Assoc Prof Simon Michaux - The quantity of metals required to manufacture just one generation of...

[@Americanoligarchy]

This is the single most important video on KZbin. I'm in America, and while most assume our elected leaders are just ignorant simpletons, I would argue that they're not, they probably know what you know and are just lying to us. Thank you so much for this information. Absolutely staggering. I've listened to it like three times in a row just to absorb it all. ❤❤

[@TheFreelanceTeacher]

This was an immense amount of work on your part Prof. Simon Michaux - thank you for the presentation. It was incredibly thorough and helpful.

[@ariggle77]

All the bickering in the comments section just illustrates that most people don't get the unchangeable fact that the earth has limits. The idea that we can continue consuming like we have been simply by switching to "renewables" is just silly. It' magical thinking.

[@aletheides3990]

Indeed. However people also see this as an argument for continuing to consume as we are on a fossil based economy as its "not worth it" to switch to renewables. That nothing has to change. The earth is a closed system with finite resources and a closed climate system. Most people realise that its not very smart to bring your coal grill into your living room and close the doors. You will eventually die due to the gases being emitted into the closed indoors climate. The same can be said on a grander more complex scale for the earth. The world needs to look at some form of end to the consumerism world and look for other/more sources of renewables that require less rare earth metals. Like geothermal for generating and hydrogen for storage. However an end to the consumerism society isnt going to happen sadly. Because the last thing people want to give up is their own personal comforts. Its a NIMBY mentality. Many see the need of change, but the change has to happen somewhere else by someone else. And being representative democracies, few politicians dare to do what's needed because they commit political suicide. Instead both people and politicians pray at the altar of technical progress that will eventually save us all without us needing to change in any way. The real magical thinking is the global economy of infinite growth and the neoliberalistic self-centred way of life. Liberalism hasn't always been about me myself and I.

[@j85grim4]

Well said. I was in denial and delusional enough to think we could "innovate" our way out of this problem but lectures like this one opened my eyes to the reality of our predicament.

[@michaels4255]

Right. Consumption will ultimately have to decline, people will have to get poorer, and the population will have to contract. I wish it were not so, but it is what it is.

[@TheViewFromUpHere]

Renewable energy eliminates the huge cost and constant effort to maintain a supply of fossil fuel. And all the EV batteries are 95% recyclable after they can't be upcycled or reused. EVs don't use more material but they do use different, newer and for awhile more expensive parts.

[@nathanwalters5314]

@@TheViewFromUpHere could you please point me to a lithium battery recycling center that reclaims the lithium and sells it for use in new batteries.

[@ironworker5792]

Brilliant lecture!! As an investor in the commodities sector, the integrity of this mans research is incredible, how fortunate to find this online. Thank you, sir, for sharing.

[@un-Denial]

Thank you. It's so refreshing to find someone that thinks clearly and is capable of seeing reality, even when it's unpleasant.

[@stevennowakowskipanoscapes5244]

Great presentation - thank you. A couple of points not mentioned at all is the vast extent of new high voltage transmission lines that will be needed to connect all the intermittent power generation plants. Here in north Queensland (Australia) high biodiverse forests will need to be carved up and fragmented to connect proposed outlying wind and solar plants to existing high voltage transmission corridors. Additionally, another point not mentioned is the vast amount of cement per turbine at 1,000 -1,400 tonnes per foundation. We are seeing new quarry sites constructed to supply the raw materials for wind farm construction. Approx. 300km of new haulage roads are needed for just two proposed wind farms here. All this new construction requires road base and quarried rock for stabilisation works.

[@phoenixx5092]

hmm good point, as i understand it making cement creates a lot of gas, and once cement is set it slowly releases gasses too as it sits there.

[@mariorossi4744]

More devastation in sight.

[@stephenfriedenthal8312]

Great observation. If you want electric vehicles then we need to run high voltage copper lines, underground, to what would be essentially, every parking space in a city. That adds to the required copper that is not included in the calculation. The 4 week energy storage is not only conservative, but does not take into account the excess energy required to restore a spent reserve. i.e., if we need to draw upon 4 weeks of stored energy we need an excess of 4 weeks' energy to replenish the reserve before it is called upon again. More generally -- this analysis does not take into account the immense energy required to mine, transport, smelt and form the metals, batteries, turbine blades, concrete etc. In almost every life cycle analysis there is a negative payback when the entire system energy cost is taken into account. This is not a criticism on this lecture, but rather, even this highly conservative presentation cannot take into account the larger system costs of a fully non-carbon energy system.

[@thurstonhowellthetwelf3220]

Stop looking at the details...just believe in magic....

[@gchanoch]

not if you have enough home made solar production and distributed network of smaller production sources

[@ErnestOfGaia]

Years to produce the quantity of 1st generation metals needed was a surprising calculation to consider. Awesome work

[@valoriethechemist]

Totally, I think most people fundamentally misunderstand the enormity of what's happening, what's been proposed and are searching for a quick marketing slogan to escape the danger when nothing could be more futile.

[@somaswodi8273]

this was the best presentation one has watched in a very long time....Bless your heart and keep up your awesome research and reporting and sharing.......Bravo....Travel safe.....

[@brianwhitley1053]

This is so refreshing!! Not that it's all good news because, frankly, it isn't. But that it's a presentation by someone who realizes the need for this to happen and isn't afraid to expose the inconvenience of the facts to the light of day.

[@melissabennett1168]

Excellent presentation. Answers many questions I had about where the resources would come from for the transition. Sad to think those proposing this transition have barely thought it through at all.

[@davidkocher6018]

Those proposing the transition are incapable of thinking it through. Their minds are consumed with their ideology and the “rush” they get from all the attention they garner. The Al Gores of the world will never listen to a very practical presentation like this because it doesn’t fit the carefully crafted narrative they have developed - and which enriches them enormously the longer it is sustained.

[@brianwhitley1053]

The skeptic in me says they have thought about it. That's how the hypothetical models originate. The sad thing is the models only include the components that have been considered and didn't skew the results beyond those expected. If they did, they're identified as aberrations or outliers and discounted as such.

[@blockchaininmining1102]

What a fantastic insightful analysis, thank you so much! Looking forward to sharing and discussing with my colleagues. Thank you for sharing this excellent presentation with us.

[@corentinbiteau1326]

Wow, that was great. Many thanks for the work. I really like that line : "From a biology point of view, the size and complexity of a system is related to the energy you put into it. If the energy reduces, the system must shrink in size and then has to become less complex."

[@ravindertalwar553]

CONGRATULATIONS 👏👏 FOR THIS WONDERFUL PRESENTATION/EVENT

[@louisrozman3768]

Fantastic presentation Simon. Well done.

[@ryanleonard4034]

I really hope more people see this and start really asking those hard questions. We're going to be living radically different lives, very soon.

[@pegefounder]

No. Sure not. We have all the technology for a high living standard. Only people from the leftist hate ideology do not like this. They need poverty to keep their hate ideology alive,.

[@snowstrobe]

Love dry Aussie humour... allows listening to approaching catastrophe with a smile!

[@OldsKoOlRaaaver]

This presentation is extremely important. I will endeavour to share this very widely on social media. Thanks for doing this work. The time for future planning is NOW. let's be well prepared.

