The "Energy Transition" is a Myth

[@patd5507]

When us humans have fine tuned the climate with our electric cars, we can then start our next project to drain the Atlantic Ocean.

[@Rawdiswar]

😂😂

[@a.randomjack6661]

A man can dream...

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

I'd ather follow Emperor Elon to Mars.

[@a.randomjack6661]

@@wolfgangpreier9160 How many billion$ you got?

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

@@a.randomjack6661 None, i wait for the lottery to win my one way ticket together with my dog - whichever it will be at that time.

[@thumper8684]

The biggest problem with wood consumption is deforestation. Use of wood in construction does not release CO2 into the atmosphere. The largest cause of deforestation is land clearance, which is a real problem.

[@chrisconklin2981]

Many reasons for land clearing. High meat consumption require pasturage and crops for cattle feed are top of the list.

[@nazmiyahsayuti7050]

Deforestation going on in Indonesia is mostly for palm trees for biofuel, and now nickels for EV n your gadgets😢

[@ranter7100]

Who cares co2 does not cause global warming. It never did or will. The climate scam along with the pandemic scam is all about control. Those psycho's who want to rule the world are using these agenda's to steal away our freedoms. They'll still be using it. It's just use they dont want using it. psychopath's 101 they want all the wealth and energy for themselves. We are unworthy and dumb they need to have dominion over us. The whole western system is controlled by psychopath's for their gain not ours.

[@rattylol]

But trees dont grow big enough overnight

[@thumper8684]

@@rattylol Planting trees is certainly not a quick fix. We already have managed woodlands in the UK, including forests that were deliberately planted to produce fast growing softwoods.

[@chrisdsouza8685]

7:10 please realise that the use of wood for pit-props is NOT the same as the use of wood for fuel ! Some of those pit-props are still standing, while all the then firewood was burnt within days. Also in general, the idea of energy transition does not preclude some peripheral uses of the previous energy sources. It just means that the apparatus installed is for a particular type of fuel. You cannot easily burn heavy oil in a coal fired steam locomotive, and a coal carrier, loaded with coal, if it runs out of heavy oil in the middle of the sea, would be stranded and helpless.

[@FrankHamersley]

Yep - in fact those remaining pit props are now captured (sequestered) carbon.

[@Jebediah1999]

Well you're not taking into other things like that they are far more useful above ground and alive when it comes to water storage, ecology etc. Not exactly useful to.human civilisation unfortunately. Pit props are integral to the C02 pulse being dumped into the atmosphere.

[@vipondiu]

"We cannot rely on the scalability of nuclear; those are complicated machines (not really) very serious construction. It needs cranes!" Same guy half a minute later: "Yes China is building dozens of reactors, yes"

[@falseprogress]

The problem is that nuclear only tackles the electricity segment of total energy use, and uranium is still finite, will deplete faster on a global scale.

[@unoriginalname4321]

Also: "steel has always been produced with coal" and implying it always will be while ignoring the fact that previous "energy transitions" had nothing to do with eliminating carbon emissions while also ignoring the research being put into decabonizing steel and concrete production along with manufacturing in general *specifically for the purpose* of reducing carbon emissions.

[@bogganalseryd2324]

And small modular nuclear reactors are coming, thorium too

[@AprezaRenaldy]

Nuclear only 5% of China's 🇨🇳total Electrical energy use Solar 10% wind 8% and hydro 16%..

[@homo-ludens]

You can produced steal with electricity and it needs less energy. It just needs a lot of energy

[@nickcook2714]

The argument that in the 20th century we used more timber for pit props than we used for firewood in the 18th century to suggest that there wasn't an energy transition is a non argument. If you wind forward to the present day we are now using no timber in coal mines. Furthermore, the average energy consumption of the UK in the 20th century was approximately 20 x higher than in the 18th century so on a simplistic basis you could argue that if we had stuck with using would would be getting through about 75Mm³ of timber for energy. During the 1700s/18th century average energy consumption was about 350 PJ per year presumably mostly from wood in the 1900s/20th century average energy consumption was about 7000 PJ per year predominantly from coal, at least in the first half. Unless you redefine the words 'transition' and 'energy', to me that is an energy transition from a small amount of wood to a huge amount of fossil fuels. A trash transition both in the type and amount of fuel we used. We transitioned away from using wood for energy to fossil fuels for energy, the fact that we might have been using more wood as constructional material is a totally different argument.

[@BENNO117]

I'm an underground coal miner in Australia and I can tell you 100% that underground coal mines still use a huge amount of wood.

[@SamuelBlackMetalRider]

@@BENNO117and China are mining Coal more than any other country in history, more Coal being mined these days than ever before… so no transition

[@dylanthomas12321]

​@@BENNO117Most is open pit and mountain top removal, but coal is a dying industry. Britain just closed their last coal electric plant. The US is closing them. They're uneconomic. China will stop building, too.

[@dylanthomas12321]

​@@SamuelBlackMetalRiderChina imports and uses 50+ percent of the world's coal but plans to stop by 2050. Solar is cheaper. India is second biggest user at 12 percent and growing. They are poor and backward so will be last to quit, save Africa. OECD nations plan to stop using by 2030-35. These are simply facts. Coal is going away. Even though last year was its peak global usage.

[@SamuelBlackMetalRider]

@@dylanthomas12321 coal & WOOD is not going away. These, unfortunately, cannot be replaced by Solar or Wind. Electricity alone cannot replace all the usages of burning all the Fossil Fuels. We are a THERMO-INDUSTRIAL world.

[@juderyan1561]

Thank you. As a Frenchman i have been following JB Fressoz and also JM Jancovici for years now. Their voices need to be heard in the anglosphere

[@elekkr]

all these french still just want to destroy britain

[@m.walther6434]

This week England closed it's last Coal plant. Germany plans to end the usage of coal for the production of electricity in 2038. No modern house is heated with coal.

[@TheSpecialJ11]

Imagine how much earlier Germany could have made that date with nuclear.

[@FREDDAGGS]

This is for the atmosphere. Which includes the countries that are now burning the coal Germany and England don't want.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

In China 80% of single-family homes are heated using solar power.

[@kadmow]

@@FREDDAGGS (local atmosphere - nobody loves living in cities with terrible smog - "pea soupers"..) yep.

[@FREDDAGGS]

@@kadmow coal has not done that in decades. CO2 is the issue here.

[@jenniferpatton5108]

I don't think that he understood the reference that Dr Folle Amour is Dr Strangelove in English.

[@Dreadnought16]

Wow, this is a fascinating discussion. It will be generations before we stop using fossil fuels in my opinion. Today with use something like 80% fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. 30 years ago it was 84%. We’ve spent trillions of $ over that period to reduce FF usage by 4%. That’s not a transition that’s a slight reduction.

