It is a true personal irony for me that your amazing guests, and your own incisive, well-intentioned dialogue with them, only helps me to become more deeply cynical. Unabashed TRUTH is another one of our dwindling resources. Please don't ever stop what you are doing, Prof. Hagens. Your podcast may be one of the last bastions of truth we have left!
@jameserswell2161 Жыл бұрын
Well said !
@ralphtoivonen2071 Жыл бұрын
Basically personal solutions to decarbonisation will be location and situationally specific. It does bring up issues of whether the resources to decarbonise are there to implement the solution. We are running out of time, money and material inputs...🙁
@bunsw2070 Жыл бұрын
This guy is a total goof. He claims to have converted his ICE to an EV. I have no idea how that would be legal anywhere in Canada. Then he says people who work for oil and gas companies should quit their jobs to be a more moral person. Hypocrite! I knew hydrogen as an energy storage medium was nonsense but I had no idea it was this bad. I've argued with so many people about this, especially the university educated. Part of their logic is that companies are developing the technology so it must make sense. After hearing the story about the natural gas pipeline company trying to scam their customers into switching over to hydrogen under the guise of using green hydrogen, I can see what's going on. Nobody really cares what's best, they only really care about their paycheck, status and keeping their idols. And this guy is no different. He believes in global warming yet doesn't think about the total environmental costs of his EV or his lifestyle or the "net zero" electricity he uses to charge his EV. He says his electricity is mostly zero carbon because it comes from nuclear power. Doesn't he have any idea the amount of carbon released to build, maintain and operate these reactors? The hundreds of billions of dollars we've wasted over the years to have 3 nuclear generating stations is an outrage. And he thinks Ontario generates an equal amount of electricity from solar and wind as it does from natural gas. Maybe we do but I have a really hard time believing that. Does he realize we pay America to take that green energy off our hands. And that even if that weren't so, we pay an outrageous amount of money for that green electricity. Does he realize businesses in Ontario shut down regularly because there isn't enough electricity? The plant that I work at had to shut down 2 days in a row from 3 pm to 7pm in September. It's not even cold in September and people haven't even left work at 3 pm yet there already is a critical shortage of electricity. This guy seems to me like the type of person that is the problem. Climate science isn't science. Their predictions have been so far off that they can't be taken seriously. There is no solution to our problems. There are too many idiots pretending to be experts.
@TheBeljames Жыл бұрын
Wow. Paul Martin is an extraordinary contribution to this already excellent show.
@Sentimental_Mood Жыл бұрын
Absolutely. A great convo!
@JonathanLoganPDX Жыл бұрын
Nate, I'm blown away. This is one of the most important and impactful shows you have ever done. The global climate community must now understand that hydrogen is not only a false "savior" but also a global heating accelerant.
@markntexas8265 Жыл бұрын
The Global Climate hoaxsters are a threat to freedom food security the electric grid and our economy
@Ln-cq8zu9 ай бұрын
Agree! I've been in heating and ventilation supply chain for most of my working life, ive spoken to 100's engineers in my time, nothing like the problems in oli and gas as there is with hydrogen and oil and gas is diffucult in its own right.
@happyhome41 Жыл бұрын
Paul Martin is a refreshing competence on display. Thank you !
@braeburn2333 Жыл бұрын
Great interview. Very informative. I beg to differ on one point your guest made: He said that we shouldn't hope for an agrarian future because that is not viable. (at least this is what I heard) However, I would say that not only is it possible, it is inevitable. This complex industrial world we were born into is going away. Probably much sooner than we think because complex systems die parabolicly. The only way forward is for us to get used to living a simpler life. A life that will be adapted to a different world which has been re-localized and simplified. Most will have to live small agrarian existences because that is the only way they will get food. Everyone will be poor when the system collapses. Stock portfolios and pensions will mean nothing. Only skills and friends and tools will mean anything. This may sound pejorative, but I can tell you its not. I simplified my life over 5 years ago and now live off grid in a tiny house built from local wood and reused materials. I have a 500W solar electric system that will last 25 years and cost about $1500. It stores about 3 days of electricity. I heat with wood (from already dead standing trees) using only about 1 cord per year. I use a simple but highly efficient (smokeless) woodstove called a rocket mass heater. I built it for a couple hundred dollars. I live debt free now, with a total expense of about $400/month (taxes and transportation are the bulk of it). My ecological footprint is about one 6th that of the average American. Although I only earn about $5,000/year, which is more than I usually need, I have never been more financially secure. In fact my life is much much better than it ever was. The notion that a simpler, (lower footprint) life will be painful and maybe not possible, is an assumption only made by those who haven't yet taken the leap into a simpler life. There are ways of being poor where you are actually more comfortable and secure and resilient and empowered than if you were wealthy. I wish more people understood this.
@danielbtwd Жыл бұрын
Absolutely agree with you. I am of the same opinion. I also have no debt and manage to live on around 7000 euros per year. I now have lots more time to do the things that interest me. Having such small need for money and being largely self sufficient makes one very secure. I don't worry about the future. Good day.
@robinschaufler444 Жыл бұрын
Do you have a blog or anything where you can lead readers/viewers/listeners through your simplification journey? Do you own your tiny house? How large is the property? Where do you find the tree snags - on your own property or on a nearby public land? What country/state/province do you live in? Tell us more about your $400/month taxes and transportation? How old are you and how physically strenuous is your life? Do you have indoor plumbing? What food do you grow? Also, are you married and/or do you have children? If so, how did you bring them along with your simplification? I'm not asking idly. As a senior married to anothere senior, we've been told that we are too old to get started on farming, so we're raising veggies in the sunny part of our yard and native pollinator gardens amidst our abundant shade. If I were 30 years younger, single, and aware of all I'm now aware of, heck yeah, I'd try out your path.
@braeburn2333 Жыл бұрын
@@robinschaufler444 Thank you for the reply. I'll do my best to answer your questions, please give a reply to let me know you got it. I bought 13 acres of forested hilly land in the mountains of VT 13 years ago in a place without zoning or reg enforcement. For the first 6 months I lived in a tent and then an old RV that I got for almost nothing. I borrowed money from friends and used some savings. Since then I have paid all those friends back. My friend and I built the house I am living in now. It looks like a small Cape style house with a steep roof and a half loft. The size of the footprint is 16ft x 16ft. It cost about $10,000 (without labor cost) Then when my tiny, 400sf house was complete enough to live in I moved in. Since then I've finished the insides, built a small deck and upgraded the solar electric system with lithium batteries, (check out Will Prowse's channel for all kinds of off grid solar info). I live debt free, and this past year I've been building a 600 sf salt box style house for my son on another part of my land. That house will end up costing about $25,000. The trees I use for heat are mainly birch and maple and some dead ash trees. They usually haven't even fallen yet, but when you look at the tops you can see they haven't been growing for years. So many things I've discovered on living a life in pursuit of spending less but not necessarily doing without. I have started a channel called Living Outside the Grid but only posted one video. Maybe your inspiring words will get me to start making more. I always feel discouraged by the suppression of info on this site. I couldn't afford a septic and well, but I do carry water in and have set up a gravity sink. I have a shower stall, but I take bucket baths/showers with water I heat on my small propane range. I use a barbeque size tank every 3 months or so for cooking on. I compost my solid waste safely and without any stink by using the Humanure method. I also set up a grey water filter system that uses a lot of woodchips to safely remove and compost any food bits from the sink. I only use about 2 gallons of water per day. I get 20 gallons from my neighbor every 10 days. I am good friends with him. One of these days I'm going to save up and get a well drilled but even when I do get around to doing that, all I want is a hand pump on it. Im 59 now but feel like I'm 40 because I do work around my homestead a lot. I also am eating better because I make food from raw meat, vegetables, and bulk dried food. Since I only have to work 10 hours a month for money my stress levels have gone down a lot. The work I do around my homestead is usually not stressful. Cutting down trees is still stressful for me though. :-) I think it is possible to make the leap into a lower cost life. If you don't have the building skills then try volunteering for habitat 4 humanity or watch a lot of YT vids on alternative tiny house construction. So many great channels out there for that. Good luck. My twitter/X contact is: @Karlonius_monk
@markmarkson909 Жыл бұрын
New podcast! Yes! 🔥
@noahsark2009 Жыл бұрын
This guy, Paul Martin, is a techno bodhisattva. He is an inspiration to meet our chaotic civilization with an open hearted but scientifically wise and discerning mind and an energetic disposition. Thank you Nathan John Hagens for your work in educating us all about the crises as well as opportunities that we all face.
