The Hidden Flaw in the $2T Energy Transition Plan | Mark Mills

[@MauldinEconomicsYouTube]

Sign up for my free newsletter here - www.mauldineconomics.com/go/JM563J/YTB

[@jtjones4081]

I remember watching a video Mark made claiming battery weight to power storage and dispersion ratio was prohibitive for EVs to Ever penetrate the marketplace. 600 oil & gas companies went bankrupt between 2015-2021, wiping out $321 Billion in debt. (Haynes Boone Bankruptcy Monitor) Now that those sink costs have been removed from the balance sheets, things are looking up. 😊 Remember when everyone lost their minds because Solyndra lost 1 six hundredth of that? 😊 All and all, in spite of those pesky details, I agree with Mark.

[@nicksanta]

Hello! I live in a rural area in Colorado. Currently due to power being diverted to cities like Denver and Colorado Springs, we experience brown outs/black outs at higher electricity draws. It is plain our distribution system and generation system needs to be upgraded. Regards

[@prebenpetersen5982]

Green new deal. Why don’t you enjoy it??? People have apparantly voted to get poor.

[@philhawkins3593]

Great. Nice, Verbally, distinctive and understandable, VERY.

[@canadiannuclearman]

My favorite analist was Vaslave Smill for many years. Now he is serpased by Mark Mills

[@roberthumphreys7977]

One caveat, Mark. Europe is teaching the effect of energy policies. It is unclear whether or not we have been taught. You can lead a people to knowledge, but you can't make them learn.

[@kitemanmusic]

Thanks very much for a brilliant interview, full of facts and information.

[@aneesuddinmian9768]

Great interview. Lots of things to learn from like manufacturing silicon uses 3 times or 10 times more energy than manufacturing steel and AI data centres use electricity that is equivalent to an electricity use of a whole city. That there’s no energy transition, these are bold claims. There are forecasts that oil is going to peak in the near future and then it will start to decline and at the same time the renewable energy production is going to pick up compensating the oil decline and also Natural gas is the transition Energy source. These forecasts keep changing and keep going forward and forward but ultimately these forecasts will be realised and there will be a transition from oil to gas and then to other sources of energy. Let’s see how this plays out in the future.

[@prebenpetersen5982]

It is logic, that when you don’t use less, but more fossils, there is no transistion. Green energy is not an investment. It is consumption. Making us all poorer to no benefit at all

[@brianaustin685]

Fantastic interview!

[@JohnTaylor-ts8wk]

I hope Mark has some voice in the coming administration. It’s been so rare to see anyone with engineering expertise who is empowered to influence any political or regulatory decisions, which unfortunately includes the design of our power grids and transportation networks as well as much of heavy industry.

[@kitemanmusic]

Could you use the waste heat from data centres to heat local housing?

[@canadiannuclearman]

Yes the 3 mile island reactor one is coming back on line. Microsoft made a great decision.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

The speaker is also forgetting that the gas turbines we have are one of the most advanced tech products very few companies/places can make them and have decades of R&D solar panels and other renewable technologies are babies in comparison. In a few decades solar panels ale likely to reach 60% efficiency with lower manufacturing costs.

[@actualfacts1055]

We didn't do silly things, the Democrats did.

[@actualfacts1055]

Oil, coal and gas are free, good point.

[@geraldelwood9660]

I assume you are being sarcastic. BTW; just how many of our tax dollars do go to subsidise the oil the companies. And how many more tax dollars have to be spent to clear up the increasingly devastating effects of more and more extremes in our climate.

[@actualfacts1055]

​​@@geraldelwood9660 A lot less than what the Government collects in taxes from oil. Modern civilization was created by oil, coal and gas including plastics and steel and will continue to be.

[@jefferyjeffery1707]

One MAJOR factor they leave out...is oil!! It's a finite resource. Where in the 1960's, 70s, 80s and 90's. The oil companies absolutely laughed at...that they would ever be ising oil shale and oil sands. To produce oil. Then the US basically ran out, of oil. And the US oil production dropped...and became a net oil importer. Sooo....now...the US was forced to use oil shales and sands.. However....that will run out too!!

[@christianhanley57]

Not according to Harold Hamm (in his book Game Changer).

[@redblacktichy7713]

Excatly

[@jefferyjeffery1707]

@christianhanley57 Well yeah...as Hamm realized we're running out of conventional oil fields...the easy stuff to get. And went off to develop shale fracking.

