Is this the end of economic growth?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2024
- Nate Hagens, host of the podcast “The Great Simplification,” discusses the implications of fossil fuel/material depletion and the ways that our financial system is accelerating consumption under the shadow of a looming economic correction.
Nate argues that classical economics neglects the central role of energy, and he offers a critique of the idea of resource substitution, especially when it comes to liquid fossil fuels. Will peak oil rear its head again as we continue to tap source rock via fracing? What will be the implications for a society and economy based on exponential growth?
Listen to The Great Simplification: www.thegreatsi...
Support Decouple on Patreon: / decouple
Learn more about Decouple Media: www.decoupleme...
Thank you for this! Finally I found a conversation that tackles a complex issue at its complexity.
20:30 Guy suggests replacing a finite resource in decline, with a less efficient finite resource in decline...dependent on the first to extract, refine, produce, and deliver in an inferior form.
"Finally, a conversation that tackles a complex issue at its complexity."
Bruh.
The waste component is rarely addressed when we talk about climate. The kitty litter box is full & overflowing. We are now eating & breathing plastics, not to mention all the other chemicals in our environment that we ingest daily. & we wonder why there's childhood cancer. We live in a toxic world.
Children of Men may become reality before we get to "The Road"
What a crossover, been waiting for this for awhile.
Still a better love story than twilight
Let’s face it, We Are So Fuked!
Great guest. Love to hear Nate Hagens' viewpoints.
This is an amazing podcast discussion!!! Even the wizard and the profit came up. So perfect.
This was really fascinating. The concluding remarks actually make a lot of sense, and are perfectly in line with Decouple's mission. Decoupling human well-being from negative impacts on the environment is a multifaceted exercise: human well being means different thing to different people and different groups of people. In western societies where we have everything we need to live a comfortable life, we think we can buy happiness by buying more stuff. I believe this has lead to a decline in human well-being, and this can be seen in the increase in mental health issues. Understanding that that's not the way to go may have several positive outcomes.
PS: I can't believe I am basically advocating for some sort of de-growth. Here. On Decouple. Oh my. This is what happens when you learn that the spectrum from black to white is even wider than you thought it could be!
we need to purge the degrowth term, even though it's 100% correct. our culture has demonized the idea of harmonic sustainability with our habitat so imho we'll need to fall below sustainability before accepting that paradigm. post collapse anything is possible.
@@jthadcast we should not succumb to others ignorance merely to appease them. It is a disservice to them and ourselves, and they can sense the subtle avoidance as deception. We should call things what they are, and degrowth is exactly the same as simplification. there is literally no other option, only because of the same people refusing to heed the warnings they were given.
@@Rnankn humans revolve and evolve with their language, we wouldn't be able to communicate in 16th century english well enough to avoid being hung. six centuries of capital growth economics has stigmatized equilibrium the same as six decades of a cold war made socialism a four letter word. we can fight the riptide of language because it's currently literally correct or we can stop alienating half the population, let the degrowth happen naturally while pursuing what we really need is adaptation to a economic paradigm decoupled from growth economics. choose your battles carefully in the age of culture wars
Reforest Earth
The Masai tribe have a Healthy body, are lean. No diabetes. No obesity, npo mental issues. No abuse of food. Woman, alcohol, no health insurance. Hospital or doctors. No therapist. They are in nature. No sleeping disorders. No adhd. Asperger, cancer. Autism. They live in community close to children parents, siblings and have only shelter and few belongings some cooking gear, little clothing. No watches. No bought jewelry and they work together as a tribe❤to take care of their tribe. They are only dependant on nature to provide food and housing hand built earthen huts
Super informative! He nails it. We should almost be grateful to Putin for ripping off the blinds…
This podcast should a basis for every fundamental discussion about climate change, energy transition and economic growth. It should be broadcast on major news channels.
Lol. Your comment is a wonderful example of Magical Thinking. ❤
Could you please explain me how Putin ripped off the blinds?
Nate is great. Solid discussion. Thanks!
Awesome lecture bravo..send it to the public schools
Great dialogue: Nate is correct in observing that people choose order over chaos. Malthus and Ehrlich were not incorrect, just ahead of their time.
You can't "print energy", sure, but nuclear power is as close as we've been able to get.
