Mining of Minerals and the Limits to Growth video

[@PatrickCurrie1]

Another factor to consider is the political agenda of various countries. China is a great example. It has a large number of important minerals and ores and they could shut down the exporting of those commodities to exacerbate the limited supplies globally.

[@roberthicks1612]

I would like someone to explain why alarmist do not push for bio fuel. The US, by itself, can produce more bio fuel from bio waste than the world would need in 100 years. We could burn the vegetable oil or algae bodies for electricity. This would mean we do not need to use rare earth minerals for electric batteries and magnets for windmills or for solar panels.

[@jamesmorton7881]

De Globalization, the last man standing, China

[@grizzz6884]

that is why wall street took over china in the 50s

[@stevealdrich2472]

Along with depleted raw materials, renewable energy systems are incapable of generating enough energy to produce the next generation of renewable energy systems.

[@roberthicks1612]

That is why we need bio-fuels. All they need is sunlight, grey water from sewer systems and co2. The US could produce enough from our bio-waste to fuel the entire earth for the next 100 years.

[@zeamaiz945]

@@roberthicks1612 absolutely, although we'd definitely have to accept a much lower standard of living, and would need to make biofuel production and processing hyper-local so as to maintain high energy returns.

[@roberthicks1612]

@@zeamaiz945 That's the entire point. We do not have to change anything. Bio fuels can replace fossil fuels 1 to 1. The elite want the common man to lower our standards while they raise theirs.

[@jamesmorton7881]

Lots of SMRs and we are still going down.

[@roberthicks1612]

@-GinΠΓ Τάο actually the first ice car was invented in 1885 by Karl Friedrich Benz (of Mercedes-Benz fame), while the diesel was not used in cars until the 1930's. They were using gas long before they used diesel in cars. They did use in trains in 1912 but it was not commercially viable until much later. So saying they threw away gas because they wanted just diesel is just plain wrong.

[@robinschaufler444]

Has the recent Limits to Growth study by Gaya Herrington changed this picture in either direction?

[@ruckboger]

The road to Zimbabwe. Oh man, that doesn't sound good.

[@chapter4travels]

This is why we will not be going to a renewable system, but instead an advanced nuclear system. With generation IV and V nuclear power plants, we have 4 billion years' worth of fissile fuel. With this much energy, we can recycle almost everything. The transition away from fossil fuels will take a very long time and fumbling about with wind and solar will just make the process take longer.

[@adamnealis]

Where does that 4 billion year estimate come from? Does it assume zero growth in consumption of this source of power? So: 4 billion years at zero growth is 4 billion years. At 1% annual growth, the 4 billion becomes 2 billion after 70 years, 1 billion after 140 years, 500 million after 280 years.

[@chapter4travels]

@@adamnealis Over these kinds of time scales, there are so many variables to try to accommodate that it's a calculated guess at best. What and when will we reach peak population and then what will it drop to before equilibrium? These are huge factors. This study also leaves out nuclear fusion which, in theory, more than doubles the number to 8-10 billion. Now considering the sun is only supposed to last 5 billion years, I think we have energy covered. With this much energy, there are very few things that can't be recycled even with today's technology. Just imagine what we will be capable of 1000 years from now. The future's so bright, ya gotta wear shades. You're welcome.

[@grizzz6884]

we will move to a hunger game's life style

[@robertschaefer4918]

technology is no answer to greed

[@chapter4travels]

@@robertschaefer4918 Sure it is. Greed is a part of human nature that laws or regulations can't fix but technology allows us to accommodate that shortcoming.

[@Marko-qy5eg]

This study doesn’t say not to build renewable energy. It suggests that all consumption will become more difficult due to shortages. Silicon is abundant. Solar panels fuel is the sun. If you only look at the lifetime cost of mining required per person then solar beats oil by literally tons.

[@simonp.michaux1638]

Not all silicon is useful. To make solar panels, you need really high quality quartz. Metallurgical grade silicon. That is not so abundant.

[@joedennehy386]

Is there one non renewable resource that has run out?