[@chrisconklin2981]

@@christianhanley57 Haven't read his book. The real issue is putting CO2 into the atmosphere. As a species humans are not immured to extinction.

[@wheel-man5319]

If the oil companies believed that, they would be busy building nuclear.

[@actualfacts1055]

Experts should make the decisions, not politicians.

[@graemetunbridge1738]

'more expensive electricity' - really - my house (rooftop solar + battery) makes electricity cheaper than the wholesale price.

[@corradoalamanni179]

At a grid level as a producer it is the cheapest go for it!

[@gregorymalchuk272]

Then disconnect from the grid. Otherwise you are just pushing your externalities off onto the grid and concentration generation.

[@HuFlungDung2]

Can you also build your next set of solar panels in your house, using your "free power"? Can you build your new battery bank to replace the old one using your "free power"? Didn't think so. You're not as independent as you imagine.

[@wheel-man5319]

Until your rooftop solar isn't working. Then the government still makes your neighbors share the cost of maintaining a reliable backup generator.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

​@@wheel-man5319this is like claiming I'm abusing regular Walmart shoppers if I pop in irregularity.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

The analogy with the 2nd parallel grid and the 2nd car is misleading. You only need a 2nd car per neighbourhood or whatever statistically cars don’t start in morning. With the added bonus that with electricity you can zip energy from one place to other in a matter of minutes.

[@pauleohl]

The whole second car for redundancy argument is a red herring. Is Mark unaware of taxi, Eber and Lyft, not to mention 911 for a true emergency?

[@HuFlungDung2]

That damn AI nonsense will be the death of all of us. Thanks for nothing. Garbage in, garbage out. Ever wonder how the ancients could be so stupid as to carve or cast an idol with their own hands, and then worship the thing like a god? Welcome to the 21st century version: Idols II

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

Who is sponsoring this think tank is not stated neither here on on its website.

[@Lovin_It]

Could one make the following argument plausible? Centralized government decisions by politicians aren't in and of themselves inherently flawed, you can look at some of China's decisions, and when contrasted with the USA, just find a way to get better educated politicians; not easy, and this discussion about the misunderstanding of climate change is relevant. Some variation of civil service examinations; some vast cultural change; you remember at one time, the Chinese admired what the West achieved, so they studied it intensely to borrow the best ideas; can't the West do the same when necessary?

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

Who is sponsoring this think tank is not stated neither here nor on its website.

[@actualfacts1055]

This is too complicated for the average person to comprehend.

[@chrisconklin2981]

Yes, CO2 is not a pollutant and yes it is great for growing plants in a greenhouse. However the issue is digging up hydrocarbons that have been buried for a billion years and adding them to our atmosphere. We have started an experiment. There are many who just ignore the risks or there are those who wish us not to consider the risks.

[@HuFlungDung2]

You overlook the fact that ocean life is continuously sinking carbon into carbonates: limestone and shells. Therefore, liberating carbon is essential to continuous life on this planet, if that is God's plan for man, which it isn't. Change will come.

[@wheel-man5319]

Where did those buried hydrocarbons come from? Did GOD just put them there?

[@chrisconklin2981]

@@HuFlungDung2 The Carbon Cycle adds and removes carbon from the atmosphere. Human burning of fossil fuels have increase atmospheric carbon levels. This results in increased acid levels of rain, resulting in increased sea water acidity. The normal removal of sea water carbon has not stopped increasing sea water acid levels. Living cell metabolism is independent of normal environmental carbon levels.

[@chrisconklin2981]

@@wheel-man5319 In geologic deep-time, abundant layers of decaying plant and animal life were "pressure cooked" by normal geologic processes.

[@kenvrinten3450]

At a rate at least 10,000 times faster than it has ever happened in geological history

[@kaya051285]

On a related matter, the trend seems like most of the world is going towards only 1 child per women. Some countries eg south Korea are already below 1 child per women If globally that trend was to persist for 150 years the human population would fall by 97%..... From a peak of 10B down to ~300M If it continues for 300 years which is only 10 generations we would fall to less than 10M humans I don't think that's a good thing And hopefully it doesn't happen But it puts into perspective how little fossil fuels or their impact matters when we are willingly as a species choosing relatively rapid extinction

[@danielking2944]

Demography collapse is already a serious problem in China and US as well. South Korea is in deep trouble because of their low birth rate. Population reduction will always be difficult to do quickly unless you do it at the top. Trouble is,old farts like me are in charge and we ain’t ready to go. US is at 1.7 births per woman while maintenance rate is 2.1 ,which puts the 45-60 year old population in danger of having to work till they die. They won’t have money because it’s all going to the 1% super rich, but it wouldn’t help if they did . The labor pool will be so shallow no one will there to ease them into the graveyard with dignity. The present economic system is predicated on constant growth which never tolerates deflation well.