[@questioneverythingalways820]

I work in this field - it shocked me that very few from industry were aware or had even considered this. I’ve brought it up with many… sadly who gave me a blank stare, many shrugging saying “who knows” when I start mentioning materials/energy costs of production over lifecycle and the issues therein. The problem is more widespread than previously thought… professionals are leaving petrochemical etc due to their “knowledge” of green tech at large and the “moral dilemma” of what they perceived themselves to be doing. Whereas I on the other hand am fully aware of the pitfalls, and realistic that this one size fits all “solution” is nothing of the sort, their “plans” are laughable. From manufacturing, “recycling” to installation - issues and outright scams left right and centre. Some very good tech and ideas, lots of potential. Will it eventually take a large portion of energy production from oil/gas…? Probably - but it will take time. Lots of it. Too fast too far seems to be the default setting of everyone at the moment. We need to slow down across many societal issues. The point on not enough power for the next industrial revolution will likely be moot - assume less consumption caused by…..

[@Battery-kf4vu]

Is it sure he didn't make a mistake between terawatthour and gigawatthour?If I understand well everybody else talks about gigawatthour even in peer reviewed papers.

[@icarus0206]

@@Battery-kf4vu In several other presentations he makes he does mention tera. He does acknowledge his calculations are vastly different from everyone else & wants people to review his work

[@yfrigi]

@@Battery-kf4vu In another presentation he mentions going back to the source of the "giga" number and they admitted it was just "made up", not based in calculations. His tera is correct.

[@snowstrobe]

It is as suspected, they're just not thinking this through. Just make the money now.

[@sendler2112]

This is essential, data driven analysis. I highly encourage everyone to study this information so that we can intelligently share and discuss it widely. Very few people are aware of these boundary defining realities. Pragmatic and data driven decisions will be crucial to avoiding wasted moves with what we have left, and to steer the conversation toward the best possible outcomes that remain viable.

[@jameshobby1525]

If you look at the Georgia Guide Stones which recently were blown up or The WEF Agenda 2030 it is obvious that the Global elite are aware of this information, Covid was a warmup excercise for Klause, unfortunately given the Central Banking Sysem has well passsed its used by date ,they need a WAR, its the only viable future for them, Humans do not learn from history

[@Common_Sense]

This is a HIGHLY worthwhile presentation of the many aspects that need to be considered in building our energy future. The author does not pretend to present solutions, and he makes clear that the data he uses and the calculations he makes are only very rough - and he invites others to improve on them and on his analyses. That is what "science" is about. I am not an "expert" (a much-misused term!) in anything, but I read, watch and listen widely, always looking for two main aspects: is it interesting to me, and does it seem to be presented sensibly (which might be opposite to my own view). This presentation gets an A+.

[@seanlumley8365]

Our great grandchildren will be learning about the "Resource Wars" in very different-looking world

[@jonathanrider4417]

Thanks for this Simon - great work! I didn't see mention of capturing the benefit of recycling the immense inventory of existing vehicles or tech infrastructure? Recycling industry should provide significant resources as well as informing more effective design to facilitate deconstruction, disassembly and recycling.

[@alicefriedemann5328]

Surely the best evidence yet that Jacobson and all the other renewable fantasies are just that. Brilliant!!!

[@somaswodi8273]

wow ...what an incredible report.....Thank you Mr. Michaux.........loving every moment ...we need to explore the Antartica as per Admiral Byrd stated in 1954 that there was enough coal and minerals there to last the world 100 years....

[@davidbrimson83]

*credible report.

[@DavidS1er]

As a former exploration geologist turned energy/climate venture capitalist, this is the most rational and common sense analysis of the materials required to achieve the goals and platitudes communicated by the international institutions.

[@steveolson6877]

We need to better model the energy mix based on this new assessment, to see what can offer the optimal based on time and input/output. I can tell you from 15 years in Wind at one of the large multinationals, that raw materials are already the limiting factor in deliveries! I am also a composite materials expert and have been waiting to retire and provide a straight forward methodology for materials optimization, looks like I will have to accelerate this to hopefully save billions of lbs of materials usage annually. I believe there are other opportunities, but nothing can overcome basic physics of the raw materials requirements. Everything is based on cheap fuel, transportation, etc. Just building a factory needs to include housing the workforce, as the transport to/from will be uneconomical to have enough energy to manufacture the product. Wonderful presentation, initiates the kinds of thinking we need and the conversations and evaluations we need to start doing. As you mentioned, the entire energy system is a huge complex situation, reducing energy in the wrong area too soon could send us back to the stone age or the dark ages. Want something that you can do immediately? Replace all Lights with LED's, Lower/raise your Thermostat a couple degrees each direction depending on the season, Keep track of your daily needs and optimize miles driven, plant a small garden, etc. Appears that the WEF has already contemplated this and their answer is less humanity! Good Luck to y'all.

[@jordanclayson2]

Honest question…do these quantities take into account any potential recycling of some of these materials? Now or hypothetically in the future?

[@dtybur10]

Damn reality! Always getting in the way of fantastical wishes!

[@ssiarxox5077]

What a well put together and super important presentation. Everyone needs to hear this, we are sleepwalking into a future no one is prepared for with the current “green energy future” narrative implying business as usual, only with renewables! It appears we have some adjustments to make. I think about how much energy is simply wasted currently and wonder what impact it would have (if any) if we simply committed to zero wastage? (E.g building and housing lights on when empty, idle appliances, households having multiple TV’s and computers for example). It seems to be that we won’t change anything until there is a major crisis. We know so much about the storms that are coming (environmental, energy and economic catastrophes combined) and yet our actions are too small and too slow (to put it mildly) to have any real impact. I don’t think anyone can truly predict how this transition will go, except to say it’s likely to be a bumpy ride. Hope we make it to the other side in one piece!

[@mkkrupp2462]

Very well said! Agree absolutely.

[@glennjgroves]

“Efficiency is the forgotten fuel” springs to mind. I.e. not using energy in the first place. In Australia we have somewhat forgotten that recently. I assume elsewhere also.

[@gigio2376]

Very well said. "Net zero is possible!" people pushing business as usual are sickening. Growth cannot be sustained, there is no "green growth" or "decoupling". The system will soon enter its death throes.

[@MB-jy2oi]

@@glennjgroves @Ssiar xox How about double glazing (standard in Europe), good wall and roof insulation? In Australia new houses are still built with single glazing, like in the 70s, when energy was cheap and abundant. Passive houses reduce the need for energy. Unfortunately retrofitting existing dwellings is very expensive, so ppl opt for paying for heating and cooling. Economic ($$) reasoning is how we ended up here.

[@glennjgroves]

@@MB-jy2oi economic short sightedness and externalised costs are how we ended up here, not economic reasoning EXACTLY; the builders do not bear the long term costs of their poorly built or insulated homes, so they don’t care (very much). It needs regulation (unfortunately) and regulation needs a population that will support the government regulating. I largely agree, I just wanted to say that it is our flawed, selfish form of economics - where it is easy for one person to make a short term profit and for others to bear the long term costs - that is the a fundamental issue.

[@michaelwoods6118]

Excellent and frightening at the same time.

[@kengreenfield-nman]

Isn't battery storage problematic in that even MORE electricity production will be required to keep the battery storage charged?

[@michaels4255]

Any form of storage requires some energy losses.

[@1709blondie]

Our infrasture is absolutely Fragile as it stands now.

[@sarchmaster5779]

Fantastic presentation. And this is just to keep the current consumption levels. What happens when 6 billion more people want the same standard of living as the West has today? We're aiming to fix inequality too, right?

[@gostaforsum6141]

I do not get how you calculate the number of "hornsdale power stations" equivalents. Some number in your presentation is wrong. 548.9 TWh / 129 MWh =(approx) 4 255 038 not 15 635 478

[@JonathanMaddox]

I think 4 weeks' storage changed to 12 weeks at some point in the discussion. But nobody proposes to use batteries to store energy just once a year. It's too expensive and everyone knows that. There are better ways to store energy for seasonal shortfalls. Consider that the main additional energy demand in winter is for heat. So store the heat.

