I know Mark Nelson is a frequent guest - but please have him on again. I never get bored of watching Chris getting disillusioned and a little more cynical every time Mark is dropping truth bombs.
Respect to Leigh, it takes some balls for someone of his calibre to say what he says. Brilliant analysis and insight into the demand side. Massive dislocations going forward.
No one ever talks about conservation of energy, our wasteful lifestyles in the developed world and the need to lower our consumption - especially for things we don’t really need. Most people in the developed world have too much ‘stuff’. It all had to be made - with energy. Unfortunately modern civilisation is a heat engine and we might have to ‘de grow’ and lead more simple lives. Our main preoccupation in the future might well be getting enough food on the table.
Plenty of power out there we have almost an unlimited supply of liquid natural gas and then you can talk a nuclear and other such energy investments. How about you Liberal stay away from the political stage because you have 0 energy intelligence and all your ideas. Are the cause of all the world's problems?
Nothing says overconsumption like the spread of those ugly rental storage facilities in every part of the US. We have so much crap we don’t have room for it in our houses.
Started off as an interesting discussion on resource scarcity and devolved into the guest revealing this is just an ideological argument for short term economic gain at the cost of the ecological systems we need to live on this planet (especially when he got to his little diatribes about Europe and 'windmills'). Disappointed that there was no push back on some of the more spurious claims here: -EROI 100:1 for nuclear? Since when and where? -Permian Basin claims ' its just a little well,' instead of thousands of wells spread over an area greater than the size of Great Britain. Wells that are abandoned after a few months and replaced with new ones a few miles away, all while they spew methane 24/7 (and thats just the fugitive emissions). -He went to great lengths to mention the resources needed for 'windmills' but no mention of the near constant construction, deployment and abandonment of fracking wells? -No mention of the amount of water needed to get gas out of fractured shale or any fossil fuels or even nuclear (is this not an important resource??) -No mention of the materials needed for the almost constant stream of new fossil fuel projects that are viable for a few years (at the very most of at all), no mention of the trillions in subsidies needed or the resources, metals and energy this requires? -No mention of the ecological destruction involved? Another externality? This is very one sided. The resources issue is a real one but anyone here can read overshoot or any number of books written in the last 50yrs to understand that. Im only new to this channel so maybe I misjudged it. But the first video I watched was with James Hansen, the second was Simon Michaux, enjoyed both immensely but this comes across as just a commodity broker who only cares about his short term profits, if we continue listening to people like this, the planet will burn. For the record, Im for nuclear and what Germany is doing makes no sense but the exact same can be said for the US and Canada (most of the world really). Renewables will not solve all our problems either but that doesn't mean that statements such as (paraphrasing) 'its just a little well' but 'look at all the resources need for a windmill' makes any sense as an argument. Lets face it, this guest is only talking about commodities as a vehicle for profit, externalities like a liveable planet seem absent or at the very least a distant second to him. A little pushback would add a lot of credibility here, this is too serious a topic to allow ideology over facts.
Thank you for your time and effort. It's always amazing how many people are fooled by people pushing oil company arguments that are to me so obviously propaganda. Good to see someone else speaking up.
@@jazziejim Thanks for the kind comment. Im willing to give anyone a chance and as I said, Ive watched a few episodes but this was just fossil fuel propaganda masquerading as pro-nuclear or whatever its pretending to be. When there was not even a hint of pushback against the idiotic and dishonest claims the guest made, all credibility went out the window. (And Ive just noticed the liked comments by the host are just reinforcing this). Ive unsubscribed and moved on, this is just a new strand of climate denial. Thankfully Im not the only one who sees this so thanks again for your reply
@@jazziejimThe bottom line is sunshine and wind is an incredibly diluted source of energy compared to fossil fuels. You need to get passed the source of information and delve into the reality of the facts. Because of the diffuse nature of wind and solar energy content you will need to carpet the landscape with a tremendous amount of solar and wind to match the energy of fossil fuels. The physics says it's not practical. Just look at where we are with grid battery backup. 1 to 2 hrs, if we were lucky, if we even had enough batteries which is also not achievable at todays rate of producing them. Energy reality is a bitch and we will likely soon be getting a wake up call letting us know just that.
Look Marley, if we keep using fossil fuels we won't have a civilization, so stop looking for reasons alternatives won't work and open your eyes and see that they do work, there's plenty of room, and they're the cheapest. I'm sure you are smart, so you can see that solar or wind on each roof is much better than a centralized inefficient set up, so we should do that where possible. And of course you are smart enough to know that the reason we aren't doing it by now is because it doesn't make the elites money. So why don't you be a good self-reliant conservative and conserve our environment instead of being a tool of the rich elites. @@Marley-ii6ls
@@Marley-ii6lsExactly I think these people are missing the point on the importance of energy density in creating a progressive society and a modern society. Every time that our ability to exploit a new and more against that form of energy has come online has resulted in a net benefit to humanity - going back to wind and solar, both less dense energy sources, is not a step forward but a step backwards. If you want to have the modern world with modern medicines technology fertilizers to feed everyone because we need them for crops obviously then you need petrochemicals you need denser energy sources you cannot do this with a bunch of windmills because honestly do you know how many windows you need to match the equivalent of one nuclear power plant it's huge. Like the equivalent number of turbines that you need to supply the amount of energy you get from one nuclear reactor it's about 200 to 400 times the footprint of a nuclear reactor. And actually how is that good for the environment if you destroy tons of habitat putting up these damn windmills when you can just use one nuclear reactor and actually not destroy a bunch of forest let's say. Let's see do we clear cut 10 square kilometers of force or use a few hectares for one nuclear reactor which will have more of an ecological impact oh that's not a hard one to figure out. come on people we just need to do some logical thinking on this and get back into reality!
The guest advises to hold gold and silver. I’d also suggest that apart from paying off all debt, that a great protective financial strategy is to grow a vegetable garden and fruit trees (with all the necessary tools) and maybe have rabbits and chooks as well. A rooftop water harvesting system is a good idea as is lots of warm clothing. Alcohol and pain meds. And, as advised on an edition of Radio Ecoshock a while back, some long term storable food. ( now widely available for purchase and some of it can last 10 years or more).
It becomes harder and harder to believe in the green transition and net zero in 2050. EU and USA can put high taxes on carbon emmision but if prices becomes too high we will have to vote for another direction or simply storm the parlament. Populations in Indian an China and Russia will do what they can to increase their standard of living and it will take a lot of cheap energy. As soon as the transition starts to impact our life style, as we see now all the initiatives are switched to reverse. Just see Germany with their coal plants.
That's largely the automakers giving the middle finger to the EPA regulations on fuel economy, gaming the system because it's based on the footprint of the vehicle. A smaller part of the battle for corporate monopolies to control the government and shirk all responsibility for public good in service to psychotic profit culture.
There is no way that enough nuclear capacity can be added in time to positively impact this situation. This baby is going down. The content on this channel is outstanding. Thank you.
Precisely. Simon Michaux has outlined adequately why nuclear is not a serious answer. The idea that moving to nuclear subverts Russia is also completely laughable.
@@guymarquardt1618 exactly how does elimination of nuclear for electricity production help? we don't make electricity from oil, nat gas is the waste product of extraction where it is in supply so it's artificially cheap because there's no such thing as long term storage. as a perishable good, it's still the backbone of electricity production, banana republic economics. not good at all.
"Can you name a name? I think thats important." "No i can't he lives in Nebraska" WARREN BUFFET! Its all a shell game to keep them in power while common people suffer!
backward logic. demand is infinite for energy. the world will consume every barrel of supply made. available. and oil consumption does not increase due to rising gdp. Gdp rises because of increasing oil consumption.
"demand is infinite for energy. " According to the Energy Information Administration's statistics, the per-capita energy consumption in the U.S. has been somewhat consistent from the 1970s to the present time.
@@chapter4travels The US is a "modern" country that went from very wasteful to more efficient use of energy since the "first oil crisis". 1.5B people worldwide still have no access to reliable electricity. As more people become "middle class" per capita consumption goes way up. It's not just math and academics, it's mother's and fathers having to watch their children starve or freeze to death. Throw in inflated costs for everything due to higher cost energy inputs, urban riots and regional energy wars, and there will be no escape, anywhere.
@@chapter4travels how hard isit for youto understand this. evey bit of energy produced will be consumed. deand is a stupid term. you can demand something all you want. if it is not there it doe not matter. once agai demand for energy is infinite. every bit of energy produced will be consumed.and wether the energy that goes into the products is in china or america you are still the one consuming the energy
@@eurobrowarriormonk7182 Total BS, demand drives production. Demand for energy in the US has basically been flat since the 70's. Producing more would not have increased use, it would just be a glut and drove down prices. Why would energy producers do that?