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
What an awesome thing to say- thank you, I'm humbled!
@yurtyahern7922 Жыл бұрын
Awesome
@wvhaugen Жыл бұрын
17:00ff "There is no substitute for ammonia fertilizers." Untrue. This is based on feeding the current level of the human population. When civilization collapses, population will be reduced by about 80%. Also, when I was a market gardener, I made my own fertilizer using soybeans as my nitrogen source. Soybeans don't need nitrogen to produce because they are a legume.At a much reduced scale, organic fertilizers can be made without ammonia or hydrogen. And a much reduced scale is where we are headed. 25:00ff "Energy is important." Correctomundo. AND the most efficient engine we have is the human body. The key to the energy transition is doing more manual labor. Get used to it. 28:55ff "You get more joules of energy if you just burn the natural gas." Brilliant. This is the point-of-flame argument. 29.54 "So right now our use of hydrogen has a more deleterious effect than just burning the fossil fuel." Yaaayy! Nate gets it. Some of us have been saying the same thing for over 50 years. Again, this is the point-of-flame argument. 30:36 "Hope is a way to shut off the rational mind. It is the drug Hopium." Brilliant. 45:30ff "Sins of thermodynamics." This is just crap. Joules are a metric that crosses all platforms. They bear no relationship to price, in Jamaican or American dollars. A flawed analogy. Also, Martin is conflating work with energy use. Two different things. I thought this pseudo-engineering line of argument had been dispelled decades ago. Evidently not. 49:30ff "Get the fire-burning concept out of our heads." Ooopppsss! Martin has bought the lie about heat pumps. We have one and they don't work as advertised. Many engineers are now realizing that the energy used is about the same as fuel oil, accounting for the waste of using electricity from the grid and which is produced using fossil fuels 80% of the time. Also he is STILL conflating price and thermodynamics. They are NOT comparable. 54:00ff Martin does not seem to understand that there is a tremendous amount of embedded energy in electricity. It is not just operational energy. Electric vehicles use more energy in embedded and operational energy than internal combustion vehicles. That is just the laws of thermodynamics 58:30 One doesn't just "have" electricity. It has to be made. Most of Martin's arguments fail on this one invalid assumption. 1:06:00 "Tens of billions of dollars will be spent on hydrogen for inappropriate purposes." True that! 1:12:00ff Martin's advice: "Don't panic" - Good. "Don't fall prey to Hopium." - Good. "Don't think there is some agrarian path we can return to." - OOPS! The so-called "agrarian path" is just growing food so you can have something to eat. It is not a choice for some of us and it will no longer be a choice for increasing numbers of people in the future. In fact the "agrarian path" is our only future that has any hope of sustaining our species. "Be practical and focus on solving real problems every day." - This is good and Martin is contradicting himself here, as the "agrarian path" is the practical solution to solving real problems every day. This was a disappointing interview. Here is the bottom line. 1) Population collapse is in our future, so we should be factoring that into our models. 2) Point-of-flame is the operative paradigm for energy use, no matter what Martin says. 3) The only real solution to reducing fossil fuel use is to reduce fossil fuel use. All the rest is a scam. 4) Reduce, reuse and recycle has stood the test of time for over 50 years.
@paulwhetstone0473 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your thorough annotations and comments.
@anthonytroia1 Жыл бұрын
I rely on Elaeagnus as my primary N source.
@paulwhetstone0473 Жыл бұрын
@@anthonytroia1 I noticed there are about 95 species.
@a.d.knight5695 Жыл бұрын
Interesting breakdown. I'll admit he lost me with the sins of thermodynamics argument. Trying to redefine the Second Law of Thermodynamics to support his oddly emotional dislike for Vaclav Smil's work is pretty shitty. I've read several of his books, and I have to say Smil is definitely not one-dimensional in his research. On the whole, this interview seemed very odd to me.
@madameblatvatsky Жыл бұрын
Thanks
@napohill4204 Жыл бұрын
This is becoming my favourite podcast 😎
@timeenoughforart Жыл бұрын
I remember the 1970's hydrogen hype. It seems 50 years later they would have worked out the minor details. What bothers me is our refusal to apply solutions. The simplest use of solar power is to heat hot water for your house. No technical difficulties, nothing to figure out, no outrageous cost, it fits right up there with insulation. One I always wondered about is why I run a refrigerator when it is winter? Instead we expect miracles.
@Jabjabs Жыл бұрын
That and the huge push for it round 2000. That turned into next to nothing.
@vexy1987 Жыл бұрын
Travel to southern Europe you will see nearly every home and commercial building has solar water heaters. The issue is economics, it's cheaper to burn fossil fuels than pay upfront for a solar system, the reverse is usually true where that isn't happening. Carbon taxes could shift the balance, but without government support, the poorest are impacted disproportionately by higher prices.
@reuireuiop0 Жыл бұрын
@@vexy1987 plus, voters won't have none of it. Look at France, first they had the yellow vest protesting the high climate inspired raise of fuel prices, now Macron trying to run the pension scheme more in harmony with other Euro currency nations, and now citizens are trying to ruin economy in wild resistance to what will be necessary on medium term. Same for Climate policy and taxing carbon. They'd rather trade their mum for keeping their cheap holidays and even cheaper quarter pounder for BBQ
@dipladonic Жыл бұрын
'Hydrogen' is fraught with problems, not least that It takes a relatively huge amount of green renewable energy to make a relatively tiny amount of green hydrogen...and that's why the use of green hydrogen to mitigate the so called climate emergency is utter bollocks.
@8BitNaptime3 ай бұрын
@@vexy1987 How do these water heaters work? Do they preheat water that goes into a conventional tank?
@bearclaw5115 Жыл бұрын
Brilliant show and guest Paul Martin showed a wide range of knowledge on the subject. And for those that need the cliff's notes; -hydrogen is 99% made in carbon intensive processes -it is unlikely we will be able to mine it directly -hydrogen leaks like no other gas and embrittles metals -leaked hydrogen will reduce OH groups in the upper atmosphere that rid the atmosphere of other GHG's like methane. Hence hydrogen's use leads to more warming. -we are far better off using electricity to perform work directly rather than converting it to hydrogen to perform work. -for applications where electrification is still not possible we are better off simply burning fossil fuels/biofuels. -hydrogen is very inefficient and expensive to transport and store -these problems with hydrogen are unfixable Conclusion hydrogen is indispensable in industrial processes but a dog for energy applications.
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
Good summary. You saved a lot of people a lot of time, and also saved a lot of them getting mad at me for saying that regenerative agriculture isn't going to get us off ammonia production too!
@dipladonic Жыл бұрын
Indeed, hydrogen' is fraught with problems, not least that It takes a relatively huge amount of green renewable energy to make a relatively tiny amount of green hydrogen...ultimately that's why the use of green hydrogen to mitigate CO2 emissions and the so called climate emergency is utter bollocks.
@dipladonic Жыл бұрын
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Indeed, utilitarian hydrocarbons are a prerequisite for civilisational progress, and nitrogen fertilizers play a huge part in that.
