After a couple of really busy weeks on the energy transition front, at least for me, I have a question: what would it take to convince you the transition from fossil fuels to something better is possible? It’s not a trick question. For me, the answer would be rather general — hard evidence the something is really better in every way that counts, i.e. affordability and reliability. Your turn.
There is no convincing. If a better energy technology was out there it would ascend and be adopted by people wholesale. It wouldn't need mandates and subsidies. The reality of the 'transition' is that it is at odds with physics and otherwise reality.
The only thing the Transition that will assure is a change from rich to poor and from West to East.
Recognition by politicians that this is a very long term process and that the only viable solution is one where the world’s energy use continues to grow during the transition. Until the politicians accept that, everything is an electoral talking point
Unless there is an energy source capable to maintain a base load and react with demand picks, fossils will stay there. The idea on an 'great - scale battery storage' is jut not feasible with the amount of minerals on Earth. When nuclear fission starts to bring something, then let's talk about transition
There are people who seem to believe baseload is an obsolete concept and we wouldn't need baseload capacity in the era of wind and solar. Yes, they're serious.
“Transition” in the press / political statements means 0% fossil fuels and we must get there as quickly as possible. Naive, opportunistic, but ultimately very stupid.
It’s realistically a 50+ year project and a little more honesty coupled with common sense policies eg nuclear to buy us more breathing space - look at the irony of Australia being the country with the largest uranium deposit and yet nuclear power is banned.
No, fission is quite capable of replacing our entire energy supply. It is already proven, France replaced 88% of their domestic electricity supply, 1/2 of their domestic primary energy supply in 20yrs with Nuclear. No rocket science involved. Using archaic construction methods and one-at-a-time production. However, there should be no delusions, it would take 40yrs minimum. And quite unnecessary as long as fossil supplies are plentiful. That doesn't mean maintain the nuclear boycott, as Alex Epstein calls it "The Criminalization of Nuclear Power". In the Energy business its ALL about Corruption. Tech is the easy part.
Fusion, not fission. Given EROEI, it's too late for fission. The nuclear build out should have contributed unabated from the beginning. Under a non hydrocarbon fuel scenario you can't build conventional reactors or Small Modular ones.
To put it more starkly, hydrocarbons are the bridge to infinite energy independence via fission and maybe fusion, (assuming you can uranium or thorium) but without that bridge you're stranded and societal chaos will ensue.
The messaging seems to be that the alternative of fossil fuels is always an option, no matter how much demand grows, regardless of the CO2 issues if people decide they don't want to pay for the alternatives. What if we really are at the point where fossil fuel production isn't going to keep up with demand growth, and/or the cost of reducing its carbon footprint prices it out of reach for an increasing number of consumers? At that point we're at Option 2, something that we can rely on for the long haul. At this point in time with what we know about the technologies it still looks like nuclear is it. But, with the US government group responsible for promoting its safe, responsible use co-opted by green interests, it looks like we're going to spend a lot of money chasing wishes.
Normally, when oil/fuels become unaffordable for many, protests follow, the latest examples I can remember being in France and Brazil. Governments are aware of that and yet they are doing everything they possibly can to discourage more oil production. Nuclear is great in many ways but if we lean entirely on nuclear it means total electrification of transport and that is unviable, even with a lot of new nuclear until better batteries are developed.
No you can also use nuclear methanol, DME and nuclear synthetic jet fuel. As well as use recycled carbon from flue gas(cement plants), waste and forest overgrowth carbon sources to make methanol. The Nobel prize winning chemist George Olah analyzed the problem of replacing fossil fuels and concluded the best substitute was methanol and wrote a book on it:
Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy 2nd Edition, Kindle Edition:
There is no single source that can work for everyone. That's not what we have now either. The globalists want to centralize and control energy but being "antifragile" requires redundancy and distributed power. I don't want a car that spies on me and stops on command, so EVs have no appeal.
Actually right now we are entirely reliant on one source of energy, it's called fossil fuels, 85-90% of our World energy supply, depending on how you attribute biomass. There is only one known source of energy that can replace fossil and that is nuclear energy. Which can not only replace all fossil but can do a whole lot that fossil can't do. Like happily generate concentrated energy under the sea, in Earth orbit, on the Moon or Mars, energy anywhere and everywhere. And our fossil fuel supply is insufficient for a World of 8B people at a Western standard of living. Whereas fission energy supply can easily do that for millions of years. Which is why those who want to control energy despise Nuclear with a hatred that borders upon rage. Nuclear = energy liberation.
Apart from nuclear, "antifragile" and distributed energy is a pipe dream. A trivial number of rural dwellers might manage that with biomass/solar/hydro but that will always be a fringe curiosity. If we let our industrial energy system fail billions will die and it will be a violent free-for-all for what little remains. We don't want to go there.
There isn't anything being done in auto control or monitoring in BEVs that can't equally well be done in ICE vehicles. It is a little bit easier in EVs but not much. It just hasn't penetrated that market as much yet. In fact pure ICE vehicles will soon disappear from the assembly line. Everybody is going either pure EV or hybrid EV, which means the only difference between them is the HEV will have most of the battery size replaced by an ICE generator.
On that last point, if you no longer can buy a car that isn't auto controlled, there will be a cottage industry of hackers who will fix your car up with a disconnect switch that will enable you to "go dark".
The facts you state are not understood by the general public. The independence nuclear power brings would completely undermine the oil and gas global hegemony and power dynamic. The previous comment on alternative derived fuel vectors , such as methanol or ammonia, or even tar sand syncrude, just reinforces this.
Further point on the insufficient HC for 8Bn and counting , to have an industrialised life style. The remaining HC is dominated by ME and Saudi Gawar system at some point depletion intersects with projected demand. By removing HC now there's no bridge to nuclear sustainability as an alternative system. I believe these immutable facts to be the root cause of this seeming madness we're commenting on here. The wolves are behind us and an abyss in front of us.
Elon Must killed any appeal EVs might have had for me by saying Teslas are laptops on wheels. Are you kidding? I HATE my laptop, that is, its OS. I don't trust software and I have good reason for it.
More importantly technology can improve the cost effectiveness of a source of energy, even take something prohibitively expensive (i.e. Nuclear Fusion) and make it economical. If a new tech arrives that makes a source of energy cheaper than any other source of energy, those sources will be replaced through energy substitution, assuming the Free Market actually existed in energy, Hint: It doesn't.
I'm still waiting for The Saint to deliver that cold fusion formula. That's what it would take for me. Of all the options out there, oil & gas are our best bets for the near term. And near term meaning the next 50-60 years, not the next decade like Grandpa Joe states.