‘When Nowhere Is Now Here” by David Allan Dawneway All those glossy vapours Glowing like neon Promising false favours To a future nearly gone Based on claiming souls From pen strokes made of air Projecting fading goals On trust that isn’t there How many seconds are there? With so little to share When everywhere is nowhere And nowhere is now here When the rubber band snaps And wings fall off those dreams And we have drained the tanks And are running out of steam And the world is Icarus In a spiral down Because we put our trust In ever lying clowns How much can love then bear? On dulled hearts my dear When everywhere is nowhere And nowhere is now here
You can't use a wind power system to build the next generation wind power system. This can't be mitigated. I have no problem with nuclear power, I have a problem with nuclear waste. No country has solved the problem of nuclear waste, and spent fuel rods that must be kept cool are a tremendous problem. This problem can't (hasn't yet) been mitigated. Peak oil means a diminishing oil supply, with decreasing EROEI as a bonus. This problem can't be mitigated. A growing population requires a growing supply of food and fresh water, plus everything else that people want and need. All the fresh water on earth is spoken for. This problem can't be mitigated. Hang onto your hats folks. Spread the word to anyone you know that might be planning to reproduce, unless their child won't need food, water, transportation, clothing, education and all the rest that oil make possible. Bonus fact, the earth is heating up, and the rate of increase is itself accelerating.
The founders of the EROEI concept were Professor Charles Hall and David Murphy. This is “Energy Return on Energy Investment” - the idea of measuring how much ENERGY PROFIT (not financial profit) you make by building a power plant once you subtract the energy it took to make the thing. They originally concluded that the Energy Return on Energy Invested of renewables was not high enough to run the modern world. However, with efficiency gains in manufacturing more solar panels from less materials, once of the key founders Professor David Murphy now categorically puts solar at 10 and oil down at 4.6! “Studies have given figures for the EROI of solar energy as low as 3.9 and as high as 45.45. The lowest estimate, produced by Weissbach et al, was thoroughly discredited by technology entrepreneur Ramez Naam as glaringly low, and he estimates the EROI of solar PV at “above 10, and probably above 15…And rising.” In the most thorough meta-study of the EROI of solar PV, conducted by Bhandari et al, 232 papers estimating solar’s EROI were analysed and the mean estimate was 11.6. Mean EROI varied greatly between types of solar PV, with cadmium telluride coming in at an astounding 34.2. It is also important to note that many of these studies focussed on older installations, which lowered the average. Most modern studies find an EROI for polysilicon solar PV of about 16 and future systems will continue to rise. In a similar meta-study, systems ecologist Charles A.S. Hall as well as researchers Jessica Lambert and Stephen Balogh looked at the data in studies of other energy sources. Their results are shown in the following table (except for solar - due to their results underestimating its EROI by including decades old studies, Ramez Naam’s estimate of 15 is used).“ www.vikramsolar.com/eroi-of-solar-energy/ David Murphy also critiqued some of his earlier work with Charles Hall, and said certain processes needed streamlining. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856
The bottom line is sunshine and wind is an incredibly diluted source of energy compared to fossil fuels. You need to get passed the source of information and delve into the reality of the facts. Because of the diffuse nature of wind and solar energy content you will need to carpet the landscape with a tremendous amount of solar and wind to match the energy of fossil fuels. The physics says it's not practical. Just look at where we are with grid battery backup. 1 to 2 hrs, if we were lucky, if we even had enough batteries which is also not achievable at todays rate of producing them. Energy reality is a bitch and we will likely soon be getting a wake up call letting us know just that.
Would love to have you get someone on to discuss biogas and its ability to decarbonize heavy trucking. Clean Energy Fuels has started building stations and digesters targeting 18 wheelers. Would also enjoy your thoughts on rng trucks vs hydrogen fuel cell trucks
Ogallala aquifer is running out and does not recharge nearly as fast as we've drained it, think 1000's of years. Nitrogen fertilizer from natural gas isn't going to be the reason we run out of cheap corn or grain from the midwest. The water running out is going to be the reason.
Nitrogen fertilizer is critical, however United States has five Great Lakes to supply water to irrigation and aqua ducts and reservoirs being built when it comes to feeding people, not just USA, but the world population.
@@JDAbelRN please show me these aqua ducts and reservoirs being used to divert the Great Lakes to the mid-west. I have a feeling they don't exist, it's way too far my friend. Take a look at the distances. Also, I'm certain Canada would have a problem with this idea.
@@toddsnyder5135those houses with docks 50ft above the shore are spooky, but there was so much less corn farming back in the 80s and 90s when it was full
Fact check: At 48:45 when he says that the largest wind turbine is equivalent to 1000 barrels of oil, he’s off by orders of magnitude, not sure exactly how many, but 1 barrel is 1.7 MWh and the biggest turbine is 13 MW, so: 1700 MWh/13 MW is only 130 hours of operation to beat 1000 barrels of oil equivalent and expected lifetime is a lot longer than that. Maybe he meant 100,000 barrels of oil? Great discussion otherwise!
I don't know if his numbers are right or wrong, but I believe his 1000 barrel number is what's left from the much bigger number of barrels embedded in the construction of the wind turbine. Second I guess is the conversion, 1 barrel = 1.7 MWH how is that conversion done? Then third, a 13 MW wind turbine has an average capacity factor of about 33%, so really 4.3 MW on average. Having such a low "average" CP on an intermittent source really downgrades the value of that electricity, but he didn't mention that.
You have completely missed the point. A barrel of crude oil can ever be burned once to release its energy ~ not twice not three times not more ~ only once. Unlike a wind turbine that can "release" its energy for our use over and over and over again for typically many many years. See the difference yet??!!
I was thinking this myself also wondering if we are measuring the barrels of oil in the form of heat and the energy that comes from the windmill as heat also which is the worst way to go for the windmill. If we're taking the electricity from the windmill and running motors at 90% where the oil is lucky to get 30% when turned to motion that would change things also.
_Excellent, informative, accessible, evidence-based interview. Thank you Dr. Keefer._ _I would like to add that there are other considerations that were not addressed, such as: the recycling, reuse and eventual disposal of nuclear waste, and the long-lasting, massively devastating cost of failure of even a single nuclear plant. While failures are rare, their effects are orders of magnitude more immediately disastrous than other powergen plan failures._ _Plus there is the the very real risk that, if we add more reactors worldwide, of nuclear fuel permeating the world and being recycled/enriched into weapons grade by nations with rogue leaders._ _I do believe that wind and solar are not able to replace all our other (non-renewable) energy sources, mainly because of resource contstarints, and (as noted in the interview) the need for non-renewable energy to make our renewable energy generating machines._ _I don't know what the ultimate solution is, but it's not nuclear either._ _(By the way the movie "Planet of the Humans" that Leigh Goehring referenced is available in RUclips. I highly recommend all your viewers watch it)_
there's an economic diminishing return, as we always have seen, from "spiking" oil prices. we're a petro economy and raising the cost of oil destroys the economy across the board, the cost has nothing to do with supply or demand but this resource's control on growth.
How did your guest come up with nitrogen as the sole source of improved crop growth. Increased nitrogen will not work without increased water. CO2 can increase crop growth without increased water.
Uh OK, everybody seems to like this. Great channel, ideas discussed are of the utmost importance, etc. I'm just trying to understand what's going on. That said, this 'Petrochemical Industries Spokesperson', sure he's full of knowledge, but he seems to be simultaneously saying how brilliant we are at extracting fossil fuels while also sewing fear about the future of these fuels (read: rely on the experts/us, and we'll get you through it), all the while bragging how well his company is doing (and has done). His entire viewpoint is about how well we can manage the oil the earth has for us and how to make money knowing about it. He barely represents the topic of understanding EROEI from the standpoint of everyone living better. Not just the investment class. Gave the guy a free infomercial.🙁
not so much a spokesman for pretrochemicla industries but an investment strategist, in other word as you can hear the absolute joy in his voice over catching the spike for quick and ungodly returns. the jevons paradox made out to be savvy investing. we are failing at every turn on transitioning but maintaining consumption of oil to supplement demand ... now.
Big fan of G&R ... I am somewhat bemused at the usage of neural nets to model anything in the agg/energy space... I guess with multimodal/multifactor concepts it makes sense, but not sure how that outperforms pure simulation techniques or SVMs for this kind of thing, unless you go the level of multi-agent.. and that seems excessive.
I am not sure the EROI argument is as strong today as it used to be. Back in the 19th and 20th century, most things were done by humans, but nowadays automation increasingly replaces humans. Therefore, a low EROI but highly automated energy production can be more economical than high EROI, barely automated process. Think robot armies building solar cells in the desert to harvest energy for more solar cells&robots. I am very much pro nuclear power, but I believe that the strongest long-term counter argument is highly automated solar and battery deployment combined with advances in battery and PV cell chemistry.