[@kkob]

I had Prof. Michaux for an interview in my Regenerative Governance club on Clubhouse last summer ('22). We discussed all these things presented today with less detail, but the basic info and arguments have not changed. Of course, I knew what Simon was going to say because I've been talking about resource limits for 15 years. However, my focus *is* on solutions and I told him what I am telling all of you: The *only* pathway forward is where demand destruction, or reduced consumption, is the first line of defense, not the last. The majority of the solution *is* less consumption. We all know the current economic system cannot function with a 90% or more reduction in consumption. It will implode. We will be forced into accepting the reality that only forms of Commons economies are possible with the current constraints. 1:03 Simon states even the Doughnut economy is not viable. This is something I said the very first time I heard about the Doughnut because it was *obvious.* Why? Doughnut is just a flatter version of the current system. There is no actual systemic change. (Kate Raworth has never responded to my comments and questions regarding these issues.)

[@grahamnumber7123]

Why since CO2 isn't the main driver of climate change. It's impact is minimal eg a doubling to over 800PPM would bring a tenth of a degree warming. IF nature didn't absorb any of it. The so called green energy sector is born from blatant lies about how CO2 behaves and the past data record of it.

[@MLeonardReel]

Outstanding work and hugely important. I wish journalists, 'fact checkers', and bureaucrats did their bloody homework before shooting their mouths off. I submitted memos to my own (old) department on this subject years ago (2009) referencing the 2008 IEA report, which stated that 2020 was, more or less, the year of global max production. They were pretty accurate, but there is something profoundly dysfunctional about the establishment, its structures, its psychology and its methods that it (being the sum of its parts) apparently cannot collectively make sensible decisions based on reliable evidence. Your comments about Brussels ring true. I, for one, appreciate your work. Thank you.

[@the81kid]

Very interesting, and sobering (when you consider the consequences of the rush for "renewable" energy, plus peak oil production, coming in the next few years). One question: did Simon Michaux's calculations for the minerals needed for one generation of technology units include repairs and maintenance of said technology units (which would include the replacement parts which themselves need energy and mineral inputs)?

[@tlabfr]

No, the maintenance itself is not included in his calculations, so indeed his numbers are underestimated for the most part. He mentionned the recycling problem (only ~30% of the metals would be recycled) at the end of the life cycle of the unit, so replacement of each unit will need additional new ressources.

[@EricLidiak]

Question as a point of comparison. If Nuclear were to represent >80% of hypothetical generation, what would that do to the required metals? We know from this analysis that there's not enough metal for 4 weeks backup. What if we could reduce that to under a day because of the nature of baseload power?

[@itsureishotout-itshotterin3985]

I’ve often heard that we don’t have the materials to “transition” from fossil fuels, but seeing the hard numbers, wow, we’ve got some major consumption issues. We are really going to have to scale back our expectations in our lives.

[@domitron]

I think we will have to scale back more than just that. If what is presented in this presentation is true, human civilization as we know it will probably crumble in the coming 50 to 100 years.

[@addhoardingprocrastinator]

@@domitron It will be sooner. Technically it has already started. Especially with a group like WEF and the Canadian government already sending DIY epstein yourself kits if you call to have someone fix your stair chair.

[@reinhardtburger7108]

Yes we are supposed to have societal collapse by 2040. Look up "Update to limit to growth".

[@kkob]

Glad you see this. One could understand this even with none of this detail by simply bringing together a few simple ideas: The planet is finite. Growth is beyond exponential. The risks are existential. The timing of tipping points is unknowable. Climate chaos and ecosystem destruction are beyond exponential. So, from a risk perspective, we may have waited too long, and the longer we delay the more certain that becomes. This basic awareness is not hard to understand and some of us have been saying it for MANY years. It's good to have people like Michaux making it more explicit - though that should never have been necessary.

[@paulwary]

I think we'll end up with geoengineering instead. Apparently sulphate aerosols are relatively easy and cheap. Population will peak soon and decline dramatically it seems.

[@aukehoekstra9834]

Can you give us the source of your calculations? I do research some of this at the Eindhoven University of Technology and e.g. your number for lithium seems a factor of ten to twenty too high. I have questions about your other assumptions too. If you could post a link to the report with the calculations or send it to me (my email is really easy to find on Internet) I would be grateful.

[@slonec]

The complete report is here: tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf

[@simonp.michaux1638]

Work done in the link below gives the full size of the system. The metal content has been put together from an IEA report The Role of Critical Minerals

[@aukehoekstra9834]

@@simonp.michaux1638 I've since found out that the problem is your abundant use of lithium batteries for stationary storage. I wish you had contacted someone who actually designs low cost fully renewable systems first like prof Christian Breyer and would have take the estimates of resources needed from that. That would lead to the reduction of lithium demand by a factor 10 to 20. But I'll look through the report when I have time. It's rather voluminous.

[@simonp.michaux1638]

@@aukehoekstra9834 I used a prediction of what the battery chemistry split would be in 2050 by IRENA 2022. This was projected onto the number of units needed.

[@capchuckpriceutyoub]

Would a 10-20x reduction in lithium demand get you out of this quagmire? I don’t think so.

[@RedShiftedDollar]

“Batteries for stationary power storage” is by far the largest demand for metals, but there was no explanation of how the numbers were produced. Over 4 billion tons of copper will be needed for this? That’s almost a ton per person on earth of just copper for use in batteries. Please explain the largest category of the entire analysis. This one category deserved way more slides.

[@marcushiam6940]

All mined by machinery burning Diesel.

[@JonathanMaddox]

@@marcushiam6940 The first metals and fossil fuels were mined by people burning Food.

[@alfredmacleod8951]

Great talk from Simon Michaux ; obviously our politics don't understand how urgent is to drastically change course.

[@adambazso9207]

I think they understand it very well, but deliberately don't and won't do anything about it, because they just want power and money, that's all. They don't care about their own society or humankind. They just care about themselves, that's all.

[@st-ex8506]

Simon Michaux is very much short on his estimation of the battery capacity needed to electrify the world road transport fleet (including heavy trucks). Tesla, in their Master Plan Part 3 (page 22) estimates it at 112 TWh (not including 2-wheeled vehicles) and 101 TWh if one excludes long-range heavy trucks, which may or may not be HFC powered; quite a bit more than his 65.19 TWh! However, his estimate of the buffer storage buffer necessary for grids to have 100% renewable, at 548.9 TWh, is grossly over-stated. The planet does NOT need an average 28 days of storage... maybe Finland does! Tesla puts it at 240 TWh (table 10, page 25), including the storage needed for vehicles, or ca. 125 TWh for electrifying all the rest. I have seen several other estimates for this part of the needed storage, ranging between 160 and 200 TWh, but NOTHING close to his 550 TWh! Those latter sources estimate that this storage will come from a mix of battery storage for short-term needs (hours to tens of hours), and pump-storage for medium- and long-term storage (days to weeks). Michaux must have extrapolated to the planet the storage needs of his country of residence, Finland! What few seem to take into account is the development of HVDC lines, even cross-Atlantic ones. If HVDC lines circumscribed the Earth, or at least a goodly portion of it, which is feasible with existing technologies, solar power would cease to be an intermittent resource, but a constant and plentiful one, and would require no or very little storage. Obviously, the right compromise lie somewhere between HVDC lines extensively criss-crossing the globe, and a battery-only storage solution. It would tend towards an economic optimum. Fo those who have not read them, I strongly recommend reading Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 (www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf), as well as RethinkX Energy Report (www.rethinkx.com/energy). They both conclude that: 1. A complete worldwide energy transition is possible within 2 decades, 2. There is ZERO insurmountable resource challenge, 3. This transition would consume 0.2% of emerged land, very often in otherwise unused ranges, 4. It would costs around 0.5% of 2022 world GDP over the 20 years of the transition. 5. It would actually cost less than "business as usual", 6. It would generate great excesses of basically free power, which could be used to manufacture e-fuels for sectors, which cannot be electrified (typically most of air transport), and start capturing the CO2 which we have carelessly thrown into the atmosphere. I would welcome a debate between Prof Michaux and either Elon Musk, or maybe even better, because he is more specialized in the matter, Dr Adam Dorr, Director of Research at RethinkX !!!