[@samuelwilliams7331]

Solar and wind are the cheapest form of energy production and it isn't close. Lazard has been tracking LCOE for the last 15 years if you want to check. There is reason why coal plants are closing. They are too expensive to run. China is moving towards renewables to have even cheaper energy. China has already deployed enough renewables to cover its population's energy use and isn't slowing down on their attempt to cover their manufacturing energy use.

[@HuFlungDung2]

Cheapness is relative. If your "cheap" solar or wind farm is not functional for half the time, then to the systems depending on constant power, that system failure is 100% expensive.

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@HuFlungDung2Solar and wind are effectively infinitely expensive.

[@samuelwilliams7331]

@@HuFlungDung2 Lazard already details this out with storage. Wind also picks up when solar declines. It is going to hard to beat the technology where the fuel is free, maintenance is minimal, and almost no externalities outside being located in environmentally sensitive area which has never stopped oil exploration.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

Solar does have the LCOE, and I tend to agree solar will eventually dominate energy production (although wind I think will ne a deqd industry by 2050, but is useful now). And, while I agree China is going full steam toward rebewables and electrification, but that steam is still largely coal fired. And thats because while coal has a higher LCOE, the upfront cost is lower since Solar is all upfront. For budget strapped nations wothout string credit ratings, and in modern high interest rates, and where poor electrical infrastructure is impeding growth, being able to pay for 1GW of coal upfront and worry about payong for fuel as the economy grows, vs only affording 500 MW of solar. And thats more true because of the demands of intermittentcy and need for storage.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

​@@HuFlungDung2its important to look at intermittency as a regional issue. Some areas reliability are cloudless for months on end, thats very easy to plan around. I also hold a high hope for closed loop geothermal as being an excellent dispatchable reserve because it has higher efficiency in the winter and can peak in the evening by super heating water during the day. But I expect by 2030 just about every large Solar farm with have 2 hours of battery storage to push service into the 7-9 period when demand is highest and sun is down, as well as provide frequency regulation. Because the short time frame allows multiple purchases and sales a day these have the highest return on investment. I also expect overnight storage to be increasingly common, either using an alternative battery chemistry or compressed air, with commerical scale installation widespread but still not the norm. And these will allow solar to act far more reliably.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

Saudi Arabia is making strides for 50% renewable energy by 2030 so it simply isn’t true what is said about marginal barrel.

[@peterkramer288]

I dont think there’s anyone with a better understanding than Mark.

[@mankitwong4165]

chip making is among the most automated and capital intensive kind of industry, it doesn't quite work out in america. when you all cry bringing the jobs back, you just don't remember the work ethics required to run an efficient factory.

[@graemetunbridge1738]

'oil is free' - really ? - increasingly expensive to extract, and has a massive external cost when it is burnt and vented to the atmosphere.

[@HuFlungDung2]

Do we have to manufacture the oil and put it into the ground first so we can take it out? No, it fundamentally EXISTS first, which is the context of "free" to mankind. The entire earth is "free" to us. It fundamentally is God's property. We had no say in the creation.

[@prebenpetersen5982]

Then turn down your heat in your home and enjoy the lower external costs.

[@mikebetts2046]

You may have not understood his point on those being free. He meant that WE did not manufacture them. We did not expend and labor or other effort to make the oil, the coal, the wind, etc. Whether or not there is a secondary cost to using them is an entirely different matter.

[@graemetunbridge1738]

@@mikebetts2046 sure

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

@@mikebetts2046it is not a different matter that what big oil tried to conceal for decades

[@krslavin]

Solar renewable energy is not expensive - in fact it is now very cheap and fast to install. It does require land (maybe farmland as agrivoltaics) and possibly some grid support. It may also need batteries, which are also getting cheaper, and again with fast installation. The existing grid can be upgraded by a factor of two with better power-line technology. This is all doable. Super-power (i.e. solar overcapacity in Summer in order to supply adequate power for Winter) is also a way forward. We have the land area to do this! At 26:50 what is this "you don't know when it's going to start" nonsense? It has batteries, so as long as you can charge it when there is solar/sun, I don't see the problem. California and Texas are now substantially running on solar.