[@louiswilliamterminator2887]

It hasn't been a reduction. Humanity is using more energy than ever.

[@Dreadnought16]

@@louiswilliamterminator2887 I agree, we are using more FF than 30 years ago, but as a share of total energy mix its a slight reduction (more renewables now). I didn't do a very good job of wording that I guess. Apologies.

[@Andriastravels]

Correct. "De-growth" is required to reduce fossil fuel consumption. De-growth will not happen voluntarily, so fossil fuel consumption will go on until no more can be economically extracted.

[@wiretamer5710]

I am writing this on a dumpster dived computer, powered by SECOND HAND Solar PV panels bought for $30 each, a second hand charge controller that cost $50, a second hand inverter that cost $500, and a large assortment of scrap batteries. All the cabling, fuses etc are repurposed scrap. I made my own battery terminals from scrap copper pipe. My system stores enough power to run an ORDINARY DOMESTIC HOUSE through the night. I am a disability pensioner with no savings. The total set up took three months to build on my own, and cost me less than $2000 What is your excuse for not being on solar power?

[@daddycool228]

My excuse is lack of technical knowledge on how to rig this stuff together . Can you point to a vlog where it is explained

[@stevem815]

My excuse is that I don't want to burn my house down messing around with sketchy batteries.

[@TheRealSnakePlisken]

My excuse is that market electricity is cheaper, convenient, and more reliable…for now. Duh.

[@user-ph2jf4ji1j]

Stupidity and laziness mostly, with a pinch of cowardice.

[@davidbutz39]

Fressoz's insights are powerful and important. Just a couple of nuances however. One very minor; this is not the first time that the "oil saved the whales" meme has been debunked. Rhodes did it, too, among others. More importantly, although it is crucially important to show that the use-of-materials case must be seen in the larger context suggested, when we look at the isolated topic of thermal input to particular technologies, especially electricity production, transitions can and do occur. Nuclear can still do a lot to help us.

[@wackJackle]

Yeah, but it is never even close to be enough. That's what the whole video is about.

[@ziegle9876]

One of the key difference of an engineer (who actually has to build stuff) and a tinkering scientist is that the engineer always looks at scalability of anything he does: i.e. in that whole “energy transition” there are no engineers left in the West.

[@thomasgreene5750]

One of the reasons for the temporary and partial displacement of coal by oil in the 1960s and early 1970s was the first war on coal by the environmentalist movement. Oil was widely used for electricity production in the U.S. then, particularly in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. That changed with the oil shocks of the 1970s, and we recommitted to coal until the current, second war on coal began about twenty years ago.

[@PEdulis]

What you call a "war on coal" is actually trying to save the world. Look around you and if that is not enough, look at the premiums paid now for insurcances. These guys are no tree huggers, they simply calculate the risk of environmental damages and they obviously came to the conclusion that these risks increase and therefore, they increase the price of ensuring against them. What ACTUALLY happened was a war against solar by the fossil fuel energy lobby. Solar panels were already manufactured in 1881 by Charles Fritts and commercially viable ones in 1939 by Russel Ohl. Had these been subsidised by a fraction of what was put into nuclear and fossil fuels, we could have ridiculously cheap, clean energy for many decades already.

[@shawnnoyes4620]

And the war on coal is good. Pollution from coal is killing people via particulate matter.

[@devinmillermedia]

1990 was 34 years ago ...

[@thomasgreene5750]

@@devinmillermedia The serious phase of the second war on coal didn't get rolling until well into the 2000s. Some states were still building new coal units until the Obama administration began a serious assault from the federal level.

[@waltermcphee3787]

Oil was cheaper than coal, renewables are cheaper than oil, gas and nuclear. That is the reason for the energy transition it is economic.

[@hands-on-m8c]

Great episode, I hope everyone takes the time to watch and understand

[@nebule1000]

energy question has a really deep philosophical essence to it. the real question is what kind of society are you trying to create? what will those people do? what will be their life goals? once you have answers to those, and only if those answers make some sense today and in thousand years, will you have a direction on how to solve your energy model. anything else is just a technical problem of material prosperity that inevitably leads to destruction.

[@petermarsh4993]

Dear Host, you mentioned that the LNC had plans for a huge installation of Nuclear energy. As it turns out, it’s for seven x 1gW plants. That’s not huge at all. At this point in time, the Eastern seaboard connected via the electric grid {QLD, NSW, VIC, TAS and SA} are connected by AEMO which manages the electricity market. Today, the average demand is 18gW and so even the LNC “ambitious” nuclear installation will be inadequate by a big margin of about 12 gW. Australia’s population doubles about every 30~50 years and so by 2050, the demand will be for 40gW of electricity. By 2100, the demand will be for 80gW of electricity. Sobering don’t you think. If for some miracle Albo and Chris Bowen hold onto power, by 2050 the Australian outback will be littered with thousands of sq Km or waste solar panels and parts of wind turbines, none of which is recyclable. So much for “renewable” energy systems. By 2100 if we continue with this mad “green” energy approach most of the outback will be littered with waste solar panels and wind turbines. Farming will be displaced by this waste and the environment will take second place as more and more beautiful areas are destroyed in pursuit of this “green” dream. People of Australia, please wake up.

[@helenkentwell5042]

Just astounding isn’t it. More cloud coverage and engineered weather with large hail , breaking millions of solar panels which cost a fortune using silver etc. turbines don’t seem to cut it either. Seems to suggest that we are being sabotaged . For years our energy grids have been neglected without proper upgrades and as soon as one is closed now it is demolished immediately so there is no chance of upgrading it in the event that new replacement systems fail to produce the required energy. Get ready for power outages.

[@bmx13andit52]

The only Aussies brain dead enough to fall for the green propaganda (WEF/UN 2030 agenda (neo feudalism/communism)) live in the cities. If we move out bush and stock up on guns we should be alright 😂

[@lagringa7518]

Thank you!!! 👍 Not to mention the weather warfare now being deployed in the USA and elsewhere world wide. But today Asheville, N. Carolina is the case in point, totally flooded (businesses and homes destroyed, people killed) never to this extent ever and never by hurricane, because there is a lithium and pure qtz crystal mines needed for the bogus 'salvation' of solar, wind and those dang lithium batteries that cost a fortune that you need to rebuy every 3-4 years. It's all Earth rape for profit and obviously they have never considered the ramifications or responsibility towards people or planet of any process that makes them profit..... but instead of taking responsibility...they blame you, me, plastic straws and cow farts instead of endless resource wars and the gross release of their toxic effluents when convenient.... all with our governments blessings. Tesla had the solution which of course was hidden from the public by the profit power of those who NEVER want a cheap solution if it ruins their monopolies.