@Ln-cq8zu9 ай бұрын
Also worth mentioning it is extremely flammable Ok so is gasoline, but still a factor. 😢
@sorenwintherlundbys Жыл бұрын
Two of my favorites on the same show. I’ve followed Paul for a couple of years and Nate from about the beginning of TGS. I hope Paul will be on the show again - and hopefully, together, dive deeper into all the resource questions- also to figure out whether Paul and Nate agree on the bend or break issues.
@TennesseeJed Жыл бұрын
👍 Dude knows his energy!
@Ln-cq8zu9 ай бұрын
And the engineering difficulties!
@TennesseeJed9 ай бұрын
@@Ln-cq8zu absolutely!
@phillipmcgee2680 Жыл бұрын
Hagens is the man!
@vincentkosik403 Жыл бұрын
Thank you both for this talk, Learned so much and please continue in your works
@garyhoover9750 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for another superb and informative interview. The last eleven minutes were just amazing! i am putting in a “formal request” that you release that last eleven minutes as a stand-alone video. Paul Martin’s perspective is so much need. And thank you Nate, especially for asking the last three key questions on behalf of us all - and particularly the question on behalf of the “younger humans.” Much gratitude
@fredguntern.e.4185 Жыл бұрын
Nate, it just seems to me that Paul wants the young folk to pick hope instead of despair because technology fixing the predicament is still a possibility. I tend to rather agree with you that the great simplification is their future. Another option is present reality. I have hoped for 50 years that I could master that electric guitar behind Paul and I do not despair because of my failure at it, because I must choose a third option which is reality. My vote is with reality and hopium a distance second, but never, never, despair, or panic.
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
I'm hopeful that we can increase human thriving without destroying the climate or the earth's interconnected ecosystems entirely. I'm not sure we're wise enough to make that choice voluntarily, and to drive our governments to put in place the tax and regulatory regime necessary to make it happen. I see hopeful signs though- Canada's carbon fee plus dividend system certainly is one. Does that mean that I believe in infinite percentage economic growth on a finite planet? Certainly not! But I do believe that it's possible to decouple human thriving from brute force energy use. The easiest step is if we collect exergy (electricity) rather than starting with heat (chemical energy)- that gives us a huge step upward without losing much of anything.
@Mikey-mike Жыл бұрын
I am a physicist, retired, and worked in hydrogen propulsion research and development at NASA and Linde AG Germany. Give up on Hydrogen propulsion and for many reasons and anyone advocating hydrogen for propulsion simply has no real experience with hydrogen propulsion.
@dalewolver8739 Жыл бұрын
really good episode. thanks Nate and Paul.
@chookbuffy Жыл бұрын
Whilst I enjoyed the episode and certainly learned much more about how dirty Hydrogen can be, I did think the dismissal of regenerative agriculture missed quite a lot of the developments in the field such as the rediscovery of intensive non-selective grazing, no-till etc, and changes to human living arrangements that holistically offer strong alternatives. A lot of people who actually practice it are acutely aware of the challenges it faces. Also, electrification whilst amazingly great for COP improvements for heating, still requires massive augmentation of the grid which in turn is expensive and materially extensive. Overall a good talk but I do think some attention to some of the demand side struggles we will be facing would fit this talk into context a bit more.
@bloodyL4ever9 ай бұрын
He's never heard of Joel Salatin.
@dexterrice4862 Жыл бұрын
Fantastic Info on Hydrogen! However I must disagree about the points made on regenerative agriculture. While the creation of ammonia fertilizer doubled crop yields in the early years, it has always been a wholly short-sighted and unsustainable practice. In the current state of chemical driven farming, regenerative agriculture has the capacity to increase, or at least maintain crop production levels, and also has the capacity to increase the nutritive value of our food! Here is how: The problem with ammonia and chemical fertilizer hinges on 2 main issues: mass sterilization of soil organisms, and the imbalance of soil nutrients, especially micronutrients and trace minerals. Most people realize that growing a plant requires 5 mineral nutrients(Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Calcium, and Magnesium) in relatively high proportions and a number more in smaller amounts(Approximately 9 for optimal health and pest/disease/drought resistance). Conventional agriculture generally only pays attention to and replaces 4 of the mineral nutrients: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, and sometimes Calcium. This means that the other 10 nutrients will be slowly used up in a disproportionate amount over the course of many years. When chemical fertilizer was invented farm soils were still relatively balanced, so the supplementation of the most needed nutrients created significant yield increases. However 30, 40, 50, 100 years later a large proportion of conventional farm soils are massively imbalanced and crop yields have suffered. THIS is why we need a regenerative agriculture renaissance, to foster the natural processes which will return our soils to balance, AND INCREASE THEIR PRODUCTIVITY OVER TIME. Beyond the issue of farm yields, mineral rebalancing also must happen to restore the nutritive value of our foods, which science has shown to be drastically less nourishing than 100 years ago, obviously contributing to the health epidemics we see rising today. While an increasing number of people are aware that chemical fertilizers(and pesticides/herbicides) kill large swaths of soil organisms, people generally do not understand the importance of a diverse soil ecosystem of bacteria fungi, nematodes, micro arthropods, and others. For most people it is out of sight, and therefore out of mind. However this ecosystem is the literal foundation of the ecosystems we see, interact with, and love so dearly. These soil organisms exist in a complex system mediating and facilitating the plant's use of minerals. To put it simply, the microorganisms perform the function of breaking down rock into plant available nutrients, creating fertile soil. They also efficiently break down any plants or even animals that have died to transform them back into the soil which nourished them. Another imperative function of a thriving soil ecosystem is its ability to act like a natural "glue", holding extremely valuable top soil in place and preventing erosion from rain and wind. Additionally, as scientists try to discover organisms to break down human created pollution issues like plastic and other chemicals, the soil is often where they look. Put simply, the micro soil ecosystem is indispensable!! Nate, if you are interested in talking to experts on this I would be happy to point towards a few. Thank YOU for all of your work!!
@sendler2112 Жыл бұрын
"But there really is no substitution. In 1911 when the Haber Bosch process for making ammonia (out of Natural Gas) was invented the following years, the next couple of decades after that saw a doubling in crop yields (plants need Nitrogen which they deplete from the soil in order to grow) directly as a result of just the fact that we could now fertilize fields with nitrogen. [Crop productivity per hectare using the combination of modern methods is now is now 3X better across the board than Organic, Manure based farming of 1920, and 6X for Corn.] "So if you were to look at the nitrogen atoms in the proteins in your own body, half of those came from the Haber Bosch." [which fixes Nitrogen from the air with Hydrogen from Natural Gas to make Ammonia which is NH3.] Okay. That's how important this stuff is. It's so critically important. And people that think we're going to switch to regenerative agriculture and just eliminate the need to make ammonia from nitrogen in the atmosphere are just kidding themselves."
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
Good figures- roughly consistent with what I've read. I've heard that on an averaged calorie basis, that we got a doubling in yields out of Haber Bosch and another doubling out of everything else- better agronomy, better crop strains, herbicides, pesticides, and all other fertilizers. BTW the initial Haber Bosch plants were fed hydrogen made by coal gasification. Fossil gas didn't start being fed to reformers until the late 1930s, and Germany never had much to begin with.
@bloodyL4ever9 ай бұрын
Most Americans and people in the developed countries of the world are fat and lazy. Almost half of the crappy fodder produced ends up in a landfill. The guy admitted he owns a "farm" but somebody else works. He's smart but still unaware.
@JoseMariaOliveira Жыл бұрын
Another great episode. I feel much more informed now about the Hidrogen chimera, but also somehow more frightened about our medium term future. This episode should be mandatory for all who are interested on the energy domain but specially for political agents. It is surprising to me that you only have by now 121 thumbs up. I will surely share this talk on my digital social network. Thanks.