Here, look over here at this Shell game. Don't pay any attention to the big picture. It's no new news that fossil fuels have given the privileged, including all of us reading this, a comfortable life, but it is also no new news that burning fossil fuels is screwing up the 11,000 years of stable weather that allowed agriculture and civilization - a civilization that has learned to use the energy from the sun, wind, tides & geothermal at scale enough to replace fossil fuels, if only we'd do it and not be held back by the profiteers of the oil companies who support programs like this, trying to fool us with their Shell game.
India will skip over petroleum addiction much like Africa skipped over land lines straight to cell phone usage. Your previous guest talking about molten salt thorium reactors is what India wiil move to, enabling 1.3 billion people to move to an electrified energy transition.
NO MASSIVE BATTERY BACKUP! Some try to debunk wind and solar EROEI’s by overcounting the storage required. But now it seems most renewable energy papers emphasise OVERBUILDING wind and solar themselves to avoid MASSIVE storage costs. Even better - overbuild solar and wind across a wide geographic area. HVDC lines only lose 3% across 1000 km, so it is possible for Spanish solar to help run Finland, and Finnish wind to then return the favour at night. Now Overbuild renewables with building for winter as your guide. Solar is currently 1/4 the cost of nuclear (Lazard). When the solar and wind grid is Overbuilt, it’s not only saving money on expensive storage but saving the EROEI as well. There’s another way to save EROEI. Don’t build metal batteries for bulk grid storage - push water uphill instead! A big pumped hydro dam takes VASTLY less metal and energy to make than batteries, and lasts for 100 years. Professor Andrew Blakers of the Australian National University says 2 days storage should be provided by off-river pumped hydro systems which are faster and cheaper to build than on-river. (You just slowly pump the water in later. Cover in floating solar panels to reduce evaporation and you’re done!) The world has 100 TIMES more sites than we need. re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ We might need an hour or two sodium battery capacity to kick in and give the pumped-hydro a chance to work. (Sodium is less toxic, less fire prone, and 30% cheaper than lithium. And SUPER-abundant in sea-salt!) In summary: don't cheat. Don't over-emphasise the sunk energy costs in building MASSIVE batteries that most renewable energy papers conclude we do not need in the first place!
"Solar is currently 1/4 the cost of nuclear..." Wind and solar are infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis, which is why no factory on Earth runs on them off-grid.
All nonsense eclipse. Austerity (rationing fossil fuels) is the answer not covering the Earth in windmills and solar panels. No to massive increases of mining! No to enslaved kids in Congo.
Having two persons in total agreement discussing an issue produces no insight and no probing questions. The podcast begins with dire outlooks for petroleum production but later suggests it is by far the only reasonable fuel for transportation. Unquestioned is the fuzzy statement by the guest that a large wind generator over its lifetime produces the energy equivalent of 1000 barrels of oil. Using data from the DOE, the 2020 average (2.75 mw) wind generator operated at 42% capacity factor, and over its 20 year life would produce ≈200,000 Mwh of electricity which is equal to nearly 500,000 barrels of oil (converted to useful energy @ 25%). The discussion ignores efficiency and managing electricity demand side, which has great potential for matching energy use to supply through well insulated, smaller homes, larger, well insulated water heaters, heat pumps, LED lighting etc. The recently completed nuclear plant, Vogtle #3, cost ≈$30,000/home served.
Ridiculous... Renewables REQUIRE $50 Trillion to $100 Trillion in Back-Up Power Storage....JUST IN THE US. Without $Hundreds of Billions of Subsidies.... there would be NO RENEWABLE Projects built anywhere. No "Expert" leaves out the CRAZY HIGH COSTS of Back-Up Power.
Its crazy to me how small the views still are on these. This is awesome x1000! The commentary on shale is freaking scary. Its so hard to find any clarity on how much oil is still in the ground. I believe the industry does not want this information out… because they are psychopaths, i guess. They don’t want to share how little they have left because capital will flee but we must prepare for the end of oil to avoid collapse/ war.
I agree, however there are huge NG PLAYS in New York State that have not been exploited due to ignorance of the state government laws forbidding exploration and production. The infrastructure would be relatively easy with pipeline connected to pipeline in Pennsylvania.
We need to envision a modern society with less consumption. We can have a good quality of life with less. If expectations are 20th century style mass consumption, we will be fighting and suffering.
We cannot afford to burn more fossil fuels. Demands needs to drop. Supply also needs to drop. The obvious path is degrowth both for demand and for supply.
We/I do not have a sufficiently well structured narrative to put "Recursion to the Mean", into the Unit Circle bubble-mode coordination actual thermodynamical characteristics universally, ie what the objectives of resonant 2-ness i-reflection containment is in 3-ness perspectives, ..so how do coherence-cohesion objectives float in mass-energy-momentum, solid-liquid-gas-plasma superposition/perfect gas, Absolute Zero-infinity reference-framing of e-Pi-i Aether Spacetime Relativity.., because in natural wave-particle coordination-identification of Singularity-point positioning Conception Perspective Principle Superspin Modulation Mechanism, Mathematics and Physics are at opposite sides of inside-outside holographic relative-timing ratio-rates resonant states, if we don't know how the formula is made-of-making elemental function infinitesimal Time Duration Timing Galilean Measure Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium wave-packaging modulation, Entropy negates Gold-Silver Rule innate Curriculum for QM-TIME Completeness, ie Unit Circle Resonance Fusion-Fission is Eternity-now. The review, reiteration and re-evolution recognition of Logarithmic Time by the global Education system is a a confronting process of WYSIWYG permanent energy crisis. Metastable proportioning balance is a rare thing.
Good historical analysis, poor future analysis. No mention of global climate upheaval causing food shortages and rising seas. What are the cost of those two consequences?
Indian Point was closed because it was built on an earthquake fault line just north of NYC. Every other nuclear power plant in NY continues to operate and receive ZECs (zero carbon credits). It was prudent rather than regrettable to close it. Cheap wind and cheap oil are done. But the cost and EROEI to build large-scale firm solar capacity (not intermittent, but baseload capacity) is already better than every other power generating resource. Few understand this, but time and markets will prove this true. Regardless, nuclear can, should, and will provide a large percentage of new global capacity in the coming decades. SMRs will provide safe point-source capacity at large load centers (AI data centers, industrial facilities, cities, etc.) and our Space Force + will depend upon it too. Domestic gas prices will go up until gas can afford to be produced as a primary product, ratherthanas a by-productof uneconomic oil. Electrification of end use energy consumption will continue to take effect regardless of the fuel source used to generate the electricity. An electrical power system is both an efficient distribution network and a "Smart" information network. Think of the internet and the grid combined. Do not confuse the fuel with the end product. Gas, nuclear, coal, etc... boil water to make steam to turn turbines. Photovoltaics is the direct inversion of solar energy to electricity. Few understand this or its implications. Great interview.
@aliendroneservices6621 It's growth has been exponential for thirty years. You have to understand what that means moving forward. If it's already cheaper today at utility-scale, the only thing limiting its growth is policy. Policy-makers are beginning to understand solar's potential, but most policy-makers look at solar through the lens of non-solar experts and assume it is a Green must have, rather than a smart and cost-effective should be. If you understood the current state of solar and its potential, you would be amazed. It is so far beyond what the average person could imagine. That said, it will be a mix of technologies that will serve growing loads (think AI servers) for the foreseeable future, including hydro, gas, nuclear, wind, and solar.
These guys are just out of date The first offshore wind turbine in Europe was 0.45MW and operated at 20% capacity factor The next gen ones coming online next year will be 15MW in size and have a capacity factor of 60% That means a wind turbine built in 2024 produces 100x as much energy as the first one built in 1991 Things have improved by 100x yet these two fossils still think it's 1991 A modern offshore wind turbine is more energy dense than even nuclear energy 2,000 tons of material to build a 15MW offshore turbine. Equals less than 1 gram of materials per KWh generated That's 300x better than coal People say nuclear is a million times more dense than chemical reactions. Sure but nuclear fuel doesn't magically turn into electricity. If you take the total mass of the nuclear fuel rods and the mass of the lower station and divide by lifetime output it's over 1 gram per KWh meaning wind is more energy dense (less material per KWh) than nuclear and 300x less than coal For those still skeptical the UK is bigger in population than even the biggest US state and we are already this year 65% non fossil for our grid and that's going to be closer to 75% in two years time as five more offshore wind farms come online Also the UK has gone from 12 tons of co2 per capita in the year 2000 to sub 6 tons today so a deep cut in fossil fuel usage is possible while maintaining a first world economy
Biden has already said the world will end in 10 years if we don't end fossil fuels. The UK produces 1% of the world's CO2 emissions. So even if you cut that to 0% of the world's emissions the world still ends in 10 years if China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, USA, Germany, France, Russia, Brazil etc., etc., don't drastically reduce their emissions. The seas won't soon begin to boil but London will be 10 meters below sea level. So great job UK, keep building your big windmills.