[@simonp.michaux1638]

There always will be trace elements of all resources. There is vast resources left, but the real question is can we access them economically or technically.

[@simonp.michaux1638]

This is a required volume not accessible problem, not a resource running out problem

[@roberthicks1612]

@@simonp.michaux1638 Name one resource we have run out of. Fossil fuels can be replaced with biofuels. Metals can be recycled. We have more than enough ability to feed everyone on the planet and then some.

[@simonp.michaux1638]

@@roberthicks1612 Hello Robert. It is not that we will run out of any given resource so much as our ability to extract them in the quantities needed will become problematic. Currently we have been using fossil fuel energy sources to power our industrialization. Resource extraction as well. So oil for example will become less effective in exchange for the effort used to produce it. The market will not be able to supply cheap energy any more. This will have a knock on effect on our ability to extract challenging resources. So we need a new way of doing this. Current plans to replace fossil fuels also have their practical limitations. In their current form, they will not be effective enough due ti the lower ERoEI.

[@roberthicks1612]

@@simonp.michaux1638 Why can we not produce cheap energy? Because the liberals want to prevent it. The US achieved energy independence and prices fell. Then the Biden administration decided to destroy the US economy and started with fuel. That mean that the world supply was diminished and other countries had the ability to decide how much Americans would pay for fuel. The only reason we can not replace fossil fuels is the demands we pay china for resources. IF they put half the money into bio diesel that they put into wind, we would have fuel abundance. There are already plants that produce biofuels cheaper than they can be gotten out of the ground, but it would not enable people to have a monopoly or give China more power and money.

[@janklaas6885]

thanks

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

If electricity becomes the only energy in a no fossil fueled world, then 5times more electricity and 5times bigger national grid capacity. That is a massive amount of minerals for the expensive electricity grid. And a massive amount of fossil fuels ???????😮😮😮😮😮😮

[@vthilton]

Save Our Planet - Share

[@jamesmorton7881]

SHTF in 2022, Hey that is NOW. LtG right on track, Industrial Production sinks like a stone.

[@roberthicks1612]

The only reason we have a SHTF situation is it was deliberately created. The democrats believe the way they can have permanent power is to push us into a crisis so they can claim to have fixed it. They believe their radical base will put them in office permanently with the aid of the new Americans streaming over our border every day. Between the liberal left and the illegal votes, they figure they can create an American dictatorship. IF it was not for their power grab, we would not be having a problems. The true SHTF will happen when the war they are forcing happens. It has nothing to do with climate change.

[@Herbwise]

It is NOT the money supply driving the possibility of inflation - the Zimbabwe comparison is wrong - but that we are pushing up against the resource limits.

[@roberthicks1612]

What resource are we pushing against? Most metals can be recycled. Biofuels can replace fossil fuels. IF it was resource limits it would do so gradually, not drastically the way it has recently. No, this is all due to monetary planning.

[@Shrouded_reaper]

Absolute fucking nonsense. The money supply has damn near DOUBLED over the last few years. Keep believing whatever you see on tv buddy.

[@Herbwise]

@@Shrouded_reaper there is no real money supply. You do not seem to understand how govt finance and money works but you believe that you do. When you borrow from a bank the money deposited to your account is created out of thin air and when federal sovereign currency-issuing nations spend that money is also created out of thin air. When you repay your loan the money is destroyed just as when you pay federal taxes the money is destroyed.

[@Shrouded_reaper]

@@Herbwise I understand exactly how it works. "Creating money out of thin air" as you describe it IS increasing the money supply. It has been created FAR faster than it has been destroyed by debt repayment because the government cannot sustain even the smallest interest rate increases without unable to make repayments.