[@tonywilson4713]

AUSTRALIAN ENGINEER HERE: This is so frustrating because engineers have been trying tell explain these concepts for decades. All Chris Keefer has shown is that he's no better than many other media clown, which is a shame because this video is so good. To say or claim the Energy Transition is a myth is utterly *WRONG* because we are in a transition and its a transition that was always going to happen *because as Jean-Baptiste explains there have been OTHER TRANSITIONS through history we are just in the midst of another one.* A more accurate title to this video should have been something like: _"How the Energy Transition has been Misunderstood!"_ or _"History explains how the Energy Transition is being Misunderstood!"_ What Jean-Baptiste has gotten *100% RIGHT* is that when these transitions occur at large scales (like happened with the industrial revolution) then large changes happen in the ways we use things. Before the industrial revolution nobody chopped down trees to make railway sleepers, but with the advent of the steam locomotive then railroad sleepers were needed. Plus the earliest steam locomotives used wood as the fuel. But that was followed by transitions to coal fired boiler in the steam locomotives which was then followed by a transition to diesel powered locomotives. *There is nothing new about energy transitions as they have been happening again and again all through history and every time they happen we use existing resources and materials in new ways.*

[@wackJackle]

Well, then you completly missed his point. Watch it again, listen and think for another round.

[@tonywilson4713]

@@wackJackle OK - WHAT POINT did I miss? Because what I am really tired of are wack brains like you who make idiotic claims. Look at the title of the video and then go listen how Jean-Baptiste goes on to explain transition after transition. AND FYI - Chris is NOT and engineer he a doctor. Jean-Baptiste is NOT an engineer he's a Historian. I am an engineer and like many engineers I am damn farking tired of non-engineers explaining engineering and GETTING IT WRONG.

[@dwwolf4636]

We've never tried to downgrade usage and change what we're using.

[@BrinJay-s4v]

The myth is transition is based on the junk science of carbon footprints. Not even required.

[@anthonytroia1]

This is a high-quality podcast, Chris. I was introduced to your work via Nate Hagens (I may have already mentioned that 🤷) Thanks for doing what you do and please keep the episodes coming. 🙏

[@garrenosborne9623]

Nate Hagens is a Legend🙏

[@Mrbobinge]

Muscle shovel and wheelbarrow energy. Definitely worth pondering while we await cold fusion energy in every kitchen, basement-heater and home elec generator.

[@AP-cc5ym]

Decouple finally managed to get a guest who was able to say the word "degrowth" without strawmanning! It seems like Jean-Baptiste was really able to shift Chris' perspective here so I'll be curious to see how this podcast evolves.

[@Nhoj737]

“So the thesis of this book stands or falls with the correctness of the decline rate that Brown gives us. Therefore I have calculated with several different parameters as regards the decline rate, and all point in the same direction. The difference between them is a few years at most. Therefore I assume that my thesis is solid, which is that the end of global net oil exports in 2030-2032 (Brown’s scenario) is a best-case scenario. Collapse can, I think, begin in earnest already in 2026, only because of too little diesel exports. Observe that oil exports vanish successively, more and more, not all at once.”? lars-larsen-the-end-of-global-net-oil-exports-

[@nicoschwetje5849]

It's a strange statement if you are considering that the world's renewable energy share has risen from 20% to over 30% in the last 10 years despite the fact that at the same time electricity demand doubled from 15,000 Twh to almost 30,000 Twh. Of course it's still a long way to go but the acceleration of the renewable energy sector has never been higher than right now.

[@anthonymorris5084]

Your numbers are misleading. You're including hydro which we've always had and utilized. The greenies are against new hydro projects. Secondly these numbers only reflect electricity generation.

[@nicoschwetje5849]

@@basilmagnanimous7011 yes I was only referring to electricity that is correct and yes primary energy consumption is kind of a different beast. But it is important to understand that fossil fuel use, despite being very useful, is extremely inefficient. If you take the process of crude oil to the acceleration force of a car you have an overall efficiency of

[@TheRealSnakePlisken]

And CO2 emissions have fallen?

[@johnstewart4943]

This video deserves a much wider audience 👏

[@Milan-Smrž]

Do you know, that the electricity needs of some parts of Germany and Austria, are completely covered by renewable energy? For instance Burgenland or Rhein-Hunsruck? And they are exporting electricity to others country parts?

[@Gunni1972]

1920, the Rockefellers made a LOT of barrels. During Prohibition, The US police smashed them whenever they could.And someone had to make replacements. We still haven't invented the laser-Buttcleaner. So we still use "wood" to wipe our behind. That's one HUUGE factor too. Shipbuilding up until the 19th century relied ENTIRELY on wood, and when they were built, they transported wood or coal. Forests in mountainous regions prevent erosion. And work as wind breaks in deserted areas. They condense water, and "breathe out" Oxygen. Fauna would be nothing without Flora. The current general Argumentation is like watching a stage performance where the stage environment is held up by wooden structures, without anyone noticing.

[@romualdaskuzborskis]

Just looked up lazer-buttwhipe and indeed it is still yet to be released in to production..

[@compostjohn]

Looking forward to this book coming out in the UK and stirring things up a bit.

[@tedhoward2606]