[@reo52]

Here in the US, we have major trade restrictions on solar panels which causes the cost of solar panels to be higher than the world price level. We need to start voting out of office those pushing green protectionism.

[@HuFlungDung2]

Batteries are a dead end technology. No matter how good they get, they'll never last long enough. The ongoing replacement of huge battery banks ( that like to burn like unstoppable hellfire) is a boat anchor around the neck of the solar/wind fanatics. Chemical energy will always be better storage. In a cyclical world, plants already are renewable energy. It's US, using too much energy in wasteful ways, that can't be satisfied with renewable biomass.

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@HuFlungDung2half thumb. Listen again.

[@jiminycricket9877]

Storage. Look into the cost/practicality of long term electrical storage of the scale required. That’s if you don’t believe the numbers quoted here. Clue - with current, or even mid term future tech, it’s not going to happen.

[@jsore]

The cost of solar has roughly doubled since 2020. This has been verified by both the IEA and the EIA.

[@edouarddebruyne9548]

"The higher the penetration of renewables, the jogh the electricity cost " can you please show me your source of info for this?

[@HuFlungDung2]

Power companies don't just buy a generator and plop it onto the grid. They need to guarantee production with backup. The grid only seems forgiving of load balancing, but technically it requires real physical hardware, not good wishes, to run one.

[@wheel-man5319]

Germany...

[@kenvrinten3450]

California, Germany, Denmark The renewables people say renewables are so cheap, but they only look at the solar cells built in China based on KW installed power ..which is less than a small percentage of the total installed cost

[@actualfacts1055]

Europe reduced their emissions by increasing emissions in orher countries.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

We are using less coal

[@kaya051285]

Somehow the conversation turnd from less coal and gas to net zero or a transisition The world won't go fossil fuel free this century Instead solar and wind will be like hydro. The areas that have good hydropower resources will deploy it because it'll be cheap in those locations Same for solar and wind Some locations have great solar or wind, and in those locations, they will and should be used And as prices for solar and wind drop more lovatoons will use them Its quite likely solar and wind might take 50% of global electricity production but not 100%

[@MauldinEconomicsYouTube]

Well said!

[@samblum153]

if there is no real energy transition, ie oil is king, then to co2 emission from the planet is an incredible burden on the planet, in terms of a 5000 year payout of overheated planet due to any carbon burned now. consider. oil gas and autos are subsidized also, so one should not talk about unsubsidized evs, but equal subsidized or argue to remove all subsidies if importing coal(and slave) made solar sells from china, there should be a tariff proportionals to the carbon footprint of those units. Solar will be in the future should be more and more tied to local storage. As battery chemistry improves the impact of storage production lifecycle net costs) should get better, and this will reduce net copper used to move energy around, as go a great way to reducing peaker plants. the low hanging fruit of batter storage is the "day/night storage" the summer/winter storage is harder. One should constantly balance the health care & environmental cost of whatever is burned. raw co2 is bad, and so is the other pollution associated with diesel and small gas engines. One most balance national economic gains with long term environmental costs. A tariff on coal made solar cells would for example go to balance those considerations. Environmental remediation has to get real. most of it is phoney, Bury trees if you can. Make peat.

[@redblacktichy7713]

Mills is totally wrong regarding the oil. Oil prices are low artificially

[@HuFlungDung2]

Baloney. Oil is cheaper than bottled water but for the taxes imposed on it. That's how efficiently it is produced, refined, hauled and pumped. It exists in the ground at zero cost. Extraction is 100% of the cost.

[@kenvrinten3450]

How could you possibly say thst?

[@danielking2944]

No question who that guy works for. Tax cuts,regulations ( environmental,safety,labor rights) protecting stranded assets in fossil fuel companies is what he is trying to promote. This video shouldn’t be more than five minutes if he just stated clearly what he wants.