Okay then. What is the solution? With all environmental concerns aside, we will run out of fossil fuels. Are Nuclear and hydro electric with a small use of renewables all we got?. And use electric vehicles where possible.
Leigh grossly overestimates the EROEI of nuclear by not factoring in the building and maintenance costs as well as the mining and decommissioning costs. Still, nuclear is a viable option to offset the depletion of other energy sources of which nuclear also has depletion issues.
What about the radioactive waste that lasts forever that no one has figured out how or where to store it? Very short sighted to say nuclear is viable, also blind to it's monetary and social costs. It can't get insurance so we have to subsidize how expensive it is. So dumb when we have the sun and wind basically free and harmless.
Get your old bicycles scooters and pedestrians power out more reliable Less Waste! Solution Degrowth and Deglobalization Nate Hagens The Great Simplification podcasts on RUclips with knowledgeable scientists geologists professors etc… is very helpful 🕊🌏🙏🏼
Yet another fascinating and important interview! The only way we're going to be able to afford to grow our prosperity, is if we shrink our population (by choice being the only nice way)... If we don't, we're all gonna have to cut back on in increasing number of things... and the willingness to fight for them will increase. I'd rather have fewer of us, each with more.
It amazes me how the myth of overpopulation persists. It reminds me of all the anti-nuclear myths that so many people hang on to regardless of the facts.
@@chapter4travels Can you name any big problem that we face today that is easier to fix with even more humans on the planet? Why don't we just choose to have 1 or 2, and then let them have a steadily increasing amount of resources, space, fun, adventures throughout their lives, instead of a hasteningly increasing limit on them... What would you or i gain from a larger population?
@@cheeseandjamsandwich Human ingenuity is the most valuable natural resource on the planet, a lower population shrinks that resource. Having said that, a balanced population is necessary. That is happening right now and in many places too quickly. Birth rates are down everywhere in the world and in most first-world countries, it's WAY down. In the next 50 years, under-population or rather unbalanced population will be a huge problem. China is a great example, WAY too many old people, FAR too few working-age people due to their 1-child policy. China is in its heyday right now, but not for long, they have a huge population problem.
@@cheeseandjamsandwich just look at the China's failed attempt at reducing growth. Then look at where the growth is. Do you want colonialism 2.0? Would you come to Ghana and Niger and say "hey, don't have children"? While the prosperity growth is the best predictor so far of population growth stop.
@@ImaskarDono China avoided a estimated 400 million extra births due to it's policies... But most people don't know that there were two policies... the one before the One-Child-Policy was one that wasn't a law but a plea, with education and access to birth control... This lasted about 9-10 years... If you look at the birth rate fall, almost all of it happened due to this first policy... it went from 6 or so down to 2.... Only then, at about 2, did they put their infamous, and fkin dodgy one child policy. It get's all the attention, but it didn't do much of the work saving the Chinese from starvation. Oh yes, they were facing massive starvation... which was the reason they had to do the policies. Ghana, Niger... It works both ways. Prosperity decreases the birth rate. AND a lower birth rate increases prosperity. They go hand in hand. The only real way they can actually develop to a meaningful level is if they also get their birth rate down. And this is thru empowering women, access to family planning, education, etc. etc. etc. One child policies, forced sterilisation, energy scarcity, resource scarcity, wars, famines, generally shit times, etc, etc, are all SYMPTOMS of overpopulation. The only nice way out of it is to educate and enable people to choose to have fewer kids. Agreed?
The bottom line is sunshine and wind is an incredibly diluted source of energy compared to fossil fuels. You need to get passed the source of information and delve into the reality of the facts. Because of the diffuse nature of wind and solar energy content you will need to carpet the landscape with a tremendous amount of solar and wind to match the energy of fossil fuels. The physics says it's not practical. Just look at where we are with grid battery backup. 1 to 2 hrs, if we were lucky, if we even had enough batteries which is also not achievable at todays rate of producing them. Energy reality is a bitch and we will likely soon be getting a wake up call letting us know just that.
This guy is defending the old with little understanding of the new. If renewables had poor energy efficiency the economics would not work. But they do. Hes fails to account for the efficiency of elwcticl systems, which are high, vs combustion system, which are low.
Watching this again in 24 is funny. He’s almost wrong on all counts. Oil never got to 200. Solar/battery prices have declined massively, even since their prior lowest value. His EROI calculations are wrong regarding solar as he completely ignores their technological improvements. Solar efficiency will continue to improve, not to mention how much needed to make them. EROI on solar already is above 30 in high irradiance areas. It will continue to improve. Arguments on BEVs are delusional. They use less energy over their life than ICE vehicles. Nuclear powered EVs are by far a higher EROI system than ICE vehicles.
This was brilliant until he started waxing lyrical about nuclear power. There are limits everywhere including nuclear. Plus he's wrong about having to feed grains to livestock. The very best meat is grass fed. And all this grain consumption is killing us causing the metabolic syndrome epidemic that is crushing health systems everywhere. Fact of the matter is that collapse is inevitable.
Massive assumption and modeling error(s). While Oil (etc.) have a high level of Energy at the source point (e.g., Well) by the time it gets to turning Wheels -- 90% of the fantasy energy level has disappeared as losses -- generally Heat. Compare that to Electric Motors 80% or more go through without loss. Just like ICEs (Internal Combustion Engines) replaced horses -- without having to grow more Oats and Hay -- Electric Motors can replace ICEs without having expand any energy markets. Looks like a whole lot less.
this system has inertia and until outright collapse the gold and silver buys anything and anyone. gold buys control over the resources we need for food production.
Nuclear is carbon free? Except for mining uranium. The diesel fuel needed barely balances the energy recovered with nuclear. When I told this to a Swiss energy executive, he said that wasn't their problem but the producting country. And then you have nuclear waste to take care of. If he's lying about this, how can you take him seriously?
He lost me completely when he mentioned "Planet of the Humans," which is so full of anachronisms and inaccuracies. Also when he mentioned that the EROEI of renewables involved all the curtailment and surplus, as if we couldn't find a myriad ways to store the energy or transport it across vast distances if only we adapted our energy grid away from its baseload-and-peaker-plants past. It's more like 18 for wind otherwise.
39:03 nuc is NOT the most efficient unit of energy - plasma energy is - its free!!! God put it here for us and not for man to charge one cent to use!!!
Big part of Chris Keefer's brilliance: getting brilliantly informed and cogent guests -- thanks for this and ALL your podcasts!
A little bit challenging to listen to Mr. Goehring, but oh my Lord he fits in your pool of brilliant guests, and there is GOLD in them there words.
I know Mark Nelson is a frequent guest - but please have him on again.
I never get bored of watching Chris getting disillusioned and a little more cynical every time Mark is dropping truth bombs.
I love Leigh, such a knowledgeable and humble guy. His paper was who got me in the energy trade back in the end of 2020.
Same. I owe him and Adam immensely.
The "famous investor" is Warren Buffet of Berkshire-Hathaway.
Excellent interview. I greatly respect analysts who use real numbers AND outline where they were wrong and why.
Respect to Leigh, it takes some balls for someone of his calibre to say what he says. Brilliant analysis and insight into the demand side. Massive dislocations going forward.
No one ever talks about conservation of energy, our wasteful lifestyles in the developed world and the need to lower our consumption - especially for things we don’t really need. Most people in the developed world have too much ‘stuff’. It all had to be made - with energy.
Unfortunately modern civilisation is a heat engine and we might have to ‘de grow’ and lead more simple lives. Our main preoccupation in the future might well be getting enough food on the table.
Plenty of power out there we have almost an unlimited supply of liquid natural gas and then you can talk a nuclear and other such energy investments. How about you Liberal stay away from the political stage because you have 0 energy intelligence and all your ideas. Are the cause of all the world's problems?
Nothing says overconsumption like the spread of those ugly rental storage facilities in every part of the US. We have so much crap we don’t have room for it in our houses.
Started off as an interesting discussion on resource scarcity and devolved into the guest revealing this is just an ideological argument for short term economic gain at the cost of the ecological systems we need to live on this planet (especially when he got to his little diatribes about Europe and 'windmills').
Disappointed that there was no push back on some of the more spurious claims here:
-EROI 100:1 for nuclear? Since when and where?
-Permian Basin claims ' its just a little well,' instead of thousands of wells spread over an area greater than the size of Great Britain. Wells that are abandoned after a few months and replaced with new ones a few miles away, all while they spew methane 24/7 (and thats just the fugitive emissions).
-He went to great lengths to mention the resources needed for 'windmills' but no mention of the near constant construction, deployment and abandonment of fracking wells?
