Minerals are the new oil

[@edgeman148]

To my mind this is excellent and I have researched many such podcasts, interviews etc on similar subjects on many sides of these paradoxes that we face; thank you Professor Michaux. My motivations are emotional, essential and elemental, I am a Great Grandfather who has lived through a period of human over-exuberance and I have certainly benefitted from this. However, I have also witnessed the levels of violence and wars (mostly resource wars) spawned by that same over-exuberance and the deep sadness this brings to so many. In trying to be constructive and looking at what a livable and enjoyable future for my Great Grandchildren and their peers and in addition to the wonderful work of Professor Michaux; I would recommend two books and their invaluable teachings. "Permaculture, A Designers' Manual" by Bill Mollison and "Lean Logic" by David Fleming. Both lay out happy and enjoyable ways to go forward to more benign environments for all the children among us, they deserve that. Thank you.

[@AudioPervert1]

Basically we as a species are parasites .. Now that the age of Oil is going away (not so soon though) we are up for new extraction, devastation and destruction. One way or another, minerals or cowdung, the future will be vastly reduced, in terms of our growth, our technology and food. Elon Musk can go F**K off Dead!

[@maxmax-sr9lh]

Only 8k views for a such important problem

[@theregenerators]

Excellent video. We are also energy and minerals blind in our consideration of adapting to the impacts of climate change. More road repair, infrastructure and housing rebuilds, seawalls etc..

[@robertpekin2995]

good point not often considered. The other point nthat comes out of that is the extra unproductive hrs diverted into dealing with those planetary overshoot disasters

[@mikehardwicke23]

What climate change? (And CO2 ain't a pollutant... rather the contrary).

[@sillymesilly]

climate always changing it is a not a new thing.

[@mikehardwicke23]

@@sillymesilly It's called weather.

[@AudioPervert1]

Basically we as a species are parasites .. Now that the age of Oil is going away (not so soon though) we are up for new extraction, devastation and destruction. One way or another, minerals or cowdung, the future will be vastly reduced, in terms of our growth, our technology and food. Elon Musk can go F**K off Dead!

[@johnchew503]

What about SMRs for nuclear? Nuclear is denser power, cleaner and the SAFEST energy source.

[@brightpathvideo]

Everything can be measured. Professor Michaux has opened the most important door decision makers need to venture through.

[@MyEconomics101]

Thank you for the data presentation.

[@davidcanatella4279]

Minerals have to be mined by petroleum energy and even if they didn’t need petroleum for mining, transport, processing, recycling and disposal there simply isn’t enough to replace the energy to power civilization. An energy level replacement for petroleum simply doesn’t exist and even if we could replace all energy with renewables it would take so much energy to do so that we would get less than nothing in return for effort this includes nuclear power. The forest, prairie, marsh tundra ocean and desert don’t need wind turbines and solar panels for them to give us life. In fact the web of life needs us not to use them. Hand powered machines can make tasks easier, but industrial civilization cannot last.

[@mikehardwicke23]

Despite not believing that carbon emission is a pollutant your conclusion is correct. We face deindustrialization on a vast scale.

[@mikehardwicke23]

@@davidcanatella4279 I didn't 👍

[@davidcanatella4279]

@@mikehardwicke23 Oh, I understand.

[@peredavi]

People have long made assumptions that humans will not adapt and innovate. I predict vast increase in nuclear energy and breakthrough in fusion to bring commercial generation online in 20 years. Possibly space based solar beaming energy to earth stations. All of this electricity can be used to produce liquid energy from CO2 and water.

[@JoeHacobian]

Malthus how nice to see you.

[@albertgrant1017]

Excellant video.Just subscribed !

[@sampad2973]

Invest in mining companies, metals for the electrification of the world.

[@brewstercox4714]

Any follow thru on a private property, licensed quarry, grossing 300k a year that stumbled into a 1% nickel & 72% specular hematite orebody in Douglas County, Oregon? The hematite is excellent for blocking radiation & Emf-emp. Presume it to be a nickel iron laterite, 900 ppms metal in water solution. Sulfur & aluminum .

[@althe]

Good, but missing a line item for the oil used for war.