@HeavyDevy89 Жыл бұрын
Really liked this one Nate. Solid guest who isn't afraid to state their fact-backed opinion. Really great conversation on this - would love to see Paul return in the future.
@matthieumarchal7624 Жыл бұрын
Very interesting. Totally agree with Paul Martin
@stephenhardman432110 ай бұрын
That was a bloody fantastically informative interview Nate!Many Thanks
@un-Denial Жыл бұрын
Excellent discussion on hydrogen. Other topics not so much. It’s amazing how a person can be aware in one dimension and totally in denial in another. In this case Martin thinks electrification of the economy is the solution to peak oil and climate change, but is blind to the material and economic constraints. We're short of the necessary resources for electrification by more than an order of magnitude.
@chookbuffy Жыл бұрын
That was exactly my impression!
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
You assume that I'm blind to definite material and economic constraints, rather than having analyzed the situation myself and determined that they aren't as bad as people like Dr. Michaux have concluded. As to "economic constraints"- the constraint I talked about, loudly enough that it couldn't be missed except on purpose, is that we simply WILL NOT make the transition away from fossil fuels until we solve the underlying economic problem, i.e. the fact that we use the atmosphere currently as if it were a free and limitless public sewer. Fixing THAT is a necessary but insufficient pre-condition for any solution. My analysis in part in relation to materials issues associated with the transition may be found in my writings on LinkedIn or on my company blog. Suggest you read them rather than concluding that I've simply ignored the problem.
@LittleOrla Жыл бұрын
I agree. I'm no scientist, just an observer of human greed.
@ryccoh Жыл бұрын
Battery chemistries are getting quite diversified. Lithium iron phosphate and now Sodium batteries are the latest examples that are happening at scale. As soon as self-driving works many people won't own a car anylonger, FSD beta has gotten scary good so it's not that far off. The tesla semi can do 80 tons for 500 miles and charge back to 70 percent in thirty minutes. We cannot electrify it all but a lot of it, and that's what matters.
@astebbin8 ай бұрын
Personally I see much potential in the “methanol economy.” A Nobel laureate made the argument for it in the early 2000s IIRC. Methanol is a simple hydrocarbon that is readily synthesized from CO2 and hydrogen (electrolyzed from water on demand), useful as an energy carrier and for long-term energy storage. Chemically quite similar to gasoline, can run in most modern gasoline engines with a small tweak to the ECU.
@martiansoon9092 Жыл бұрын
Don't forget heat storages. In the summer you can get huge amounts of heat through sun and you may capture more than enough of it. Store it to the ground, sand, water, salt, or whatever. And use it when needed (in winter). You just need large enough storaging volumes so it lasts as long as you need it. You may also add heat pumps to it, so you may use lower amounts of heat when the storage runs low. Having a secondary heating system is a nice backup, but you need that only short periods of time and if heatstorage is large enough, perhaps never.
@pvmagnus Жыл бұрын
This was great. One of the most enjoyable & informative interviews I've seen for awhile. Keep up the good work both!
@robertpedersen6831 Жыл бұрын
Informative!
@yerighthereted Жыл бұрын
Hydro Homies!
@Thomas-wn7cl Жыл бұрын
This is the type of technical energy related podcast that I subscribe to this channel for. Thanks
@blindpuppy77869 ай бұрын
Every episode is an immersive deep learning experience. Constantly and consistently impressed and grateful for the work you are doing, even if it does cause me some serious anxiety to listen to real experts in their field explaining precisely how and why the human endeavour is burning all bridges in all directions.
@robinschaufler444 Жыл бұрын
KZbin just recommended the Have A Think episode, "How can we stop burning fossil fuels if we still need everything else they make?" featuring Paul Martin. In that video, Mr. Martin describes a radically new refining process that creates all the plastic, ammonia, asphalt, tar, etc. with none of the combustible hydrocarbons. Is there even an experimental plant trying this? Assuming a prototype and then a pilot plant could attract investment funds, is there a timeline to determine commercial feasibility? And if it turns out to be feasible, what constraints are there on build-out, other than sociopolitical inertia? Of course, this doesn't address the myriad ills caused by plastics, petrochemical fertilizer, synthetic drugs, etc., but if managed well (heh heh) could provide an exit path from both the high-energy high-throughput current economy and the climate nightmare. Maybe it could help our civilization bend, not break. Thank you Nate, both for speaking Truth to Power and for introducing your viewers to such courageous, deep-thinking guests. Keep up the good work and have a lovely January 2024 break.
@DonMillerNC Жыл бұрын
Paul's explanation at 47:15 that some (a lot) of energy in the form of heat is used today to do work and that in the future that energy will not need to be replaced was a real insight. Tesla's white paper "Master Plan Part 3" estimates that half the energy used today is this "Sin of Thermodynamics."
@thegreatsimplification Жыл бұрын
Sin of Thermodynamics - benefit to GDP...
@robvandenberg5987 Жыл бұрын
Absolutely fantastic podcast! Learned a ton. Thanks so much.
@Damnthematrix Жыл бұрын
Paul was amazing, but boy does he need to see Simon Michaux's presentation! I could not believe someone as well informed could be totally unaware of resources constraints. There will be no electricity revolution...
@d.haskins3840 Жыл бұрын
Exactly
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
I did see Dr. Michaux's episode. He says we have a 19 TW economy- he means we have a 19 TW HEAT economy, which round numbers is a 9 TW WORK (exergy) economy. He then says, optimistically, we can do 10 TW in a decarbonized future. So without realizing it, he admits that there's really not the sort of problem he makes hay about in the entire rest of the episode. Correct that one fairly small factor of TWO error from the 2nd sin of thermodynamics and the problem just got half as hard- and in reality it's somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 as hard as Smil and his ilk think that it is.
@Carmine-h4oАй бұрын
This is topcontent! I am a chemical engineer myself. Should have much more likes. Keep up the good work!
@JaseboMonkeyRex Жыл бұрын
So as Simon Michaux mentions when we try to electrify the economy it means we turn from liquid energy to mineral energy.... And the scale of the needed mineral volumes suggests humanity will reduce its consumption .
@chookbuffy Жыл бұрын
agreed. I did not pick up that shadow aspect of electrification when Paul Martin spoke about it.
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
Humanity will keep its exergy consumption constant, but its energy consumption will drop dramatically because we won't be starting with heat (chemical energy), we'll be starting with work (electricity). Michaux misses that for some baffling reason- something he has in common with Smil.
@chookbuffy Жыл бұрын
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 I think there is more to unpack. If we want 24 hour a day reliable electricity at the same time as massive electrification role out in urban centres, along with generation shifting to more remote windy/sunny areas there is a massive need to augment the transmission and distribution network given the need to meet maximum demand events. Also, renewables need to be firmed by storage (gas, pumped hydro and batteries) which otherwise would never need that investment (and material footprint) if we still had coal BaU. There are more caveats here but if we extend the boundary conditions far and wide enough (and consistently) then we can likely get a better like for like comparison. BTW I am 100% supportive of electrification. I just don't believe we can swap it out and continue our lives BaU as we move to a less energy dense world
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
@@chookbuffy business as usual is of course a deal-killer. If we define the future as needing change, and yet needing to be exactly the same as before in every way, we've over-specified the problem and proven our own pre-determined thesis, i.e. that the transition is impossible. Fortunately we're smarter than that, or can be, if we choose to be.
@chookbuffy Жыл бұрын
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Yeah that's fair enough. I work in the energy demand forecasting space and i have been finding a strong lack of will to consider scenario planning for demand side challenges (whether we choose to or if it is decided for us). So much could be solved by people delaying their dishwashers, washing machines and opening a window, but I think there is a bias on wanting to focus on supply side solution (i.e it is more attractive to build for the marginal MW as opposed to plan for a MW saved) Thanks for replying,. Looking forward to hearing more of your research in the future :)
@dr.larsbergmann9725 Жыл бұрын
This clip offers great knowledge! Never heard about creation of hydrogen requires that large amount of fossil fuels. Thank you again Nate!