-No mention of the amount of water needed to get gas out of fractured shale or any fossil fuels or even nuclear (is this not an important resource??)
-No mention of the materials needed for the almost constant stream of new fossil fuel projects that are viable for a few years (at the very most of at all), no mention of the trillions in subsidies needed or the resources, metals and energy this requires?
-No mention of the ecological destruction involved? Another externality?
This is very one sided. The resources issue is a real one but anyone here can read overshoot or any number of books written in the last 50yrs to understand that.
Im only new to this channel so maybe I misjudged it. But the first video I watched was with James Hansen, the second was Simon Michaux, enjoyed both immensely but this comes across as just a commodity broker who only cares about his short term profits, if we continue listening to people like this, the planet will burn.
For the record, Im for nuclear and what Germany is doing makes no sense but the exact same can be said for the US and Canada (most of the world really). Renewables will not solve all our problems either but that doesn't mean that statements such as (paraphrasing) 'its just a little well' but 'look at all the resources need for a windmill' makes any sense as an argument.
Lets face it, this guest is only talking about commodities as a vehicle for profit, externalities like a liveable planet seem absent or at the very least a distant second to him. A little pushback would add a lot of credibility here, this is too serious a topic to allow ideology over facts.
Thank you for your time and effort. It's always amazing how many people are fooled by people pushing oil company arguments that are to me so obviously propaganda. Good to see someone else speaking up.
@@jazziejim Thanks for the kind comment. Im willing to give anyone a chance and as I said, Ive watched a few episodes but this was just fossil fuel propaganda masquerading as pro-nuclear or whatever its pretending to be.
When there was not even a hint of pushback against the idiotic and dishonest claims the guest made, all credibility went out the window. (And Ive just noticed the liked comments by the host are just reinforcing this). Ive unsubscribed and moved on, this is just a new strand of climate denial.
Thankfully Im not the only one who sees this so thanks again for your reply
@@jazziejimThe bottom line is sunshine and wind is an incredibly diluted source of energy compared to fossil fuels. You need to get passed the source of information and delve into the reality of the facts. Because of the diffuse nature of wind and solar energy content you will need to carpet the landscape with a tremendous amount of solar and wind to match the energy of fossil fuels. The physics says it's not practical. Just look at where we are with grid battery backup. 1 to 2 hrs, if we were lucky, if we even had enough batteries which is also not achievable at todays rate of producing them. Energy reality is a bitch and we will likely soon be getting a wake up call letting us know just that.
Look Marley, if we keep using fossil fuels we won't have a civilization, so stop looking for reasons alternatives won't work and open your eyes and see that they do work, there's plenty of room, and they're the cheapest. I'm sure you are smart, so you can see that solar or wind on each roof is much better than a centralized inefficient set up, so we should do that where possible. And of course you are smart enough to know that the reason we aren't doing it by now is because it doesn't make the elites money. So why don't you be a good self-reliant conservative and conserve our environment instead of being a tool of the rich elites. @@Marley-ii6ls
@@Marley-ii6lsExactly I think these people are missing the point on the importance of energy density in creating a progressive society and a modern society. Every time that our ability to exploit a new and more against that form of energy has come online has resulted in a net benefit to humanity - going back to wind and solar, both less dense energy sources, is not a step forward but a step backwards. If you want to have the modern world with modern medicines technology fertilizers to feed everyone because we need them for crops obviously then you need petrochemicals you need denser energy sources you cannot do this with a bunch of windmills because honestly do you know how many windows you need to match the equivalent of one nuclear power plant it's huge. Like the equivalent number of turbines that you need to supply the amount of energy you get from one nuclear reactor it's about 200 to 400 times the footprint of a nuclear reactor. And actually how is that good for the environment if you destroy tons of habitat putting up these damn windmills when you can just use one nuclear reactor and actually not destroy a bunch of forest let's say. Let's see do we clear cut 10 square kilometers of force or use a few hectares for one nuclear reactor which will have more of an ecological impact oh that's not a hard one to figure out. come on people we just need to do some logical thinking on this and get back into reality!
The guest advises to hold gold and silver. I’d also suggest that apart from paying off all debt, that a great protective financial strategy is to grow a vegetable garden and fruit trees (with all the necessary tools) and maybe have rabbits and chooks as well. A rooftop water harvesting system is a good idea as is lots of warm clothing. Alcohol and pain meds. And, as advised on an edition of Radio Ecoshock a while back, some long term storable food. ( now widely available for purchase and some of it can last 10 years or more).
Just stock up on baked beans.😂
It becomes harder and harder to believe in the green transition and net zero in 2050. EU and USA can put high taxes on carbon emmision but if prices becomes too high we will have to vote for another direction or simply storm the parlament. Populations in Indian an China and Russia will do what they can to increase their standard of living and it will take a lot of cheap energy. As soon as the transition starts to impact our life style, as we see now all the initiatives are switched to reverse. Just see Germany with their coal plants.
Him name dropping Vaclav Smil made me smile. His books are so information rich and dense!
US citizens need to drive around in smaller fuel-efficient automobiles. The stupidly oversized automobiles in USA is absolutely ridiculous.
And I suppose you also want them to buy a EV as well.
That's largely the automakers giving the middle finger to the EPA regulations on fuel economy, gaming the system because it's based on the footprint of the vehicle. A smaller part of the battle for corporate monopolies to control the government and shirk all responsibility for public good in service to psychotic profit culture.
@@prizecowproductionsDon't make it political. It's a very practical/honest statement.
There is no way that enough nuclear capacity can be added in time to positively impact this situation. This baby is going down. The content on this channel is outstanding. Thank you.
Precisely. Simon Michaux has outlined adequately why nuclear is not a serious answer. The idea that moving to nuclear subverts Russia is also completely laughable.
This is true and all the more reason not to shut down what nuclear power we do have.
Building nuclear capacity in western Canada starting now, will start to free up natural gas for export by about 2030 to 2035.
@@guymarquardt1618 exactly how does elimination of nuclear for electricity production help?
we don't make electricity from oil, nat gas is the waste product of extraction where it is in supply so it's artificially cheap because there's no such thing as long term storage. as a perishable good, it's still the backbone of electricity production, banana republic economics. not good at all.
@@jthadcast im not sure what you are saying here. I never said to shut down nuclear power. I said the exact opposite...
Seriously under followed channel. Great work!
"Can you name a name? I think thats important."
"No i can't he lives in Nebraska"
WARREN BUFFET! Its all a shell game to keep them in power while common people suffer!
8/23 Siemens has lost money the last 3 quarters. The most recent miss was due to faulty turbines for their windmills - 2 billion, I believe.
backward logic. demand is infinite for energy. the world will consume every barrel of supply made. available. and oil consumption does not increase due to rising gdp. Gdp rises because of increasing oil consumption.
"demand is infinite for energy. " According to the Energy Information Administration's statistics, the per-capita energy consumption in the U.S. has been somewhat consistent from the 1970s to the present time.
@@chapter4travels The US is a "modern" country that went from very wasteful to more efficient use of energy since the "first oil crisis". 1.5B people worldwide still have no access to reliable electricity. As more people become "middle class" per capita consumption goes way up. It's not just math and academics, it's mother's and fathers having to watch their children starve or freeze to death. Throw in inflated costs for everything due to higher cost energy inputs, urban riots and regional energy wars, and there will be no escape, anywhere.
@@chapter4travels how hard isit for youto understand this. evey bit of energy produced will be consumed. deand is a stupid term. you can demand something all you want. if it is not there it doe not matter. once agai demand for energy is infinite. every bit of energy produced will be consumed.and wether the energy that goes into the products is in china or america you are still the one consuming the energy
@@eurobrowarriormonk7182 Total BS, demand drives production. Demand for energy in the US has basically been flat since the 70's. Producing more would not have increased use, it would just be a glut and drove down prices. Why would energy producers do that?
No food and No heat in EUs winters .. oh dear 🤔
Great Awakening Podcast like Professor Simon Michaux Guys who are in the field of minerals metals oil and Energy Blindness
‘When Nowhere Is Now Here” by David Allan Dawneway
All those glossy vapours
Glowing like neon
Promising false favours
To a future nearly gone
Based on claiming souls
From pen strokes made of air
Projecting fading goals
On trust that isn’t there
How many seconds are there?
With so little to share
When everywhere is nowhere
And nowhere is now here
When the rubber band snaps
And wings fall off those dreams
And we have drained the tanks
And are running out of steam
And the world is Icarus
In a spiral down
Because we put our trust
In ever lying clowns
How much can love then bear?