In the historical sense, he is correct, there has been no energy transitions, there has only been increasing exploitation. One way or another, that will change. We are actually past 6 of the 9 measurable planetary boundaries. There is more tonnage of human made stuff on the planet than there is live biological material. We either change the extremely simplistic stories we tend to tell ourselves to stories that are more complex and uncertain that demand greater responsibility from all of us, or we will cease to exist as we create conditions that we can no longer survive in. Many species have that sort of exploitation curve for new energy sources. Are we, as a species, able to see that market based incentives are now sending us in directions that are not survivable? Can we see the myth that markets can solve all problems for the simplistic nonsense that it is? Can we, as a species, accept that freedom is a fundamental part of being human, and that freedom without appropriate levels of responsibility is always and necessarily destructive? Can we accept that any real expression of freedom results in diversity, and that we need to accept and respect any and all diversity that is not an actual and unreasonable threat to existence? Can we accept that hegemony at any level is anathema to freedom? Are we able, as individuals, to look deeply enough into the process of evolution to see that it is much more than competition, and that every new level of complexity to emerge is based in, and sustained by, a new level of cooperation (necessarily), and that maintaining cooperation is hard (really hard) as it demands evolving ecosystems of cheat detection and mitigation systems (all levels, all domains); and to a good first order approximation most of todays legal, political, economic and educational systems can be characterized as being dominated by cheating strategies? He is right that the energy transitions of the past have not involved using less of the old energies, just much more of the new ones, but it would be wrong to apply that to the necessities of our current situation. He is correct that there is no simple economic, business as usual, path in the current system to a survivable outcome; yet to my mind that means only that the current system has to change, which is possible, as survival overrides all else. It is beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt in my understanding that the wars currently under way in the middle east and Ukraine are, for the most part, the result of economic interests within the USA. We are in a very complex time. All understandings are wrong. The more certain someone is of anything, the lower the probability that their understanding is a reasonable approximation in context. Reality is, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, sufficiently complex and fundamentally uncertain that no entity (human or AI) can deal with that complexity in anything remotely approaching real time - thus all models are wrong (they are necessarily simplifications), and some are more useful in the specifics of particular contexts, than others. That seems to be the reality of our existence, we learn to accept it, however uncomfortable that makes us feel, or we cease to exist. We do, in fact, seem to be that close to a large set of existential level boundaries. We have months, not years, to sort this out, in a fundamental strategic sense. Implementation will take decade, but unless it actually starts very soon, there will be no real paths left. It does seem, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, to be of this order of criticality; and existential risk has dominated my thinking for 62 years, since living through the Cuban missile crisis.

[@jomckeag4482]

Makes me want to go out for a long drive in my big pickup truck

[@paulsiebert4863]

Ted, How do you go with tying your shoe laces?

[@tedhoward2606]

@@paulsiebert4863 I have no idea what that comment is supposed to mean. It takes a few seconds to tie shoelaces. So what?

[@alan2102X]

""We have months, not years, to sort this out, in a fundamental strategic sense." A striking statement. Can you explain? If that is correct, then it would seem too late for anything. Let's just kick back, drink beer, and await the end. PS: I am well aware of existential risks (climate chaos, nuclear war, artificial superintelligence, etc.). But I've never thought that we have mere MONTHS to get our act together.

[@alan2102X]

"to a good first order approximation most of todays legal, political, economic and educational systems can be characterized as being dominated by cheating strategies" Yes. Dominated by psychopaths. I've recognized this for a long time, and I believe it is a seriously neglected issue. The psychopaths must be identified and sequestered, so that they cannot harm society any longer. NB: I said SEQUESTERED, harmlessly. I did not say killed or punished. Just tucked away somewhere where they cannot screw things up.

[@GerbenWulff]

A question this raises with me is: what are the consequences of realizing this for climate policies. The outcome that the transition will fail is not going to be acceptable for most politicians. If the current approach to reach a transition does not work then we need an alternative policy to reach our goals. I think the main conclusion is that stimulating renewable energy production in order to consequently get a transition is going to fail. There may be shifts in how and where those fossil fuels will be used, but it is unlikely to lead to lower fossil fuel consumption. So we need to focus on restricting/discouraging the use of fossil fuels and/or the emissions resulting from fossil fuel use. So no more stimulation of renewable energy; the reduction in fossil fuel consumption will create demand for renewable energy. At present we already see both approaches being applied. That is interesting as it implies that politicians already (perhaps subconsciously) realize that a policy that depends on a transition taking place as a result of stimulating renewable energy doesn't work. So politicians are forcibly closing coal thermal plants and taxing fossil energy.

[@jaybeaton9301]

I am writing this from a house primarily heated with seasoned wood harvested from our land. So cozy.

[@JoeBloe-ft6eb]

Yeah, and how many people are in a position to do that? I used to cut my own stove, too. One year I sawed into lengths and split by hand 15 cords. Stopped doing that many years ago because wood stoves are filthy, inefficient and wat too labor intensive. Been using a pellet stove many years now. 10,000% better alternative. Decades ago there were so many houses along the road in the small town where I live using wood stoves that, on a cold, still winter night you couldn’t walk the road because you’d literally choke on the thick wood smoke in the air

[@Brent-z2s]

I use a wood heater with trees cut up after hurricanes knocked them down the summer before. When that ran out I used wood from invasive species.

[@bubbajones6907]

In general, sustainability is a contrived myth. People who sort trash for recycling are being dishonest with themselves.

[@thumper8684]

Do you know what sustainabilty means?

[@thumper8684]

Are you happy that humanity is destined to destroy itself?

[@CARambolagen]

Sustainability is not a "myth" but an existential postulate, a commandment, an inescapable necessity IF humankind wants to survive as a whole.

[@Xen_sama]

Sustainability is not a myth, it just requires a radical degrowth (because the current rate of resource consumption is unsustainable). On a global scale, before the industrial and scientific revolution, humanity was pretty sustainable. However, radical degrowth is not compatible with _any_ political and economic structure currently out there. Since the systems that human civilisation creates are largely determined and driven by the human nature itself, it is extremely unlikely that there will be voluntary degrowth and transition to sustainable consumption. In the absense of the latter, however, sooner or later there will likely be a catastrophic collapse due to the overshoot.

[@bubbajones6907]

@@Xen_sama Like many people, I always place food scraps into recycling bins. Always have, always will. Many local and regional governments funnel money into recycling corporations. It's an obvious scam. People who lack moral integrity tend to go along with this.

[@cdineaglecollapsecenter4672]

This was a great perspective, really correcting some of the narratives we hear all the time. We need a process that entrains symbiotic reductions in energy use, not just "oh hey nuclear will save us" which, of course, Jean-Baptiste did not say. Thank you for this.

[@Thinkingnamesishard]

Absolutely fascinating and clear and concrete thinking

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

You didn't mention that the Brits used Australian Ironbark and Turpentine (both being types of rot-resistant hardwoods) as railway sleepers for the entire British Empire, especially the massive rail network of the Indian Subcontinent, but probably excluding Canada as they could use Redwood.

[@tinoyb9294]

Other types of pine and creosote would be my guess for the US and Canada. Redwood is pretty soft.

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

@@tinoyb9294 Thanks, did not know that. Creosote sounds very analogous to our turpentine tree also.

[@tinoyb9294]

@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302 lots of Eucalyptus trees were brought to California for the railroads, I believe. They are also very soft and wound up being wind breaks for orange groves. Still an iconic part of the California scenery.

[@lynndonharnell422]

​@tinoyb9294 so that's why you have the bushfires you do.

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

@@lynndonharnell422 Everywhere that Eucalypts went, they burn baby burn. Look at Spain also.

[@yourhandleshouldbe]

The axe has got to be one of the oldest and most long-lived example of a human muscle tool

[@yagogabriell]

Maybe for those of you who have never changed. But here in Brazil we are already feeling it. We already use alcohol as fuel for our vehicles. Motorcycles, cars, buses. And the future is hydrogen fuel cells powered by ethanol. Or pure hydrogen cells. Kisses. And sign this Mercosur-Europe agreement now, stop being petty.