Yeah it's pretty damn great, we need to start using it. France has some seriously low emissions and heat most of their homes electrically for decades. South Africa is selling their synfuels into this marker, idk where he's getting 10$ a barrel from. If we do nuclear right we can get energy as cheap maybe even cheaper than from fossil which means we won't break the system except higher costs in maybe air, shipping and mining but shipping and mining represent a fraction of our energy costs so we can probably endure those higher costs there well enough
Great talk! Thanks to you both!
OMG, I love this Video; sorry for so many comments, but your conception of our condition parallels what I try to scream, but my friends and neighbors cringe. There are a few friends that I will share this with. Thanks again. Best the hour or 3 I have spent in a long time.
Very interesting conversation
To be economic, energy production must break a net EROEI of 10 to break even.
No, it doesn't, not with enough subsidies. Molten salt breeder reactors have a theoretical EROEI of about 1200 yet no one is interested. Wind and solar with storage are about -25 yet they are the most popular.
@@chapter4travels Subsidies are just tax payers paying more. Energy is valued for the work that it will do. There is a limit to the cost of energy. Once energy cost nears 10% of the value of the work that it will do it is uneconomic. The EROEI has to include all the energy input not just the reaction.
Love that! Thank you very much! When I once pointed out the money&energy/ressources-problem (then in regards to the cost of fracking) to some 'economy-students' in 2008, they told me that I understood nothing about economy... - I feel vindicated. :)
Nate needs to have an introduction into the inner alchemy in regards to the perennial philosophy , ego fear unity consciousness etc. Humans have the ability to deny reality but have the ability to know self and thusly reality. There are two planes David Bohm called the implicate and explicate orders. When the parts can’t function in unity there will be disorder suffering and death. We are experiencing the disorder at all levels.
There are tons available for individual alchemy. Nate is best where he is, and so is Decouple.
Great podcast after watching this again 😇
Excellent piece! Thank you.
Stated life of petroleum is 40 years. If accurate, and i believe due to evidence that the reserves are overstated, supply will decline within a decade. Global net GDP growth when debt is taken into account is questionable.
I'm curious, on the lines of "everything is energy": did the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo provide a preview of a possible future ?
didn't that just throw the poorest under the bus? the Carrington event might be a better preview
All problems are harder to solve with an ever increasing population, and we seem to be just as dumb as bacteria in a petri dish.
We are dumber than
So the Limits to Growth was right, but in regards to economic growth. When is THAT book being published?
Just found your channel. Liked and subscribed. Great content. Thank you. Everyone needs to hear this. Keep up the good work
Great episode. I would however recomend you interview mattew c. klein or michael pettis or adam tooze for the economics parts, especially the claims about gold standard and finacialization dont seem to me to make sense. It was the same in the last episode with super man miner. Otherwise great as always!
Your recommendation for "The Great Simplification" carries great weight. I thought I heard that there was a good place to start, outlining the topic area, and if so, it is not obvious on the website. Might you share what is a recommended place to start ?
It was not a recommendation- his view is it’s an inevitability.
watch his 32 minute animated video called: The Great Simplification
@@nukesandbaes9076 Thank you !!!
-6B, apart from that we got one hope ... alien tech 👾
Love you got Nate's time.
Excellent guest!
Nice, all the Boyz getting together.
That idea of a special drawing rights basket of currencies and gold has been rattling around for over 15 years. You could invest in them through different banks. Still not a thing as far as dethroning the American dollar.
We also need the oil,gas to create fertilizer and the mechanical harvest of our agriculture,no oil will lead to mass starvation.
Spot on.
Good talk.
Thank you.
The marine environment is primarily occupied by microbes, mainly bacteria and protists, which account for ≈70% of the total marine biomass. The remaining ≈30% is mainly composed of arthropods and fish. The deep subsurface holds ≈15% of the total biomass in the biosphere.
I don't think Chris understands what carrying capacity means.
Yes we ARE!!! How do you think this video conference is possible even publishing it on youtube!!!
Whitout Oil yo have NOTHING!!!