[@roberthicks1612]

@@Herbwise When they print money, they increase the supply of money. The value of something is inversely proportional to its supply. The more of a supply, the less its value. IF you have 100 of an item, its total value is 100 times its price (in what ever measure you choose). IF you have 10000 of that item, the total value is the same but divided by 10000 instead of 100. IF a money supply is 100 trillion and you double it, you have 200 trillion BUT the value of what you can buy with it is the same as the 100 trillion. IF the 100 trillion will buy 50 billion barrels of oil, and you print, 200 trillion, you still only have 50 billion barrels to spend it on. That means the cost of the barrels doubles. It does not mean the supply of oil changes, it means what you spend on it does. The only time this is beneficial is if you have a debt and you can print money faster than the interest rates. The American people can not print money so the inflation is harmful to them. BUT the government got into Trillions of dollars in debt. The interest on their money is about 8%. SO if they print money at a rate of say 15% more per year, the value of their own debt drops every year to about half its value in 7 years or so. This means the US can borrow more money and spend more money, while the taxpayers get poor and poorer.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

What if the world population decreased??

[@simonp.michaux1638]

Test

[@Pasandeeros]

Have you read "An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’"? What do you think of the idea of some regions being capable of retaining a higher level of complexity? (Food for thought...)

[@RickB50SS]

Too many greedies

[@lawrencetaylor4101]

I had started writing to Big Finance in Switzerland over 20 years to move to renewable energies. That meant the entire system, including the academic field since research would have made vital breakthroughs. Your charts with the growth in 2005 meant that our world did a WW2 like approach to fracking and tar sands. They require millions of tons of toxic chemicals, as well as large quantities of energy and infrastructure that you pointed out so well. But there is one product that you didn't graph out directly, and that was plastics. FYI plastics if made from petroleum or bitumin. And it requires cracking plants. And from what I gather from your charts, if we stay on the fossil fuel pathway, we are fucked. BTW we are losing Arctic Sea Ice as I write this in mid-September 2022. This will not be good for our team, meaning the human race. We should have done that WW2 like push 20 years ago. I tried to get Regreta and her group as well as Extinction Roadkill to think about supporting Windyday Concept, but they listened to people like Simon Michaux who presented only the doom part and never embraced the idea. It's too late now. You gave another lecture to a Finnish group and you acted naively that you didn't know why there was a bump in 2005. And then you calculated that renewables would have to replace the post-2005 levels of energy and it would be impossible. I asked you to recalculate the needs of replacing 1/6 of our present levels. I think it would have been possible. It's a moot point now.

[@colinmacdonald5732]

We've been trying to push out renewables as fast as humanly possible... the only extra thing we could have done was significantly reduce consumption. And those millions living paycheck to paycheck would have been pushed into utter destitution. Perhaps you envisage an NK style dictatorship to push your policies through?

[@sapporo81414]

Better start learning to grow food and hunt.

[@dalewolver8739]

ya but hunt what? global mammals are only 4% of mammal biomass. Cows, pigs, sheep and other "livestock" account for 65% or more of the planets mammals. That's a few weeks supply for all the meat eaters already.

[@sapporo81414]

@@dalewolver8739 Those are just two fundamental skills that will be important as all the systems of modern civilization become harder to maintain. Where I live you could hunt deer, turkeys, bear, moose if the ticks don't kill them all, hares, etc. Different in different places obviously. Animal husbandry is another important skill that provides a lot of good food. Butter, fats, meat, cheese, milk, eggs.

[@iamheasyouareheas]

Unfortunately, we have a situation where too many people are alive to rely on that approach. Industrial agriculture has allowed us to vastly exceed the carrying capacity of the planet, so in a collapse scenario you could expect that the population would be racing to decrease in size by roughly 95%. We would likely strip the earth of all edible and huntable goods at shocking speed.

[@sapporo81414]

@@iamheasyouareheas I am not proposing everyone on the earth start to farm and hunt and take care of their needs. Obviously that isn't going to happen. But for people who might watch such a video as this and think, "Uh, ooh trouble is coming what should I do", well then I stand by my answer. What else would you do? If you have access to land and resources to dig in and weather a collapse, obviously you should. A smart person would prepare for that, it seems. Yeah lots of people are going to die when the systems start falling apart. I'm not interested in throwing up my hands and being one of them. I'd rather have an ox team than a Tesla in 10 years.

[@iamheasyouareheas]

@@sapporo81414 agreed.