[@Christian_Leuchtenberg]

Great video and great work !

[@MichaelWolfe1000]

Very interesting, I get like 80% of what the man is saying with his nice French accent though, but I get the gist!

[@microburn]

Wow, extremely interesting reframing of the energy transition. Beautiful. Thanks for the upload. You should consider doing “premier” / scheduled uploads so people get notifications & can wait for the episode to drop. I believe it works the same on the backend, you just set a date and KZbin should help take care of the rest!

[@justcollapse5343]

It's important to note that nuclear energy, far from relieving our predicament of extreme human ecological #overshoot, serves merely to compound it by attempting to sustain the unsustainable. #Unsustainability #JustCollapse!

[@DanBelenky]

It looks like the book is not available in english. Is there a plan to publish it in english anytime soon? If not, is there a way to get an e-book that's not DRL locked so I can put it through translator software. I respect that the author should receive a fair royalty for his work.

[@nancercize]

This was addressed at the end of the video. English in Britain in October and in Dec-Jan in US. Can’t wait!

[@CARambolagen]

Are we talking about "forests" or wood plantations??? Big difference!!! Forests are not primarily for timber production

[@garrenosborne9623]

yep its a big difference

[@willbass2869]

What? We have massive pine tree plantations in the Southern United States. World ranked tree genetics labs at universities in Mississippi & Alabama produce enhanced varieties. Thosr pine plantations provide a major share of building material, especially plywood and smaller diameter framing lumber. You need to check yourself

[@CARambolagen]

@@willbass2869 So what's your point??? Tree plantations are not (natural) "forests"! Natural forests are not harvested, or only at sustainable rate, so that their function as a natural habitat for wildlife and watercatchment is guaranteed. And also: too much timber is burned rather than processed for construction and furniture. Burning timber is NOT sustainable nor carbon neutral. Neither is construction wood if it doesn't remain in construction, or at least unburned, for at least 100 years...

[@willbass2869]

@@CARambolagen what do you think happens with CO2 in the atmosphere? What do you think plants "breathe in". If you're concerned about wood/plant product derived carbon entering the atmosphere may I suggest you find a way to eradicate termites.....yes, termites. Their consumption of wood is probably a top 3 source of atmospheric CO2. Wood products are a primary material for humans. We have to make choices, good choices. It's better to devote some acreage to managed tree plantations the same way we have managed grain fields.

[@kadmow]

- in Europe they are.... Maybe not right now, because they are clearing Canada and Brazil by proxy......

[@10mey]

Great episode! Thank you to you both 🙂

[@lechatleblanc]

u know what i love about britian is that they surprisingly never give eachother a big bragfest prestigous "blow hot air up ur skirt " INTRODUCTION.... i never knew this was uniquely american...cuz we are such a fake culture and society.... we only care about the image of things instead of the reality of people etc..... in britian they have extremely difficult academics and degrees etc.... much more difficult than americas educational requirements.... and yet they also dont feel the need to let anyone know who they are what theyve done, what degrees rhey have or what titles they have or who they know etc etc etc.... that to me is incredibly refreshing and seems so much more sophisticated and confident and respectful of their audience tbh.... theres no ego manipulations or bragging rights... either u have something to say or u dont... either people want to hear u or they dont.... plain and simple😂

[@GreezyWorks]

Beginner: Burn wood, coal, steam power. Indermediate: Burn liquid fossil fuels, gas turbines. Advanced: Fission U235 solid fuel, water cooled, steam turbines. Pro: Fission U233 from Thorium, liquid salt, gas turbines. 22nd century: Accelerator-based sub-critical fission and fusion, charged particle direct energy conversion.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

25th century: 10,000 C vapor-core reactors with Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) electricity generation.

[@YonasSeboka]

2040: Solar PV rules.

[@hughjanus3378]

@@YonasSeboka And candle power during the night.😂😂😂

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@YonasSeboka Only with the help of fossil-fuels. *_No fossil-fuels = no wind-and-solar._*

[@jenniferpatton5108]

​@@aliendroneservices6621 Only for initial production, afterwards we need to recycle.

[@sunegroennebaek5283]

Timestamps would be wonderful…

[@gevaann-voiceofgaia3715]

Question : What is the effect of modern war on our planet? I found this conversation interesting. Thank you xxx

[@wuldntuliktonoptb6861]

It’s really a great sign after transitioning and phasing 100% of energy sources we’ve used over our history. First it was biomass, but we fully phased out cow oatties and dried wood in camp fires. We were hooked on coal but luckily the world doesn’t believe in coal now so not even china wants that trash. Oil was the worst so we transitioned to Ethanal fuel and we now proudly dump all waste product from refining crude oil by transitioning back to the tradition of dumping gasoline directly into the river outback never to be seen again. We might even just transition out our entire economy and global trade since we don’t seem to need any of that crap either anymore.

[@hughjanus3378]

Ha haaah…China now has over 1000 coal fired stations powering their economy..and it is increasing. They are also moving into molten salt nuclear power as a long term energy source…but they are quite correct in using coal in the medium term as it is plentiful and can be cleaned up nicely to minimise the effect on the planet.

[@willbass2869]

You are SO wrong. Are you a Chinese propgandist? China uses more and more coal every year This excerpt from NPR, national public radio in US, March 2023: "China permitted more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week. It's the equivalent of about two new coal power plants per week"

[@_in_the_third_grade2101]

I can't find anywhere to buy the English version of the book. Amazon blocks sale "in your country" (USA) and I can't find it in stores

[@lynndonharnell422]

In Australia, a 1 billion dollar green hydrogen project has just been walked away from despite taxpayer subsidies.

[@Rawdiswar]

Because it wasn't economic?

[@a.randomjack6661]

@@Rawdiswar Lobbies

[@Rawdiswar]

@@a.randomjack6661 from?

[@davezoom2682]

Because hydrogen needs to be treated as a explosive !

[@lynndonharnell422]

@davezoom2682 hydrogen embrittlement of steel might also have something to do with as well as the staggering acreage of windmills and solar panels to power it. Also perhaps the grift (taxpayer subsidies) wasn't enough.

[@robvandenberg5987]

Fascinating episode that brought some new perspectives. Thanks Chris for your high quality work.

[@CARambolagen]

Sorry, but REAL activists for an energy transition have NOT just been "obsessed with electricity". Heat pumps are a clear sign of that. But electrification IS the key to the energy transition and sustainability. And it's not just about CO2 and the climate, but about the protection of our natural environment as such...

