Dr. Mills, is spot on, I wish more government bureaucrats would listen. Our college physics professor, more than 4 decades ago, talked about the need to develop nuclear, it would be the only thing that could replace fossil fuels. And here we are today with the green insanity, and still little talk of nuclear. Sad.
Christopher, fantastic interview! Two Canadians making sense. This needs some background charts and some links for further reading. If it’s OK with you I would like to play this whole interview on my radio show at the local college radio station.
There are no background charts because this guy is stating incorrect figures. Mark Mills has a political and financial obligation to push a certain message. Please do not use this a way to educate students about energy and technology.
I case you are confused Drew, to smear a guy with no evidence and attack him only because of where he works part time or talks to, is pure tribalism and disgusting. Don’t pretend nobody told you. You ever ride in a fossil fuel powered plane or car, Drew? Sorry, you’re banned and can’t talk.
@@drewgoodman7932why are you trying to discredit the man!? Because you could learn a lot about what a racket wind and solar energy is! It's put out as green energy it's not green and it's not free!
battery efficiency has improved along with the material choices, and the reason those batteries degrade has been down to the binding material in Li-Ion which can be replaced to reduce degradation, higher density and deliver more power longer. definitely less Elon musk Tesla vehicles, more public transport!
I've been concerned about solar panel waste with no way to know how to articulate it. I felt that the comparison to plastic waste, the way that it's going to take over in quantity and that it's harder and more expensive to recycle. That really hit home.
Good discussion. A new book titled Bright Green Lies does a great job showing the reality of energy sources and their actual costs and capabilities for running all our technologies. The real source of our crisis is that our insatiable industrial capitalistic system is quickly destroying the biological/environmental infrastructure that most animal lifeforms, including humans, absolutely & completely depend on. As is so obvious but inconvenient to acknowledge is that we are looking for the infinite in a finite world. And further, look at the psychological lack of well being that our modern western culture cultivates. Depressed, insecure, isolated and lonely individuals who are taking their own and others lives at an alarming rate.
Regardless of what social and economic changes one wants to happen, meeting our needs while minimizing environmental impact should be a goal. It’s always best that policy is evidence, rather than opinion based.
Interesting conversation. Ive been educating myself about the limits we will be facing in the future. I had to laugh though when he said we'll have to limit ourselves to only one flight per year. If we are going back to the 1960s level of energy consumption itll be more like once in a lifetime if your lucky. And most people had 2 bedrooms, not three. Kids slept on the verandah, and the toilet and laundry were an outhouse. Perhaps the standard of living was much higher in the US in the 60's than here in Australia, which was higher than many other countries. If we are going to allow the poor countries to raise their living standard, the rich countries are re a lly going to have to decrease their living standards by alot.
You know what's more efficient than a bunch of electric cars and trucks? How about thorough public transit and rail freight networks powered by nuclear and hydro?
I live miles from the nearest rail stop, and busses less efficient than average car w 2 people in it. Your plan to starve me out? Let me know now. Thanks.
Yeah obviously we also need to get rid of suburbia. Shouldn't be hard though, they are bankrupting counties all over the USA already, let alone in a decade. But his story is very conservative in that all he's interested in is in replacing fuel sources, not living differently and reorganizing land use, as we must do.
@@fjdhaan “bankrupting counties”. Lol. What planet are those on, compared to US cities? Detroit, NYC bailout, Stockton, Harrisburg, Vallejo, … And compared to crime rates, 10:1 city:suburban. Yeah, please, keep harping on what other people “must do”, or else, the dogma of authoritarian lefties for past century now, that’s what I’m here to hear.
A shift to nuclear may be inevitable, but it too is only a short to medium term solution to rising demand and declining fossil fuels. There is also a finite amount of uranium that will be more quickly depleted as we go along. It is also questionable that nuclear power is more dense when the processing of the ore up to being used to generate power and the disposal costs are included.
Enough uranium and thorium to fully power entire planet for tens thousands of years. Because tiny amounts of uranium fuel is needed, relative to coal gas or the metals for wind and solar, uranium mining has relatively tiny footprint.Also most uranium mining now is “insitu”, ie they don’t dig, they drill a hole and pump it out dissolved in water. Look around. There are no vast, miles wide, open pit and brine mines for uranium. But there are for copper, bauxite, rare earths, quartz, lithium, magnesium, cobalt…
Decouple Midea, perhaps this pod cast should be sent to the Canadian Conservitive Party Pierre Poilieva with inserted with some charts and poctorials! Maybe we could get these wind and solar waste that isn't worth the investment!
I charge my EV as all my house's energy needs with my solar system in LV. I believe this is much better for the environment and better for my pocket than my old Matrix and Furnace....and my energy needs for the next 25 years is all prepaid. My $20k system saves me more that $4k per year, for the next 25 years guaranteed. You ignore recycling of batteries...