[@margaretarmstrong2445]

I have the misfortune of living in an area designated specifically for the transition. The affect on the communities, the environment and the wildlife is devastating. You obviously have no concept of the scale of this infrastructure or the damage that it does. An because it is among the lowest energy density of all power produced you need many, many times more of this infrastructure to produce energy on any scale. The recycling issues have not been resolved and much of the infrastructure is simply being buried in landfill. The short life of this power source is already causing serious problems in regard to where it ends up. You should do some research. You need far more resources to go down this track than for any other form of energy production.

[@lgolsen]

The amount of unfounded claims in this video regarding ‘clean’ energy from non-renewables is staggering. Kind of wish is was a paper-printed book instead of a KZbin video, then we could burn it in our coal-power plants 😉 Seriously: CO2 emissions ARE damaging and NEEDS to be regulated - same as emissions of quick silver and DDT….

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Avg mileage 10,000 and 8,760 hours per year. One hour drive and 23hrs parked daily is normal. EV battery is oversized for parking 23hrs daily. EV battery is massive free electricity storage daily. Nuclear electricity economics is 247 cashflow 365. Cash flow from demand, customers demand. Customers maximising their own individual energy and EVs big batteries free storage will break nuclear economics. The existing grid can shuffle electricity to an area of empty batteries. Maximise grid currents 247 with batteries handling local peak demands. EV battery are oversized for normal 23hrs daily parking and busting to be used to maximise their value to the owners. Billion dollar new nuclear that takes many decades to pay off, is more expensive than EV battery or future battery technologies. EV battery is free storage today. 😮😊😊

[@fosterbbo]

Did you forget about climate change caused by the cheap energy you keep talking about? Is that truly cheap energy if such huge price externalities are overlooked?

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Rooftop PV has solved the electricity transmission problem. EV Battery Vehicles parked 23hrs every day will solve the electricity storage problem. EV Batteries are oversized for 23hrs parking. EV Batteries topped up daily, ezi pezi. Fusion solar energy on rooftop PV has solved the generation problem. 4hrs of oversized rooftop PV can supply 24hrs of below rooftop electricity demand and all imported petroleum demand. And feedin to grid an equal amount of electricity. Buildings and vehicles are the beginning of removing 74% of grid demand and all of petroleum import demand. CO2 reduction on steroids. Nuclear 247 cashflow economics is a disaster with warming latitudes and reducing demand. Grid valued at $TRILLIONS cashflow demand is $110BILLON in Australia. Grid needs to keep customers happy and connected and supply heavy industrial users moving away from fossil fuels.

[@rafechampion9101]

Testing.

[@actualfacts1055]

Trump is the answer.

[@danieloconnor548]

The host was just acceptable since he spoke for a few minutes too long.

[@roberthumphreys7977]

As Elon says, physics is the rules. Everything else is just recommendations.

[@kenvrinten3450]

He ( Elon) blabs bull sh1t sometimes

[@blueberry-ri7eb]

What are his credentials?

[@hiawr]

He’s carrying water for the oil industry, he doesn’t need credentials.

[@chrisconklin2981]

@@hiawr A hired gun.

[@kenvrinten3450]

​@@hiawrversus your gender studies degree?

[@kenvrinten3450]

Know how to use Google?

[@markusschellenberg4684]

If the need of todays economy comes before the basic needs of the future generations for food and shelter, we are all doomed. We MUST reduce our energy consumption. Before consuming, humans must eat, breathe and not drown!

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

We most certainly do not have to reduce our energy consumption. Solar will produce energy far in surplus of our current needs.

[@geraldelwood9660]

An interesting balanced discussion until you got on the subject of the climate. It's funny how it's always the rich old men who think resistance is futile and we should just keep burning. But then, when the sh*t hits the fan, they can always up sticks and move to location that still has a favourable climate, while the workers who generated the wealth they enjoy will be bearing the consequences. While your argument that we should go hell for leather to generate the cash to fund the technology to mitigate the effects of climate change might seem logical; I believe a certain King Canute tried the same thing and he got very wet feet. Society transitioned into an oil based economy only a few generations ago , so surely it must be possible to transition out again. The question is - do we go backwards to old tech, or forwards to new tech.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

Idk. Look at the paradox of China; world's largest growing coal fleet and fastest renewable grow out. And I expect they will be cutting coal consumption greatly over to 2030, and coal plants converted to nuclear in the 2030s. The planned approach driven by cheap energy in search of cheap energy has its advantages.