[@gagamba9198]

Thank you for your support of expanding mining. The green revolution needs a lot more resources dug from the ground.

[@jenniferpatton5108]

​@@gagamba9198 Yes and the ALTERNATIVE is mass poverty or buddies as usual which means extinction. The OP is correct.

[@tomizatko3138]

@@gagamba9198Google how much cobalt is needed to process and create a liter of fuel. That will open your eyes.

[@tomizatko3138]

@@gagamba9198Google how much cobalt is needed for a liter of fuel. It will open your eyes.

[@VarieTea729]

The history of the French greens disproves this. They have spent 3 decades fighting heat pumps in favour of wood pellet boilers, because the former would have made Winter baseload electricity and therefore the French nuclear fleet necessary.

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

57:00 ish. Love the idea of mid-oceanic nuclear power stations producing hydrogen to ship out to all compass points. Brilliant

[@lynndonharnell422]

There are a few technical realities to come to grips with.

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

@@lynndonharnell422 Rather. But all off-the-shelf gear, so it's logistic really.

[@protoss972]

​@@lynndonharnell422Absolutely but offshore oil rigs are a good example of what it could look like.

[@kenvrinten3450]

Yep Rube Goldberg would be proud of that briiance

[@jenniferl8714]

How is it that France can only build 3 new nuclear reactors over the next decades, but China is building “thousands of nuclear reactors “???

[@8BitNaptime]

Can't we just 3D print more oil?

[@kadmow]

- in the stock business - IPOs should generate infinite nuclear NFTs... jk...

[@raviramanathan5565]

Hearing a French man, am baffled why there is no comment on the real transition to Nuclear that France itself achieved, only country in the West to have 60-80% of its electricity generated by Nuclear! It's one thing to note electricity is only 20% of the primary energy but to completely ignore this successful transition by a Frenchman himself was surprising though. He does elaborate that atomic power/nuclear has been the exceptional route to achieve transition if ever (though longer than the Net Zero horizons projected today) But at that time of these projections, solar wasn't even a thing. PVs were not conceived to become as efficient as they are now. "Techno Fix" via solar is indeed a thing now & we can achieve many things via solar PVs including desal, H2 that were mentioned to be possible with Nuclear. Intermittency is sure an issue but it's the only viable distributed low cost tech. Not nuclear. Entire West going the France route would have been the best thing to happen to humanity (as West are massive users of energy) alas this didn't happen due to the anti nuclear lobbying.

[@mmimpact-2024]

In France M Fressoz has a slightly different approach. He stands anti-nuclear and degrowth positions supported by extreme left. M Fressoz is focusing here on his big take on wood use but his book is full of (very interresting) takes about historic monographie about resistances to fossil energy structures and forgotten debates and tries on renewable déploiements. But when it comes to predict the future, thats where even a good historian can say dumb things. He worked alone, criticizing all the other historic works so there's blind spots in his way to just prolonge the curves.

[@amosbatto3051]

Maybe you can argue that the world should have followed France's nuclear example in the 1970’s for environmental reasons, but nuclear lost because it had higher costs than fossil fuel generators and there was significant public opposition after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. Today, nuclear had grown even more expensive because of the rise in the price of cement and steel and the cost overruns to build new plants. Wind and solar are now the cheapest energy in most parts of the world, and the price of battery storage is dropping like a stone, and nuclear plants can't easily adjust their output to meet demand, so it doesn't make sense to be invest in nuclear.

[@PeterWetherill]

I am retired now because my US family made a fortune in the lumber industry in the mid 19th century! I lived in Florida from 1986 to 2001. We had one major hurricane in that time named Andrew! Net 0 is a joke. I tell my friends that still live in Florida to either sell their houses and move or for younger ones, do not buy a home and look to move because Florida will be unlivable in the next few decades or sooner. Most cars and trucks sold today use fossil fuels, and most will still be around in 20 years! I could go on and on but more money will be needed for disasters every year for the foreseeable future!

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

Great talk, thanks

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

It seems Jean is talking a lot about, in the 20th century at least, the use of wood in the sense of it being a primary energy resource, as the amount of joules held, and not as that all of this wood was burnt for energy. These two issues, of wood (ultimately ecology) conservation and CO2 emissions from carbons and hydrocarbons burning should not be conflated, as with good management the renewable nature of wood gives it the ability to be a prime consumer of CO2, thus lowering emissions.

[@willbass2869]

Wood is carbon neutral. Carbon dioxide released at burning gets recaptured by growing trees. How do you not know this?

[@jasonneugebauer5310]

Awesome video! Thanks for making this information available.

[@DavidRose-m8s]

I expect most people could halve their use of energy. The truth is that for most people it is hypothetical, and not real enough otherwise it would be the smallest lightest car, limited heating, and overall use of energy. Tomorrow the same as yesterday unless someone else can have the costs imposed on them as the allocated sacrificial victim for the sake of mass illusion. When our farm got our 75 HP tractor our diesel use quadrupled, but it made life a lot easier, and that's the nub.

[@wheel-man5319]

You prove you can do that!

[@paulsiebert4863]

David, Your 75 hp tractor replaced how much equine horsepower though?

[@wheel-man5319]

@@paulsiebert4863 And you only 'feed' it when it's working.

[@nazmiyahsayuti7050]

I m a lay person, but I never thought about this energy replacing that. I think of available n future energy as portfolio in which the composition should be produced locally according to available local material, not transporting it here and there across the ocean, and the total risk of the portfolio is the total emission allowed.

[@padraigadhastair4783]

Net zero is insanity.

[@damianabbate4423]

Please explain why you think that is?

[@padraigadhastair4783]

@@damianabbate4423 CO2 is the molecule of life. Net zero is trying to reduce what humans need to flourish. The CO2 level in our atmosphere is at 1 molecule in 2500, and we are led to believe that it is the control knob for the climate. That's ridiculous. There are so many other variables that influence climate that we do not understand. If you are truly interested, I suggest Tom Nelson's podcast, he interviews scientists from many different disciples to explain their findings. Cheers.

[@damianabbate4423]

@@padraigadhastair4783 i understand life is carbon based, and we need co2 in our and plants respiration. But without a doubt co2 is a heat trapping gas. The planet Venus is a perfect example of this. Net zero only seeks to balance the emission and capture, or better yet eliminate the burning of stuff for energy. I don't see that as crazy.

[@padraigadhastair4783]

@@damianabbate4423 There is no evidence that CO2 is the control knob for climate. That's absurd. Trying to regulate the climate is a foolish endeavor and is not a global priority only a talking point for green energy scammers. Replacing systems that work with one's that don't, i.e: windmills and Chinese made solar panels, is counter productive. I highly suggest you dig a little deeper and detach yourself from the MSM. Oh and we live on Earth not Venus. Cheers.