AND we are at least 500 years away from peak oil!
ruclips.net/video/nvAbKE8-jYA/видео.html
Eight out of ten of your hours - leave me thinking, "Wow, I didn't know those things - I feel at once a bit bigger and so much smaller. This is one of those eight. Unlike energy, there should be no limit to the expansion of the human body of knowledge, and I am hopeful (realizing 'hope' is not a plan) that smarter (and kinder) heads will prevail and enable a softer adjustment to the next major departure from our present way of life.
i'm thoroughly opposed to hope, as it's a complete delusion but learning to enjoy the ride without making it a competition with our global environment even at the edge of extinction ... almost anything would be better than this psychotic civilization. ok, humans can and have made life a living hell so our track record is sketchy at best, here's hoping for quick and painless reset.
Nothing is worse than magical thinking. 😢
Something you always knew but it always seems a long way in the future. We can be happy but we don't live happily ever after.
The real-time human viewpoint is the Forever War mentality of decisions made at gunpoint.., natural survival of bio-logical continuity.
Nate has a lot of good insights. But if there are 40 trillion tons of uranium in the Earths crust that will end up in the ocean at some point and we’re already technically able to leach it out, the declining EROEI phenomenon seems to say more about institutional constraints than physical resource constraints. The argument about nuclear needing gas to work seems shockingly weak too given that the supposed alternative is a 30% plus decline in gross world product. Load following isn’t that difficult to techno-fix in a highly nuclear-dependent context and you could always just build enough to supply peak load and find other uses for the energy in off-peak hours. The aside about what happens to nuclear plants after a civilizational collapse also betrayed a pretty poor understanding of nuclear engineering and the health physics of ionizing radiation.
how do you exploit that without ff, there's the rub, we can't get there from here.
Agreeing with your point, there is a misconception that nuclear power plants can't adjust for load. That is true of some designs but we do already have nuclear power plants that can be throttled up and down to meet demand. So the need for peaker plants goes out the window. Not to mention we are such a long way from even meeting base load demand, it's a non-issue.
I found what he was saying about the market just adding more nuclear vs replacing existing fossil more convincing. If climate change is bad that'll bite us in the ass at some point and we'll have a system shock and from there out start smaller but actually replace everything with nuclear
It’s why these discussions are important. To tease out the errors, misunderstandings, the timing issues. The biggest issue is not what Nate says because he will change, it’s what the super organism will do.
16:12 - Better to say that the number of people created who survive & need energy is constantly rising
_________ while the amount of oil-energy available to collect is constantly falling
Reducing dependence on hydrocarbons means having an equally effective substitute available, and that's not easy for a lot of reasons. No matter what social and economic change anyone wants to happen, meeting our needs while minimizing environmental impact should be a goal.
Nuclear power is the gold standard of clean, low environmental impact energy. All the evidence shows that NP is the fastest way to decarbonize energy grids, requires the least raw materials and land, and causes the fewest deaths of any method of energy production.
"not easy" sorry bud we need to stop framing science fiction as a legit possibility. nuclear only works coupled to hydrocarbons, sort out the nanoscale fusion/fission then we could have a hope in hades.
The Nuclear Energy Plants have been transformed and are not the threat of previous generations.
Whilst Nate just touched on Nuclear Power (NP) NP is a problem in itself, requiring vast amounts of energy expended on (Steel, Concrete Tech and Energy Minerals, etc) before one watt is produced, and then there’s the problem of its end of life legacy which NP protagonists would rather ignore🤔
Necessity will allow acceptance of education. Now, the majority believe we have available options.
Equally effective is unsustainable
To get out the Hedonic Ratchet: A little of everything and of everything a little.
Can't wait to go Medieval...life was so pleasant back then...sarcasm.
Thank you for the interesting exchange...like listening to the ideas
Is there a transcript for this? If so, where might I find it?
Without hydrocarbons global population would be half current 8 billion. As hydrocarbons production go into declining production within a decade. 95% of the cost of agricultural production is energy mostly hydrocarbons. CO2 equivalent has past 500 ppm, and take centuries to decline. Almost guaranteed 4 C warming this century and 8 C warming some time next century. Once the Artic is ice free in summer, Artic tipping points will rapidly accelerate warming.
absolutely true
We don’t know what the extent of CC will be in the decades ahead, so your belief is just an assumption. What we do know is captured sunlight in the form of finite sequestered carbon and hydrocarbons that took millions of years to form are being extracting and consumed ten million times faster. Ff’s won’t run out but will become progressively harder to find and uneconomic to extract (EROEI). And so for majority of humanity without those FF’s it will have a bigger effect than CC🤔
30:27 - After WW 1 , German ingenuity discovered synthetic fuel concerned about Peak Oil in 1920s
31:02 - Concerning Nuclear Electric Power
31:52 -
We are glued to investors whose interests are inherently fascistic as they seek to collect upon extortions and so prevent alternative courses.