If Journalists were required to be proficient in sciences or engineering, it would go a long way towards cleaning up the state of journalism and eliminate 99% of the climate/renewable hoax.
I don’t agree. Mark is a generalist and big picture thinker. Most scientists are overly specialized. It’s the unfortunate nature of modern science. They don’t see it or have an interest in learning it. Good journalists don’t need to be engineers, just big picture thinkers, imo
What a relief! We are advised in this interviewee that we have enough fossil fuel to carry on with BAU for hundreds of years, and we are only infatuated (ok that's actually true) with renewables because we don't like carbon because of some unscientific (?) fears about some sort of climate change that isn't really a factor. Plus there is enough food for everyone due to the above, were it not for politicians. If only this pretty interesting perspectie wasnt so contrarian to say, lived experience of climate change and climate science!
1,000,000 cars = 1,000,000,000 cell phones worth of Cobalt. So 1,000,000,000 cars is a factor of 1000. Not a billion billion. Right? 1,000 billion is , at least, far less than a billion billion. Just saying, Still huge but,,,
And he whines about renewables being only 3% of global POWER - but if he had said electricity it would be different. As a fraction of electricity renewables are at 30%. Add nuclear and we’re 40% there! After all - we are going to Electrify Everything. Also, that 40% of clean energy achieves more per unit of energy. As we Electrify Everything, more gets done with less. Electric motors turn the energy they get into more work than fossil fuels you carry somewhere only to burn. EG: Petroleum cars waste 80% of their energy - electric cars use nearly 80% of theirs! In other words - those solar panels on your roof get more done per unit of energy to the car.
Mills whines? I think he knows his topic, in depth. Yes RE is 30% of global electricity. The break down is, 15% hydro, which has been there for decades. It won’t grow, and should not. Bio is 2%. Wind + solar is growing, but only 13%. W+S needs to grow 6X to replace fossil electricity, then double that to replace all fossil energy, all with magical storage that does not exist, meaning a push for more s+w will just lock in fossil as backup, instead.
you can't be part of an institute paid for by oil and fossil fuel and say it's not big amounts of money being spent to promote and subsidised a legacy dominant industry and not at the expense of renewable's, i'm sorry but for everything that is said here that is worthy of discussion and has a basis in truth, the bias and the playing down of aspects of renewable's and energy usage v that which is mined and used in battery and other new renewable's is a bit dishonest of him, he's fully funded and has investments in fossil fuels. so while he has some valid points; it's not an unbiased perspective with flaws in understanding of the technology and movement behind renewable's. This is looking dated already in terms of efficiency and material usage.
Thank you for your skepticism. Always question the messenger’s source and motive ie who funds him. 3 generations from now these arguments will look so short sighted.
“everything said … worthy of discussion” And yet you write a couple hundred words discussing nothing on the issue, but smear the physicist engineer based on where he works part time. Youre disgusting.
@@johnanderson3842 “skepticism” That would be saying “the evidence A, B, C presented here y the speaker is not persuasive”. Smearing the speaker only because of where he works or who he associates with is pure tribalism, and disgusting.
I'd say the biggest tell is mills immediate pushback when the host mentions that the fossil lobby works against nuclear. What else led to Germany phasing out nuclear, with no scientific reason, perpetrated by another physicist in fact (merkel). Though he's right that at the moment, fossil lobby has to do very little to stay where it is.
Yet, "green" energy and transition advocates have never been able to make their case and rely instead upon relentless propaganda. I would love to see a real, fact based case for wind/solar. I have seen many attempts and they always gloss over the inconvenient truths.
This guest is a breath of fresh air. Compelling and a nice dose of reality
Mark Mills is down to earth and I hope his message of reason will be heard.
This is called knowing what you’re talking about
Mark P. Mills is absolutely commanding
Dr. Mills, is spot on, I wish more government bureaucrats would listen. Our college physics professor, more than 4 decades ago, talked about the need to develop nuclear, it would be the only thing that could replace fossil fuels. And here we are today with the green insanity, and still little talk of nuclear. Sad.
Christopher, fantastic interview! Two Canadians making sense. This needs some background charts and some links for further reading. If it’s OK with you I would like to play this whole interview on my radio show at the local college radio station.
The direction we need to take is best examined as a spreadsheet exercise (In my opinion).
Go for it, Scott!
There are no background charts because this guy is stating incorrect figures. Mark Mills has a political and financial obligation to push a certain message. Please do not use this a way to educate students about energy and technology.
I case you are confused Drew, to smear a guy with no evidence and attack him only because of where he works part time or talks to, is pure tribalism and disgusting. Don’t pretend nobody told you. You ever ride in a fossil fuel powered plane or car, Drew? Sorry, you’re banned and can’t talk.