[@beatreuteler]

Switzerland I think has (or had) an action to provide peolpe in poorer countries with Stoves that save wood by the way of the design of the stove. I think this considering wood energy for these people still important.

[@drfahedqureshi]

41:09 I am a senior scientist working in the development of carbon capture and storage technology with top industries. For consultation in carbon-tech projects, carbon trading, carbon credits, carbon offsets, data-based tech reports, and research-based media content, please feel free to reach out.

[@thumper8684]

Historiography seems like such a terrible tool to analyze this. The possibilities are contingent on previously under-explored physical constraints. Motivations are shifting in a way that is unprecedented.

[@moumouzel]

a common belief the reoccurs in almost all historical periods

[@thumper8684]

@@moumouzel Are you saying that people in the bronze age shared my concerns over the inadequacy of historiography to deal with the complex interactions of society and technology to address the climate crisis that would came to light thousands of years after they were born? I would have had some concerns with methodology at the time since history as an analytic discipline was in its infancy. I doubt it would have occurred to me to judge its applicability to events so far ahead of my own time.

[@nicolasallen8072]

We don't want an energy transition. We want an energy addition. Just add 4th gen nuclear and we can grow our way out of the debt trap.

[@Bushtuckerman71]

The energy Revolution startet with Wind Power in the Netherlands, they pumped away water and there land was 60% bigger, they Bild ships quicker with wind power than British, Portuguese, Spain and French counterparts and started to biggest trade empire in the world.

[@chrisconklin2981]

MORE OR LESS? The confusion here is caused by a lack of constraint. Like a constraint on adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Yes, over time energy utilization added new sources. It was addition not replacement. Now to some, energy utopia is Nuclear. Not mentioned is the need for constraint or some would say: Sustainability.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

Use nuclear heat and high temperature hydrogen to hydrogenate sewage sludge, corn cobs, sawdust, rice hulls, garbage, etc. Nuclear hydrogen and heat for refining would extend oil and liquefied coal supplies by 27% and reduce carbon intensity by the same amount.

[@willbass2869]

Crazy.....you're going to spend millions of barrels of diesel carrying lightweight corn cobs & sawdust from widely dispersed rural grain elevators and sawmills just to be nuked. God forbid you even try rice hulls. Have you ever seen a pile of rice hulls???? They are light as a feather. You would fill a trailer full with many cubic yards of rice hulls and it would weigh a couple of tons....tops. Just stop with the "Buck Rogers" science fiction silliness.

[@BrinJay-s4v]

The basic problem is many do not understand physics. We do not make or destroy energy. Energy just is, and all we do is convert from one sort into another. Basic energy is free if we sun bath, all conversion is expensive and inefficient.

[@reinhardtburger7108]

No, most don't understand thermodynamics and especially entropy.

[@rapauli]

"they create and sell procrastination"

[@aliendroneservices6621]

39:27 39:36 *_"Jojoba oil_* was originally farmed and promoted to replace the hunting of sperm whales for their oil." (Susan M. Parker) "After sperm whale oil was banned in the early 1970s, the United States sought to replenish its reserves with eco-friendly oil from *_jojoba seeds_* (SN: 5/17/75, p. 335). *_Jojoba oil’s_* chemical structure is nearly identical to that of sperm whale oil, and the shrub is native to some North American desert ecosystems, making the plant an appealing replacement. Today, *_jojoba shrubs_* are cultivated around the world on almost every continent. *_Jojoba oil_* is used in hundreds of products, including cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, adhesives and lubricants. Meanwhile, sperm whale populations have started to recover under international anti-whaling agreements (SN: 2/27/21, p. 4)." (sciencenews)

[@bradleystokes-bennett2688]

Great discussion thank you. Looking forward to the book

[@Larimerst]

While I certainly agree with the premise that our energy system is additive, and that there will likely be no energy "transition" that ceases the use of fossil fuel energy, conflating the overall consumption of a resource with it's use as an energy source seems a bit impertinent. Expanding use of timber resources (for whatever uses) may well contribute to ecological overshoot, but is not the same as burning the resource as fuel to extract and utilize energy.

[@cliveclerkenville2637]

Hugely interesting. Bravo.

[@everything777]

the UK, where I live. We’ve reduced coal’s contribution to electricity from 40% in 2012 to just over 1% in 2023, and the last coal-fired power station was switched off in September 2024. We don’t burn fires in our homes anymore, except for aesthetics like a log burner. This clearly shows that older energy sources can be phased out and replaced. The claim about rare earth metals is overblown. Most wind turbines don’t even use them, and solar panels are primarily made of silicon. If we set up proper recycling systems, we can reduce the environmental impact even further. And let’s be honest-any impact from renewables is still nowhere near as bad as the devastation caused by burning coal. Intermittency is definitely an issue, but there are solutions. Smart grids, battery storage, pumped hydro like Coire Glas in Scotland (set to power 3 million homes in five minutes), demand-side management, and baseload nuclear are all part of the mix. Yes, it’s tricky, but it’s not unworkable. As for the costs and infrastructure challenges, let’s put this in perspective: the costs of doing nothing-extreme weather, climate-related economic disruptions, and societal collapse-are far higher. Building renewable infrastructure is the smart, long-term investment. Energy density and land use might be valid concerns, but offshore wind shows how to address them. In 2023, wind overtook gas to become the UK’s largest energy source, providing 32% of our electricity. Offshore wind uses no land at all. And while renewables might take up more space overall, what’s the alternative? Stick with fossil fuels and let climate change run rampant?

[@albin4323]

You got one of the highest electricity prices thanks to the renewables thought, is it worth it really just to pretend you actually "save the climate"?

[@andrewdewit4711]

Excellent! Bought the book.

[@GenaMatogen]

Like before watching...

[@FrankHamersley]

Hmmm ... historically interesting but not really worth a zac in respect of the future! Most time is spent splitting hairs about carbon energy sources with no insights regarding class differences of energy sources, industrial inertia or Jevons Paradox. Also sprinkled with several glib errors (coal is cheaper than solar). Nothing to see here!

[@aliendroneservices6621]

"Also sprinkled with several glib errors *_(coal is cheaper than solar)."_* Wind and solar are *_infinitely-expensive,_* on a sustained basis.

[@kadmow]

@@aliendroneservices6621 - the Renewables "cycle" forecasters forget about replacement (the cycle, not a one-and-done) also takes more virgin energy - more resources needed (not saying renewables can't leverage the available "raw energy" resources, indeed we need all we can get (populations aren't really falling any time soon)..