@andy-the-gardener Жыл бұрын
the various so called renewable energy technologies also have staggeringly low or negative energy returns compared to the fossil fuel inputs necessary for their existence, and moreover require a fossil fuelled economy of the current scale to exist at all. yet mr martin [correct me if i'm wrong] seems to assume an energy transition will happen, a patent absurdity given renewable energy is a product of fossil fuels. i was also getting increasingly annoyed with his concern for industrial civilization / humans rather than the living world it is destroying. he does not seem to understand industrial civ is an engine that absolutely must run on fossil fuels. to abide, it must destroy the biosphere. and both energy and global warming are not 'problems'. they are just two symptoms of a disease. the only cure is the termination of civilization. it is no wonder he has made a good living, and ironic that he believes he is making the world better. he is correct about hydrogen, but if he thinks the other techno fixes are any better, or the human project is worth saving, or can be saved, then he is badly mistaken
@fredguntern.e.4185 Жыл бұрын
@@andy-the-gardener Hambone was not wrong about you, telling it like it is.
@andy-the-gardener Жыл бұрын
@@fredguntern.e.4185 Vero Nihil Verius!
@edwnorris Жыл бұрын
@@andy-the-gardener Yet the IPCC, and other organizations that have ground through the data, have ascertained that wind, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, and solar, have a carbon intensity of 11, 12, 24, 38, and 45 g of CO2 per kWh. Procured and manufactured in a world completely dependent on fossil fuels. Compared to 490, and 830, respectively, for gas and coal. That's why EVs can't be three times or more cleaner than fossil cars, even drawing electricity from Europe or the United States' electricity grid, and heat pumps have the same result. It may be narrow, but there is a pathway to a clean economy. It just requires overcoming cynicism, avoiding the the hydrogen charlatans they spoke of in this podcast, and following the data. E12_el-t&d_KV_Apr2014_GSOK 1.pdf
@andy-the-gardener Жыл бұрын
@@edwnorris theres is zero possibility of an industrial civilization of 8 billion humans or ny size running on so called renewable energy. civilisation is a heat engine and thus requires fossil fuels. all so called renewable energy tech are energy sinks or akin to perpetual motion machines. when all fossil fuels of the necessary economy are factored in. its a non starter. look at the graph of all energy. industrial civ is that mountain of oil, gas and coal. the thin paltry layer of renewables can never replace that mountain, and is but a manifestation of fossil fuels anyway. but how about reducing population. would it run civ then. no. because renewable tech needs the current population and industrial capacity to exist at all.
@uhan338 ай бұрын
Another great episode - just re-listened before sending it to a friend working in government on potential hydrogen projects.
@jghifiversveiws8729 Жыл бұрын
I think the lack of discussion surrounding alternative modes of producing hydrogen or syngas like the gassification of biomass or the use of nanogalvanic aluminum, along with Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers (LOHCs) like methanol and its derivative DME which can moonlight as transport fuels was rather unfortunate, but all in all this was a great and insightful podcast
@awetravelsOG8 ай бұрын
I am not really knowledgeable of all these things Nate, and Nate's guests talk about, but it seems to me, after all I've learned so far after binge watching and rewatching a lot of episodes of Nate's podcasts, that this predicament is like a situation with an obese person who are told that the real solution to loose weight and stay healthy is to eat less, simple as that , exercise and all that would be a bonus , but the main thing is calories in - calories out. However a lot of people try to do shortcuts and look for magic pill and lazy way to "play the system", not going the simplest , right way of loosing weight. In this predicament the similar way the super organism tries to play the system, but the real solution seems to be that humanity needs to go on a diet , "eat less", consume less calories in a way of energy consumption. And taking in context our psychology looks like its less likely that will go the simplest "right" way as a humanity, and the super organism will have to "starve" or go on "fasting", which will bring the less known scary consequences.
@pclind Жыл бұрын
Fantastic interview.
@TheRealSnakePlisken Жыл бұрын
Great guest.
@chrisruss986111 ай бұрын
Thanks for interviewing this cluey guest. Great quirky shirt image, too.
@firedog2396 Жыл бұрын
Great podcast. I learned a lot. Thanks!
@robertmarmaduke186 Жыл бұрын
I used to laser weld inert helium He electronics packets for aerospace satellites. It was extremely difficult to seal the packets. Helium leaks out even molecular level pores. Hydrogen H is _smaller._ It also has the LOWEST DENSITY OF ANY FUEL, and has to be stored in a Class 1 Div 1 storage, which means _everything_ has to be sealed against explosive gas.
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
And that's just its short list of undesirable properties as a fuel...
@charliepellerin8041 Жыл бұрын
An excellent report, thank you
@barbarasmith6005 Жыл бұрын
Great show and very easy to understand for a non-engineer. This guest was really knowledgeable and down-to-earth.
@boombot934 Жыл бұрын
Thanks, Paul and Nate, very insightful conversation💭💬🗯
@JaseboMonkeyRex Жыл бұрын
Isn't the conversation on the Haber-Bosch process highlighting how vulnerable the vast majority of people on this planet are to starving to death if anything ever happens to the amount of ammonia / fertilizers humanity can produce ? Isn't this the process of collapse like the algae bloom when it runs out of nutrients? Does this mean the great simplification should be named the great die off?
@DavidMarcotte-xx1nw Жыл бұрын
Yes, there will be a great die off and then, afterward, a great simplification.
@mgusek555 Жыл бұрын
This is a possible future, yes.
@christinearmington Жыл бұрын
Sadly will be part of it. 😳💀
@stefanmeyer6820 Жыл бұрын
This is a misnomer. We can grow plenty of food using organic and regenerative farming practices which don’t require the use of hydrogen (yes, I’m a farmer). On top of that point, our bigger issues are food waste and bad distribution systems.
@johnbanach3875 Жыл бұрын
If we need chemical fertilizers to feed the world, but they're destroying the soil, won't this whole system collapse eventually?
@creatingawareness1947 Жыл бұрын
You say it costs less to extract hydrogen from seawater (electrolysis?). What mineral or element is responsible for that? I recon it is the salt? Is it sodium or potassium? How efficient is urine? It has urea in it, that lowers the energy needed to breakup the molecules in electrolysis. It is a fuell that we all produce. No need for pipes to transport across land just in the house. You can store urine without safety issues and produce hydrogen on demand. Less leakage loss this way.
@SweynHunter Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for this brilliant video. I will be sharing it far and wide, and may get to the point of refusing to discuss hydrogen use in energy systems with people who have not watched, and understood, it! I live in Orkney in Scotland, where we have lots of potential for wind and tidal energy generation - it would be an absolute tragedy, in my opinion, if we allow the current investigations and pilot schemes into hydrogen to derail us from the true prized: massive scaling up of generation capacity, and establishing adequate transmission connectivity to export all we generate. To me it is obvious that the solution to a lack of transmission capacity for export is to increase that capacity, and NOT to waste 40-90% of what is generated by fooling around with hydrogen.
@dialectic5012 Жыл бұрын
Excellent
@garethyoung6067 Жыл бұрын
Tremendous video.
@rems3919 Жыл бұрын
Great episode and great podcast! one question though: about green hydrogen (by electrolysis) at 42:30, got the point about the fact scaling hydrogen challenge is it is high energy consuming rather than water consuming. But would it be issue in a place where there are large surplus of electricity (renewables, nuclear) to produce hydrogen as electricity storage tool?