[@ptadisbander7959]

So basically we are screwed?

[@casey2806]

Not if you listen to Simon. He is supporting The evolution of The Venus Project.

[@shootsteel]

WOW ... thank you for your work.

[@badspecimen]

This is a very sobering report and most impressive. Kudos to Simon Michaux. A plan to avoid future disaster will be extremely complex and may or may not be successful. If successful the future energy plan will buy enough time and allow us to exist in relative comfort until we develop a workable future tech, e.g. advanced batteries, fusion technology, asteroid mining, orbiting satellites to capture sunlight and beam it down to earth as microwaves for electricity generation. The transition from wood to coal took about 100 years. The transition from coal to oil took about 100 years. This transition from oil to renewables (if possible) will take at least 100 years. Will we make it?

[@Eagleizer]

The way the greenies think reminds me about how my kids used to think that the ATM was an unlimited source of money. They however quickly learned how it actually works, unlike the greenies.

[@jturbo68]

It would be interesting to see a discussion between the opposite camps of energy transition. Tony Seba and Simon Michaux. Two persons looking at the same problem and reaching opposite conclusions.

[@robertoheliaz9856]

You would watch those two get destroyed, absolutely leveled, good sir.

[@jturbo68]

@@robertoheliaz9856 Given that Simon Minchaux is the person presenting in this video, both getting destroyed seemingly couldnt happen. To my larger point though. The audience and sway of persons explaining how the energy transition is under way and can/will happen is vastly larger than the group saying that it cant. Until well researched, authoritative voices enter into the fray, this message will be lost in the noise. There needs to be debate amongst the different camps to set the direction of the vast middle that has no idea of the dangers of the current energy/mineral situation.

[@robertoheliaz9856]

@@jturbo68 ah, yes. tony seba would get destroyed. you're right, we do need debate (not that the two sides are equal). the great majority of experts and plebes alike are engaging in wishful thinking. if voices like michaux's are drowned out, it only supports ample evidence that individual human beings, and vast majorities and groups, are very often absolutely, utterly foolish idiots.

[@thorsrensen3162]

Most of the climate, energy and green transition scientists have either reduced themself, or been reduced to political instruments paid by big government, EU, FN etc.

[@michaels4255]

I think Tony Seba is a shill for the EV industry. Prove me wrong.

[@seanfielding8209]

Almost all the shortfall amounts here are accounted for by assuming an enormous global bank of stationary storage batteries for electricity, but I doubt any serious energy expert has ever thought that was feasible. Therefore, the metals shortfall argument as presented here is only useful as a rhetorical device, to prove the practical impossibility of a 100% electrical global energy system, and to start to examine the crucial issue of energy storage and distribution. The argument says little about the relative desirability of continuing the current trend toward non-hydro renewables and should be re-cast with far more realistic stationary storage estimates that assume fossil fuels, nuclear and improved distribution efficiency will continue to play the role of 'battery' at times of low sun, wind etc, possibly with the addition of hydrogen as an energy store. This might, in itself, show that all the metals, semi-metals, graphite and concrete needed for a 'maximal-renewable' (as opposed to 100% renewable) is still not achievable, never mind the stationary storage straw-man.

[@HG-hy6xx]

The paper does not discuss the grid itself. Enormous additions to the electricity transportation system will be needed to bring power from production sites to demand sites. Otherwise, Pr. Michaux is simply trying to put numbers (tons of metals) beside the grandiose transition supply-side scenarios proposed by the EU, IRENA and the IEA.

[@michaels4255]

Fossil fuels will become exhausted. So will U235. There will still be resources in the earth, but it will eventually require too much energy to extract them.

[@TimJBenham]

@@michaels4255 > So Will U235. So stop wasting it on energy production and use it to make Pu-239 and U-233.

[@smiuq]

On November 3 2023, Assoc Prof Simon Michaux returned to the JKMRC Friday Seminar series to update us on the research presented in this webinar. You can view the recording of that seminar here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5PRiYCsZp57mc0.

[@sendler2112]

Looking at the slide for number of units at 35:07 I would wonder about the number of solar panels required stated as 27.65 billion times 450 MW??? Is this correct in that you meant that we need that many large solar pv installations??? 450 MW each??? Or should that read 450 W panels? And, quantities of batteries are better stated by their energy capacity but you have simply stated the power. Which can vary from 50C discharge rates if you don't care about a much shorter cycle life, to the more common 1C rate for storage.

[@billlambert6673]

Thanks again for a wonderful examination of the material problem of the 'renewable future' Simon. I notice that you always miss some very important aspects of material use that just makes the situation even worse, being materials needed for both mining and agriculture needed to go all electric. Because mining would have to increase massively, the materials as in metals needed to mine vast extra quantities of lower grade, deeper and harder to crush ores, makes the total even more ridiculous than your figures show. Likewise for agriculture. A friend of mine that's into the bright green future and drives a Tesla, commented about how farms would just have their own solar generating facilities with several change over batteries for the large tractors needed for grain industries, as just one example of ridiculousness. Plus everyone misses the huge amount of energy needed to build this bright green future. Where does it come from? Probably like now, fossil fuels until we pass peak (very shortly for oil, or maybe already past it) and then all hell breaks loose.

[@michaels4255]

The consequences of going post peak should start off gradually, but become more severe over time.

[@georgeholloway3981]

So what is your proposed solution?

[@nicksince9487]

Can you elaborate on "all hell breaks loose" ? I'm curious about what this might look like, mostly to prepare in whatever way I can - but also because I'm deeply curious about it.

[@kevinshanholtzer]

@@georgeholloway3981 There is no acceptable solution

[@kevinshanholtzer]

@@nicksince9487 Grow your own, source your own water, prep for defense

[@sarahdowe3142]

Saviour for the truth, thank you Professor for giving me wisdom, thought, common sense and security !

[@confuzzius]

Frightening! The only comment I have relate to the calculation method which is slightly convoluted for a layman to appreciate. Using a base of 100MW instead of the average size of a plant would be more palatable, even if you arrive at the same magnitude answer.

[@pq2667]

Thanks mate....this is the type of deep, truly fundamental, work the Chinese system puts into it's 5 yr plans......how many new students each yr, so schools, bricks, windows, glass, aluminium frames, glue, tiles, gutters, metal to make them, metal required to make the machines that make them etc etc....deep and back to the very first principles. As an aussie mineral explorer I love what I hear BUT the spin the west pedals is breathtakingly crazy. Again thank you for your clarity.

[@ashleybennett4418]

I think the chinese government needs to incorporate a better understanding of limita into its plans

[@freakshow1997]

One small criticism I would have in the capacity factors of the power generation options is the following: It is observed that you would need 142 coal fired power stations, or more than 30.000 arrays (of unknown number of) PV panels to deliver 1000 TWh to the grid. However, the solar array delivers this energy already at the peak of its performance. The coal fired power stations are operated in the most economical sense, i.e. they are only operated when the electricity needs justify operation. This is the reaosn why solar cannot be compared to, and will never replace, coal.