[@amosbatto3051]

Solar is now cheaper than coal in most of the world, which is why 47% of new global electricity generation was solar in h1 of 2024, whereas coal generation is falling.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@amosbatto3051 "Solar is now cheaper than coal in most of the world..." ...Comparing against *_which_* pure-solar-powered countries? "... such is why 47% of new global electricity *_generation..."_* Generation is not capacity. Capacity is not generation.

[@Frederer59]

More C02, the better. CO2 is plant food. More CO2, more trees.

[@RhB-fan51]

@@basilmagnanimous7011 Congrats. You have just failed middle school science! I figures.

[@RhB-fan51]

@@basilmagnanimous7011 How come? Well, you have not even mastered proper grammar and spelling skills during your middle school years. Just look at your comment, which is a mess. What is even worse, you are now trying to blame your semi-literacy on your favourite MAGA/GOP defined racist hate target group. Hey, before you embarrass yourself even more by posting some alt-right word salad, try to get a decent education.

[@JoeBloe-ft6eb]

Are you serious??????

[@jeffstubbins2959]

U R Stupid

[@alexandrabryden6143]

It wasn't Britain that created the first renewable energy transition. It was Scotland and Scottish Government. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 👍

[@missphilosophie]

Which are part of Britain.

[@alexandrabryden6143]

@@missphilosophie fo

[@rower41]

It is extremely important that whenever you consider scaling a technology, especially a key sector like energy or food production, to the entire world, that the new form has more positive effects/impacts than negative. This is not at all clear, particularly when you look at the entire life cycle costs (both monetary and environmental), of "renewable" energy sources particularly wind and solar. If the various progressive regimes around the world continue their head-long plunge into these energy types, we will see a huge negative impact on the environment that will make that of fossil fuels look like nothing. The land use, mining for the various materials needed, and especially the disposal of millions of depleted solar panels and worn out wind turbines are going to be a huge problem for future generations. Cheap, repeatable, safe nuclear is the clear answer.

[@eatcochayuyo]

For the amount you call other people naive and accuse them of not thinking deeply about problems, you really have a lot of non sequiturs in your history lesson.

[@JoeBloe-ft6eb]

We had more than enough carbon capture machines--they’re called trees. We cut them down

[@aaronlarsen7447]

When experts are wrong, their expertise becomes questionable. I know that electric cars are heavier, and it requires more energy to move them.

[@philfluther2713]

Man has outrun the gifts of Nature.

[@anthonymorris5084]

Man has tamed the dangers of nature.

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

1:04:40 US can adapt to 3 Deg. C CC/GW, lol AMOC shutdown SLR Forest fires Drought Wetbulb temp. Wild wild wild weather. Lol, lol, lol, lol

[@CARambolagen]

This is an interesting talk but not without serious faults. Just because stupid political decisions are made doesn't mean they HAVE to be made. Burning wood for Energy should be outlawed! No-one proposing carbon neutrality etc suggests that wood should be used for energy production. Greenpeace has been lobbying against wood for energy for a long time now. So at least THOSE experts didn't "buy the story"! - Similar with "biomass" unless it comes from excrement or as a by-product of food production.

[@VarieTea729]

The history of the French greens disproves this. They have spent 3 decades fighting heat pumps in favour of wood pellet boilers, because the former would have made winter baseload electricity and therefore the French nuclear fleet necessary.

[@CARambolagen]

@@VarieTea729 30% of the German timber-harvest is burned for heat and electricity and huge amounts of timber are imported for the pellet pipe dream which incidently was also debunked by 100s of scientistst in an open letter to the EU and UN . There is nothing sustainable about burning wood...

[@jarrowmarrow]

So I have dead trees next to my house heating, wood stove. yet I should instead buy electricity from my local swindling utility company. A profit driven out fit that charges me the second highest rates in all the united states to heat my house? if you want to send me the money to pay them, ill do it.

[@CARambolagen]

@@jarrowmarrow Get solar and become independent from the grid...

[@tophersonX]

according to statista, world consumption of black liquor is about 400 twh, while solar wnergy generated in europe is about 240 twh. So ulikely europe consumes more b.l.

[@alfredadrianjr.4702]

The situation is hopeless at this point. Limits to Growth suggested many decades ago 3 billion might be sustainable w/ modest life styles indefinitely. We have exceeded all possibility of reclaiming a sustainable future for our children and the tipping points will trip us into a hellscape of crop failures, drought, and fishery collapses. Only reasonable question at this point is to decide what form of civilizational collapse you prefer: MAD MAX TOTAL CHAOS or something like ELYSIUM or Blade Runner 2049. All future scenarios are bad at this point.

[@rjbiker66]

So now we burn forests in power stations.

[@BrinJay-s4v]

Which is a bit silly as energy density id ignored. Fission is our only hope to survive regressing perhaps a thousand years with stop oil.

[@JoeBloe-ft6eb]

Of course!!! We humans will continue to devour the planet’s resources until they’re all used up

[@nkristianschmidt]

An ideological sect of monopoly, financing itself by force, took over from competing engineers financing themselves by offers, and we got the West's version of the Juche Economy.

[@Geo123-q2s]

Move close to work. Improve personal organization.

[@CARambolagen]

Book in German?

[@Petriiik]

Mein Kampf

[@mecdrum7]

Electric cars use 10% of power there no debate

[@brendancarr5946]

Last time I was this early, Indian Point was still online. Great premise, looking forward to listening to this at the gym.

[@woodennecktie]

at about 07:00 the french "talking head" lost me complete by stating digging coal cost enormous amounts of wood .. this is only because wood is cheaper than any other support and has NO bearing to the production of carbon fuel. allors , mercy de votre supplement a une discussion serieuze grave ... et bonjour !

[@hansverbeek822]

1:05:20 Talking about adaptation to climate change and GMO's in agriculture in 1976? You lost me there. I was alive in 1976 and even thinking about nobody was thinking about GMO's back then... and you try to tell me that GMO's were very fashionable at that time

[@tobyw9573]

CO2's increase can be looked at like Gaia's reaction to growing population. The Sahel has been greening well.

[@mikef5693]

Fantastic analysis! I work in the White H2 industry and am constantly having to point out that the believers have a fundamental dissonance between their dreams and good intentions and the hard practicalities which make it impossible in the timeframes they talk about!! Carbon neutral by 2030? No, 2050 no as well. If you’re lucky maybe it could be 2075 but the extremists make it impossible!

[@tinoyb9294]

8 billion humans on the planet. Tilting at windmills on this subject. Nothing but cows and grass and people left.