What about keroten oil shale? Although it is much more difficult and costly there are trillions of barrels reserves in just the US.
What is the global biomass and number of terrestrial arthropods?
We estimate the combined dry biomass of all terrestrial arthropods at ≈300 Mt (uncertainty range, 100 to 500), similar to the mass of humanity and its livestock. These estimates enhance the quantitative understanding of arthropods in terrestrial ecosystems
UK energy use going down but it's purely because we outsource our consumption from overseas
UK and Europe died the day Russia removed from SWIFT
The stat on how many hours of human labour a barrel of oil gives and the huge externalized ecological subsidy the cost of a barrel of oil gives industrialized societies and their companies, it would be very interesting to know the same stat on how many human hours a kg of nuclear source material would be equivalent to and what the 'market' cost per kg is for that material?
No doubt probably further energy blindness but more significantly literally blindness to the clean ecological resource of human energy, members of our own species, that are debased around the world to live lives without dignity and cast aside as being 'economically' too expensive and accounted for as a cost! It's crazy such ecologically damaging sequestered dense energy resources are 'priced' to displace this pure clean ecological energy resource in the form of human labour. Everyone wants a job, they want to be part of their communities, why are they being denied this right in life? Neoclassical economics that informs these decisions is junk and the economic governing policies it advises is consequently delusional fostering magical thinking resulting in these outcomes.
Through the simplistic mathematically derived metric called 'productivity', humans are abstracted to nothing more than slaves who are demanded to produce more and more to indicate 'growth'. This 'productivity' of course is increased by the introduction and integration of 'technology' using fossil and nuclear energy to replace human energy. This is the narrative of 'progress' when in reality it is members of our own species eagerly extincting other members of our species via accounting and economics. This behaviour of course has a wider 'blast zone' impacting the ecological integrity of the biosphere that supports us. The irony is just shocking.
Working to engage clean ecological human energy should be the initial goal before any other 'energy technology' decisions are implemented. This of course requires an overhaul of accounting and economics that within its logic simply wants to annihilate and subjugate the human being and all other living organisms on this planet to simply record a score to indicate 'wealth'. Is it any wonder such artificial wealth is now fostering AI!
The human soul needs to awaken to its true self as fast as possible to liberate its true intelligence, wisdom and love. We're still in the Ptolemic mind from an accounting and economics perspective creating epicycles on epicycles in economic policy and 'financial innovations'. These disciplines are well overdue a Copernican paradigm shift. If they don't manage to achieve this shift, we are totally and utterly screwed if not already.
Nuclear solutions don't resolve our current dependence on the plethora of entropy generating machines we have developed under this Ptolemic mind. This can only be resolved by biological 'machines' only which include natural human energy in collaboration with other biological organisms. We need accounting and economics that will promote and foster this shift.
Looks like you may have held that essay to paste in for some time. Nate was trying to for warn (suggest you visit his site) of what’s involved in living with less in a sustainable economy. Otherwise the alternative is far worse than slavery, it’s a total breakdown in social cohesion, and reverting to survival of the fittest existence🤔
@@barrycarter8276 Thank you for your response. Nope, not a pre-drafted text, simply responding with perspectives developed for quite a few years now.
I have high admiration for Nate's work and the meticulous research he has performed interacting with other thinking minds about these issues. I concur in particular with the analysis on the complete biophysical and energy blindness humanity has developed due to the development and implementation of an accounting, finance and economic system that is completely decoupled from the foundational reality of the limited biophysical and life supporting energy systems of life. In my opinion this is the root of the magical thinking that is in operation because accounting, finance and economics are rooted in legal systems that are strongly influenced by westernized anthropocentric belief systems and not in the biophysical and energy reality. These hold the belief that an external supernatural benevolent being will assist us and save us and will also absolve and forgive us if we do wrong. The invisible hand of Adam Smith is a product of this thinking.