On dulled hearts my dear
When everywhere is nowhere
And nowhere is now here
ER < EOI ... law of thermodynamics
The answer is in your question. Also Sodium batteries are here. Sea salt. It's not hard
Nicely done and appreciate the chapters
You can't use a wind power system to build the next generation wind power system. This can't be mitigated. I have no problem with nuclear power, I have a problem with nuclear waste. No country has solved the problem of nuclear waste, and spent fuel rods that must be kept cool are a tremendous problem. This problem can't (hasn't yet) been mitigated. Peak oil means a diminishing oil supply, with decreasing EROEI as a bonus. This problem can't be mitigated. A growing population requires a growing supply of food and fresh water, plus everything else that people want and need. All the fresh water on earth is spoken for. This problem can't be mitigated. Hang onto your hats folks. Spread the word to anyone you know that might be planning to reproduce, unless their child won't need food, water, transportation, clothing, education and all the rest that oil make possible. Bonus fact, the earth is heating up, and the rate of increase is itself accelerating.
The founders of the EROEI concept were Professor Charles Hall and David Murphy. This is “Energy Return on Energy Investment” - the idea of measuring how much ENERGY PROFIT (not financial profit) you make by building a power plant once you subtract the energy it took to make the thing. They originally concluded that the Energy Return on Energy Invested of renewables was not high enough to run the modern world. However, with efficiency gains in manufacturing more solar panels from less materials, once of the key founders Professor David Murphy now categorically puts solar at 10 and oil down at 4.6!
“Studies have given figures for the EROI of solar energy as low as 3.9 and as high as 45.45. The lowest estimate, produced by Weissbach et al, was thoroughly discredited by technology entrepreneur Ramez Naam as glaringly low, and he estimates the EROI of solar PV at “above 10, and probably above 15…And rising.” In the most thorough meta-study of the EROI of solar PV, conducted by Bhandari et al, 232 papers estimating solar’s EROI were analysed and the mean estimate was 11.6. Mean EROI varied greatly between types of solar PV, with cadmium telluride coming in at an astounding 34.2. It is also important to note that many of these studies focussed on older installations, which lowered the average. Most modern studies find an EROI for polysilicon solar PV of about 16 and future systems will continue to rise.
In a similar meta-study, systems ecologist Charles A.S. Hall as well as researchers Jessica Lambert and Stephen Balogh looked at the data in studies of other energy sources. Their results are shown in the following table (except for solar - due to their results underestimating its EROI by including decades old studies, Ramez Naam’s estimate of 15 is used).“
www.vikramsolar.com/eroi-of-solar-energy/
David Murphy also critiqued some of his earlier work with Charles Hall, and said certain processes needed streamlining.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856
Finally, someone with facts. Thank you.
The bottom line is sunshine and wind is an incredibly diluted source of energy compared to fossil fuels. You need to get passed the source of information and delve into the reality of the facts. Because of the diffuse nature of wind and solar energy content you will need to carpet the landscape with a tremendous amount of solar and wind to match the energy of fossil fuels. The physics says it's not practical. Just look at where we are with grid battery backup. 1 to 2 hrs, if we were lucky, if we even had enough batteries which is also not achievable at todays rate of producing them. Energy reality is a bitch and we will likely soon be getting a wake up call letting us know just that.
Heck I think I’m going to do my whole radio show and this episode on EROEI
Where can I follow it?
Would love to have you get someone on to discuss biogas and its ability to decarbonize heavy trucking. Clean Energy Fuels has started building stations and digesters targeting 18 wheelers. Would also enjoy your thoughts on rng trucks vs hydrogen fuel cell trucks
The reduction of exploration budgets is due to negative returns on exploration budgets.
Ogallala aquifer is running out and does not recharge nearly as fast as we've drained it, think 1000's of years. Nitrogen fertilizer from natural gas isn't going to be the reason we run out of cheap corn or grain from the midwest. The water running out is going to be the reason.
Nitrogen fertilizer is critical, however United States has five Great Lakes to supply water to irrigation and aqua ducts and reservoirs being built when it comes to feeding people, not just USA, but the world population.
@@JDAbelRN please show me these aqua ducts and reservoirs being used to divert the Great Lakes to the mid-west. I have a feeling they don't exist, it's way too far my friend. Take a look at the distances. Also, I'm certain Canada would have a problem with this idea.
@@toddsnyder5135those houses with docks 50ft above the shore are spooky, but there was so much less corn farming back in the 80s and 90s when it was full
IMO, one would be hard pressed to find other analysts with such fantastic insights regarding the supply and demand of commodities as G and R.
Fact check: At 48:45 when he says that the largest wind turbine is equivalent to 1000 barrels of oil, he’s off by orders of magnitude, not sure exactly how many, but 1 barrel is 1.7 MWh and the biggest turbine is 13 MW, so: 1700 MWh/13 MW is only 130 hours of operation to beat 1000 barrels of oil equivalent and expected lifetime is a lot longer than that. Maybe he meant 100,000 barrels of oil?
Great discussion otherwise!
I don't know if his numbers are right or wrong, but I believe his 1000 barrel number is what's left from the much bigger number of barrels embedded in the construction of the wind turbine. Second I guess is the conversion, 1 barrel = 1.7 MWH how is that conversion done? Then third, a 13 MW wind turbine has an average capacity factor of about 33%, so really 4.3 MW on average. Having such a low "average" CP on an intermittent source really downgrades the value of that electricity, but he didn't mention that.
@@chapter4travels Good points.
You have completely missed the point.
A barrel of crude oil can ever be burned once to release its energy ~ not twice not three times not more ~ only once.
Unlike a wind turbine that can "release" its energy for our use over and over and over again for typically many many years.
See the difference yet??!!
I was thinking this myself also wondering if we are measuring the barrels of oil in the form of heat and the energy that comes from the windmill as heat also which is the worst way to go for the windmill. If we're taking the electricity from the windmill and running motors at 90% where the oil is lucky to get 30% when turned to motion that would change things also.
Great point of view, thanks. I would like to know how many birds are killed due to wind turbines.
_Excellent, informative, accessible, evidence-based interview. Thank you Dr. Keefer._
_I would like to add that there are other considerations that were not addressed, such as: the recycling, reuse and eventual disposal of nuclear waste, and the long-lasting, massively devastating cost of failure of even a single nuclear plant. While failures are rare, their effects are orders of magnitude more immediately disastrous than other powergen plan failures._
_Plus there is the the very real risk that, if we add more reactors worldwide, of nuclear fuel permeating the world and being recycled/enriched into weapons grade by nations with rogue leaders._
_I do believe that wind and solar are not able to replace all our other (non-renewable) energy sources, mainly because of resource contstarints, and (as noted in the interview) the need for non-renewable energy to make our renewable energy generating machines._
_I don't know what the ultimate solution is, but it's not nuclear either._
_(By the way the movie "Planet of the Humans" that Leigh Goehring referenced is available in RUclips. I highly recommend all your viewers watch it)_
there's an economic diminishing return, as we always have seen, from "spiking" oil prices. we're a petro economy and raising the cost of oil destroys the economy across the board, the cost has nothing to do with supply or demand but this resource's control on growth.
How did your guest come up with nitrogen as the sole source of improved crop growth. Increased nitrogen will not work without increased water. CO2 can increase crop growth without increased water.
Uh OK, everybody seems to like this. Great channel, ideas discussed are of the utmost importance, etc. I'm just trying to understand what's going on. That said, this 'Petrochemical Industries Spokesperson', sure he's full of knowledge, but he seems to be simultaneously saying how brilliant we are at extracting fossil fuels while also sewing fear about the future of these fuels (read: rely on the experts/us, and we'll get you through it), all the while bragging how well his company is doing (and has done). His entire viewpoint is about how well we can manage the oil the earth has for us and how to make money knowing about it. He barely represents the topic of understanding EROEI from the standpoint of everyone living better. Not just the investment class. Gave the guy a free infomercial.🙁
not so much a spokesman for pretrochemicla industries but an investment strategist, in other word as you can hear the absolute joy in his voice over catching the spike for quick and ungodly returns. the jevons paradox made out to be savvy investing. we are failing at every turn on transitioning but maintaining consumption of oil to supplement demand ... now.
Big fan of G&R ... I am somewhat bemused at the usage of neural nets to model anything in the agg/energy space... I guess with multimodal/multifactor concepts it makes sense, but not sure how that outperforms pure simulation techniques or SVMs for this kind of thing, unless you go the level of multi-agent.. and that seems excessive.
I am not sure the EROI argument is as strong today as it used to be.
Back in the 19th and 20th century, most things were done by humans, but nowadays automation increasingly replaces humans. Therefore, a low EROI but highly automated energy production can be more economical than high EROI, barely automated process. Think robot armies building solar cells in the desert to harvest energy for more solar cells&robots.
I am very much pro nuclear power, but I believe that the strongest long-term counter argument is highly automated solar and battery deployment combined with advances in battery and PV cell chemistry.