It’s not the ‘possible’ that matters to me, it’s the Why! For at least the last 50 years we have been subjected to a series of ‘why’s’ that have all proven wrong, most put forward by the same actors striving for money or power or control or all three.
As for the possible, first we must put ‘smell’ in nuclear like we have in natural gas (at least in the US) so we know when it’s ‘leaking’ and second we must come up with a workable plan for transportation that is reliable and doesn’t destroy the environment or our standard of living.
Nuclear doesn't "leak". Don't believe the crap you see on The Simpsons. Nuclear "leaks" are the easiest thing on Earth to measure, in even the most minute quantities. You can even download a free app for your phone that measures radiation.
FS if nuclear doesn’t ‘leak’ why was I required to wear a badge to detect exposure when I toured a shut down nuclear reactor? My point is that the general public is so afraid of nuclear because they don’t know if radiation near a power plant is present or not. Notwithstanding the fact that the average person in the US (where I live) is exposed to about 6.2 millisieverts annually, the general public is scared to death that radiation from a nuclear power plant will kill them if we build them. Maybe an app on everyones’ phone, set to the right level is the answer and would make people feel safe enough to go nuclear.
A bit of an education about nuclear power won't go amiss, either. People *are* scared to death of the things they don't understand and the reason they don't understand them is because they have never been taught. Of course, many would refuse to let go of their beliefs, just like an acquaintance believes her husband "got" his shortsightedness from the Chernobyl disaster.
I was referring to the incessant propaganda showing "nuclear waste" in rusting yellow barrels with green ooze leaking out.
Anywhere you have radioisotopes you will have radiation leakage, similar to what is already in the background. Unlike chemical toxins/carcinogens the radiation leakage is easy to measure.
I worked in an industrial plant (not nuclear) and I had to calibrate 29 separate radiation sources/instruments, Cs-137 & Co-60 based, and was exposed to largely gamma radiation, and wore a radiation totalizer. Even dental assistants have to deal with ionizing radiation leakage. It ain't a significant issue no matter that the NRC & Greenpeace tell you it is. Funny thing Greenpeace don't want to talk about where their $400M/yr comes from. That's top secret.
Funny you should mention Greenpeace, when they followed Russian ships dumping concrete filled barrels of radioactive waste in the Sea of Japan, their instruments could not measure any radiation. But I digress, my point was that the citizenry must be made more comfortable about nuclear before it becomes deployable
No, funny that SmithFS mentioned the NRC, who stand for no nuclear at all. That is a major reason that the US is not progressing on nuclear. They have put ever increasing barriers and restrictions on current and new fission plant operations and we wonder why there is debate around the cost of nuclear power. Yet the Koreans and Japanese have moved away from their hydrogen economy dream to reopen nuclear plants because they can see that Robert Bryce's Iron Law of (reliable) Electricity is real.
That's an excellent point. Once upon a time, Greenepeace and the rest of them were protecting the environment, nature, ecosystems. Now these words are only mentioned in the context of climate change as the narrative is narrowed down for no other discernible purpose than to make it more easily digestible and more easily alarming.
For what purpose has to be the second part of the question. Electricity? We already have the answer, nuclear generation along with clean coal and cogeneration for metropolitan areas.
Transportation? Fossil fuels and hybrid power.
So long as there is no Ponds and Fleishman “cold fusion” we are stuck with these highest energy density forms.
Now, let me ask a question:
Does anyone find it just a little peculiar that on a planet where every life form is based on carbon, carbon has been branded as an “existential threat”????? Think about THAT!
I think reliability, accessibility and interoperability (given no one source or technology is likely to solve everything) are key and if both are met then I believe demand and utilisation would take care of the affordability aspect.
Because our entire world's "engine" is based on the energy density inherent to hydrocarbons, anything less than that would undermine ALL our societies, moving us back to at least the late 1700s where the world's "engine" was powered by human labour, in particular, slavery.
Unless we really like the idea of going back to feudalism and slavery, I highly recommend that we find another "fuel" that has at least as much energy density, if not more.
But, no matter what, don't fool yourself into thinking that any other source of energy won't have its drawbacks. EVERY source of energy has downsides to it, regardless of what their marketing and sales teams say.
So, it's NOT just "affordability and reliability" that's part of the equation.
It's ALSO the downsides. And those downsides can be utterly brutal.
Example? The cobalt mining in Congo by thousands of children working for $1-$2/day. THAT is slavery and the consequence of NOT using energy dense "fuel" like hydrocarbons.
How about the lithium surface mines that make the Exxon Valdez look like a picnic?
THAT is what the entire world will fall back into if we move to a less energy-dense "fuel".
Yes, we can look for something "better" than hydrocarbons, but we had better be very careful that we don't undermine our own societies in the process.
An emergent technology that could replace the fossil-fuel burning powerplants in: Cars, Trucks, Motorcycles, Aircraft, Locomotives, Sea-borne Ships, Power Generation Plants, Spacecraft, Heavy Trucking, Mining Equipment, Smelting Equipment, Glass-Making Equipment, Lawn Equipment, Chain Saws, Log Splitters, Portable Generators, Pleasure Boats, Jet Skis, Race Cars, and my Garden Tiller from 1962, to name but a few.
No miracle needed. Nuclear can replace all of that. Both directly and indirectly. You can make methanol with Nuclear energy which combined with battery electric and direct nuclear propulsion for shipping can replace all of which you mentioned.
While I'll agree that SMR's seem to be the answer for local electrical power generation, they're barely off the drawing board, and the rest of the tech you mentioned is only conceptual at this juncture.
The greens say we need to do all this NOW, by 2030, and replacing the powerplants all those motive devices will simply not happen in only 7 years.
They've been building SMRs since the very beginning of the commercial nuclear industry. There is nothing complicated or difficult about them. The PTB just don't want that competition so its been blockaded from widespread use. Methanol manufacture is one of the simplest industrial processes known to man. It's been done for hundreds of years. So nuclear energy --> methanol. Easy breezy.
The greens are all liars and ain't interested in replacing any powerplants, they just say it that way so as to hide their true intentions. They are Malthusian Misanthrope Doomers and REALLY want most of us dead (except them of course who will become the High Priests of their enforced Green Religion).
One important thing to realize is per capita World energy consumption right now is 21 MWh/yr. Vs EU is 37.5 MWh/yr. USA is 76.6. Canada is 101. So if you don't want to join in with the Greenie/Watermelon/Bankster Psychopaths and embrace Malthusianism, we need to at least double World energy consumption, more likely triple it, while many resources, especially oil are being depleted, some say rapidly.
Friends, we have no choice. There is no other option except total economic collapse = Malthusianism. We need to go on a crash program to transition to nuclear energy. That doesn't mean abandon fossil fuels. We need to max out what we can economically utilize of those also during the ~40-60yr transition period. We need all the real help we can get. I don't count silly wind turbines and solar panels real help. That's waste and misdirection.