@@drewgoodman7932why are you trying to discredit the man!?
Because you could learn a lot about what a racket wind and solar energy is! It's put out as green energy it's not green and it's not free!
Outstanding clarity, critical thinking and numeracy.
Brilliant session, highlites the point that our leaders are blind and leading many who are blind.
Anybody that wants an electric car should look at their last few cell phones.
Why did you replace them?
Was the battery still strong?
battery efficiency has improved along with the material choices, and the reason those batteries degrade has been down to the binding material in Li-Ion which can be replaced to reduce degradation, higher density and deliver more power longer. definitely less Elon musk Tesla vehicles, more public transport!
I've been concerned about solar panel waste with no way to know how to articulate it. I felt that the comparison to plastic waste, the way that it's going to take over in quantity and that it's harder and more expensive to recycle. That really hit home.
Good discussion.
A new book titled Bright Green Lies does a great job showing the reality of energy sources and their actual costs and capabilities for running all our technologies. The real source of our crisis is that our insatiable industrial capitalistic system is quickly destroying the biological/environmental infrastructure that most animal lifeforms, including humans, absolutely & completely depend on. As is so obvious but inconvenient to acknowledge is that we are looking for the infinite in a finite world. And further, look at the psychological lack of well being that our modern western culture cultivates. Depressed, insecure, isolated and lonely individuals who are taking their own and others lives at an alarming rate.
Regardless of what social and economic changes one wants to happen, meeting our needs while minimizing environmental impact should be a goal. It’s always best that policy is evidence, rather than opinion based.
Mark Mills - respect!
Terrific conversation. Covers a lot of ground. Gave me a lot to think about. I look forward to seeing what actually ends up being possible!
we wil never life on mars
Outstanding information that we all need to embrace
Great guest
Can you help me find the article about the total budget of the top 20 environmental groups?
Interesting conversation. Ive been educating myself about the limits we will be facing in the future. I had to laugh though when he said we'll have to limit ourselves to only one flight per year. If we are going back to the 1960s level of energy consumption itll be more like once in a lifetime if your lucky. And most people had 2 bedrooms, not three. Kids slept on the verandah, and the toilet and laundry were an outhouse. Perhaps the standard of living was much higher in the US in the 60's than here in Australia, which was higher than many other countries. If we are going to allow the poor countries to raise their living standard, the rich countries are re a lly going to have to decrease their living standards by alot.
You know what's more efficient than a bunch of electric cars and trucks? How about thorough public transit and rail freight networks powered by nuclear and hydro?
Exactly, but I still think that we need electric cars (obviously not as much as ICE cars) but we need to tackle car dependency
agreed and close living instead of sprawling suburbs, better city planning. less processed corporate farming and less clean water usage by industry
I live miles from the nearest rail stop, and busses less efficient than average car w 2 people in it. Your plan to starve me out? Let me know now. Thanks.
Yeah obviously we also need to get rid of suburbia. Shouldn't be hard though, they are bankrupting counties all over the USA already, let alone in a decade. But his story is very conservative in that all he's interested in is in replacing fuel sources, not living differently and reorganizing land use, as we must do.
@@fjdhaan “bankrupting counties”. Lol. What planet are those on, compared to US cities? Detroit, NYC bailout, Stockton, Harrisburg, Vallejo, … And compared to crime rates, 10:1 city:suburban. Yeah, please, keep harping on what other people “must do”, or else, the dogma of authoritarian lefties for past century now, that’s what I’m here to hear.
Good work done by Mark.
54:29 All fuel-cycles involve conversion of matter to energy. Even wind, solar, and hydro involve conversion of matter to energy.
A shift to nuclear may be inevitable, but it too is only a short to medium term solution to rising demand and declining fossil fuels. There is also a finite amount of uranium that will be more quickly depleted as we go along. It is also questionable that nuclear power is more dense when the processing of the ore up to being used to generate power and the disposal costs are included.
Enough uranium and thorium to fully power entire planet for tens thousands of years.
Because tiny amounts of uranium fuel is needed, relative to coal gas or the metals for wind and solar, uranium mining has relatively tiny footprint.Also most uranium mining now is “insitu”, ie they don’t dig, they drill a hole and pump it out dissolved in water.
Look around. There are no vast, miles wide, open pit and brine mines for uranium. But there are for copper, bauxite, rare earths, quartz, lithium, magnesium, cobalt…
It's still more dense, don't underestimate how energetic fission is.
Decouple Midea, perhaps this pod cast should be sent to the Canadian Conservitive Party Pierre Poilieva with inserted with some charts and poctorials! Maybe we could get these wind and solar waste that isn't worth the investment!
I charge my EV as all my house's energy needs with my solar system in LV.