In contrast pre-colonized indigenous communities applied accounting, finance and economics that were deeply embedded in the biophysical and energy reality which their beliefs perceive as equal co-participants in the supernatural benevolent being where all are breathing as one, a Great Spirit, a co-evolving interdependent self-organized complex dynamical system. Such a belief develops supreme awareness, responsibility and care for actions and decisions that are made. In contrast the belief in an external supernatural benevolent being perceived as separate from all co-existence and with the power to absolve humanity of all transgressions removes the need for such awareness, responsibility and care for all actions and decisions that are harming the foundation that sustains them. Such a belief system has consequently given rise to a body of laws and governance that give foundation to accounting, finance and economics that simply promotes the selfish greatness of accumulating tokens that are perceived as 'wealth' sadly blinding them to the true wealth.
Science and technology thus developed under this belief system is blind to the consequences of being blind to the true wealth reducing the wonder and majesty of life to a resource to be exploited, corralled and enclosed. This of course was also done in the context of presenting technology as the remedy and saviour from horrible social and economic conditions that societies were subjected to by incorporating them as partners or stakeholders in the deployment of such technologies by the reward of desperately needed incomes to survive. This is the hook that is used even to this day for shaping education and training policies enticing populations to seek employment in certain technology sectors. Imagine the societies and lifestyles we would have had if the discoveries of science had been commercialized under an indigenous belief system of accounting, finance and economics. The technologies would most likely have been completely different due to greater sensitivity to impacts caused to the greater community of Earth. A technology acceptance process similar to that applied by the Amish community would have prevailed I'm sure.
We're now in a predicament where we're essentially prisoners of our own technologies in that we cannot perceive our own survival without them and we have developed once again an anthropocentric attitude that we have a divine right to have these technologies supported by the laws we have legislated yet blind to the ecological(incorporating human health and well-being) harm their provision incurs i.e. the super organism. This process itself is the product of the pursuit to become the 'fittest' species on Earth which as we're learning is in fact a non-victorious endgame as evident by the decline in the populations and extinctions of other species and our unwise forceful change of the geo-chemistry and geo-physics processes that self-maintain the conditions for our habitation of Earth. So what I'm saying is, if humanity's predicament evolves to a state of survival of the fittest within its own species, it has already lost no matter who the winner is!
To avoid this catastrophe there needs to be advocacy for laws, accounting and economic systems to be developed that are compatible with the indigenous belief systems and foster and develop metrics of profit and growth that are coincident with healing and recovery of Earth. Humanity, human energy, needs to cohere with the natural energy dynamics of Earth to heal and care for them to bring this recovery about. This guidance and behaviour is best achieved in my opinion by simply establishing accounting tools modelled on natural energy stocks and flows to bring forth economics that fosters care, healing, recovery and the flourishing of life. This in essence is an advocation for laws, accounting and economics that orientate the human psyche to be in service to life and Earth rather than to its arrogant fearful self which the current techno-fix mindset emanates from, which of course is backed by the current laws, accounting and economics that lead us to this deeply deeply concerning predicament.
Contemplation is therefore required to re-design or reform an accounting system that currently defines the achievement of profit for one party by purely impoverishing the other party within a two party system and believes it exists in a context of infinite resources. Can this accounting system be re-designed or reformed for both parties to profit and grow without exploiting and destroying the other and everything around them? In my opinion this is the question that needs to be answered otherwise the impoverished will always be forced to be exploited out of desperation and survival, subordinate to the gluttonous greedy 'profiteer' who justifies their actions under the ideology of 'growth', whereas in reality both are destroying their common biome due to this artificial human constructed tension.
@@adrianmacfhearraigh4677 Sorry Adrian but haven’t change my mind over your last comment being a prepared essay pasted in when the opportunity arose. Moving on, believe it or not I actually read through this latest essay. Unfortunately I was non the wiser in what you were trying to get across apart from Adam Smith, economic and accounting practices, great spirits and superior deities, oh and a follower of Nate Hagens. But I’m left wondering if maybe your essays are produced with the aid of ChatGPT and you didn’t specify to it the maximum number of words your essay was to have. I’ve always tried to work on the basis of less is more when trying to get a point across, and in that respect even this reply maybe be too long. So any chance of précis ?🤔
Well, I give him a solid A, chatbot or not. He left nothing out. 😮
Lots of useful info and analysis in this talk, but where to even begin with the giant blind spots expressed here? I have no time to elaborate, but have written and spoken about these subjects and more for four decades, with well over 100,000 hours of research behind it. I'll just give references here. These thinkers must be explored in depth, if there is to be any big picture clarity at all:
Celente
Berman
Keiser
Heinberg
Kunstler
Orlov
Geoff Lawton
Allan Savory
Vandana Shiva
And myself, among others. This cannot possibly be stated strongly enough.