Fortunately France already proved it can be done. They replaced 88% of their domestic electricity supply, 1/2 of their domestic primary energy supply in 20yrs with Nuclear. No rocket science involved. Using archaic construction methods and one-at-a-time production. And it only required 5oz of uranium per person per year in France, ~$15/yr worth.
Using factory construction and assembly line production methods, that can be ramped up rapidly at a lower cost than any current source of energy. Since uranium & thorium are so plentiful (ordinary rock has an energy density of 30X coal just from the trace uranium & thorium in it), that can would make every country on Earth energy independent. No more blackmail from the Globalist Malthusian Hegemonists. A crash program to develop practical fusion methods would also be a minor expenditure. I said practical, not idiotic boondoggles like the $65B ITER which was obsolete before it even began construction.
You nailed it!!!!! Why can't others see this. But They've: decided that tripling the world's energy supply isn't possible via SME or new fuel vectors so Malthus it is!
I hate starting with the phrase "You Know..." A balloon flew across our airspace and no one was fired. If a new virus leaked out of that balloon, would you hear the infected scream? Innocent people are being killed by crazy people using guns. The Green Party (Environmentalists) preach end of days due to air pollution, global warming, the holy ozone, when these topics collide, a war breaks out! Ask yourself what is National Security? Imagine all weapons are taken away from the US citizens, would Chine, North Korea, Russia consider the US an easy mark? Hell YES! National Security isn't just one position on energy, it has to be at least Economic, Energy, Environment, Health, Women (we need to repopulate), and food/agriculture water. I whole heartedly believe if eliminating oil production in the US while our known enemies are producing oil then we have a breach of National Security. That means those who are trying to shut down oil production should be considered a threat to society and jailed until there is no threat of war. I have been around the world, just 5 of the 7 continents (not in the military nor government employee). Other countries don't actually love the US, in the time of war do you REALLY think they will sell us oil to run our military? Moreover, the production of oil is an economy of scale, IF oil production is cut, oil will become exponentially higher, probably to a point where our navy is dead in the water, our jets are grounded, and our troops having to walk carrying guns with no amno (bullets will become more expensive). How bad can it get, let say Biden tells the drug companies to slash the prices to where it costs more to make the drug, good buy drugs, even the outrageous price won't matter, it makes no sense to manufacture the drug. The oil industry is in that same bucket, will it really matter when one more law makes it more expensive to drill oil than the money that is recoup'ed? As a Texas Land owner receiving Royalty payments, I had to pay money one month last year. It is truly incredible how much my little Oregon has changed since 1958, I worked first hand in the building of the internet, through the dot com, web 2.0, web 3.0, the cloud. It takes a lot of power to run a datacenter, you might be surprised that international telecoms use batteries to keep their data centers up, I don't think batteries are evil, I don't think hydro electric is evil (the salmons here in Oregon might), I don't think wind turbines are evil (the birds and the whales might), I don't think solar is evil (there is only one month here without clouds), but I think people are evil, and people will do what they want unless there are laws. I see the poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer, but without oil we will all become Russian! For that, I am sad.
We are in a decades long “transition”. Fossil fuels are a key participant of this journey. Until we re-embrace nuclear or can scale fusion technology, we will always close the energy gap with fossil fuels. For me, at this time, I can only see a tiny focus on EVs … maybe. It would mean I wouldn’t sacrifice the convenience of my ICE vehicle in terms of ease of refueling (availability, selection, and convenience of charging), and an approximate equal investment required (would consider the lifespan gains of less mechanical parts if I can be convinced the battery won’t need to be replaced in 7 years because of charge efficiency loss). For now, an EV only “fits” as a tertiary vehicle for commuting/local use. I wouldn’t take one on a trip. I love my natural gas for cooking and heat!
I'm a great believer in a proper demonstration project; maybe a city, state, island or country runjing for long enough to test backup (say 2 - 5yrs). None exists after 20yrs of hyping Green Energy.. The closest is El Herrio but that failed. However, if you want a laugh read this clown who is a member of Parliament for the party I supported for 30+yrs (but no longer do)....
He thinks we are 3yrs away. So it must be true because elsewhere on the thread he challenges people without credentials and those predicting 3 yrs have bags full of credentials. Do you know of any other politician who is as deluded as this one?
The man is quoting the IEA. That's enough for me. :D They are all deluded and they insist on the delusion even in the face of heaps of evidence it is, in fact, a delusion. That's the scary part of it all.
It’s entirely possible, we just need to move up the energy density ladder not down. All the technologies we need have existed for 50+ years. People just don’t want to use them and so governments regulate them to prevent their use.
It’s not a conspiracy, it is a gigantic sociopolitical problem of misaligned incentives.
Continuing from your "hard evidence" comment, in reality it would take some genius like Einstein to come pop with some iron clad proof that the current laws of thermodynamics can be overturned and that we can rely on diffuse and low power density sources of energy.
That is like believing in fairies. Maybe it will be in disproving that the current approach using "renewables" will not work in the long run. For that to happen will require breakdown via destabilisation of current electricity grids due to continuing to add variable energy sources that are low power density. There has been some evidence in the US that that is happening now and I believe it will happen in Australia before long too. But how long it will take to convince the great unwashed is unknowable.
Im mentioned power density, not energy density. They are different and the difference is important. That may speed up the grid breakdown.
If you can not recognize that oil is a finite resource then why would you ever want to transition from the cheap energy that makes your energy-dense lifestyle possible? It will be there forever and cheap, so life is good.
Its not about what's better today. Its about what needs to start or continue happening now as part of an organized transition. Recognizing that there is a problem fast-approaching is part of that transition.
This is not a woke conspiracy theory, it's a measurable certainly. Exponential growth means the end-phase accelerates rapidly. So just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't coming. War and starvation (energy intensive agriculture) are also part of the transition, and we have been in constant war over oil resources for two decades already. Wars will intensify, not stop.
Transition is not an option. Ots about how and when we transition. In the meantime, we are transitioning to a war economy.
We aren't experiencing "exponential growth". Per capita energy consumption is declining in Western nations and population is already declining. The entire World has already surpassed "Peak Children". Latest projections are World population declining to ~7B by end of the century.
We can easily replace oil if the overlords wanted us to. Oil has dropped from 49% of World primary energy supply in 1973 to 31% in 2020. There is no real problem reducing oil even to zero. Rationally you would keep the less expensive oil production to supply petrochemicals and jet fuel. Everything else can easily be replaced with gas, coal & nuclear. As gas supplies deplete coal & nuclear will suffice. Note Nazi Germany and currently South Africa produce a large portion of their diesel fuel from coal. South Africa was at 30% CTL diesel fuel, last I heard.. And methanol is an easy replacement for gasoline. And DME is an easy replacement for diesel (except for jet fuel). They can be made in vast quantities from coal, stranded or flared gas, any biomass (i.e. forest overgrowth which is just burnt anyway in forest fires), seawater CO2 or cement plant flue gas and nuclear hydrogen/electricity.
