What are the Raw Materials Supply Bottlenecks to the Green Transition? The Need for a New Plan

[@sarchmaster5779]

Excellent introduction, I've been having a hard time motivating people to watch a 1-2 hour presentation or discussion with Dr. Michaux, but this should be a good teaser to get more people to pay attention.

[@hobartspitz1029]

I would have liked a comparison of the per (100?, 1000?) mile emissions of an ICE vehicle compared with the emissions of a PHEV, and BEV. It should include, not only , manufacture and raw material costs, etc., but, also, the emissions from the power plant to charge the vehicle to go the same distance. I suspect that the power plant would be more efficient per mile traveled. Therefore, knowing how much faster we can cut emissions with PHEVs could tell us if PHEVs would allow faster emissions cuts than BEVs. PHEVs avoid the issues of charging away from home/office/destination, long charging times, charger compatibility, range anxiety, customer acceptance, etc. (The manual for my PHEV says to drive in hybrid mode on the highway. It's more efficient than electric traction at high speed. It took me a while, but I figured out that slow charging overnight, at a discount, while I slept, was the best options for a PHEV.) The impact on automobile manufacture workers, grid overload, and the costs of government subsidies should be taken into account. Catastrophic unemployment in the automobile sector might be a cure as bad as the disease. Some additional concerns: Since subsidized BEVs are getting as inexpensive as ICE vehicles, should those subsidies be phased out? By the way, why are we still subsidizing the fossil fuel industry?

[@PT-cu2fg]

What is it about the culture in Finland that enables them to listen to Simon’s message and to actively try to develop a plan to prepare for what’s coming? Seriously, can any of you with insight into this culture shed some light on this question?

[@markschuette3770]

it must be a better educational system. ours here in the usa is poor. heck we don't even teach kids what a human being is! and we should Not expect to use the same amount of energy we do now! thus extreme energy efficiancy is 1/2 of the solution.

[@petegrohn7286]

Nobody in Finland has heard about this study outside of GTK. It took me over 4 months to accidentally stumble upon this study for the first time while searching videos abut the subject on KZbin which shows the power of the establishment and the mainstream media in Finland to suppress any discussion about the problems we face tryng to replace fossil fuels with greener alternatives.

[@althe]

@@markschuette3770 Yeah, and Massachusetts has the highest-rated state public school system in the US and the highest IQ citizens. If your educational quality is lacking, we're all in trouble.

[@terenceiutzi4003]

You do mean the coming Minnimum that will be 3 times as deep as the little ice age?

[@casey2806]

@@petegrohn7286 The GTK supporting Simon's work is only part of getting the information to the Finnish population. It is my understanding he left Australia because his employer there would not let him speak out in the same way.

[@dodiewallace41]

Thinking that renewable means anything at all is a mistake. The goals should be energy security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. It's clear for a lot of reasons, including materials throughput, that dilute intermittents are unsuitable to do the heavy lifting of meeting our energy needs. We need to stop thinking that because we call them RE that they are better for humanity and the environment.

[@gjward64]

I assume other people will need to make sacrifices whilst we enjoy the abundance of riches in medicine, transport, communication and accomodation? I may also have missed the start of the video - why is there such blind faith in rushing to get rid of fossil fuels? And I would like to see a proper cost/beneift analysis of destroying our lifestyles, our life expectency and our environment just to maybe posssibly reduce the world's temperatures in 200 or 400 years time?

[@terenceiutzi4003]

The biggest problem is we will need 10 times as much oil as we now have just to ship the raw materials!

[@5353Jumper]

The thing to remember is what volume of new materials we will need for "green" generation, transportation and heating, vs our former fuels based solutions. That we will need substantially LESS materials than we do already supply for fossil fuel based systems. So new supply chains yes, but substantially smaller supply chains than the ones we are using now. Sure solar panels, windmills, batteries, heat pumps, improved power grids and EV cars require materials - but not nearly as much as gas/coal generators, furnaces, fuels refineries, pipelines, trucks and trains to transport fuels, fuel storage, and ICE cars with large aluminum engine blocks and transmissions, PLUS all of the actual fuel itself. So, we will need new supply chains. We have the opportunity to build BETTER supply chains if we can maintain social and regulatory pressure to ensure environmental and social responsibility. Yep, there is potential environmental damage and social horrors, but only as bad and maybe better than the current disasters caused by the extraction of fuels and the metals of the fuel industry. This reduction in materials needed will in itself reduce emissions and energy consumption before we add in the reduction in emissions and efficiency of the solution itself being better. The negative of this is that the reduction of required supply chain long term (after overlap between solutions has passed) will bring a reduction in trade economy and employment. So we need to stay vigilant so the new supply chains are ethical. And we also need to handle the economic complications of the new supply chains being so much smaller than the old supply chain was.