Here, look over here at this Shell game. Don't pay any attention to the big picture. It's no new news that fossil fuels have given the privileged, including all of us reading this, a comfortable life, but it is also no new news that burning fossil fuels is screwing up the 11,000 years of stable weather that allowed agriculture and civilization - a civilization that has learned to use the energy from the sun, wind, tides & geothermal at scale enough to replace fossil fuels, if only we'd do it and not be held back by the profiteers of the oil companies who support programs like this, trying to fool us with their Shell game.
Man that's a grim prospect...
Very good guest btw
ev will never be competitive lol. doesnt combustion engine need smelting?and very complex gearbox
Dont underestimate the engery transition. Solar and battey ia cheap and getting cheaper.
29:50 30:04 *_Energy efficiency_* is the bane of civilization.
India will skip over petroleum addiction much like Africa skipped over land lines straight to cell phone usage. Your previous guest talking about molten salt thorium reactors is what India wiil move to, enabling 1.3 billion people to move to an electrified energy transition.
Where is thorium currently used?
Omaha, Nebraska = Warren Buffett I’d bet
I really enjoyed this. Very informative.
NO MASSIVE BATTERY BACKUP! Some try to debunk wind and solar EROEI’s by overcounting the storage required. But now it seems most renewable energy papers emphasise OVERBUILDING wind and solar themselves to avoid MASSIVE storage costs. Even better - overbuild solar and wind across a wide geographic area. HVDC lines only lose 3% across 1000 km, so it is possible for Spanish solar to help run Finland, and Finnish wind to then return the favour at night. Now Overbuild renewables with building for winter as your guide. Solar is currently 1/4 the cost of nuclear (Lazard). When the solar and wind grid is Overbuilt, it’s not only saving money on expensive storage but saving the EROEI as well. There’s another way to save EROEI. Don’t build metal batteries for bulk grid storage - push water uphill instead! A big pumped hydro dam takes VASTLY less metal and energy to make than batteries, and lasts for 100 years. Professor Andrew Blakers of the Australian National University says 2 days storage should be provided by off-river pumped hydro systems which are faster and cheaper to build than on-river. (You just slowly pump the water in later. Cover in floating solar panels to reduce evaporation and you’re done!) The world has 100 TIMES more sites than we need. re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ We might need an hour or two sodium battery capacity to kick in and give the pumped-hydro a chance to work. (Sodium is less toxic, less fire prone, and 30% cheaper than lithium. And SUPER-abundant in sea-salt!) In summary: don't cheat. Don't over-emphasise the sunk energy costs in building MASSIVE batteries that most renewable energy papers conclude we do not need in the first place!
Thanks for the great info.
What about water scarce countries or unless they too do energy bartering
"Solar is currently 1/4 the cost of nuclear..."
Wind and solar are infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis, which is why no factory on Earth runs on them off-grid.
All nonsense eclipse. Austerity (rationing fossil fuels) is the answer not covering the Earth in windmills and solar panels. No to massive increases of mining! No to enslaved kids in Congo.
Nicole Foss nailed it in 2010 brilliant analogy.
at 36:00 i hear that people burn corn in there wood burning stove
Chris, the thumbnail might have a typo ;-)
Great Podcast!
Having two persons in total agreement discussing an issue produces no insight and no probing questions. The podcast begins with dire outlooks for petroleum production but later suggests it is by far the only reasonable fuel for transportation. Unquestioned is the fuzzy statement by the guest that a large wind generator over its lifetime produces the energy equivalent of 1000 barrels of oil. Using data from the DOE, the 2020 average (2.75 mw) wind generator operated at 42% capacity factor, and over its 20 year life would produce ≈200,000 Mwh of electricity which is equal to nearly 500,000 barrels of oil (converted to useful energy @ 25%). The discussion ignores efficiency and managing electricity demand side, which has great potential for matching energy use to supply through well insulated, smaller homes, larger, well insulated water heaters, heat pumps, LED lighting etc. The recently completed nuclear plant, Vogtle #3, cost ≈$30,000/home served.
What would we do with the nuclear waste?
Find a solution - technological research - next generation power plants - fusion, etc.
what is the cure for nuclear waste?
Ridiculous... Renewables REQUIRE $50 Trillion to $100 Trillion in Back-Up Power Storage....JUST IN THE US.
Without $Hundreds of Billions of Subsidies.... there would be NO RENEWABLE Projects built anywhere.
No "Expert" leaves out the CRAZY HIGH COSTS of Back-Up Power.
Its crazy to me how small the views still are on these. This is awesome x1000! The commentary on shale is freaking scary. Its so hard to find any clarity on how much oil is still in the ground. I believe the industry does not want this information out… because they are psychopaths, i guess. They don’t want to share how little they have left because capital will flee but we must prepare for the end of oil to avoid collapse/ war.
Burning canola oil is so dystopian
Why is everyone lying about the nuclear eroi. 100 x is much higher than i have seen.
I agree, however there are huge NG PLAYS in New York State that have not been exploited due to ignorance of the state government laws forbidding exploration and production. The infrastructure would be relatively easy with pipeline connected to pipeline in Pennsylvania.
We need to envision a modern society with less consumption. We can have a good quality of life with less. If expectations are 20th century style mass consumption, we will be fighting and suffering.
it is not true, that nuclear energy is co2 free, there are fossils needed, also what to do with used nuclear fuel rods?
We cannot afford to burn more fossil fuels. Demands needs to drop. Supply also needs to drop. The obvious path is degrowth both for demand and for supply.
We/I do not have a sufficiently well structured narrative to put "Recursion to the Mean", into the Unit Circle bubble-mode coordination actual thermodynamical characteristics universally, ie what the objectives of resonant 2-ness i-reflection containment is in 3-ness perspectives, ..so how do coherence-cohesion objectives float in mass-energy-momentum, solid-liquid-gas-plasma superposition/perfect gas, Absolute Zero-infinity reference-framing of e-Pi-i Aether Spacetime Relativity.., because in natural wave-particle coordination-identification of Singularity-point positioning Conception Perspective Principle Superspin Modulation Mechanism, Mathematics and Physics are at opposite sides of inside-outside holographic relative-timing ratio-rates resonant states, if we don't know how the formula is made-of-making elemental function infinitesimal Time Duration Timing Galilean Measure Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium wave-packaging modulation, Entropy negates Gold-Silver Rule innate Curriculum for QM-TIME Completeness, ie Unit Circle Resonance Fusion-Fission is Eternity-now.
The review, reiteration and re-evolution recognition of Logarithmic Time by the global Education system is a a confronting process of WYSIWYG permanent energy crisis. Metastable proportioning balance is a rare thing.
Good historical analysis, poor future analysis. No mention of global climate upheaval causing food shortages and rising seas. What are the cost of those two consequences?
Indian Point was closed because it was built on an earthquake fault line just north of NYC. Every other nuclear power plant in NY continues to operate and receive ZECs (zero carbon credits). It was prudent rather than regrettable to close it.
Cheap wind and cheap oil are done. But the cost and EROEI to build large-scale firm solar capacity (not intermittent, but baseload capacity) is already better than every other power generating resource. Few understand this, but time and markets will prove this true.
Regardless, nuclear can, should, and will provide a large percentage of new global capacity in the coming decades. SMRs will provide safe point-source capacity at large load centers (AI data centers, industrial facilities, cities, etc.) and our Space Force + will depend upon it too.
Domestic gas prices will go up until gas can afford to be produced as a primary product, ratherthanas a by-productof uneconomic oil.
Electrification of end use energy consumption will continue to take effect regardless of the fuel source used to generate the electricity. An electrical power system is both an efficient distribution network and a "Smart" information network. Think of the internet and the grid combined.
Do not confuse the fuel with the end product.
Gas, nuclear, coal, etc... boil water to make steam to turn turbines. Photovoltaics is the direct inversion of solar energy to electricity. Few understand this or its implications.
Great interview.
"...firm solar capacity [...] is already [cheaper]..."
Then why are none of the world's 1 million factories off-grid solar-powered?
@aliendroneservices6621 It's growth has been exponential for thirty years. You have to understand what that means moving forward. If it's already cheaper today at utility-scale, the only thing limiting its growth is policy. Policy-makers are beginning to understand solar's potential, but most policy-makers look at solar through the lens of non-solar experts and assume it is a Green must have, rather than a smart and cost-effective should be.
If you understood the current state of solar and its potential, you would be amazed. It is so far beyond what the average person could imagine. That said, it will be a mix of technologies that will serve growing loads (think AI servers) for the foreseeable future, including hydro, gas, nuclear, wind, and solar.
The trouble with investment is investors, as Adam Smith observed.