In any case, oil supply contraction would first cause the price of oil to rise leading to a substitution of oil with coal, natural gas and nuclear. That's exactly what happened in the 70's after the Arab Oil embargo. France alone replaced all oil generation with nuclear. After maybe 20-30yrs natural gas prices would rise due to lack of economical supplies. This would force substitution with coal & nuclear. Maybe 20-30yrs after that coal prices would rise forcing a substitution with nuclear. That's in a free market. As is the case now, you have Davos creeps screwing the free market every way they can imagine. And of course you have add climate change hysteria into the mix.
Fortunately nuclear can replace all fossil easily and EVERY NATION on Earth has ample uranium & thorium resources under their feet to power their total energy needs for millions of years. No more energy hegemony. Poor Kissinger and gang who said "to control the energy supply is to control the nation". That's why the Malthusian gang of Davos Psychos despise Nuclear power with a passion. Nuclear = No Hegemonies = National Sovereignty.
My physics and chemistry schooling makes me pretty skeptical of hydrogen fuel and fusion for energy sources. It’s not that hydrogen isn’t a good fuel; it’s just that the chemical bonds holding hydrogen atoms in various compounds, like H20, are so strong that it takes a lot of energy to free the hydrogen. It’s somewhat similar, in reverse, with fusion. Fusing 2 hydrogen atoms into a helium atom takes a huge amount of energy. The problem is that trying to compress the 2 protons from the hydrogen nuclei faces tremendous resistance, because the 2 positively charged protons repel each other. These principles can be summed up in the time-honored expression “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. The best carbon-free source for generating electric power is nuclear fission, for which we already have all the technology and experience. We know it works!
The Western nations are not where the growth will come from and the only reason global population might be 7B and not 9B by the end of the century is famine and war.
"There is no real problem reducing oil even to zero." Technically, no., and I wish it were that simple. Practically speaking, it will be a nasty transition that is currently underway.
There is plenty of "energy" available in many forms, but the issue is not energy, it's power - who controls it and how they use it. No hedgemon goes down without a fight.
Unfortunately, Irina, yes. Both natural and manmade by design.
We are in a collapse scenario and the elite are trying to control it so they can remain alive and in power through a controlled Reset. They know its coming, or at least they fear the high-probability of it occurring on their watch and impacting themselves and their children.
A transition can occur due to a scientific or social revolution, and they are often nasty, always disruptive, and somewhat unpredictable. But a Reset is an intentional crash of the system where everything gets wiped out and you start all over again (think of a "factory reset" on your phone).
A transition sounds lovely by comparison to a Reset where wars are fought for limited resources, and where physical, biological, electronic, and psychology weapons are used against the masses. But that is what's happening.
Its not "The End" of the world, but its the end of the world as we know it. IMO
All nonsense. You have ZERO data to back that up. Go to Gale Pooley's site and see mountains of data proving the exact opposite. This "Great Reset", "Green Agenda" is just a scam the Parasite, Malthusian Overlords invented to achieve their dream of a World Totalitarian Techno-Feudal Dictatorship. There is no real basis for it. In fact the opposite is the physical reality. Stand up for the people. Don't be a Serf.
No you are wrong. The latest projections are taking into account the reduction in birth rates that are happening world wide right now. As well as increased death rates. Famine, pandemics & war will make it less than 7B.
We don't need to reduce oil to zero. There is still lots of economical oil left and for petrochemicals more expensive oil is still economical. Continuing the trend of energy substitution, that has been happening for several decades now, will trade oil for gas, coal & uranium. It's not rocket science, son.
What you are talking about is the 100% corrupt Bankster, Psychopath, Parasite, Malthusian Overlords. Yep, you are right, we need to get rid of those evil demons.
For me, sustainability. We need to be able to meet the needs of society today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. yes, there is a debate surrounding just how finite they are, but that is a physical reality. Another physical reality is the extraction and burning of fossil fuels contribute to climate change and environmental breakdown. Such a finite energy resource cannot be sustained in the long term. Any energy resource that tends to reduce carbon emissions while simultaneously decreasing dependency on a finite resource is good enough for me. Longevity is key.
The whole ecosysteme of the world depends on solar output, except for the creatures that thrive close to hydrothermal vents on the bottom of the ocean.
Our 21st century society should learn as quickly as possible to thrive solely on the energyflow captured by green plants. Food and biomass supported humans throughout millennia.
I think the fact we are not plants will make this quite challenging. Life on the planet would be impossible without solar energy but we can't absorb it directly the way plants do.
Too few of us realize that we live in symbiosis with plants and we depend on plants for food, oxygen and the recycling of CO2. We still have much to learn and many to educate
Well, 30 years ago we learned it at school and remembered it because it's really not that difficult to grasp. Not sure if this symbiosis is still taught the way it used to be, which would be a pity.
Doing that inescapably means reducing the World population to ~0.5-2B persons. And a low standard of living for them. Genocide. Are you volunteering to be reduced?
There is no rational reason to do such a thing. That is religious doctrine. I'm all for free & independent Democratic nations choosing to live in that way if their citizens wish it, but it sure didn't prove popular in Sri Lanka.
My view is we should exploit the massive energy of supernova and neutron star collisions given to us in the form of uranium & thorium to expand humanity to other Worlds. To bioform Mars. The greatest act of creativity in the history of human civilization. Genesis.
There is no convincing. If a better energy technology was out there it would ascend and be adopted by people wholesale. It wouldn't need mandates and subsidies. The reality of the 'transition' is that it is at odds with physics and otherwise reality.
The only thing the Transition that will assure is a change from rich to poor and from West to East.
This increasingly looks like a certainty, yes.
Absolutely
Recognition by politicians that this is a very long term process and that the only viable solution is one where the world’s energy use continues to grow during the transition. Until the politicians accept that, everything is an electoral talking point
It's funny, my imagination didn't even suggest this possibility. But it would convince me, too, I admit.
Unless there is an energy source capable to maintain a base load and react with demand picks, fossils will stay there. The idea on an 'great - scale battery storage' is jut not feasible with the amount of minerals on Earth. When nuclear fission starts to bring something, then let's talk about transition
There are people who seem to believe baseload is an obsolete concept and we wouldn't need baseload capacity in the era of wind and solar. Yes, they're serious.