[@tomcraver9659]

Four weeks of electricity buffer done with batteries is absurd - that's over 100x as much battery storage as we'll need. If we're going to use fuel cells for heavy vehicles, and generate green hydrogen for them, that's how we'd handle the need for 4 weeks worth of energy storage for the grid. The lower efficiency is more than made up for by the vastly lower capital investment. During the transition period we run existing natural gas power plants as we eliminate coal power with renewables. Then run natural gas only when renewables fall short. As we build up the needed renewable over-capacity for it, switch to synthesized hydrogen (or maybe methane). Finally we can phase in fuel cells (assuming they are more cost-effective) as the gas power plants age out. So we end up needing only enough batteries to smooth renewable generation and then cover periods of ramping up the natural gas power plants. That'll vary depending on the area's wind and solar, but is probably around only 4 to 6 hours of electricity consumption, avoiding most of the mineral shortage issue Michaux focuses on.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

4 weeks is exactly the amount of energy storage necessary to avoid shortages on seasonal variations. It's coincidentally slightly less than the storage time implied by the typical coal pile at your local coal fired generating station (30-40 days).

[@tomcraver9659]

​@@gregorymalchuk272 Sure - energy STORAGE - not batteries, which is what the video presumes, which is how he arrives at those absurd estimates of how long it'll take to mine all the minerals needed. During the transition to renewables, natural gas will be used whenever renewables fall short. Longer term, a modest over-build of renewable energy can be used to power production of methane (or other fuels) from water and captured CO2. Maybe 33% renewables overbuild, plus the cost of building, maintaining and replacing gas production and the existing gas power plants, versus 100x over build of batteries, or Tony Seba's "super energy" plan to overbuild renewables and batteries something like 4x. After subtracting the cost of fossil fuels we'd no longer use, it should come out costing about as much as our current power generation system.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@@tomcraver9659 We don't need your Rube Goldberg machine though. None of it is cost effective. And overbuilding renewables or batteries is catastrophic for EROI. I can CURRENTLY buy nuclear electricity for 5 cents wholesale at the station electrical bus bar. The future is obviously nuclear. And the storage will be uranium where you can feasibly store years worth of national consumption in a single warehouse.

[@chapter4travels]

Here, let me help. 1. The transition away from fossil fuels will happen but it will take a VERY LONG time. The deadlines referenced in this talk are arbitrary and will go out the window. 2. We as a society will fumble about in a really expensive way with so-called "Renewables" until everyone is nearly bankrupt. Only at this point, we will turn to the solution needed, advanced nuclear, specifically uranium-based molten salt reactor technology. Thermal spectrum at first and fast a bit later. Both produce very high temperatures capable of hundreds of direct industrial heat applications that will bypass additional electrical needs. One of those is synthetic liquid fuel from seawater. The ICE will continue because of all the problems with EV's discussed in this talk. (light cars would be the exception) 3. Both electrifying everything and a hydrogen economy are myths. Electricity and all industrial heat applications will come from advanced nuclear as will the synthetic liquid fuel that will replace diesel and jet fuel. 4. The fast neutron versions of these reactors will take care of all nuclear waste and current reserves of fissile fuel are estimated at 4 billion years. 5. You're welcome. The future's so bright ya gotta wear shades.

[@chapter4travels]

@Jhon youu are referring to our current antiquated nuclear power, I am referring to advanced, high-temperature nuclear. These power plants will cost no more than current natural gas or coal plants. all energy save a bit of solar in specific applications will come from this. So-called "renewables are a complete waste of time, money, materials, and land. Not another penny should be wasted on them, wind was obsolete in the late 1800s. Solar is fine for residential use if you have enough money and do not tie into the grid. (This is where I get all my electricity) As I said, this transition will take a VERY long time and we will/should continue to rely on oil, coal, and NG until that time. If what they say about climate change is true, we will all be dead before the transition even gets close to complete. If we try to rely on renewables, we won't even get close, the transition will be much more expensive and take even longer.

[@chapter4travels]

@Jhon youu I'm sorry that you have fallen for the propaganda, don't feel bad most people have. A solar panel built using forced labor from China's Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province might be cheap but integrating them into a reliable and resilient power grid is very expensive. Wind and solar can only add cost to an already reliable grid, a grid that can provide full demand without the wind or solar. This is when every place that has added significant amounts of wind and solar all have the highest electricity prices and the least resilient grids. California and Germany are perfect examples. (and both play accounting games to hide actual emissions data) Again, you are thinking about antiquated nuclear power plants where the entire plant has to be nuclear certified. In a coal power plant, 85% of the total cost of the plant is the power conversion equipment. 15% is the boiler and fuel handling. In a gen. IV nuclear power plant the ratio is the same because all the power conversion equipment is the same, it doesn't need to be nuclear certified. A reactor vessel that is not under pressure will cost no more than a coal boiler with all the fuel handling equipment. Thorcon Power, Seaborg technologies, Moltex Power, and Terrestrial energy have all had independent estimates done to demonstrate this.