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
Where there are large surpluses of electrical production capacity that is a) green b) high capacity factor (i.e. wind+sun hybrids) and c) afforable (ie. not nuclear!) then we will make ammonia, direct reduced iron, aluminum and other energy-intensive things in those places- for export, to displace the black versions of these same products. What we won't be doing is trying to make electricity into some new form of "new LNG" for export. Hydrogen and hydrogen derived molecules for that purpose are frankly just nonsense. What we also won't do is waste hydrogen for heating or as a transport fuel. Sadly we'll waste billions of dollars of public money on pretending that's going to be a thing in the future, but the underlying economics are so poor that we won't end up turning it into anything of practical decarbonization value. That's the point I was trying to make in the talk.
@rems3919 Жыл бұрын
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Thanks for your reply ! very clear now.
@Nhoj737 Жыл бұрын
"47:40 And in the future, we're not going to be starting with heat or chemical energy, we're going to be starting with work or electricity." Are 'we'? Just like that?
@dbadagna Жыл бұрын
I found this statement about work and electricity perplexing, as it wasn't backed up--and because electricity is not an energy source, it's an energy transfer medium.
@UnknownPascal-sc2nk3 күн бұрын
The first example I think of is an old fashioned windmill that is directly pumping water mechanically on a farm as opposed to a wind powered turbine that generates electricity to run an electric water pump.
@scottharding4336 Жыл бұрын
Paul Martin needs to listen to Simon Micheaux.
@DavidMarcotte-xx1nw Жыл бұрын
Ha! Indeed.
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
He did. Michaux repeated a bunch of myths- separated from full-on lies by virtue of containing a kernel of truth. He says we're a 19 TW society (and means 19 TW of HEAT), and admits that optimistically, we might be able to sustain 10 TW. Guess what? A 19 TW heat society is a 9 TW WORK society- and in future we'll be starting with work (electricity) not heat (chemical energy). So even Michaux, to his own surprise, admits we're likely to be OK. And based on my own analysis, I'm much more hopeful about the materials related issues than he is. My worry isn't that we'll run out of x, y or z, or won't be able to make the energy we need without generating GHG emissions - those to me are very solveable problems within the sphere of technology's ability to solve them. My concern is that we won't be wise enough to choose to do so, because we'll be so wrapped up in the present, paralyzed by the fear of change, scared about what we'll do to handle the last 10% of decarbonization, that we won't take the steps necessary to handle the easy 90%.
@scottharding4336 Жыл бұрын
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Electricity doesn't generate itself is my point. Simon Micheaux is important because his work shows the mineral shortages that would have to be worked out if we are going to transition to an all electric civilization. I would also point out that refining and smelting metals requires an enormous amount of heat, as does cement manufacturing and glass production. Producing electricity to then generate the heat needed for these processes seems inefficient.
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
@@scottharding4336 oil doesn't jump out of the ground under its own pressure either. The energy recovered per unit energy invested- and more importantly the EXERGY (potential to do thermodynamic work) per unit EXERGY invested- is more than sufficiently positive for a wind+sun+batteries+big, smart grids + nuclear (if you can afford it and want it) to build a society. More than marginally- in fact, the ExRoExI of wind and solar is already much better than that of the marginal (next) barrel of oil that we need to mine, refine and burn. Michaux is in the long line of Malthusian prophets of doom. We've literally never mined ourselves out of anything on earth. Ask people in the 1860s how likely it would be that we would be burning tens of millions of barrels of petroleum per day and they'd laugh and laugh at you. As to mined materials: some figures are helpful. Petroleum use is 4,000 megatonnes per year. Copper: 22 megatonnes/yr. Lithium? 0.1 megatonnes per year. It's not even close to requiring as much mining as what we're doing now- we're just doing that fossil mining largely out of sight.
@DanA-nl5uo Жыл бұрын
Permiculture does work to feed humans the difference is we can't have gentleman farmers like this guy who is an absentee farmer or land lord. We will need to return to a society where the majority of people raise their own food in their gardens.
@klondike444 Жыл бұрын
How many have gardens?
@anthonytroia1 Жыл бұрын
@@klondike444 🙋♀
@DanA-nl5uo Жыл бұрын
@@klondike444 not nearly enough before we entered the ff era it was about 80 or 90% of our society that where involved in agriculture including raising their own food. University of Massachusetts has shown how you can feed a family of 4 on the lawn space of urban houses.
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
I'm not really interested in returning to a world where 60% of us spend the majority of our time in food production, are you? BTW the reason we own our property is to protect a large acreage of forest. We rent out the small arable portion to our neighbour because we don't like to see arable land go fallow.
@DanA-nl5uo Жыл бұрын
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 I run a small farm and do raise my own food while protecting a large wood lot from development so yes I am good with the concept. But the reality is as the carbon pulse ends the cheap food from ff based ag will also end.
@liamtaylor4955 Жыл бұрын
Thank you, Paul, thank you, Nate!
@andrewpaterson5192 Жыл бұрын
Great interview! The best exposition of the Hydrogen problem I have found. But that comment on S.Korea and Japan and hydrogen intrigues as another potential issue. It always puzzled me why the Japanese car industry was keen on hydrogen . Can you find someone to explain the Japanese and Korean policy on hydrogen and why it may be an intractale issue?
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
Japan and S. Korea won't be decarbonizing any time soon. They know they're the big losers post decarbonization. So they're working on weapons of mass distraction- hydrogen and ammonia chief among those. As to the Japanese car industry- its bet on hydrogen was part politics and part predatory delay strategy- which worked very well actually. In Europe the current one is e-fuels, i.e. fuels made by trying to run thermodynamics backward from CO2 and water using electricity, that nobody other than Porsche owners will ever be able to afford. Same deal- give false hope of some future thing that will never become a reality, and keep selling engines for profit in the meantime. Make hay while the sun's shining, because the decarbonized future is going to be very dark and stormy for them.
@steveclunn81652 ай бұрын
Converting existing gas cars 2 electric has been going on in the background for a long time. I converted my first one back in the 90s and through the internet found lots of other people that were doing the same. I got to see things evolving with new parts and new ideas coming out quickly. Back in the 90s 1 kwh of golf cart batteries were about $100 and weighted 120 lb , lasting 400 cycles.. today lithium batteries have dropped from $1500 kwh to $100 kwh ,last 4000 cycles and weigh 10 lbs. My KZbin channel shows how to convert a gas car to electric but also how to use the battery pack in the car a storage for solar electricity.
@ecocentric6640 Жыл бұрын
It's a little harder for me to accept Paul's info on hydrogen when he gets regenerative agriculture so wrong. But, since he's a chemist, and not an expert in agriculture, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on H. As for synthetic nitrogen fertilizer being necessary for agriculture--not only is it NOT necessary, it's a major negative. Synthetic fertilizers are part and parcel of industrial agriculture, which is a carbon POSITIVE activity. In aggregate, IA puts CO2 into the atmosphere; whereas, regenerative agriculture is not only carbon negative, but is probably the number 1 technique for carbon capture that we have. Some more wonderful facts about IA: it destroys soil microorganisms and leads to massive soil erosion. As for his contention that crop yields doubled when synthetic fertilizers were indroduced--I don't know the history here, but I do know that present studies show RA, when done right, has yields at least equivalent to if not better than IA yields. I'd strongly recommend you invite experts in RA to debate Paul's claim (you've already had Vendana Shiva on; ask her to comment on this). And while you're at it, have some credible proponents of Hydrogen fuel usage, like Amory Lovins on to debate that issue. Though, my own feeling is that Paul is probably right about H not being a viable energy source at present or in the forseeable future.
@thegreatsimplification Жыл бұрын
Andrew Millison next week. Everyone has a piece of it. Thank you
@randallperry5071 Жыл бұрын
@@thegreatsimplification Great, thx for reply.