Why are both of you guys are afraid to talk about overpopulation? You know, decrease the capita in per capita? Rapidly? Wouldn't that be smart?
I guess it's not PC, with Catholics and all.
I suggest that anyone convinced that nuclear is our future talk to anyone living near a closed nuclear plant or nuclear waste storage site; particularly those who love and intimately know their land dating back many generations.
Also: Extending human carrying capacity is exactly what we should NOT be focusing on.
This is my first time listening to this podcast, drawn here because I listen to Nate Hagens. Please expand your horizons beyond nuclear, energy, and human survival as we now know it. We are entering a new and very difficult paradigm. Much suffering and disillusionment lie ahead. We need to get our hands in the soil, and contemplate the meaning of life.
Why do you spout nonsense based on your value judgements laced with FUD? That ship has sailed as humanity gears up to solve several serious challenges. Problems are solved one by one on the margin not through catastrophism. Please engage with some facts and we can have a useful conversation.
People only move on catastrophic terror.
@@paullafreniere3393 ruclips.net/video/nvAbKE8-jYA/видео.html
Okay so your plan is to suffer and self pity, good for you
What is the biomass of insects?
Insects also probably have the largest biomass of the terrestrial animals. At any time, it is estimated that there are some 10 quintillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) individual insects alive.
more people should know about resource based economy, it all make much more sense and only way to live on earth if we want to have a civilized society with some level of tech. there can be no money or credit, barter and trade either. just look how much shit we can avoid by doing that alone.
Not a fan of your interviewing. Multiple times Nate made a point contrary to your beliefs, and instead of answer or admit he's right, you just totally ignore.
Like nuclear being a problem for future generations. You just straight pretended he didn't say it.
Bad faith.
23:15 - Peak coal ?
17:20 - Someone needs to learn what money is & how money operates
On peak demand for oil:
1. Mentioned that gasoline is a small amount of oil use so EVs would not change demand much. But then went on to say that governments are grouping bio fuel and LNG to pass the numbers to hide the reduction in oil. So kinda contradictory.
2. We are starting to see the electrification of diesel transportation as well. Lagging behind gasoline but starting. Short haul trucking, delivery, busses, and mobile industrial machines are electrifying, as is industrial heating. So the reduction in diesel demand is coming.
3. Once we start electrifying commercial transportation it will have a larger impact. A large percentage of fuel consumption is just transporting fuels.
So oil demand for materials will keep going up, but demand for fuels is destined to fall, soon.
This fall in fuel demand may be enough to overcome growth in other areas and overall start reducing demand for oil.
But to that, emissions from burning fuel are the big problem. If we reduce the burning of fuel but keep up oil demand for other uses of petroleum, that is OK. Helps solve the atmospheric carbon issue, and keeps the petroleum industry from collapse.
I heard his point differently - that even if we did not need gasoline at all, we'd still need all of the oil we currently do, because of all the other products that are refined from oil. As to all the non-petroleum liquid fuels being lumped into official statistics, I listened to his full podcast about this, and the main issue is that all of those things, like natural gas liquids or corn ethanol, are not really substitutes for petroleum. They aren't nearly as energy dense as petroleum, and some aren't useable as fuel at all, they are feedstocks for plastics production, etc. So the statistics are masking the fact that high quality petroleum is already declining a lot.
@@gtromble that was my point, we need to separate in our heads the difference between petroleum for fuels and petroleum for materials.
Petroleum for materials is much less of an issue for atmospheric carbon. It is petroleum for fuels specifically that is the concern in that particular problem.
So much FUD about "you can never get rid of all petroleum" to which smart climate change people say "So?". What is the point of this argument. No one is asking to get rid of all petroleum, just stop burning the stuff. It may reduce demand but it will never eliminate all demand...no one cares.