[@GoatBoy_45-70]

Say it another way so it makes sense ???

[@JohnnyBelgium]

Coal is finite and so is the atmosphere. So either we run out of coal or its pollution will stop itself. At 4°C warming our food production collapses.

[@luckyPiston]

FRISCO : I think he tries to address this problem when he gets into the part about batteries providing your base load energy in the off peak periods , it's pretty mind blowing how many batteries and the amount of material AND infrastructure required for just that effort !

[@luckyPiston]

@@JohnnyBelgium nuclear war , u know where , will fix with big dust clouds :)

[@dirkvandevoorde4251]

Hornsdale battery in Australia is 129MWh or 0.000129TWh So we roughly need 550 : 0.000129 = 4,255,000 units for one week buffer x4 = 17 million units for a 4 week buffer. I think that 550 TWh is a buffer for one week! 26,220 TWh of wind and solar in one year is about 504 TWh per week. A 4-week buffer is then 2000 TWh!

[@domitron]

This is one of the most important presentations I have ever seen. It is a pity that the charts in this (particularly the one "metals in 2022 global reserves") are not burning into everyone's mind because the bright green lies going around are not compatible with reality. Those lies are ubiquitous and rampant, even among academics. There seems to be a vast gulf because what people think and what is presented here.

[@Turboy65]

Copper is also going to be a very solid investment.

[@instasis4940]

For many years now after coming to a basic understanding of the mining industry and the sheer scale of this plan, I've been trying to warn people that this ESG movement is utter madness, but you can never reason with a person using facts and logic when their thinking process is based on emotion. Usually i end the conversation with ESG fanatics by agreeing with them that the ESG plan is absolutely able to be achieved, but asking them which 90% of the world's population they would like to die? It normally draws blank stares. Beaurocracies are inept even at the best of times, so the chances of even getting a fraction of this done are miniscule. My recommendation is that you get a nice plot of land far off the beaten track, build systems that are resilient, and learn how to grow a garden. You're absolutely going to need it when this train finally derails and kills everyone on board.

[@JaseboMonkeyRex]

Hold on, when the graph is up showing the green graph of 36k TWH he then says the onsite power generation for industry as feed stocks is estimated at ANOTHER 36k TWH for a total of 72k TWH of electrical power required ??? Is that right?

[@Rosemary-bd2ul]

Everything that Assoc Prof Simon Michaux is saying needs to be heard and read and seen in the mainstream. All the wokers would have us believe that the world of renewables is a mixture of utopia, the Garden of Eden and Atlantis.

[@georgeholloway3981]

So, are you hopeful for humanity?

[@l4rrikin]

I'm hopeful that less students will enroll in _humanities_ over time. We are going to need people who actually know how to contribute to society.

[@ThatcherUlrich]

I take issue with the speaker's statement about Energy Return on Investment at 23:25: "EROI for renewables is much lower than for fossil fuels, that unfortunately is a reality". According to Fthenakis, Leccisi 2021 "Updated sustainability status of crystalline silicon-based photovoltaic systems...", crystalline PV achieves EROIs of 7.5, 11.5 or 15.5 in low, medium or high insolation locations respectively. Oil EROI is often estimated at 10-13. Wind EROI estimates vary but usually exceed 15.

[@ThatcherUlrich]

Misstatement repeated at 29:32

[@Jeremy-WC]

Battery Storage drops wind and solar EROI drops to below 5 with current battery storage tech. I think 5 to 1 is 1 day storage. Better batteries could change this and at least make a solar and wind civilization possible but the most optimistic view is that we will have a third of the energy we have now to run things without fossil fuels.

[@ThatcherUlrich]

@@Jeremy-WC That's pretty handwavy, isn't it? Some factors to consider: 1) long term electricity storage is much more cost-effectively done with H2 or other synthetic chemical fuel. The round-trip efficiency is worse, but the total energy transfer should be a fraction of overall energy use (10-20%). 2) Fossil fuel EROI are typically calculated at the wellhead, so in terms of useful work, they're inflated relative to RE/batt, which are generally expressed in electricity. 3) Electrification brings huge efficiency improvements (EVs versus ICEs, heat pumps vs. boilers). It's hard to do apples vs. apples with EROI without delving into the exact boundaries and conversions used. In fact the mention of EROI is kind of a red flag. Energy payback time is probably more informative (at least it accounts for time!). Life cycle emissions also fairly useful. And plain old dollar accounting. Bottom line, I don't buy the argument that EROI disqualifies RE. If you want to disqualify RE, try doing it with flows of dollars and materials and energy.

[@Jack-od2hx]

festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

[@HG-hy6xx]

@@ThatcherUlrich Your points (1) is a conjecture, (3) is bang on, (2) highly debatable on a ERoIE basis (we simply don't know because we don't have enough data on the actual performance of installed systems. ERoIE may not be the principal disqualifier of solar and wind. Intermittency and power density (MW/square km) are.

[@jmwSeattle]

“Lord what fools these mortals be” “Oh brave world that has such creatures in it” - William Shakespeare

[@Eagleizer]

I take note that it was not calculated that power production also needs capacity to charge while providing power for immediate use. Same goes for all minerals needed every year as we use it now, cannot be used for transition away from fossil fuel. The needs for more minerals comes on top, for every year. Not that we could get more dead than we are already. The Earth is colder than in 400 million years. We need to warm it and set free the absolute essential Carbon that all life depends on. Most of the carbon that made life possible is trapped in coal and oil. We have a unique chance to put some of it bach, making the Earth habitable for a considerably longer time. Analogy: Elon Musk said something like that this may be the only time that one man is crazy enough, and rich enough to spend money on trying to save human species by braking grounds for travelling and settling on other planets. In my view, this is the only time we can avoid that the last carbon atom is buried forever, and our planet freezes over forever. If we have transitioned to something else, there will probably not be possible to heat the planet. Who is ready for Dark Ages like ice-age and no oil? How about food? No greenie have an answer and seems to think that politicians knows and can slve it with a vote... We may be able to save the planet if we continue on our path, without forcing unnatural, unsustainable evolution. With continued evolution, we may find a non-destructive way that will also save humanity. The cost for adapting to warmer climate and raising oceans seems fairly solvable compared to a total freeze and no oil. The planned end of fossil fuel is complete madness based on childish arguments and a gullible beliefs in propaganda from evil sources and companies making money from it. Don't force evolution! We all have a responsibility to learn all the details before going ALL IN on a completely different world that will change EVERYTHING. Good luck to us ALL! Cheers :)

[@1000frolly]

Great explanation by someone sensible - and qualified to speak about the sheer insanity and impracticality of the "Net Zero by 2050" idea. Want to sit in an aeroplane next a huge tank of Hydrogen gas? I don't think so! My report into net zero by 2050 would be much shorter than Dr Michaux it would contain two words; Err - Nah!

[@johnjakson444]

Molten Salt Reactors like Moltex do indeed have variable output and can swing from say 0.25GW to perhaps 3GW using a 2GW thermal constant output reactor storing heat in external molten salt tanks. Total daily output is still 24GWh (e) but can betaken at fractions to multiples as limited by the excess generator on site. That solve the battery problem. If the base of the power generation is high temp MSR nuclear and variable, the the lunacy of adding wind and solar is revealed. The MSRs will also last several times as long as the REs and has a far lower content of materials needed per life time energy output. Also these MSRs can run at thermal temps of 800c so can be used to spit water directly using Sulfur Iodine catalyst, no platinum needed, no electrolysis either. So a rapid push into MSRs would need very little of the special materials needed for wind solar electrolysis and batteries.