[@chapter4travels]

@Jhon youu high temperature nuclear like Terrestrial energy or any other High-temp. nuclear can use cheap thermal storage just like Moltex Energy is using. simple and very economical design. This allows them to down size the reactor and run it at a constant rate. They can optimize the reactor for that rate. Wind and solar need 100% backup and if that backup is nuclear, there is no reason to add the cost and complexity to the already reliable system. It makes no sense to try to offset nuclear fuel costs as you might with natural gas because uranium is so cheap.

[@chapter4travels]

@Jhon youu To my knowledge all generation IV nuclear can load follow, what you claimed about Terrestrial energy is the first time I've heard otherwise. Moltex power's gen IV can load follow but they found that having thermal storage gave them certain advantages. I already mentioned one of them being a smaller reactor optimized to run all out 24/7/365 with on-line refueling. If wind and solar were just useless, that would be one thing, add some in, make people happy. But they are much less than worthless. As long as the general public thinks that wind and solar can replace fossil fuels (which is impossible) they will reject nuclear, the only tech that can actually replace them. Wind and solar only add cost to fossil fuels, just as they have in Germany and California.

[@chapter4travels]

@Jhon youu You're still treating gen IV nuclear like its II&III. These power plants will cost no more than a natural gas plant and load follow just as well. The big difference is that the inefficiency of this process costs a lot in NG fuel while uranium is cheap. Who cares how efficient it is. Without unpredictable wind and solar the load following is easy and predictable.

[@terenceiutzi4003]

The problem is we don't have enough fossil fuels to produce them. Pannisonic makes the batteries for my dive computer in the same plant they make the Tesla battery but they aren't available because they can't get enough oil to produce them!

[@rh906]

Ban the gas stoves, eat ze bugs, and get back to the fields people.

[@janklaas6885]

40:20 nuclear

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

A blizzard of data, with a lot of assumptions, many of them not stated. Little, if anything, said about learning curves, and how they affect materials requirements. Michaux sounds very big on geothermal, but I didn't hear any distinguishing between most geothermal technologies and ground source heat pumps, which are generally much more small-scale and more accessible altogether. It's clear that a lot of work went into this presentation, but much more needs to be done before any really good conclusions can be drawn from it.

[@bronze5420]

Ground source heat pumps aren't used as a source of energy. They are used as a heat ex-changer for more efficient heating/cooling of buildings

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

​@@bronze5420 True. But they are a potentially very important part of efforts to save energy and reduce emissions, and that's why I say they need to be distinguished from geothermal energy, and not conflated with them, because they are potentially so much more important. The potential of geothermal energy was being promoted here so much that I think it's important to make sure this is not because of ground source. It would be an easy mistake to make. (I myself don't think geothermal is likely to be that huge. Even though the potential resource is enormous, tapping it that much, economically, seems dubious.)

[@bronze5420]

@@ronaldgarrison8478 Geothermal is very clearly mentioned at 11:30 as an alternative to fossil fuel electrical generation, with a diagram. I think you're the one doing the conflating. This talk didn't really broach the topic of energy demand reduction, which ground source heat pumps address. Also, my understanding is that the economics/efficiency of ground source heat pumps only become advantageous when compared to air source heat pumps in more extreme climates where air source heat pumps lose efficiency due to extreme temperatures. Regarding the economics of geothermal energy production, I'm no expert and don't know why it has seen little favour compared to other "renewable" technologies. That said, as raw material and energy prices increase, geothermal could become economically advantageous as it may require less manufacturing and material input per unit of energy over it's life time compared to other renewable. Also it seems like it would be the most stable source of renewable energy as it is not dependent on weather patterns.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

​@@bronze5420 The more this goes back and forth, the less clear it seems to be what our disagreement is. All I'm really saying is that the distinction between ground source and proper geothermal should at least be acknowledged in passing, because some viewers will tend to combine them into one thin-and they're very different, as you seem to agree with 1000%. Somewhat like you, I'm not entirely clear on why geothermal is not more popular but I tend to think it's because it requires drilling really deep holes in most places, and that doesn't tend to work well on a small scale. (OTOH ground source does, which is a lot of why I tend to like it as an option.) Its scaling problem is probably nowhere near as severe as for large dams or nuke plants, but it's still a barrier, I'm sure of that. I'm not sure how the economics of ground source change as you go north, but as you say, it probably works better in colder climates, whereas air source heat pumps tend ot have more problems in those cases. Ground source both probably doesn't work well in really hot climates, because the ground is not really cool at any depth. It's probably no worse than air source, but no sense in the extra expense.