[@dodiewallace41]

It's clear for a lot of reasons, including materials throughput, that dilute intermittents are unsuitable to do the heavy lifting of meeting our energy needs. All energy production methods have tradeoffs, and meeting the needs of 8 going on 10 B of us will likely take all of them. Dilute intermittents are far too resource intensive and chaotic to be capable of doing the heavy lifting. There are real-life problems to scaling W&S that make it physically impossible with the technology that exists or is realistically foreseeable to supply more than a minor contribution to our energy needs. For one thing, there must be sufficient dispatchable power in order to add intermittent power effectively. Some W&S makes sense if the solid reliable infrastructure exists, and we don't overtax it coping with intermittents chaotic nature. when used moderately, some W&S can lower costs and emissions without compromising grid functionality. Too much raises costs and weakens infrastructure, cannibalizing any gains made. This is probably why we see so little progress in emmissions reduction by adding them compared to adding dense, reliable, clean sources like hydro and nuclear power. If we're serious about reducing environmental impact while providing energy security by far the most effective thing we can do is build a buttload of nuclear power. NP requires a fraction of the resources of the alternatives and provides clean, safe, reliable energy for many decades.

[@5353Jumper]

@@dodiewallace41 So? I mean yes of course a mixed approach is best. And even better, reducing consumption. Of course we should do all these things. Except the one point that wind and solar are resource intensive, because they are the least resource intensive energy generation we have...which is why they are an important part of the mix. It takes a lot more resources per KWH to build a nuclear or hydro facility that it does to build an equal solar/wind farm. Even if you add in battery farms to reduce the intermittency of the generation. On top of that solar and wind have the benefit of being added at the endpoint reducing grid demand, reducing land use, improving redundancy and taking "power" away from the energy oligopolies. All in wind and solar have an important role on providing cost effective generation - which could allow more nuclear and hydro projects balancing the problem that they are the most expensive forms of electricity generation. Some regions don't have water for hydro or nuclear power. Some regions don't have sun. Some regions don't have wind. Some regions don't have natural gas. Some regions don't have mass capital for large projects. Some regions have political instability and terrible safety standards. So a globally mixed solution is going to be the only solution. Solar and wind as the lowest cost and lowest emissions and lowest resource requirement solutions will be an important part of the puzzle.

[@dodiewallace41]

@5353Jumper We're going to need a lot more energy. There are currently billions of people that do not have access to reliable, affordable energy and the comfort and security we enjoy because we do have access. They are coming on line, as they should. Then, in the first world, we are looking to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons for energy, and currently, only about 20% of our own energy is electricity. If we're thinking of reducing hydrocarbon fuel use for transportation and heating, that means a lot more electricity, yes? What can be done with dilute intermittents is very limited and comes with a high financial and environmental cost when we insist on overdependance on them. Unfortunately, many, including governments, have made the goal RE instead of energy security, affordability, and environmental protection. This is counterproductive. By far, the most effective thing we can do to meet our energy needs while minimizing environmental impact is to build a buttload of nuclear power. NP requires a fraction of the resources of the alternatives and provides clean, safe, and reliable power for many decades. We should be using it as much as possible.

[@5353Jumper]

@@dodiewallace41 nuclear is great, sure let's have more of it. But it is also the most expensive and nearly the most resource intensive way of generating electricity. On this point you are wrong. Total emissions it is better than gas/coal but it is also worse than many other forms of generation. And that is why it will not be adopted as the majority solution, just part of the mix. For nuclear to be affordable as a piece of the energy mix we will need cheap solutions supplementing it like wind and solar.

[@dodiewallace41]

@5353Jumper If you were to look into it, you'd find that it is not correct. Density and lifespan are both important factors in environmental impact. The more density, the lower the resource requirements and the longer the lifespan, the lower the resource requirements as well. These are two of the reasons why physically, Dilute intermittents are extremely resource intensive compared to the alternatives, and overdependance on them raises costs financially and environmentally. Most of us have no idea what it takes to have reliable energy infrastructure. For an explanation that we don’t have to be engineers to understand this is a great resource. Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid by Meredith Angwin. I found that I had a lot of misconceptions about wind as solar as well. I had been thinking that what we needed was renewable energy when what is actually needed is clean, reliable energy. 🤦 I had assumed that a unit of power production from them meant a unit less from FF, that they were cleaner than the alternatives, that power could be stored for use when needed like water or grain, and that if we just built enough of them we could meet our energy needs without FF. All of this was absolutely wrong. Electricity is a service, not a commodity. Energy infrastructures job is to deliver power when and where needed. Intermittent and dispatchable power are not the same thing, like Uber and intermittent Uber are not the same thing. Wind and solar require far more resources per unit of power production right off the bat than the alternatives do, and they don't stand on their own, typically backed up with coal or NG. And as intermittent power sources bring increased instability to energy infrastructures job of delivering power when and where needed, we end up using far more backup than we need with stable, reliable sources. The higher the percentage of Intermittents, the greater the instability so the higher percentage of backup needed. At 20-30% capacity factor, every MW-hr of solar & wind drive 3-5x as much dispatchable build out for backup. But, since solar/wind are chaotic, they drive efficiency down, driving dispachable per MWe-hr up by 2-3x. This is probably why we've seen so little progress in emmissions reduction by adding them to our power grids compared to adding dense, reliable sources like NP and hydro power. overdependance on intermittents harms the lifespan of dispatchable power in the system. It's like the difference between running your car at a steady 70 mph or constantly stomping on the gas and then slamming on the brakes. It causes more wear and tear. I wish this wasn't so damn political and that we involved input from engineers & grid operation experts more than we do. This isn't a sporting event or a popularity contest although we act like it is. Most of us have no idea what it actually takes to run energy infrastructure and we should before advocating for this or that way of managing this essential service.