[@jorgevieiro5774]

This guy does not make any sense... It costs money to make a refinery, or a gas/coal plant and Hydrocarbons cost money to extract and are burned once and they are gone, you have to keep paying for more every time (on-going fuel cost). Yes, it is true you have to use materials and energy to make solar panels and wind mills BUT the fuel is FREE AND you use them for 25-30 years, so you easily cover the cost of making them. New solar in particular is so cheap (thanks to China) that it is cheaper to generate electricity through solar than the fuel gas cost to run an existing gas plant (let alone build a new one).

[@HuFlungDung2]

Listen to it again. He makes perfect sense.

[@davidyoung9716]

You need the gas plant anyway for when your renewables don't work. And renewables farms are typically remote from the populations and industries they serve, so you need a larger grid as well

[@kenvrinten3450]

​@@HuFlungDung2he was a sleep, or wrote him off as an " oil shill" and went straight to the comment section.

[@peterau108]

This expert sound good, but there are much more problems America has to fix before manufacturing is coming back to America. Decades of outsourcing America has lost all the skilled labor that can do the jobs, also America power companies has to build a lot more capacity which the AI revolution is going to use much of the energy capabilities where are the additional power come from? America workers has been converted from manufacturing economy to services economy, no employees want to do hard manufacturing job just look at Boeing and intel. America doesn’t produce enough stem graduates and most America companies is in financial engineering instead. He sound good but physically incapable to do. This guy start to lose it in the end, no knowing exactly what he is talking about! All the stuff he is saying is not achievable trying to bring all these manufacturing back plus all the data center and all the new power plants? He is 😴 😢😢😢😢😢

[@williampisano7573]

Lol 😂 2 billion for electric cars is nothing 💰 we spent 20 billion on drill baby drill last year and for the last 40 years. Ya oil companies get welfare don’t you want you electric bill payed for like oil companies do. Don’t you not want to not pay 💰 taxes like oil companies.

[@LD2022-g7t]

You missed a few zero's. 2 Trillion... Then there is the ongoing extra cost of all the extra transmission and power storage requirements for wind/solar plus a life cycle that is a half to a third of nuclear or coal.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

​@@LD2022-g7tDon't forget the 3 trillion in costs from the up and coming EPA car and truck regulations. This is insane. It is our own Great Leap Forward.

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@gregorymalchuk272The long march to world wide communism.

[@kenvrinten3450]

Misinformation.Go back to school and take an economics 101 course and learn the definition of subsidy. Oil consumption and production is penalized not subsidized. Producers, refiners, transmitters pay royalties and taxes on production. Consumers pay massive taxes on consumpton of oil products.

[@tedratcliffe2498]

I agree we can't transition off fossil fuels and maintain our standard of living. I find his dismissal of climate science troubling not because he is wrong but because he is right, and we are going to watch our world collapse. It's going to be very, very bad.

[@HuFlungDung2]

Maybe change is hard to contemplate and we do what is within our power to soften the blow, but if we just SLOW DOWN our frantic consumerism, I can see the benefits. We're "rich" in western terms because energy increases our leverage to get things done faster. So we can accumulate more in less time than before, we look rich. But spiritually, we're poor, blind and naked.

[@wheel-man5319]

Have you reduced your energy usage?

[@kaya051285]

The one time efficency gains arent over. Surr for LED ligjt bulbs probably not going to see much inprovement there But there are very big energy hogs which will be improved For example gas furnaces or joul heaters being repalced by heat pumps. Thats a huge energy efficiency improvement still to be done Plus building energy efficiency gains a lot of headroom there too Wuite likely there is another 20-40 years of energy efficiency gains. Not in light bulbs kr refrigerators but in other things

[@HuFlungDung2]

Heat pumps are still energy hogs. The laws of thermodynamics says you can't pump anything without using more energy and that liberates heat. The efficiency is great if you're pumping heat from a hot place to a cold place. But nobody talks about how wonderful their deep freezer is at heating their home, do they? The heat released by the freezer is All the heat that was in the contents PLUS the heat from the compressor to do the work. There's nothing efficient about the process, it cost energy.