There are also people who believe the Earth is plane.. the problem is when the empire of idiots get into the organizations
“Transition” in the press / political statements means 0% fossil fuels and we must get there as quickly as possible. Naive, opportunistic, but ultimately very stupid.
It’s realistically a 50+ year project and a little more honesty coupled with common sense policies eg nuclear to buy us more breathing space - look at the irony of Australia being the country with the largest uranium deposit and yet nuclear power is banned.
Physics, energy return on energy invested, EROEI. I'm afraid short of fusion it isn't happening.
No, fission is quite capable of replacing our entire energy supply. It is already proven, France replaced 88% of their domestic electricity supply, 1/2 of their domestic primary energy supply in 20yrs with Nuclear. No rocket science involved. Using archaic construction methods and one-at-a-time production. However, there should be no delusions, it would take 40yrs minimum. And quite unnecessary as long as fossil supplies are plentiful. That doesn't mean maintain the nuclear boycott, as Alex Epstein calls it "The Criminalization of Nuclear Power". In the Energy business its ALL about Corruption. Tech is the easy part.
Fusion, not fission. Given EROEI, it's too late for fission. The nuclear build out should have contributed unabated from the beginning. Under a non hydrocarbon fuel scenario you can't build conventional reactors or Small Modular ones.
To put it more starkly, hydrocarbons are the bridge to infinite energy independence via fission and maybe fusion, (assuming you can uranium or thorium) but without that bridge you're stranded and societal chaos will ensue.
The messaging seems to be that the alternative of fossil fuels is always an option, no matter how much demand grows, regardless of the CO2 issues if people decide they don't want to pay for the alternatives. What if we really are at the point where fossil fuel production isn't going to keep up with demand growth, and/or the cost of reducing its carbon footprint prices it out of reach for an increasing number of consumers? At that point we're at Option 2, something that we can rely on for the long haul. At this point in time with what we know about the technologies it still looks like nuclear is it. But, with the US government group responsible for promoting its safe, responsible use co-opted by green interests, it looks like we're going to spend a lot of money chasing wishes.
Normally, when oil/fuels become unaffordable for many, protests follow, the latest examples I can remember being in France and Brazil. Governments are aware of that and yet they are doing everything they possibly can to discourage more oil production. Nuclear is great in many ways but if we lean entirely on nuclear it means total electrification of transport and that is unviable, even with a lot of new nuclear until better batteries are developed.
No you can also use nuclear methanol, DME and nuclear synthetic jet fuel. As well as use recycled carbon from flue gas(cement plants), waste and forest overgrowth carbon sources to make methanol. The Nobel prize winning chemist George Olah analyzed the problem of replacing fossil fuels and concluded the best substitute was methanol and wrote a book on it:
Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy 2nd Edition, Kindle Edition:
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Oil-Gas-Methanol-Economy-ebook/dp/B08671RCN9
There is no single source that can work for everyone. That's not what we have now either. The globalists want to centralize and control energy but being "antifragile" requires redundancy and distributed power. I don't want a car that spies on me and stops on command, so EVs have no appeal.
Actually right now we are entirely reliant on one source of energy, it's called fossil fuels, 85-90% of our World energy supply, depending on how you attribute biomass. There is only one known source of energy that can replace fossil and that is nuclear energy. Which can not only replace all fossil but can do a whole lot that fossil can't do. Like happily generate concentrated energy under the sea, in Earth orbit, on the Moon or Mars, energy anywhere and everywhere. And our fossil fuel supply is insufficient for a World of 8B people at a Western standard of living. Whereas fission energy supply can easily do that for millions of years. Which is why those who want to control energy despise Nuclear with a hatred that borders upon rage. Nuclear = energy liberation.
Apart from nuclear, "antifragile" and distributed energy is a pipe dream. A trivial number of rural dwellers might manage that with biomass/solar/hydro but that will always be a fringe curiosity. If we let our industrial energy system fail billions will die and it will be a violent free-for-all for what little remains. We don't want to go there.
There isn't anything being done in auto control or monitoring in BEVs that can't equally well be done in ICE vehicles. It is a little bit easier in EVs but not much. It just hasn't penetrated that market as much yet. In fact pure ICE vehicles will soon disappear from the assembly line. Everybody is going either pure EV or hybrid EV, which means the only difference between them is the HEV will have most of the battery size replaced by an ICE generator.
On that last point, if you no longer can buy a car that isn't auto controlled, there will be a cottage industry of hackers who will fix your car up with a disconnect switch that will enable you to "go dark".
The facts you state are not understood by the general public. The independence nuclear power brings would completely undermine the oil and gas global hegemony and power dynamic. The previous comment on alternative derived fuel vectors , such as methanol or ammonia, or even tar sand syncrude, just reinforces this.
Further point on the insufficient HC for 8Bn and counting , to have an industrialised life style. The remaining HC is dominated by ME and Saudi Gawar system at some point depletion intersects with projected demand. By removing HC now there's no bridge to nuclear sustainability as an alternative system. I believe these immutable facts to be the root cause of this seeming madness we're commenting on here. The wolves are behind us and an abyss in front of us.
Elon Must killed any appeal EVs might have had for me by saying Teslas are laptops on wheels. Are you kidding? I HATE my laptop, that is, its OS. I don't trust software and I have good reason for it.
The evidence of "something better" would speak for itself.
I submit that;
- all sources of energy are currently known,
- a technology cannot replace a source of energy,
- technology can only improve the efficiency of the application of a source of energy.
So; there currently is no evidence of a "better" source of energy or even evidence of better arrangement of the existing energy source hierarchy.
More importantly technology can improve the cost effectiveness of a source of energy, even take something prohibitively expensive (i.e. Nuclear Fusion) and make it economical. If a new tech arrives that makes a source of energy cheaper than any other source of energy, those sources will be replaced through energy substitution, assuming the Free Market actually existed in energy, Hint: It doesn't.
I'm still waiting for The Saint to deliver that cold fusion formula. That's what it would take for me. Of all the options out there, oil & gas are our best bets for the near term. And near term meaning the next 50-60 years, not the next decade like Grandpa Joe states.
Cold fusion sounds almost too good to be true and this has made me wary and patient. It may very well happen one day but it won't be soon.
It’s not the ‘possible’ that matters to me, it’s the Why! For at least the last 50 years we have been subjected to a series of ‘why’s’ that have all proven wrong, most put forward by the same actors striving for money or power or control or all three.
As for the possible, first we must put ‘smell’ in nuclear like we have in natural gas (at least in the US) so we know when it’s ‘leaking’ and second we must come up with a workable plan for transportation that is reliable and doesn’t destroy the environment or our standard of living.
Nuclear doesn't "leak". Don't believe the crap you see on The Simpsons. Nuclear "leaks" are the easiest thing on Earth to measure, in even the most minute quantities. You can even download a free app for your phone that measures radiation.