[@kimlibera663]

Coal reserves are the highest of fossil fuels with USA, AUS, CHN tapping out at 400 yrs worth. Next in line are India, Russia, Indonesia, Vietnam. So we're looking at 2000 yrs & then done. Oil, at the current rate of aviation fuel, rail diesel, cars, trucks, plastics does indeed exhaust.

[@lelleS6]

Yes there is a lot of coal, but this is about replace it by renewable.

[@OzzyTragic]

Required viewing.

[@EduardoMartinez-ys6fb]

The presentation quantifies how much non fossil energy capacity is needed to replace current fossil energy capacity, like for like. However it didn't include the extra energy capacity needed to extract all these raw materials. Also, our population size is currently increasing by 80 Million per year so by 2050 the World's population will be 10 to 11 Billion from our current 8 Billion. Clearly, to my mind at least, a transition to non-fossil energy systems at current energy consumption is impossible. By the end of this Century the fossil energy age will have ended and we will enter the age of biomass again for our primary energy source. Current average energy consumption in the UK will go down from our current 200 kWh/day to something like a order of magnitude lower.

[@sonnyeastham]

Why are so many people around the world...

[@j85grim4]

What's with that thumbnail Pic of Simon 😅. Looks like Simon is trying hard to take a dump or something.

[@davidwilkie9551]

The Pirate Empire pattern of terrorism maintaining civil heirachical behaviour gets an inappropriate label of "democratic" because individuals are conditioned to behave in tribal groups. Actual Democracy is a surface feature of required cooperation, but barely exists against a counter-culture of violence. Either we deal with the fact of e-Pi-i metastability and appropriate Sciencing, or it's "Good Night Irene".

[@andrewcannon587]

oil production reliability deteriorate by design.

[@davidcanatella4279]

The phrase “We need” is used far too carelessly in this video. As an important note, Id rather live in a twig hut then have the world poisoned with radiation. All the nuclear fans can go camping in Chernobyl ,drink the well water on the Navaho reservation and fish off the coast of Fukushima. You know what’s more important than electricity and cars? - Air water and a functioning ecology

[@clintstinkeye5607]

The best days of my life were when I lived in a cabin with no power or plumbing. It was peaceful, serene and humbling in a good way.

[@Shrouded_reaper]

Most of this energy is used to simply sustain the 7+ billion people on this planet. Your train of thought leads to the death of billions and billions of people, which is probably unavoidable regardless I suppose, something has to give.

[@davidcanatella4279]

@@Shrouded_reaper The ecology will give and billions will die because of it.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

People DO live and eat food from the Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones. Can't do that downwind of rare earth extraction sites for wind turbines in China. The hydrofluoric acid leachate is dissolving the teeth and bones of peasants whose water supplies are contaminated.

[@davidcanatella4279]

@@gregorymalchuk272 All of us peasants are in for a treat

[@anthonymorris5084]

There is nothing currently available to replace fossil fuels. You can keep saying that there is all you want. Nuclear should be replacing wind and solar which is a fool's errand.

[@markschuette3770]

no on biofuels (we need to grow food not energy). no on hydro (all of our rivers/ecosystems are already severely degraded) no on Nuclear (unless there is an amazing new design- too complicated and must be centralized- and we have not solved the waste disposal issue) solar and wind yes (solar should be put on all appropriate houses and or yards free, and owners pay the monthly bill)- geothermal needs to be funded and improved. also extreme energy efficiency is required for all new and existing buildings! also lighting at night will be dramatically curtailed. most new builds should face south and limit glass to mainly the south side. mass transit, rail, busses and bicycles and elec. bicycles will rule local transport. none of this can occure unless we heavily tax pollution of all types as well as a wealth tax- and all funds will have to go into creating the new cleaner alternatives. and all of this will be restricted by strict environmental regulations!

[@peterbelanger4094]

F * U * C * K your utopian hippie fantasies. I will never live the same as you, no matter how you try to force me. OIL FOREVER!

[@peterbelanger4094]

F f F

[@peterbelanger4094]

U u U

[@peterbelanger4094]

C C C

[@peterbelanger4094]

K k K