[@michalfaraday8135]

Thank you for the impressive presentation. I love how data driven it is. I have to push back though on some important issues with your conclusions. Most of the required metals and minerals are, according to this, needed for the battery stationary seasonal storage. Except it makes no sense at all to use batteries for seasonal storage. They are good for several hours - daily storage. Strange thing not considered here is that the gas indutry already has 2000-3000 TWh worth of underground seasonal storage. What is the logic of using batteries for everything when the existing infrastructure can already do most of this? Sure we need to build the plants that will covert CO2 and water to methane (or use hydrogen) but the rest is established industry. With co-generation the efficiency of power to gas is much better then using gas for driving. Also a bit dissapointing everyone is considering hydrogen for everything when methane is more practical. And if leaks are the excuse, then how do they plan to stop hydrogen a much smaller molecule from leaking. Once the huge requirements for battery seasonal storage is gone the rest seems quite doable. The report also seems to be based on static development. This is kinda mentioned in Q/A but still it is worth mentioning that the reality is always dynamic. By static development I mean assuptions like this: an EV needs 4x more copper, therefore we need to increase mining accordingly. We can' t increase mining, therefore it can't be done. The industry is always reacting to changes happening. For example the demand for copper will increase - this leeds to higher prices. OK, but what happens then - what is the reaction? Mining, mafufacturing and even customer preferences change based on the new price level until a new equilibrium is reached. - higher prices mean previous methods of getting more copper that used to be financially not viable are now possible - mainly recycling - higher prices mean every industry that uses copper, not just transport and power, react and try to reduce their copper needs. For example network cables - an office building has hundreds to thousands of kilometers of copper network wiring. Most of which could be replaced by optic fibers and wireless technologies in new building construction. This frees up new copper for the growing transport and power industry. - The EVs themselves will reduce the copper use in order to be affordable. This is already happening with Hundai, Kia, Porsche and others using 800V+ powertrain, some EVs using aluminum for the high voltage connections or Tesla switching to 48V low voltage architecture as well as data busses instead of having a seperate wire for each controler. These could reduce the need for copper in an EV to the level of ICE vehicles. - The obvious method is also to reduce the overall number of vehicles. This is typically connected to reducing transport and being less wastefull, but it is not necesarily the case. If someone scales autonomous vehicles and I'd be really surprised if no one could by the end of the decade, it will be possible to travel the same amount of distance by using 3x-10x less vehicles, once again limiting the need for materials. Human ingenuity tends to get us out of trouble and I wouldn' t ignore it when it comes to solution of this problem.

[@MbeyaIsHome]

Thorium reactors can supply and replace oil/gas/coal within 20 years if we really try. That is the solution that Germany should be focusing on, and not Wind/Solar.

[@unicovankooten5775]

Raw Material Blindness is unfortunately real as decision makers are just starting the journey on acquiring more awareness on the importance of access to and availability of raw materials for realizing part of the set policy ambitions. The sheer amount of raw materials needed to excavate comes with unprecedented environmental challenges for which decision makers also have to figure out balanced answers. Thank you very much for adding awareness to the equation. All stakeholders benefit from this and I used your input at a Conference in the Netherlands this year and it was an eye opener for the many. What would be a no regret strategy on energy - and raw material utilisation for the coming years? Off course, use less. But the world also need some. What would be your take on the position of fossil fuels in the energy mix for the coming decades for countries? Based on your presentation and the scarcity on uranium one could argue at least 60% as energy is a matter of national security, stability and prosperity. With kind regards, Unico van Kooten

[@reuireuiop0]

Reckon the best solution to both the intermittent solar and wind and the inflexibility of nuclear is to siphon surplus energy by processing it into natural energy carriers, like hydrogen , methane or ammonia. These are fairly easy to produce, readily transportable with the possibility to store large quantities. Especially methane, of which most countries already have an infrastructure. Need to check on this, but I've read it's a rather easy and manageable process to turn hydrogen into methane. Most energy economist are against as it decreases the efficiency. But compared to all resources needed to be produced for storage in batteries, methane and or hydrogen should be far preferred. We're awfully late on this, but most countries keep several months of national consumption of oil in storage. That's what the large storage in Amsterdam and Rotterdam are for -they been used in 2022 to lower the price pressure caused by the Russian gas ban. We should move quickly and turn those reserves into large hydrogen and methane energy buffer storage. We should have used the last 20 years to set up these processes and get the production running, but instead, we're only in preliminary stages. We may get eclipsed by peak energy, as the large & easily mined resources of oil, coal, and gas have gone, but we're still not too close to the steep downward curve in oil production. By and far, there's not enough mineral resources to fix all this, so Europe should get firm legislation in place to lengthen life cycles of resource heavy gadgets and installations which currently are "burning" minerals like crazy - less than 3 years life cycles for gear like phones, tablets, home electronics, should be outlawed immediately. We're late on the show, and we probably won't get the same energy security in place before oil runs low, but it should have all strategic priorities Now

[@jeffro490]

Professor, this was fantastic. One question. I saw on 60 Minutes on TV last night the piece about the CCC and seabed mining and they were making it sound like this deep sea mining will be the answer to our problems. What do you have to say about that exploration?

[@michaels4255]

Seabed mining? How much will that increase the energy inputs of the mining industry? Has anyone demonstrated that this is even workable? Sounds very science fictiony to me.

[@yfrigi]

Extremely difficult to do. Easier to explore outer space than deep oceans, and the biodiversity destruction would be massive.

[@the81kid]

Almost every month there is another news story about a new technology that will save us from natural limits. 20 years ago I read about making oil from algae. They always disappear. Virtually all of these stories are publicity, released by a company or businessperson as a way of attracting investors and/or increasing share prices. They're popular because people want a magical pill solution that will save us from ourselves.

[@jghifiversveiws8729]

With current and future fuel prices I doubt that'll be viable anytime soon.

[@نوفالعوفي-د6ف]

Actually he did a study assessing that. assuming all resource are recoverable regardless of the cost (including seabed mining) the total result was 44% of what is needed

[@G5Hohn]

I would take issue with a minor point that putting estimates for inputs on the low end is "conservative." Understating the *inputs* to a process is not conservative, because being conservative means increasing the probability of success or adding margin. The "conservative" approach would be to be pessimistic on the amount of input resources required as well as the value of the outputs gained.

[@EduardBroekman]

What I miss in this study is (A) the effect of decrease in mining ROI using the proposed renewable energy mix and (B) the destruction of the flora and fauna by vastly increased mining for these 'renewable' technologies.... but first (C) I would assess how logistics systems would transform given the low efficiency of the proposed technology/energy mix. Our current logistics system was optimised and designed based on cheap energy: so a 1:1 replacement strategy, while extremely effective applied here to highlight realities, is just not going to occur. I suspect that the shift in logistics will far exceed the previous transition from community based coal fired rail/water to cheap-oil based transport network. The main reason for this is that the reduction in efficiency will be multiples of the gains we made in the last planned transition, and hence the difficulty of managing an equally expedited transition will be on an unprecedented level.

[@redhen2123]

There are MANY alternatives to fossil fuel energy. There are NO replacements though.

[@NoExitLoveNow]

To avoid the coming catastrophe we need to stop burning fossil fuels. Just a fact.

[@michaels4255]

Correct. And this poses a grave dilemma.

[@matsv201]

Nuclear thermohydro produktion with a sabatier bio reactor with Waste heat feedback. This is 3 difftent system that all exist today, but just never been combined. If it would be used on full scale sweden alone could produce all The fuel needed for northern europe. (Including uk and ireland)

[@redhen2123]

@@matsv201 Half of every barrel of oil goes to make fuel. The other half goes to make thousands products that we depend on. Can you make asphalt and car tires out of nuclear thermohydro production with a sabatier bio reactors?