FS if nuclear doesn’t ‘leak’ why was I required to wear a badge to detect exposure when I toured a shut down nuclear reactor? My point is that the general public is so afraid of nuclear because they don’t know if radiation near a power plant is present or not. Notwithstanding the fact that the average person in the US (where I live) is exposed to about 6.2 millisieverts annually, the general public is scared to death that radiation from a nuclear power plant will kill them if we build them. Maybe an app on everyones’ phone, set to the right level is the answer and would make people feel safe enough to go nuclear.
A bit of an education about nuclear power won't go amiss, either. People *are* scared to death of the things they don't understand and the reason they don't understand them is because they have never been taught. Of course, many would refuse to let go of their beliefs, just like an acquaintance believes her husband "got" his shortsightedness from the Chernobyl disaster.
I was referring to the incessant propaganda showing "nuclear waste" in rusting yellow barrels with green ooze leaking out.
Anywhere you have radioisotopes you will have radiation leakage, similar to what is already in the background. Unlike chemical toxins/carcinogens the radiation leakage is easy to measure.
I worked in an industrial plant (not nuclear) and I had to calibrate 29 separate radiation sources/instruments, Cs-137 & Co-60 based, and was exposed to largely gamma radiation, and wore a radiation totalizer. Even dental assistants have to deal with ionizing radiation leakage. It ain't a significant issue no matter that the NRC & Greenpeace tell you it is. Funny thing Greenpeace don't want to talk about where their $400M/yr comes from. That's top secret.
Funny you should mention Greenpeace, when they followed Russian ships dumping concrete filled barrels of radioactive waste in the Sea of Japan, their instruments could not measure any radiation. But I digress, my point was that the citizenry must be made more comfortable about nuclear before it becomes deployable
No, funny that SmithFS mentioned the NRC, who stand for no nuclear at all. That is a major reason that the US is not progressing on nuclear. They have put ever increasing barriers and restrictions on current and new fission plant operations and we wonder why there is debate around the cost of nuclear power. Yet the Koreans and Japanese have moved away from their hydrogen economy dream to reopen nuclear plants because they can see that Robert Bryce's Iron Law of (reliable) Electricity is real.
That's an excellent point. Once upon a time, Greenepeace and the rest of them were protecting the environment, nature, ecosystems. Now these words are only mentioned in the context of climate change as the narrative is narrowed down for no other discernible purpose than to make it more easily digestible and more easily alarming.
For what purpose has to be the second part of the question. Electricity? We already have the answer, nuclear generation along with clean coal and cogeneration for metropolitan areas.
Transportation? Fossil fuels and hybrid power.
So long as there is no Ponds and Fleishman “cold fusion” we are stuck with these highest energy density forms.
Now, let me ask a question:
Does anyone find it just a little peculiar that on a planet where every life form is based on carbon, carbon has been branded as an “existential threat”????? Think about THAT!
And a pollutant, too. I have been wondering about that, increasingly often.
I think reliability, accessibility and interoperability (given no one source or technology is likely to solve everything) are key and if both are met then I believe demand and utilisation would take care of the affordability aspect.
Because our entire world's "engine" is based on the energy density inherent to hydrocarbons, anything less than that would undermine ALL our societies, moving us back to at least the late 1700s where the world's "engine" was powered by human labour, in particular, slavery.
Unless we really like the idea of going back to feudalism and slavery, I highly recommend that we find another "fuel" that has at least as much energy density, if not more.
But, no matter what, don't fool yourself into thinking that any other source of energy won't have its drawbacks. EVERY source of energy has downsides to it, regardless of what their marketing and sales teams say.
So, it's NOT just "affordability and reliability" that's part of the equation.
It's ALSO the downsides. And those downsides can be utterly brutal.
Example? The cobalt mining in Congo by thousands of children working for $1-$2/day. THAT is slavery and the consequence of NOT using energy dense "fuel" like hydrocarbons.
How about the lithium surface mines that make the Exxon Valdez look like a picnic?
THAT is what the entire world will fall back into if we move to a less energy-dense "fuel".
Yes, we can look for something "better" than hydrocarbons, but we had better be very careful that we don't undermine our own societies in the process.
An emergent technology that could replace the fossil-fuel burning powerplants in: Cars, Trucks, Motorcycles, Aircraft, Locomotives, Sea-borne Ships, Power Generation Plants, Spacecraft, Heavy Trucking, Mining Equipment, Smelting Equipment, Glass-Making Equipment, Lawn Equipment, Chain Saws, Log Splitters, Portable Generators, Pleasure Boats, Jet Skis, Race Cars, and my Garden Tiller from 1962, to name but a few.
Basically, a miracle.
No miracle needed. Nuclear can replace all of that. Both directly and indirectly. You can make methanol with Nuclear energy which combined with battery electric and direct nuclear propulsion for shipping can replace all of which you mentioned.
While I'll agree that SMR's seem to be the answer for local electrical power generation, they're barely off the drawing board, and the rest of the tech you mentioned is only conceptual at this juncture.
The greens say we need to do all this NOW, by 2030, and replacing the powerplants all those motive devices will simply not happen in only 7 years.
They've been building SMRs since the very beginning of the commercial nuclear industry. There is nothing complicated or difficult about them. The PTB just don't want that competition so its been blockaded from widespread use. Methanol manufacture is one of the simplest industrial processes known to man. It's been done for hundreds of years. So nuclear energy --> methanol. Easy breezy.
The greens are all liars and ain't interested in replacing any powerplants, they just say it that way so as to hide their true intentions. They are Malthusian Misanthrope Doomers and REALLY want most of us dead (except them of course who will become the High Priests of their enforced Green Religion).
Yep, the US Navy has proven on-board SMR's to be safe in the worst of conditions, including battle.
The PTB's want the masses on all-electric so they can power it all down when the plebes misbehave, hence the all-ICE's-need-to-go mentality.
They'll not conquer us here in the US, count on it.
One important thing to realize is per capita World energy consumption right now is 21 MWh/yr. Vs EU is 37.5 MWh/yr. USA is 76.6. Canada is 101. So if you don't want to join in with the Greenie/Watermelon/Bankster Psychopaths and embrace Malthusianism, we need to at least double World energy consumption, more likely triple it, while many resources, especially oil are being depleted, some say rapidly.
Friends, we have no choice. There is no other option except total economic collapse = Malthusianism. We need to go on a crash program to transition to nuclear energy. That doesn't mean abandon fossil fuels. We need to max out what we can economically utilize of those also during the ~40-60yr transition period. We need all the real help we can get. I don't count silly wind turbines and solar panels real help. That's waste and misdirection.