[@kimlibera663]

The PTB also seem to not recognize that the poor of the world-3 continents & then some cannot obtain EVs. Transportation is essential so I would not place that burden on them. I see some positive gains in transportation coming in mass transit: maglev trains (you lose all the diesel), gyroscopic vehicles, potentiall hydrogen in jet planes.

[@terenceiutzi4003]

We can not produce enough oil to build the required wind turbines and solar panels!

[@graememinchin7152]

The reason the numbers don't add up is because the "green transition' is a ponzi. The new social contract is currently being engineered.

[@larsyoutube6837]

Theoretically, we could do this in a controlled manner, but in reality, it will descend into chaos and turmoil. 1950 we where 2.5 bn on this planet, by then a record number. With cheap energy like oil, which has a high energy density, we did add 5.5 billion in merely 70 years. Was that a smart move? This was a period when we knew more about how this world works than ever before. Suddenly, we have become so much more clever and smart that we can solve the problem the last 70 years created.

[@kimlibera663]

I can see coal fading out but I would preserve natural gas for heating & electricity. Electricity is very expensive. The heating sector is the least fossil fuel using sector because it is limited in season & distribution.

[@thedude7319]

I see most people easily changing to the requirements, I do not see this happening for everybody in governance. given how they have acted throughout history and how they spend today

[@dodiewallace41]

Reliable electricity supply is crucial for social and economic stability and growth, which in turn leads to eradication of poverty. Although access to reliable, affordable energy doesn't guarantee no poverty, lack of access to it does guarantee poverty. Energy policy should not favor wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, gas, or coal but should support all energy systems in a manner that avoids energy shortage and energy poverty while minimizing environmental impact. All energy always requires taking resources from our planet and processing them, thus negatively impacting the environment. It should be our goal to minimize negative impacts and focus on the three objectives, energy security, energy affordability, and environmental protection instead of on useless buzzwords like renewable. Thinking that Renewable means anything at all is a mistake. It's clear that dilute intermittents are unsuitable to do the heavy lifting lf energy security, affordability, and environmental protection are the goals.

[@jackgoldman1]

New plan is simple. Stop using electricity, cars, airplanes, super tankers, cities, restaurants, income taxes, coal, oil, natural gas. Will you be the first to volunteer to live like a buddhist monk, living locally, with next to nothing? Will billionaires and oligarchs volunteer to have less, not more? Will city people give up college and over paid fake jobs for gardening and splitting wood? Please lead the way.

[@mandarkokate5613]

This is just electric power not the total primary energy

[@larrygerfen2801]

Who are the “We”? Do you really think the whole world’s countries will be on the same page to be in sync?

[@NamekGregory]

The world today is in front of many challenges, energy scarcity to run the economy developed during centuries. Even the world use 173300 TWhr energy on a year, of which 84% are fossil fuels, the transition to renewable energies is a must action. The peak oil today is the past, peak gas natural may have some more time, and using more coal is not desirable. All these based on existing technologies. Fast transition as planed is shooting ourselves, big problem for energy and minerals needed. The world really is finite but every estimate is based on what is known and neglect the know-haw technologies which can save the world. We often hear peak oil related this with supply and scholars say peak oil demand which is unprofessional. The peak oil supply is professional but not scientific, the experts do these estimates based on technologies they know which live underground more than 12 trillion barrel crude oil and bitumen. The Know-haw new technologies can produce at least 50% of 12 trillion barrel oil underground which can keep running the economy for 150-200 years. On addition to this, the wind energy the world use today with know-haw new technology can generate double the energy produced today for the same consumption of metals. And even better results can be achieved using a new undisclosed renewable technology which generate electricity based on gravity which never is finite. Using "Stationary Gravity Energy Engine" can save CAPEX and opex and generate energy on demand, will lead the world on the right path of energy transition. Public information finish here, but more information can be discussed with government interested on energy transition and institutional experts involved on energy transition.

[@dodiewallace41]

Renewable or not is utterly irrelevant. Our energy goals should be security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. RE is nothing but a misleading marketing term like all natural or chemical free. It's not being called RE that matters. Sometimes, methods we label RE are the best option. Often, they are not. Unfortunately, many, including governments, have made the goal RE instead of energy security, affordability, and environmental protection, and this is counterproductive. It's clear for a lot of reasons that dilute intermittents are unsuitable to do the heavy lifting if these are our goals.

[@freeforester1717]

It should be borne in mind that ‘events’ will very likely serve to radically reduce man’s burden on the planet and its resources.