I believe this is much better for the environment and better for my pocket than my old Matrix and Furnace....and my energy needs for the next 25 years is all prepaid. My $20k system saves me more that $4k per year, for the next 25 years guaranteed.
You ignore recycling of batteries...
A lot of ’magical thinking’ as to the ”Green transition” I’m afraid. Therefore Mill’s insights are needed in order to avoid energy powerty!
We are going to make the most of it we can
California is a pretty neat place if you can picture its whole
This guy should have been at COP 26 , but most of the renewable disciples are to far gone to have believed him .
Using the power the mantle to move mountains artificially
How do you list places where charging an electric car will be emissions-free and not mention France, on this show especially hahaha
Xclnt interview from the 2’nd highest paid employee of the Manhattan Institute. FY 2021 990 form.
If Journalists were required to be proficient in sciences or engineering, it would go a long way towards cleaning up the state of journalism and eliminate 99% of the climate/renewable hoax.
I don’t agree. Mark is a generalist and big picture thinker. Most scientists are overly specialized. It’s the unfortunate nature of modern science. They don’t see it or have an interest in learning it. Good journalists don’t need to be engineers, just big picture thinkers, imo
It's funny he brings up Newfoundland, our latest Hydro project is scheduled to bankrupt the province.
can you explain why its financially bad for the province?
@@ToriZealot our electricity rates are scheduled to double when it comes online. It's twice over budget and two years late.
@@cbcsucks2205 Thanks, wanted to know because part of family lives on NF
@@ToriZealot just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
What a relief! We are advised in this interviewee that we have enough fossil fuel to carry on with BAU for hundreds of years, and we are only infatuated (ok that's actually true) with renewables because we don't like carbon because of some unscientific (?) fears about some sort of climate change that isn't really a factor. Plus there is enough food for everyone due to the above, were it not for politicians. If only this pretty interesting perspectie wasnt so contrarian to say, lived experience of climate change and climate science!
Stupid is as stupid does.Simon says
1,000,000 cars = 1,000,000,000 cell phones worth of Cobalt.
So 1,000,000,000 cars is a factor of 1000. Not a billion billion. Right?
1,000 billion is , at least, far less than a billion billion. Just saying,
Still huge but,,,
Stop saying “you know”!
R34:29
And he whines about renewables being only 3% of global POWER - but if he had said electricity it would be different. As a fraction of electricity renewables are at 30%. Add nuclear and we’re 40% there! After all - we are going to Electrify Everything. Also, that 40% of clean energy achieves more per unit of energy. As we Electrify Everything, more gets done with less. Electric motors turn the energy they get into more work than fossil fuels you carry somewhere only to burn. EG: Petroleum cars waste 80% of their energy - electric cars use nearly 80% of theirs! In other words - those solar panels on your roof get more done per unit of energy to the car.
Mills whines? I think he knows his topic, in depth.
Yes RE is 30% of global electricity. The break down is, 15% hydro, which has been there for decades. It won’t grow, and should not. Bio is 2%. Wind + solar is growing, but only 13%. W+S needs to grow 6X to replace fossil electricity, then double that to replace all fossil energy, all with magical storage that does not exist, meaning a push for more s+w will just lock in fossil as backup, instead.
you can't be part of an institute paid for by oil and fossil fuel and say it's not big amounts of money being spent to promote and subsidised a legacy dominant industry and not at the expense of renewable's, i'm sorry but for everything that is said here that is worthy of discussion and has a basis in truth, the bias and the playing down of aspects of renewable's and energy usage v that which is mined and used in battery and other new renewable's is a bit dishonest of him, he's fully funded and has investments in fossil fuels. so while he has some valid points; it's not an unbiased perspective with flaws in understanding of the technology and movement behind renewable's. This is looking dated already in terms of efficiency and material usage.
Thank you for your skepticism. Always question the messenger’s source and motive ie who funds him. 3 generations from now these arguments will look so short sighted.
“everything said … worthy of discussion”
And yet you write a couple hundred words discussing nothing on the issue, but smear the physicist engineer based on where he works part time. Youre disgusting.
@@johnanderson3842 “skepticism”
That would be saying “the evidence A, B, C presented here y the speaker is not persuasive”. Smearing the speaker only because of where he works or who he associates with is pure tribalism, and disgusting.
I'd say the biggest tell is mills immediate pushback when the host mentions that the fossil lobby works against nuclear. What else led to Germany phasing out nuclear, with no scientific reason, perpetrated by another physicist in fact (merkel). Though he's right that at the moment, fossil lobby has to do very little to stay where it is.
Yet, "green" energy and transition advocates have never been able to make their case and rely instead upon relentless propaganda.
I would love to see a real, fact based case for wind/solar. I have seen many attempts and they always gloss over the inconvenient truths.