Fortunately France already proved it can be done. They replaced 88% of their domestic electricity supply, 1/2 of their domestic primary energy supply in 20yrs with Nuclear. No rocket science involved. Using archaic construction methods and one-at-a-time production. And it only required 5oz of uranium per person per year in France, ~$15/yr worth.
Using factory construction and assembly line production methods, that can be ramped up rapidly at a lower cost than any current source of energy. Since uranium & thorium are so plentiful (ordinary rock has an energy density of 30X coal just from the trace uranium & thorium in it), that can would make every country on Earth energy independent. No more blackmail from the Globalist Malthusian Hegemonists. A crash program to develop practical fusion methods would also be a minor expenditure. I said practical, not idiotic boondoggles like the $65B ITER which was obsolete before it even began construction.
You nailed it!!!!! Why can't others see this. But They've: decided that tripling the world's energy supply isn't possible via SME or new fuel vectors so Malthus it is!
I hate starting with the phrase "You Know..." A balloon flew across our airspace and no one was fired. If a new virus leaked out of that balloon, would you hear the infected scream? Innocent people are being killed by crazy people using guns. The Green Party (Environmentalists) preach end of days due to air pollution, global warming, the holy ozone, when these topics collide, a war breaks out! Ask yourself what is National Security? Imagine all weapons are taken away from the US citizens, would Chine, North Korea, Russia consider the US an easy mark? Hell YES! National Security isn't just one position on energy, it has to be at least Economic, Energy, Environment, Health, Women (we need to repopulate), and food/agriculture water. I whole heartedly believe if eliminating oil production in the US while our known enemies are producing oil then we have a breach of National Security. That means those who are trying to shut down oil production should be considered a threat to society and jailed until there is no threat of war. I have been around the world, just 5 of the 7 continents (not in the military nor government employee). Other countries don't actually love the US, in the time of war do you REALLY think they will sell us oil to run our military? Moreover, the production of oil is an economy of scale, IF oil production is cut, oil will become exponentially higher, probably to a point where our navy is dead in the water, our jets are grounded, and our troops having to walk carrying guns with no amno (bullets will become more expensive). How bad can it get, let say Biden tells the drug companies to slash the prices to where it costs more to make the drug, good buy drugs, even the outrageous price won't matter, it makes no sense to manufacture the drug. The oil industry is in that same bucket, will it really matter when one more law makes it more expensive to drill oil than the money that is recoup'ed? As a Texas Land owner receiving Royalty payments, I had to pay money one month last year. It is truly incredible how much my little Oregon has changed since 1958, I worked first hand in the building of the internet, through the dot com, web 2.0, web 3.0, the cloud. It takes a lot of power to run a datacenter, you might be surprised that international telecoms use batteries to keep their data centers up, I don't think batteries are evil, I don't think hydro electric is evil (the salmons here in Oregon might), I don't think wind turbines are evil (the birds and the whales might), I don't think solar is evil (there is only one month here without clouds), but I think people are evil, and people will do what they want unless there are laws. I see the poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer, but without oil we will all become Russian! For that, I am sad.
We are in a decades long “transition”. Fossil fuels are a key participant of this journey. Until we re-embrace nuclear or can scale fusion technology, we will always close the energy gap with fossil fuels. For me, at this time, I can only see a tiny focus on EVs … maybe. It would mean I wouldn’t sacrifice the convenience of my ICE vehicle in terms of ease of refueling (availability, selection, and convenience of charging), and an approximate equal investment required (would consider the lifespan gains of less mechanical parts if I can be convinced the battery won’t need to be replaced in 7 years because of charge efficiency loss). For now, an EV only “fits” as a tertiary vehicle for commuting/local use. I wouldn’t take one on a trip. I love my natural gas for cooking and heat!
I'm a great believer in a proper demonstration project; maybe a city, state, island or country runjing for long enough to test backup (say 2 - 5yrs). None exists after 20yrs of hyping Green Energy.. The closest is El Herrio but that failed. However, if you want a laugh read this clown who is a member of Parliament for the party I supported for 30+yrs (but no longer do)....
https://twitter.com/GavinBarwell/status/1623825920862593024?t=00f2uNxahFaNhfCrbOQnPg&s=19
He thinks we are 3yrs away. So it must be true because elsewhere on the thread he challenges people without credentials and those predicting 3 yrs have bags full of credentials. Do you know of any other politician who is as deluded as this one?
The man is quoting the IEA. That's enough for me. :D They are all deluded and they insist on the delusion even in the face of heaps of evidence it is, in fact, a delusion. That's the scary part of it all.
I would be happy if I didn't have to subsidize anything.
It’s entirely possible, we just need to move up the energy density ladder not down. All the technologies we need have existed for 50+ years. People just don’t want to use them and so governments regulate them to prevent their use.
It’s not a conspiracy, it is a gigantic sociopolitical problem of misaligned incentives.
I have been calling myself a “practical environmentalist’ for last two decades.”
Affordable
Reliable
Abundant
On-Demand
Sufficiently/manageably clean
Transportable
Scalable
Continuing from your "hard evidence" comment, in reality it would take some genius like Einstein to come pop with some iron clad proof that the current laws of thermodynamics can be overturned and that we can rely on diffuse and low power density sources of energy.
That is like believing in fairies. Maybe it will be in disproving that the current approach using "renewables" will not work in the long run. For that to happen will require breakdown via destabilisation of current electricity grids due to continuing to add variable energy sources that are low power density. There has been some evidence in the US that that is happening now and I believe it will happen in Australia before long too. But how long it will take to convince the great unwashed is unknowable.
Im mentioned power density, not energy density. They are different and the difference is important. That may speed up the grid breakdown.
I have a similar suspicion -- that we'll go all the way to grid failure before the brains in charge realise the facts of our physical universe.
If you can not recognize that oil is a finite resource then why would you ever want to transition from the cheap energy that makes your energy-dense lifestyle possible? It will be there forever and cheap, so life is good.
Its not about what's better today. Its about what needs to start or continue happening now as part of an organized transition. Recognizing that there is a problem fast-approaching is part of that transition.
This is not a woke conspiracy theory, it's a measurable certainly. Exponential growth means the end-phase accelerates rapidly. So just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't coming. War and starvation (energy intensive agriculture) are also part of the transition, and we have been in constant war over oil resources for two decades already. Wars will intensify, not stop.
Transition is not an option. Ots about how and when we transition. In the meantime, we are transitioning to a war economy.
Coming to a theater near you, soon.
We aren't experiencing "exponential growth". Per capita energy consumption is declining in Western nations and population is already declining. The entire World has already surpassed "Peak Children". Latest projections are World population declining to ~7B by end of the century.