[@matsv201]

@@redhen2123 Well.. That is kind of sort of true but not quite. There is a fairly normal spread between gas, nafta, jet fuel, diesel and light fuel oil. With Bitumen and gasol coming in at both end with about 5-8% each. But its not as simple. Most fractions are synthesized or cracked to some degree or a other. That gives it an end product of about 80% of the main fuels from light fuel oil to Gasoline. Synthetic ruber is made form basically a synthesized version of normal fuel or nafta. So that is really not a problem, close to the sweet spot. For bitumen its a bit more complicated. While it can theoretically just feed very little hydrogen, basically made tar from the wood. This is not a good option. The more reasonable solution is to make light fuel oil, then synthesize it down to bitumen. This is not quite the cheapest way, and it will make bitumen, a bit more expensive than diesel. But its not only drawbacks. For instance heavy fuel oil will not be produced in a system like this. And really, there is no reason to produce light fuel oil either. Basically anything between Methane and light fuel oil can be made. The heavier product, the more wood, the lighter product, the more nuclear hydrogen. When the technology matures, the lighter elements will be cheaper. Methane would cost about 1:50cent/kWh in current economics (if the system was commercial today). Petrol/Gasoline would cost about 2cent/kWh, Jet-A and diesel about 2:50 cent, light fuel oil about 3 cent, heavy fuel oil 3:50 and bitumen probobly around 4 cent. That would be about 15cent/L of gasoline or about 60cent/US gallon. Of cause, that is with out distribution or taxes. The reason why its so incredibly cheap and much cheaper than numbers you might seen before, is that the way i set it up i done away with carbon capture totally. This eliminate energy and machinery cost. It also eliminate the cost of removing the oxygen, and as well as that it provides additional system energy. On top of that, i made a 3 way feedback loop to reduce the reactor temperature, making the system available sooner. (of cause its just theoretical for now, but it should work) A lot of people ask if its just cheaper to just use the hydrogen as is. Well its not. The thing is distributing hydrogen is really expensive.We talking in the 1.5-2cent range. And this is not effected by the cost of hydrogen it self. If hydrogen cost say 7 cent like today, 1.5-2 cent is not a big deal. But if it cost 1.5 cent out of the reactor... it is. And with the feedback system, it can´t even produce hydrogen alone. It have to produce at least 60-70% hydrocarbons to get sufficient temperature. Also worth saying that a majority of earth oceanic ships runs on heavy fuel oil today. The reason... its very cheap, and its painfully costly to crack. So the refineries rather sell it for cheap then cracking it. The drawback. Diesel engines that run on heavy fuel oil are very inefficient. Only like 38-40% peak. This can be compared to diesels running on pure diesel-fuel that can be as efficient as 52% (and even 56% with heat feed back system, currently only two ships have that). Its even possible to go up to a combine cycle turbine, currently operating at 64% (no ship use that today). The reason why they don´t do it today is that heavy fuel oil is so cheap, so it don´t make sense.

[@vincentbizouard6057]

The figures leading to a non realisable need of metals are considering that we will do monthly storage with batteries. But no one will do that. Monthly storage, and more precisely the monthtly modulation to do warrant the network stability, will be done with hydrogen, biogas, synthetic methane or hydroelectricity. In this case, you need much less metals to realise the modulation, of course.

[@kctaz6189]

Good luck with that hydrogen thingy.

[@kvaka009]

Debating with techno optimists is like a game of whack-a- mole. They propose some grand solution without the actual accounting of thermodynamics, ecology, and planetary limits. Simone like Simon Michaux demonstrates in detail how wishful and unrealistic the proposal is. Then techno optimists prose some grand tech solution to the problems exposed without again providing the details of how in practice the ecological, economic, and social transition can be feasible. It's always "this other solution will reveal itself in due time, but for now let's keep exponential economic growth going without actively reducing throughput of energy and material usage". Magical thinking at its finest.

[@vincentbizouard6057]

@@kvaka009 it has nothing to do with being a techno-optimist, or not. I'm not techno-optimist, neither techno-pessimist. Some technologies are part of the solution, but not alone. The economical system in which you implement a technology is more important than the technology itself, by the way. My point was just to says that the hypothesis with which were done the computation of Michaux are completely non realist. Even techno-optimists do not propose to do what he says, for a simple reason : batteries can be used for hourly or daily storage, but not for longer period of time, because it is totally irrelevant in a technico-economical point a view. Such storage will be done with other technologies (and we can challenge these technologies also, no pb with that). What Michaux is exactly what fossil fuel compagnies want you to believe. It's juste desinformation

[@kvaka009]

@Vincent Bizouard Simon is not proposing a plan or analyzing his own plan. He is analyzing net zero proposals offered by other agents looking at technologies we actually know of. Technologies you are suggesting are either untested or not tested at scale. So your comment is no different than the response "that plan is not worth analyzing because there will be some other plan, whose details we have no idea how to even envision or implement"

[@kvaka009]

@@vincentbizouard6057 kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4fNdn6Vhc-pepI

[@formxshape]

34:01 Pretty sure I’ve seen Peter Zeihan using this slide too.

[@mandarkokate5613]

Just wonderful work there. But one question I think this is just non fossil electricity generation we have other fossil use directly for heat etc. Electrifying that will almost double the calculation. Ohh my...

[@SmileTribeNetwork]

Why produce entirely new vehicles when they could simply convert existing ICE to electric?

[@maryannmcleodevans2012]

And just today, in California, a huge swath of people had no electricity due to a blackout, one of many to come. Never mind that His Lordship, Governor Newson, has declared and signed into law that all new cars sold in California must be electric. “Insanity will get me re-elected!”

[@robertstout7756]

Another variable that will have a great impact on the amount of not just EV’s, but automobiles in general is the Robo taxi. When people find it more convenient and much cheaper than owning a car the choice is easy. Plus one car could do the work of five.

[@andrewcook9004]

Thanks - so good to see some basic common sense being applied. I find myself going through a whole set of mental arguments on this... Mainly attempting to wriggle out of the inevitable - that our current industrial society is coming to an end of its own making. The social implications are extremely uncomfortable. So I go - hey what about new technology? Graphene conductors look like a good bet... But do we need grapite for those, or can we make them from soot? And does it just crack when vibrated? What about the Safire medium temperature fusion generator? I haven't heard anything positive from that ever since they got venture capital funding, so I'm guessing the venture capital was oil industry funded (like several other systems that could have reduced carbon have been bought out and shelved because they rocked the boat too much) - and it's been gently shelved. It's just not possible to replace a century of infrastructure in a last-ditch panic lasting 10 years, and I honestly hope that nobody tries - the extra environmental fallout will just make it even worse. So yes - I love the idea of saying "what resources do we have?" and then developing technology that can use them. The question is - how much time do we have before global transport networks start to collapse and all this tech becomes difficult because there's some mineral from somewhere the other wide of the world that suddenly just isn't available. The resource numbers do not add up in the way we are adding them up. How could we add them up in a way that would work in some way or other that doesn't eventually end in total collapse of civilisation? What CAN we do with what we have available (assuming that we can also prevent spokes being put in the wheel by petroleum vested interests)?

[@mikegeorge3368]

No mention of vanadium..

