) You say: "What I say is that the current PV and wind technologies are truly renewable in the sense that they produce sufficient energy to replace themselves."
Well I have been following AGW/RE developments for over 25 years and I have never heard that said by anyone. Unlike products oil gas and oil that will be depleted eventually, the wind, solar, geothermal, hydro (rain) energy was always in a FORM that was permanently going to be available to tap into - that is why they were labelled "renewable" energy supply.
Besides which it takes more than energy alone to replace manufactured equipment and infrastructure. Be it FF power plants, oil refineries,or PV solar plants, including any recycled materials.
4) Let's ask the UN - What is renewable energy?
Renewable energy is energy derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed. Sunlight and wind, for example, are such sources that are constantly being replenished. Renewable energy sources are plentiful and all around us.
Fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - on the other hand, are non-renewable resources that take hundreds of millions of years to form. Fossil fuels, when burned to produce energy, cause harmful greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide.
5) Yes, tidal energy or geothermal energy are typically renewable, and one could say behind that is the primary energy from the Sun. Yes. One could argue that hydro power is also derived from solar energy. But what's the point?
The primary energy may come from the sun, but the dams and the turbines, the pipelines, the plant to capture tidal and geothermal and the substations are need to be manufactured from what is mostly Non-renewable materials AND they all must be rebuilt at end of productive life again using minerals, rocks, concrete and equipment like cranes and trucks using energy to build them because they all wear out.
6) The primary source energy is renewable but the manufactured goods and the industry needed to build all that is needed to capture, store and deliver that energy to the end users is not. It must be first built. At end of life it must be rebuilt. Part of that plant, equipment and infrastructure containing "raw materials" can be recycled at a Cost but not all of it.
Mining, secondary industry, manufacturing, transportation infrastructure and plant will still be essential and must be rebuilt and rebuilt and rebuilt - no matter which energy source is being used to do the work.
I hope that helps clears up any confusion. Best, sean
"Well I have been following AGW/RE developments for over 25 years and I have never heard that said by anyone." Strange, because if you really follow the field, you'll notice the enthusiasm among those working on it. The prominent people supporting this view are, among others, Tony Seba, Mark Jacobson, George Monbiot, Christian Breyer, Jeremy Leggett, Nafeez Ahmed, and many young researchers and technologists. The opponents are mainly a bunch of white-haired catastrophists who remain bonded to obsolete views.
Delete"The primary source energy is renewable but the manufactured goods and the industry needed to build all that is needed to capture, store and deliver that energy to the end users is not." If you have energy with a good EROI, you can recycle the materials used -- that's the basic tenet of the principle of bioeconomy. Think of the biosphere. It has been "mining" materials from the crust for the past 350 million years on land, and it never ran out of anything, because it recycled everything it used.
DeleteUgo the "white-haired catastrophists who remain bonded to obsolete views" are trying to say that some parts of whole system industrial supply chains are too inefficient to electrify at scale (e.g. process heat & mining & heavy transport).
DeleteFurther, solar flow harvesting technology is very inefficient on land use. Since they are not making any more of it, there are global limits of suitable land to cover with wind mills and solar PV or thermal arrays.
These factors combined force the complexity and scale of such supply chains to decline. Which in turn will force global populations to shrink.
In other words the main questions are, how many people can this planet can sustain without fossils fuels? And who will suffer most and how soon?
Well Ugo, Michaux is 100% behind the use of renewable energy systems - even if he prefers the word rebuildables for the plant and equipment. Unfortunately you obviously cannot hear what people say to you anymore, me included. Here you are "arguing" about the meaning of "words" such as "renewable"? Seriously? You cannot read nor comprehend what people like Michaux are saying in plain english as you twist what they state and believe into wild fantasy fictions. Your thought processes are clearly not functioning correctly. You sir are the problem when all you do now throw cheap putdowns and ridicule at people. What arrogance. It shows me now you were never worthy of discussing anything with. Good bye and get lost, Sean
DeleteAnd so, dear Sean, since you find yourself without arguments, you recur to insults. Unfortunately, it is typical of the discussion as it is nowadays. Well, so is life.
Delete"current PV and wind technologies are truly renewable in the sense that they produce sufficient energy to replace themselves"
DeleteI can't make sense of this as a definition of renewable. It's also impossible to know the future. The energy it takes to build and run a renewable energy power plant may change in future, it may take more or less depending on many things. Also, a measurement of energy required (say, joules) is not the same as the type of energy. Can energy from current solar and wind farms be used to power every aspect of that build and operation? Mining and refining minerals, creating the steel, concrete and other materials needed? If wind farms can't be built and operated solely from wind farm energy, then it is not renewable. Are any materials depleted in building, operating and decommissioning the wind farm? Are they 100% recyclable and will they be 100% recycled? If so, what about new ones as this civilisation tries to continue on a growth path?
Quite apart from the environmental damage from RE (which may be less than fossil fuels), it is indeed questionable whether RE is feasible for powering our current civilisation, never mind continuing it into the next decades or centuries. It is not sustainable.