@arb0r Жыл бұрын
Oh snap. Christmas is coming very soon this year. Must be the climate. 🎉🎉
@jennysteves Жыл бұрын
Heat pumps are not the easy simple answer, unless they’ve recently been hugely upgraded. We had the newest high-end 2000s version in TN but when winter winds blew and temperatures dropped into the low 20s and below, which happened frequently in the mountains, the emergency electric heat portion of our unit became our only heat source. Our heat setting was 65. Consistently high winter electric bills. Our regional electric energy source was coal.
@pvmagnus Жыл бұрын
I think the technology has improved significantly recently. I don't know why they don't use heat using buried exchanges.. soil always holds more heat.
@pvmagnus Жыл бұрын
Seems more logical instead of the more direct geothermal implementation we try to use.
@jennysteves Жыл бұрын
@@pvmagnus that’s good to know. And I’d love to know more about geothermal. I’m wary when I see heat pumps touted as our national solution on main stream media (NYTimes, WaPo for example). Inevitably we’re still talking materials extraction (ditto geothermal) and also electricity - its nationally shaky grid maintenance and its widely varying energy sources. In TN our electricity infrastructure was very poorly maintained and reliably unreliable.
@paulwhetstone0473 Жыл бұрын
Wow! This was one of the best podcasts ever. Nate and Paul’s dialogue deployed truth bombs too numerous to count. It would be great to hear a dialogue of this magnitude on earth overshoot.
@pauseitall Жыл бұрын
kzbin.info/www/bejne/goK3pneqqbVlj8k
@filmjazz Жыл бұрын
Well this just crushed my hydrogen dreams. It’s amazing how backed into a corner we are as a species until we solve the energy problem with a major breakthrough.
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
The issue isn't that we need a "major breakthrough"- what we need is to re-jig our entire relationship WITH energy. We're not inventing our way out with some deus ex machina invention like fusion that will just allow us to keep living the way we did before, just without the GHG emissions! But that doesn't mean that the alternative to burning fossils is returning to some neo-agrarian existence that some romanticize, or freezing and starving in the dark (the bogeyman that the fossil-burners and sellers want to feed us). There is a third way- it will be difficult, costly, take a long time, require compromise, and will require us to be DIFFERENT and behave differently than we do today. We may not be wise enough to choose it- we might be too scared and too addicted to #hopium and sit around waiting for the deus ex machina solution instead of getting working using the technology we already have to solve the problem. But I'm hopeful we can, if we are smart enough. I see my job as pointing out the dead ends to people- the ones I know to be dead ends- so we don't waste precious time and effort wandering down them (or being led there, as is the case with hydrogen!)
@filmjazz Жыл бұрын
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Hi Paul, thanks for your reply! I should clarify by stating that my "hydrogen dreams" were very simplistic and based on only a very superficial understanding of the mechanics of actually using hydrogen as an energy source. It went as deep as "we can produce hydrogen relatively cheaply and abundantly through electrolysis, powered by wind and solar," but the issues you raised concerning how we get from that to safely and efficiently using the hydrogen (and in a non-polluting way) really brought me down to reality, and I thank you for that. I agree 100% that changing our relationship to energy is going to be critical, and we should be starting with that change now while we still have the convenience to do it as opposed to when we're forced to. Where would you recommend I look next for more details about the "third way" you speak of, whether it be your own writings, interviews, or those of other people working toward these goals?
@kiedranFan2035 Жыл бұрын
Osmotic power must be taken into account. It is right were we like to live, by the sea and combines salt and fresh water from a river to create osmotic pressure to drive turbines. And it's constant unless you throttle the water recombination that occurs anyway naturally going into the plant. Then factories can be placed next to that to use it'd electricity to make the squipment with and more importantly recycle them
@dianewallace6064 Жыл бұрын
The Heat Geek channel talks about trying to convert all of the UK to heat pumps. Also, Mixergy Ltd channel talks about converting all the UK's water heaters to efficient electric.
@TG-lp9vi Жыл бұрын
Hi. Nate the issue with experts is that their focus is too narrow.
@dbadagna Жыл бұрын
Wikipedia says: ====== With average crop yields remaining at the 1900 level the crop harvest in the year 2000 would have required nearly four times more land and the cultivated area would have claimed nearly half of all ice-free continents, rather than under 15% of the total land area that is required today. But it also says: ====== Green hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water is less than 0.1% of total hydrogen production.
@enchemin5652 Жыл бұрын
I wish you would run this information about regenerative agriculture through Gabe Brown. He has walked the talk of Regen Ag for decades, now.
@madameblatvatsky Жыл бұрын
Hopium is the worst addiction of all by far 😂😂😂
@reuireuiop0 Жыл бұрын
Wakes me up every day ! Couldn't do a week without it 💉😅
@Pratiquement-Durable Жыл бұрын
A pilot plant in Sweden produces hydrogen using electrolysis and hydroelectricity. That hydrogen is used to produce steel without coal (direct reduction). That's perfectly green steel. The problem is that such green hydrogen costs 4 times more than gray hydrogen, with capital costs of 5% and steel is 2.5 times more expensive. The real question is: how much will GDP shrink if our economy uses almost no more fossil fuels ? Our estimates show that GDP and purchasing power in rich countries will be divided by something like 2 or 3.
@realeyesrealizereallies6828 Жыл бұрын
Wow, I actually didn't know the hydrogen problem as far as leakage and the atmosphere issues...But, I am certainly not surprised, other than actually learning something new about the predicament that we find ourselves in...I am educated enough to be extremely suspicious of every technological solution or process that we employ...It's a one way street, that doesn't lead to anywhere we want to be...Every bit of our technology is a vicious circle/cycle...And a cruel mirage...
@debchak27 Жыл бұрын
Paul is just too intelligent and knowledgeable and that infectious creative thinking!! Its unfathomable for 2023 homo sapiens.. If I ever go to Toronto, I would definitely love to meet him !!
@keithomelvena2354 Жыл бұрын
Great interview. Paul does seem to have an enormous blind spot though, exemplified by his comments about "agrarianism" and "Luddites". He talked of efficiency but not conservation. I get the impression he is on board with the human economic growth engine, he just doesn't see hydrogen fuelling it.Technoutopia.
@hoju472 Жыл бұрын
🔥🔥🔥
@sambishop4036 Жыл бұрын
Man I'd love to see Nate and Mr. Schmachtenberger on JRE!
@mathematrucker Жыл бұрын
Great suggestion. Nate would be an ideal guest there. #'s 1776 and 1777 (Feb 2022) were Steven E. Koonin, former Chief Scientist for BP and Under Secretary for Science at the USDOE under Obama whose book "Unsettled" claims that's what climate science is, and Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M chemist who claims otherwise; # 1840 (June 2022) was Marc Andreessen who promotes more nuclear.
@dankoepp68 Жыл бұрын
When is Vaclav Smil on at the great Simplification?
@jennysteves Жыл бұрын
When I first learned in freshman year chemistry about the nitrogen-producing Haber Process, described to us in glowing terms, all I could think was that the fossil fuel industry and military industrial complex had yet again found another way to trap us into dependence. We ruin our soil and think that this is the easy miracle cure. 😞 It’s very difficult for me to see an easy way out of so much decades-old backward thinking and acting. ‘The Great Simplification’ is a rose-colored glasses description of what lies ahead, I fear. I understand and fully support continuing to research and act positively, but I wish to god that governments would finally get brave and level with their citizens, then rein in the corporations that ultimately control us all. Steps one and two. But neither will happen. It’s up to us.
@BombusMonticola Жыл бұрын
Your intuitions were correct
@TheSonicfrog Жыл бұрын
One word description of the cons of using hydrogen for transportation: Hindenberg
@scottharding4336 Жыл бұрын
Using electricity to replace fossil fuels is great. Good thing there's so many electricity growing trees out there. Also, we can finally find a way to use the billions of tons of extra copper we have lying around.