We can easily replace oil if the overlords wanted us to. Oil has dropped from 49% of World primary energy supply in 1973 to 31% in 2020. There is no real problem reducing oil even to zero. Rationally you would keep the less expensive oil production to supply petrochemicals and jet fuel. Everything else can easily be replaced with gas, coal & nuclear. As gas supplies deplete coal & nuclear will suffice. Note Nazi Germany and currently South Africa produce a large portion of their diesel fuel from coal. South Africa was at 30% CTL diesel fuel, last I heard.. And methanol is an easy replacement for gasoline. And DME is an easy replacement for diesel (except for jet fuel). They can be made in vast quantities from coal, stranded or flared gas, any biomass (i.e. forest overgrowth which is just burnt anyway in forest fires), seawater CO2 or cement plant flue gas and nuclear hydrogen/electricity.
In any case, oil supply contraction would first cause the price of oil to rise leading to a substitution of oil with coal, natural gas and nuclear. That's exactly what happened in the 70's after the Arab Oil embargo. France alone replaced all oil generation with nuclear. After maybe 20-30yrs natural gas prices would rise due to lack of economical supplies. This would force substitution with coal & nuclear. Maybe 20-30yrs after that coal prices would rise forcing a substitution with nuclear. That's in a free market. As is the case now, you have Davos creeps screwing the free market every way they can imagine. And of course you have add climate change hysteria into the mix.
Fortunately nuclear can replace all fossil easily and EVERY NATION on Earth has ample uranium & thorium resources under their feet to power their total energy needs for millions of years. No more energy hegemony. Poor Kissinger and gang who said "to control the energy supply is to control the nation". That's why the Malthusian gang of Davos Psychos despise Nuclear power with a passion. Nuclear = No Hegemonies = National Sovereignty.
My physics and chemistry schooling makes me pretty skeptical of hydrogen fuel and fusion for energy sources. It’s not that hydrogen isn’t a good fuel; it’s just that the chemical bonds holding hydrogen atoms in various compounds, like H20, are so strong that it takes a lot of energy to free the hydrogen. It’s somewhat similar, in reverse, with fusion. Fusing 2 hydrogen atoms into a helium atom takes a huge amount of energy. The problem is that trying to compress the 2 protons from the hydrogen nuclei faces tremendous resistance, because the 2 positively charged protons repel each other. These principles can be summed up in the time-honored expression “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. The best carbon-free source for generating electric power is nuclear fission, for which we already have all the technology and experience. We know it works!
Great question, Irina.
Show us that whatever the transition is to (we're agnostic, as long as it meets these basic criteria) it meets ALL of the following:
1) Affordable
2) On-Demand
3) Abundant
4) Reliable
5) Manageably "clean" (relative to risk to human health and the environment)
6) Scalable/Capable of supporting continued economic growth, especially for the developing world
7) Accessible (to the 6.5 billion below the living standards of those reading this)
Great summary. It's really simple, isn't it?
Well, it should be. Unless you have sleights of hand going on as we wrote about in the piece we released this a.m.
The Western nations are not where the growth will come from and the only reason global population might be 7B and not 9B by the end of the century is famine and war.
"There is no real problem reducing oil even to zero." Technically, no., and I wish it were that simple. Practically speaking, it will be a nasty transition that is currently underway.
There is plenty of "energy" available in many forms, but the issue is not energy, it's power - who controls it and how they use it. No hedgemon goes down without a fight.
Also disease and lower fertility rates. But I agree, it looks like it will be nasty.
Unfortunately, Irina, yes. Both natural and manmade by design.
We are in a collapse scenario and the elite are trying to control it so they can remain alive and in power through a controlled Reset. They know its coming, or at least they fear the high-probability of it occurring on their watch and impacting themselves and their children.
A transition can occur due to a scientific or social revolution, and they are often nasty, always disruptive, and somewhat unpredictable. But a Reset is an intentional crash of the system where everything gets wiped out and you start all over again (think of a "factory reset" on your phone).
A transition sounds lovely by comparison to a Reset where wars are fought for limited resources, and where physical, biological, electronic, and psychology weapons are used against the masses. But that is what's happening.
Its not "The End" of the world, but its the end of the world as we know it. IMO
Respectfully
Peace
All nonsense. You have ZERO data to back that up. Go to Gale Pooley's site and see mountains of data proving the exact opposite. This "Great Reset", "Green Agenda" is just a scam the Parasite, Malthusian Overlords invented to achieve their dream of a World Totalitarian Techno-Feudal Dictatorship. There is no real basis for it. In fact the opposite is the physical reality. Stand up for the people. Don't be a Serf.
No you are wrong. The latest projections are taking into account the reduction in birth rates that are happening world wide right now. As well as increased death rates. Famine, pandemics & war will make it less than 7B.
We don't need to reduce oil to zero. There is still lots of economical oil left and for petrochemicals more expensive oil is still economical. Continuing the trend of energy substitution, that has been happening for several decades now, will trade oil for gas, coal & uranium. It's not rocket science, son.
What you are talking about is the 100% corrupt Bankster, Psychopath, Parasite, Malthusian Overlords. Yep, you are right, we need to get rid of those evil demons.
For me, sustainability. We need to be able to meet the needs of society today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. yes, there is a debate surrounding just how finite they are, but that is a physical reality. Another physical reality is the extraction and burning of fossil fuels contribute to climate change and environmental breakdown. Such a finite energy resource cannot be sustained in the long term. Any energy resource that tends to reduce carbon emissions while simultaneously decreasing dependency on a finite resource is good enough for me. Longevity is key.
The whole ecosysteme of the world depends on solar output, except for the creatures that thrive close to hydrothermal vents on the bottom of the ocean.
Our 21st century society should learn as quickly as possible to thrive solely on the energyflow captured by green plants. Food and biomass supported humans throughout millennia.
I think the fact we are not plants will make this quite challenging. Life on the planet would be impossible without solar energy but we can't absorb it directly the way plants do.
Thanx for your reply.
Too few of us realize that we live in symbiosis with plants and we depend on plants for food, oxygen and the recycling of CO2. We still have much to learn and many to educate
Well, 30 years ago we learned it at school and remembered it because it's really not that difficult to grasp. Not sure if this symbiosis is still taught the way it used to be, which would be a pity.
Doing that inescapably means reducing the World population to ~0.5-2B persons. And a low standard of living for them. Genocide. Are you volunteering to be reduced?
There is no rational reason to do such a thing. That is religious doctrine. I'm all for free & independent Democratic nations choosing to live in that way if their citizens wish it, but it sure didn't prove popular in Sri Lanka.
My view is we should exploit the massive energy of supernova and neutron star collisions given to us in the form of uranium & thorium to expand humanity to other Worlds. To bioform Mars. The greatest act of creativity in the history of human civilization. Genesis.