For a "clean energy transition", we need not only vast amounts of resources, but also ever-increasing complexity.
ReplyDeleteAnd the complexity is already extremely high today - this is where I personally have the greatest doubts.
The power grid is the largest machine in the world and it only works within a very narrow framework (50 Hz frequency with only very slight fluctuations). The more random energy (renewables) we can feed in and NOT store for weeks, the more vulnerable and unstable the power grid will become.
But since an increasing part of the complexity depends on the 24/7/365 availability of the power grid, I already see a huge problem here.
Wind and sun are in no way sufficient to keep the system running in Northern Europe. Even if you want to change this system, make it "smarter"...what does that mean in the end?
Regular power cuts (brownouts), especially unfunny in winter. Companies will hardly be able to exist in this way...Joseph Tainter's "Collapse of complex societies" inevitably comes to mind.
I ask myself the question, how should the system look like in the future? Many people already have serious problems to make ends meet and this "transition" has just begun.
Currently, it looks to me more like we are being led into an ideologically guided technocratic state and command economy to manage scarcity. The amount of corruption and nepotism of the "elites" is already increasing. When citizens can no longer afford energy, any energy system eventually implodes.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
You are making statements that look true to you, "Wind and sun are in no way sufficient to keep the system running in Northern Europe. " but are not supported by data. Germany is already getting about half of its energy from wind and sun. There is no reason why that can't be expanded to 100%. Of course, it may be a different story for far north countries, say, Finland, but Europe is a network of producers and users, so we can move energy from South to North when needed.
DeleteAccording to IEA data for 2021, Germany does get about half it's Electricity from low carbon sources (including nuclear, hydro and biofuels). In terms of Energy, it gets about 30% from low carbon. But only 7% is from wind/solar.
Deletehttps://www.iea.org/countries/germany
As you say, it may be possible to grow that to 100% by reducing demand (as has been happening in Germany for 30 years) and/or by increasing penetration, but the data for last year doesn't suggest that this is immanent.
Craig
"Germany is already getting about half of its energy from wind and sun."
DeleteI think that you mean half of its electricity. If I follow the link provided by Craig, Wind and Solar are only responsible for 5% of Energy available for consumption in Germany. So it seems that we don´t have to double our output by Wind and Solar as could be deducted from your sentence but to increase it at least tenfold if we want to keep the same level of Energy availability. As Germany is pretty advanced in the "Energiewende", this factor is much worse for other countries.
The data I have say 23% from wind and about 10% from sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
DeleteThe difference in stats may be a function of capacity versus realized output, which is always considerably less. In any event, solar and wind require the continuation and maintenance of legacy power generation, and this issue doesn't seem to be going away any time soon.
DeleteThe wikipedia article only talks about electricity production not total energy production like the IEA article linked by Craig. Therefore, the numbers for the renewables look better than they really are as electricity production is just a small part of total energy production (to my knowledge around 20-30%).
Delete"Electrical Power Systems" in 2021 supplied only 16.28% of global primary energy, with fossil's supplying the remaining 83.68% ('substitution method').
Deletehttps://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-source-bar?stackMode=relative&country=GBR~FRA~OWID_WRL~DEU~Europe
"Germany is already getting about half of its energy from wind and sun."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but this is simply wrong.
Under the best/optimal weather circumstances, we get such a large amount of electricity! - Heat and mobility are out there.
I have been following this in detail for a very long time and the fluctuations are extreme, which is logical if the energy system is now again very much subject to the randomness of the weather.
We can build another 30,000 wind turbines (which do not grow on trees) and we can pack tens of millions of square meters of roofs (recently also more and more on agricultural fields!!) with solar panels, but it does not change the fact that when no to little wind blows there will be no electricity.
The swings up and down will only become more extreme. Too little power vs. too much power. An extreme load for the power grid - we will become more and more dependent on foreign countries.
And since we are a country with quite few sunshine hours per year, solar actually only helps between May and October. In the winter half of the year, hardly anything comes together and not at night anyway.
There is a lack of storage capacity. Storage on a gigantic scale. But storage is the absolute economic deal killer.
In addition, there is a lack of large-scale transmission lines to bring wind power from north to south. These won't be ready for a few years, but today we're shutting down our perfectly intact, safe and efficient nuclear power plants. That's nuts.
In a few years, though, our industrial base will already be severely weakened. Where is all the tax money going to come from in the future to pay for all this? The billions upon billions in subsidies for wind turbines and solar panels? For the (still wickedly expensive) e-cars? Where are all these cars actually going to be charged? (high population density, low ownership rate)
It will probably come down much more to the power grid becoming more and more unstable. The Greens euphemistically call it "supply-oriented".
The only annoying thing is that frequently recurring shutdowns (brownouts) lead to an increased risk of broken appliances, frozen goods thawing out and food going bad, and of course the risk of a blackout also increases permanently if there are frequent shutdowns.
I remain: with wind and sun no stable power grid can be maintained, especially not at our latitude.
It probably comes down more and more to believing, hoping, praying. This means that religion is returning...but we have already been able to observe that over the last few years.