These guys are just out of date
The first offshore wind turbine in Europe was 0.45MW and operated at 20% capacity factor
The next gen ones coming online next year will be 15MW in size and have a capacity factor of 60%
That means a wind turbine built in 2024 produces 100x as much energy as the first one built in 1991
Things have improved by 100x yet these two fossils still think it's 1991
A modern offshore wind turbine is more energy dense than even nuclear energy
2,000 tons of material to build a 15MW offshore turbine. Equals less than 1 gram of materials per KWh generated
That's 300x better than coal
People say nuclear is a million times more dense than chemical reactions. Sure but nuclear fuel doesn't magically turn into electricity. If you take the total mass of the nuclear fuel rods and the mass of the lower station and divide by lifetime output it's over 1 gram per KWh meaning wind is more energy dense (less material per KWh) than nuclear and 300x less than coal
For those still skeptical the UK is bigger in population than even the biggest US state and we are already this year 65% non fossil for our grid and that's going to be closer to 75% in two years time as five more offshore wind farms come online
Also the UK has gone from 12 tons of co2 per capita in the year 2000 to sub 6 tons today so a deep cut in fossil fuel usage is possible while maintaining a first world economy
In 2024, wind is still infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis.
Biden has already said the world will end in 10 years if we don't end fossil fuels. The UK produces 1% of the world's CO2 emissions. So even if you cut that to 0% of the world's emissions the world still ends in 10 years if China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, USA, Germany, France, Russia, Brazil etc., etc., don't drastically reduce their emissions. The seas won't soon begin to boil but London will be 10 meters below sea level. So great job UK, keep building your big windmills.
Okay then. What is the solution? With all environmental concerns aside, we will run out of fossil fuels. Are Nuclear and hydro electric with a small use of renewables all we got?. And use electric vehicles where possible.
Who is the name you mentioned at 1:05:45 ??? (just before 'Sri Lanka')
Saloni Shah
Leigh grossly overestimates the EROEI of nuclear by not factoring in the building and maintenance costs as well as the mining and decommissioning costs. Still, nuclear is a viable option to offset the depletion of other energy sources of which nuclear also has depletion issues.
What about the radioactive waste that lasts forever that no one has figured out how or where to store it? Very short sighted to say nuclear is viable, also blind to it's monetary and social costs. It can't get insurance so we have to subsidize how expensive it is. So dumb when we have the sun and wind basically free and harmless.
Look up Gita : The Master Series researched by Petroleum geologist Art Berman
Investors and Shareholders Beware!🕊🌏
Interesting! But the real progress will come when we adopt a more realistical attitude to proposed "climate changes".
Get your old bicycles scooters and pedestrians power out more reliable Less Waste!
Solution Degrowth and Deglobalization Nate Hagens The Great Simplification podcasts on RUclips with knowledgeable scientists geologists professors etc… is very helpful 🕊🌏🙏🏼
My electric panels will produce 100 times the energy that went into producing them. That is energy efficient.
fos-sil-fuels
fos-sil-fuels
burn it first before all else
burn it til we are all dead
fos-sil-fuels
fos-sil-fuels
Yet another fascinating and important interview!
The only way we're going to be able to afford to grow our prosperity, is if we shrink our population (by choice being the only nice way)...
If we don't, we're all gonna have to cut back on in increasing number of things... and the willingness to fight for them will increase.
I'd rather have fewer of us, each with more.
It amazes me how the myth of overpopulation persists. It reminds me of all the anti-nuclear myths that so many people hang on to regardless of the facts.
@@chapter4travels Can you name any big problem that we face today that is easier to fix with even more humans on the planet?
Why don't we just choose to have 1 or 2, and then let them have a steadily increasing amount of resources, space, fun, adventures throughout their lives, instead of a hasteningly increasing limit on them...
What would you or i gain from a larger population?
@@cheeseandjamsandwich Human ingenuity is the most valuable natural resource on the planet, a lower population shrinks that resource.
Having said that, a balanced population is necessary. That is happening right now and in many places too quickly. Birth rates are down everywhere in the world and in most first-world countries, it's WAY down.
In the next 50 years, under-population or rather unbalanced population will be a huge problem. China is a great example, WAY too many old people, FAR too few working-age people due to their 1-child policy. China is in its heyday right now, but not for long, they have a huge population problem.
@@cheeseandjamsandwich just look at the China's failed attempt at reducing growth. Then look at where the growth is. Do you want colonialism 2.0? Would you come to Ghana and Niger and say "hey, don't have children"?
While the prosperity growth is the best predictor so far of population growth stop.
@@ImaskarDono China avoided a estimated 400 million extra births due to it's policies...
But most people don't know that there were two policies... the one before the One-Child-Policy was one that wasn't a law but a plea, with education and access to birth control... This lasted about 9-10 years... If you look at the birth rate fall, almost all of it happened due to this first policy... it went from 6 or so down to 2.... Only then, at about 2, did they put their infamous, and fkin dodgy one child policy. It get's all the attention, but it didn't do much of the work saving the Chinese from starvation. Oh yes, they were facing massive starvation... which was the reason they had to do the policies.
Ghana, Niger... It works both ways. Prosperity decreases the birth rate. AND a lower birth rate increases prosperity. They go hand in hand.
The only real way they can actually develop to a meaningful level is if they also get their birth rate down. And this is thru empowering women, access to family planning, education, etc. etc. etc.
One child policies, forced sterilisation, energy scarcity, resource scarcity, wars, famines, generally shit times, etc, etc, are all SYMPTOMS of overpopulation.
The only nice way out of it is to educate and enable people to choose to have fewer kids.
Agreed?
The bottom line is sunshine and wind is an incredibly diluted source of energy compared to fossil fuels. You need to get passed the source of information and delve into the reality of the facts. Because of the diffuse nature of wind and solar energy content you will need to carpet the landscape with a tremendous amount of solar and wind to match the energy of fossil fuels. The physics says it's not practical. Just look at where we are with grid battery backup. 1 to 2 hrs, if we were lucky, if we even had enough batteries which is also not achievable at todays rate of producing them. Energy reality is a bitch and we will likely soon be getting a wake up call letting us know just that.
Sounds Very efficient just to boil water
This guy is defending the old with little understanding of the new. If renewables had poor energy efficiency the economics would not work. But they do. Hes fails to account for the efficiency of elwcticl systems, which are high, vs combustion system, which are low.
Wind and solar *_are_* infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis.
46:30
Watching this again in 24 is funny. He’s almost wrong on all counts. Oil never got to 200. Solar/battery prices have declined massively, even since their prior lowest value.
His EROI calculations are wrong regarding solar as he completely ignores their technological improvements. Solar efficiency will continue to improve, not to mention how much needed to make them. EROI on solar already is above 30 in high irradiance areas. It will continue to improve.
Arguments on BEVs are delusional. They use less energy over their life than ICE vehicles. Nuclear powered EVs are by far a higher EROI system than ICE vehicles.
Sorry can not listen anyone who states we Didnt see it coming i put them in the negative 45 dollars a barrel club
This was brilliant until he started waxing lyrical about nuclear power. There are limits everywhere including nuclear.
Plus he's wrong about having to feed grains to livestock. The very best meat is grass fed. And all this grain consumption is killing us causing the metabolic syndrome epidemic that is crushing health systems everywhere.
Fact of the matter is that collapse is inevitable.
Massive assumption and modeling error(s). While Oil (etc.) have a high level of Energy at the source point (e.g., Well) by the time it gets to turning Wheels -- 90% of the fantasy energy level has disappeared as losses -- generally Heat. Compare that to Electric Motors 80% or more go through without loss.
Just like ICEs (Internal Combustion Engines) replaced horses -- without having to grow more Oats and Hay -- Electric Motors can replace ICEs without having expand any energy markets. Looks like a whole lot less.
You can't eat gold and silver.
this system has inertia and until outright collapse the gold and silver buys anything and anyone. gold buys control over the resources we need for food production.
outright collapse will be quicker and more insidious than your gold will buy you out of.@@jthadcast
Nuclear is carbon free?
Except for mining uranium. The diesel fuel needed barely balances the energy recovered with nuclear. When I told this to a Swiss energy executive, he said that wasn't their problem but the producting country. And then you have nuclear waste to take care of.
If he's lying about this, how can you take him seriously?
Now that doomers are equated with deniers what now? Drill baby drill?
....🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 ... wall (fall) street sponsored oligarchy propaganda ...foey ...
He lost me completely when he mentioned "Planet of the Humans," which is so full of anachronisms and inaccuracies. Also when he mentioned that the EROEI of renewables involved all the curtailment and surplus, as if we couldn't find a myriad ways to store the energy or transport it across vast distances if only we adapted our energy grid away from its baseload-and-peaker-plants past. It's more like 18 for wind otherwise.
39:03 nuc is NOT the most efficient unit of energy - plasma energy is - its free!!! God put it here for us and not for man to charge one cent to use!!!
Lol