[@MauldinEconomicsYouTube]

Converting from gas or oil furnaces to heat pumps is, indeed, more efficient, but you are increasing the need for electricity, which puts more pressure on the grid. I see this in my home state. There was a big push for people to convert to heat pumps, and thousands did. My state has used more electricity YTD than ever, and electric bills are up considerably. I'm all for increasing efficiency and alternative forms of electricity production. The issue is there is not a good plan to get us from where we are today, to where we want to be. Thank you for your comment - I do appreciate it. -Ed

[@kaya051285]

@@MauldinEconomicsKZbin Almost all countries are a mix of heating sources So while an individual home that switched from say Oil or Natural Gas to a heat pump will see their electric consumption increase. Their next door neighbour who is using a resistance heater switching to a heat pump would mean his electric usage falls The USA is 40% of homes heated by electricity I imagine almost all of that is resistance heaters. And 51% of homes heated by Natural Gas and 4% by oil If you switched almost all the oil and natural gas heated homes to heat pumps that would increase electric consumption. BUT if you switched the resistance heated homes to heat pumps first you'd find that overall electric usage is down not up 40 million (to represent 40%) electric heated homes electric using say 1 unit of heat each = 40 million units of electricity. Convert to heat pumps = now 12 million units of electricity 55 million homes using 1 unit of heat each from natural gas or oil. Convert to heat pumps = 16 million units of electricity So we went from 40 million units of electricity and 55 million units of gas and oil To 28 million units of electricity and zero of gas and oil So for the USA as a country you'll be using less electricity. However of course some states or blocks or areas who will need upgrading but many won't This is a vast energy efficiency gain still to be had much more than from light bulbs or refrigerators Also those who think this isn't going to be affordable. Heat pumps are simple. Once you install a few million you'll get good at it. Some poor nations like turkey have almost all homes with AC so if they can afford to install AC to their homes I'm sure Americans who are 10x richer can afford to do heat pumps It'll take time but over the next 30 years heat pumps will be globally a massive massive source of efficiency gains

[@kaya051285]

@@MauldinEconomicsKZbin Also homes don't last forever. People sometimes knock down a home and rebuild brand new on the plot. Or they build extensions. Modern building regs are far more energy efficient. So just from the passage of time we will see about 100 years of small but important efficiency gains from old homes being replaced by newer ones This is perhaps even more true for commercial buildings which often have a smaller number of years between refits

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

​@@kaya051285your comment appears thought out but you look at thebissue from far to Marco a perspective. You aren't looking at which regions use which heat source; its not generally the case that towns are equally distributed. Communities chiefly isong natural gas will see a greater strain on the grid, and those same communities are iften in colder regions with higher energy demand. I agree we can move off gas, and particularly heating oil on the east coast, to hear pumps and resistance heaters. But we do need to increase grid supply and transmission and distribution capacities.

[@Lovin_It]

29:00 Brain fart, by 2045 there may be more human robots doing all the work, so your comment about creating jobs is valid for a decade or so.

[@vsotofrances]

Greed everywhere, every comment.

[@douglaslitke6794]

Not one of your better interviews. Clearly has a political bent, though I guess it is good to hear what some people believe. His critic of ESG is spot on, and the regulations in the IRA are ugh. But who says we are transitioning completely away from oil??? His approach to climate change is to say oh well. I will be dead by 2050, so pedal to the metal and lets live life. I suggest we should reduce our impact. Methane is more important than CO2, but I get it that the climate people keep bouncing around. Will we be using oil in 2050? I don't see how not. It is used in plastic. It is used to make synthetic oil. Hope you get people who can back up their views, and stick to the markets or economy

[@bigancientbirds]

I've never heard so much bullshit.....

[@kenvrinten3450]

Yeah..he probably only believes there is only 2 genders and a transwoman isnt a woman. What a retrograde. They should defund STEM education shouldnt they, producing such dangerous ideas.

[@kenvrinten3450]

I doubt you even listened to it..wrote him off as an " oil shill", and went straight to the comment section.

[@stevenmaritz2681]

Developing an enterprise is a fools errand with big goverment and unions. Learn from the past fix the economic regulatory environment. Take care of your people.

[@graemetunbridge1738]

'reindustrialize' - so you need smaller smarter government - good luck.

[@DavidKyne-r6j]

I could listen to Mark Mills all day long. His "interviewers" are not worth listening to. He and Simon Michaux should be brought together. And they could each talk about why the so - called "energy transition" is an fraud.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

The speaker is also forgetting that the gas turbines we have are one of the most advanced tech products very few companies/places can make them and have decades of R&D solar panels and other renewable technologies are babies in comparison. In a few decades solar panels ale likely to reach 60% efficiency with lower manufacturing costs.