@DavidMarcotte-xx1nw Жыл бұрын
Quebec population is 1/1000th of the world's. Our car electrification plan for 2030 requires 1/8 of the world's yearly produced lithium. Totally realistic.
@Dmitriy1917 Жыл бұрын
completely agree. Carbon tax is nice, but without means to enforce it (worldwide) - tax is worthless. Plus the question of copper, as you mentioned.
@anthonytroia1 Жыл бұрын
Not to split hairs (i.e. I agree with you) but: Pyrolisis from agroforestry is sorta like growing electricity on trees. (again! I more or less agree with you though)
@bearclaw5115 Жыл бұрын
Good thing there's so many gasoline growing trees out there. You are making a fool of yourself.
@reuireuiop0 Жыл бұрын
@@bearclaw5115 But trees do grow oil! Just put m in the ground, leave m there for couple millions years, and dang! you're done. Oil. Now fill up and use it all in two days.
@emceegreen8864 Жыл бұрын
ELECTRIFICATION. Solar and wind. Batteries as storage. Transportation. Heating. Cooling. And of course, communication.
@nonyab3237 Жыл бұрын
Yep. That plan would only take 200 years worth of the world's annual lithium production to make happen. Try Nuclear. No, or few, batteries required. Nuclear power plants will last 60 years or more, unlike wind and solar which are much less. Wind and Solar also require a magnitude more materials and mining, and have a magnitude lower EROEI when you add in the costs and materials of all the batteries they require to store weeks or months of energy (actually it's an impossible fantasy, so Solar and wind will require a secondary on demand power plant probably natural gas or coal. Just look at Germany to see this in action)
@westmassdave7354 Жыл бұрын
Cool let’s do this thing and get er done
@Jabjabs Жыл бұрын
I have said for a very long time, that the idea of a Hydrogen energy future would make a lot more sense if we have large concentrated pools of it like oil. It is just too diffuse to be a real contender.
@leroyessel2010 Жыл бұрын
The cavitation breakthrough for hydrogen and oil is Eirex Technology in Canada.
@leroyessel2010 Жыл бұрын
Hydrogen on demand doesn’t require pressurization and EirexTech in Canada is amazing
@Zanderzan1983 Жыл бұрын
Interesting pod. Im from a farm and we've a 90 horse power loader and a 120 horse power tractor. Diesel of course. Id heard these will be replaced by hydrogen in the future. I guess not after this talk. But how will they be replaced? Could battery powered tractors work? Would they have that horse power? From what ive seen, they wouldn't have the same power. So does this mean scaling down farms when the tractors need to be battery powered?
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
Depends how you use them of course. Power (energy used per unit of time) is one thing, storage (total energy used) is another. You'd likely be better off with a biodiesel for your long duration high power uses, and an electric utility tractor you could recharge from your own solar panels or your own storage battery (recharged from your own solar panels). Electric tractors aren't there yet, but they're on their way. For machines like excavators and forklifts which need a big counterweight anyway, batteries are a good option. Think of how often your diesel-hydraulic machines idle, just circulating oil for no good reason. Now imagine how much less of that needs doing if you don't have a diesel engine, but an instant-on electric with high torque all the way down to zero RPM...it's mind blowing once you think about what you could do with that.
@Zanderzan1983 Жыл бұрын
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 good point on the counter weight - we have a 500kg one on our loader. So I can see how we can replace our loader. With biodiesel though, it hard to see how that scales. Im in ireland, we dont really have the weather to sow corn to make biodiesel, and anyway, if we did, what would we feed our cattle? I will try running the numbers for ireland. I guess we could import biodiesel but I'd imagine the expense of growingnit elsewhere and bringing it here drastically increases its cost to the farmer.
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
@@Zanderzan1983 biodiesel is made most readily from oil seed crops like canola. Corn would give you ethanol which you'd need to run in a gasoline tractor- not the best! Yes, it would eat into your business profit margins by converting more of your arable land to producing inputs that you currently import, but on the plus side you'd get the margin for doing that. Likely individual farmers wouldn't make their own fuels. Of course the more you could shift over to battery powered equipment, the less fuel you'd need- but a machine capable of running 12 hours per day at high power would require you to have another huge battery and a very high current, high voltage DC charger which you'd use only a few times per year- the capital investment would be terrible. Nobody ever said that changing our entire relationship with energy was going to be easy! But it's possible, not impossible. And sadly, it's necessary.
@martiansoon9092 Жыл бұрын
Joule of energy -> E= mc^2, so a bit of any matter... But in form that is mostly unusable. The form and usability is extremely important.
@cal48koho Жыл бұрын
pretty amazing guy with stunning clear explanation of the issues around hydrogen. I knew that the hydrogen crowd were as nuts as the fusion crowd and Paul has clarified the issues like no one I have ever seen. The stupidity and greed of the people promoting this nonsensical technology must have no bounds!
@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Жыл бұрын
Some pushing this are stupid, some are greedy, but some are smart, calculating and not at all interested in decarbonization- and it's the last group that I'm worried about most.
@timothyhume3741Ай бұрын
Just walk where you want to go. The great simplification.
@jimwelsh8004 Жыл бұрын
Brilliant podcast of truth. makes the black clearer.... haha . Eric Olthwaite : black pudding. even the white bits were black !
@sofistek Жыл бұрын
Good chat but, like many people who seem to get it, he seems to think that, somehow, technology will fix this mess. I get that from his plea that people should not think that technology is the enemy.
@TG-lp9vi Жыл бұрын
We produce nitrogen oxide now in combustion engines. Because there is Nitrogen in the air. We reduce that nitrogen oxide now in catalytic converters.
@leroyessel2010 Жыл бұрын
Hydrogen storage in baking soda mixed with water sounds interesting
@rodneytrynor7374 Жыл бұрын
All the environmentally friendly forms of heating use forced air systems instead of hydronic systems. The enthalpy of water is much higher than the enthalpy of air.
@barryboxbrady Жыл бұрын
Please don't take this the wrong way but I find this talk, and in someways others you've had, falling foul of one of your main point in your "reductionist society" problem. Your speaker is very knowledgeable on his give subject and obviously on physics but he's let down when he turns to heat pumps. No one can deny the energy efficiency of heat pumps but here in the EU, we just banned most refrigeration gases(f-gases) as they are linked to forever chemicals and some have ghg equivalency hundreds of times co2. As a refrigeration tech, I can say that the alternatives we have now, excluding wishfully thinking on innovation, are not pretty or safe and without a form of safe gas, refrigeration/heat pumps won't work. I do enjoy your guests, some of which I have either read papers from or books prior to you inviting them on to your podcast, but you have missed a few important ones that I would suggest. Your guest this time mentions fertilizer production of which half is man made. On this point you should talk to Dr. Frank Mitloehner who is a professor and air quality specialist in cooperative extension in the Department of Animal Science at UC Davis. The other half of our fertilizer comes from the back end of an animal,(again I know because I run a farm). He got the FAO to amend their 2006 paper Livestock's Long Shadow. Also for the craic, you should get Tim Garrett, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Utah. He fits in well with you suggestions of the super organism. His papers are frightening and insightful. I do very much enjoy what you and your team are creating here and can only imagine the mammoth task it is to create this content. Thank you.
@billymurphy1644 Жыл бұрын
Really excellent podcast. Thanks for that. Green hydrogen is another crusade imo. The overall efficiency of the entire manufacturing process from electrolysis through to end use via transportation is low as a result of losses that simply cannot be avoided at each step. But startups trying to sell their tech try to cleverly hide this critical information. Could be something to do with money 😂. The only ppl who will lose out in the use of these technologies is the end user (that’s us)