[@smiuq]

Hello Mike, You may be interested in Simon's slide beginning 40:07

[@harryflashman4542]

as a not very bright person I can see the prevalence of SUVs and deficit in scooters and mopeds and really wonder how politically viable it will be to transition to renewable energy. People want to display their eminence with their lifestyle consumption choices. They will not readily transition to a low energy future. How will we scrap the populations investment in vehicles which are usually the second largest asset purchase they make after real estate. This will plunge the majority of the population into transport poverty. In fact higher supply chain transport costs will increase living costs across the board. What standard of living do the majority face. Will they be able to put aside savings for housing, for education. Will we face a two tier society. It seems that the majority have not managed to acquire a stake in this new future. What sort of political and social system will be required to force populations to a vastly lower level of energy use. It seems to me that the west will have to disenfranchise the population in order to enable a stable political system that cannot be voted out of power as populations lose living standard expectations.

[@rhetth-s8082]

Overall it seems good, but what percentage of the minerals demand comes from the notion of four weeks of grid storage in batteries? I suspect most new grid storage will be in the forms of hydrogen and pumped hydro, which i suspect would use heaps less scarse metals than batteries. Another thing that doesnt seem to have been factored is technological development.

[@pegefounder]

We never need 4 weeks grid storage in batteries. For summer/winter balancing is power to methane.

[@glennjgroves]

I agree. I also assume that EVs will be used (to some extent) for grid storage purposes. And there are other forms of storage (other types of technologies) that will help, mainly in stationary storage.

[@cass0931]

Agreed, chemical storage such as hydrogen would appear to be a better fit for four weeks of storage. Possibly with the additional need to transfer energy between hemispheres.

[@rhetth-s8082]

@@cass0931 hemispheres, latitudes, are in the same timezone, i would think we could do with circumferencial interconnectors that time shift from sunlit areas to night time areas.

[@thurstonhowellthetwelf3220]

@@cass0931 problem is making h2 from elec, then reconverting to elec...has a huge energy cost..ie energy loss..

[@JonathanJBoyle]

How is the hydrogen fuel cell being considered so central to this? The efficient storage of hydrogen (apart from the cost of cracking the hydrogen from various compounds) has not yet been discovered.

[@JonathanMaddox]

Storing hydrogen in tanks and caverns is really not difficult, nor is transporting it by pipeline. Both are already done on industrial scale in the petroleum and fertiliser industries. Hydrogen is never quite as useful in the role of energy carrier as heavier fuels that pack more energy into a smaller volume, but it can be readily converted into those fuels with the addition of further feedstocks such as carbon dioxide (to make methane, methanol or heavier hydrocarbons similar to those found in petroleum) or nitrogen from the atmosphere (to make ammonia). Hydrogen is not the problem here. It is also not the solution, just a very small step towards a solution.

[@JonathanJBoyle]

@@JonathanMaddox Thank you for the information. I was concerned because if the physical size of the molecule of H2. I fully agree with your comment that requires any sensible government to have a variable and balanced energy policy. Focusing on a single or on few sources is suicidal.

[@rogerturner1996]

Because of the low grade (% of total matetial mined) metals or elements to be mined, there is an enormous amount of waste material generated at huge cost in terms of $ and fossil fuel energy.

[@the81kid]

And that ore grade is going to tend to decrease too. Imagine how bad the ore grade would be if we started mining 1000x as fast!

[@petermcateer1354]

Any of this peer reviewed?

[@andrewdewit4711]

Excellent work.

[@7eroBubble]

The WEF did NOT underestimate the size of the global transport fleet... because you must take into account their intention to wipe out the majority of humanity. They did not come to their fugures by measuring the current situation but, rather, by pre-determination of what they want... at most.

[@the81kid]

Oh, god. There's always one.

[@garethsmith7628]

re vehicles (1) work from home is crucial as a strategy (2) hydrogen production is a great load leveller, any time there is surplus power (eg 10am - 2pm) make more hydrogen

[@glenmccarthy8482]

That ocean floor mining is going to go through the roof.

[@remcovanhartevelt588]

Perhaps decentralized hydrogen production could be part of lowering transportation cost of hydrogen. Here in the netherlands we have an overloaded energy grid, so if it could become possible to produce hydrogen underneath a solar panel when it produces more then the local people need, exces could be stored in hydrogen.

[@U2GuitarTutorials]

Can you imagine the amount of additional debt governments will issue to subsidize this transition? And the central banks would print money to finance the government debt. Can you say more inflation?

[@jghifiversveiws8729]

Inflation has nothing to do with the volume or velocity of money.

[@okkomp]

What about recycling?

[@DonC48]

Fascinating presentation of a huge amount of work and summarised in a very understandable manner and with a great sense of humor/cynicism. This is on par with 'withouthotair of David Mackay. Only facts and figures, this is what politicians say they want, here are the consequences of your dreams! And all very conservative estimates. Alas politicians have more pressing issues to worry their pretty head about. It does not make me feel good since I see very clear the dark times ahead during which my 3 granddaughters will grow up. And I see no proper solution, certainly with the low caliber of politicians around in the western world. To me it is clear that the worldpopulation will have to shrink considerably and live a much more modest life. Since no politician dares tell this to the electorate, nothing will happen in a planned way. So then Nature will take care of it. Nature has very little compassion with a species that does not fit in anymore.

[@garethsmith7628]

I have seen the assertion that at the beginning of the industrial age that the UK was sitting on more Joules of energy in coal than Saudi ever had in oil

[@karlstone6011]

I don't know if you're baffled with/or by science - but a simple observation suggests the underlying premises of this argument are a false basis of analysis; and that is, Earth is a big ball of molten rock! In theory, there's a practically limitless source of constant high grade clean energy to mine, refine and recycle metals. Plus, 7/10th of the Earth's surface is untouched by mining because it's underwater. Also, the infrastructure to produce Magma Energy is compact, and solid state; a volcano turned into a power station with concrete and steel - not some spider's web of future tech scrap. So where - in reality, is the bottleneck?

[@0NoFreeWill0]

This kind of study really underlines that green energy transition can only be accompanied by degrowth (proper planned restructuring of the economy to waste/do less)... at 14:00 you can see return to growth as part of the program. Assuming that green energy needs to replace fossil fuels current workload rather than a new economy designed to reduce wasted effort/energy is kind of silly. Obviously this argument can be levelled against a green transition as well as for a proper one... but you'll see many people doing the former (as below in comments in some cases) and not understanding the latter. An economy that was just and sustainable (aka post-capitalism, ecocommunism, etc.) would need far less energy because it wouldn't 'be manufacturing vast quantities of weapons and disposable products, or luxury goods for the 1% whose emissions per capita are 8-1000x the average person in the west (who in turn uses 10-200x as much as a third worlder). Money/energy hasn't bought us happiness, in fact americans are less happy than Mexicans on average despite vast amounts of energy/material use. So we need to redesign the economy from the ground up to take advantage of green energy/compensate for it's (weaknesses) vs fossil fuels. But our political-economy can't simply swap due to political restrictions due to being captured by fossil fuel/banking rather than merely the material restrictions outlined here. The only conclusion you can draw from this combination of factors is that a radical movement needs to take power to accomplish the radical changes necessary... or business as usual and everyone in the future ends up dead/not born.

[@sonnyeastham]

The most advanced, technologically sophisticated, and energy efficient carbon-capture system (and its 100% solar powered)....the scientific name is.....TREE

[@sonnyeastham]

Referred to by the ignorant "green energy" aficionados as.....biomass

[@billetem5868]

Professor Happer says we can make synthetic fuel from limestone, so when we run out of oil, coal and natural gas, there is still lots of limestone.

[@kimlibera663]

I'd say we don't use oil/gas with any frugality. Aviation uses the most fuel-just the sheer # of flights going off at every airport every minute of the day. This is a gazillion. I'd say we need to have airlines voluntarily reduce their flight #s or we will run out of that. This also applies to the military use of fuel.