Just stop burning the stuff, that is what we need to do first, and maybe ever. That will be hard enough for sure but would be a massive step toward solving the big problem. And yes when I say step I mean progress toward as there is no easy fix solution for this either.
@@5353Jumper Yes, but realistically I don't think there's a path to continue oil and gas extraction and not have a lot of it burned. The fuel fractions, like diesel and gasoline, are too energy rich and valuable. And if 40% of refined petroleum is gasoline (I think that's what Nate said), if you didn't burn it, what would you do with it? It would be a horrible pollutant.
@@gtromble yep, demand is going to fall, which means production is going to fall.
Either we cut consumption, or we improve consumption, or we find other sources of energy....likely all three. It will mean a reduction in fuel demand and a reduction in petroleum demand.
Reduction does not mean going away or getting rid of it all, it just means reduction. The industry is going to have to adjust to that.
And the citizens of the world are going to have to unite and prevent greenwashing of the petroleum industry so they can artificially maintain demand, because if we let them do that we could be dooming us all.
lol electrification of diesel is actually beyond our current understanding of physics but there's always the possibility that aliens solved it and just need us to evolve beyond economics before handing us the keys
Judging from the trajectory so far, I'd say that only the trustocracy is going to grow. Everything else is going on life support.
Nuclear needs to go generation 4 fast breeder and thorium, U235 is very limited.
From the aspect of maintaining cultural normality gasoline and diesel plays more of a role than farming and transportation of peoples and goods. Gasoline is used to tame the fields and forest. The same as the nuclear disaster of Chernobyl the fields and forests will retake the land without routine maintenance. Battery power will never replace this capacity. Nuclear power has potential but not this grand of a scope.
Hagens in da Haus!
What species has the highest biomass?
Biomass (ecology) - Wikipedia
The most successful animal species, in terms of biomass, may well be Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, with a fresh biomass approaching 500 million tonnes.
About ,40 yrs min for oil use But who knows
The world burns 22,000,000 tons of coal a day and 100,000,000 barrels of oil a day. What could go wrong? Stress R Us
Could there possibly be other kinds or forms of societal growth? Sometimes intelligence is in asking the right questions.. I don't think "Is this the end of economic growth?" is the right question..
like the 600lb man, anything is possible once he sheds the 420lbs.
Bring back multiple horses, or everyone must begin walking for supplies. Clean energy!
ebikes... more 😅likely than horses, but what about ubiquitous hills? And old people
But as for the question of an end to economic growth, you'd want to put that one to the gatekeepers. Whenever there's something of significance (monetary, in this case), there'll be someone or group overtly or insidiously controlling it. So they could be threatened by competition and change, which is usually the case, and the reason for the insidious etc. control. As late Dr. Szasz said "Define or be defined!" Controllers often engage, directly and indirectly, in defining the playing field to suit their own ends.
16:12 - When new money is created, it cannot buy what is not available for sale. And those able & willing to work
_________ for good wages can affordably be hired to design & construct & operate & maintain C02-free nuclear
_________ electric generators allowing the use of oil-energy to be lowered & the lifetime of oil to lengthen
Peak coal is not far behind oil, methane has question marks over supply.
Coal is massively polluting! Far worse than FF. EU is using COAL. Why with all their GREEN ENERGY?
@@bellakrinkle9381 Wind and solar are really only viable when they are reliable. Much of northern Europe Wind and solar are not reliable because of the weather. Hydroelectric where there are mountain valleys and high rainfall is great. Nuclear is really the only option for much of Europe.
Charles Mann's "The Wizard and the Prophet" is an excellent suggestion for everyone's reading list.
Soil respiration, which is the CO2 produced by the biological activity of soil organisms, is a major flux within the global carbon cycle, emitting about 10 times more CO2 to the atmosphere annually than fossil fuel combustion (Bond-Lamberty and Thomson, 2010; Le Quéré et al., 2014; Raich and Schlesinger, 1992).
As it has for millions of years.
So what? Even if true those ten percent push us beyond what the earth can take back out and increase the atmospheres carbon concentration
What about the service economy growing to make up for the waning demand in the production economy?
Services still use products and energy, but much less than a production economy.
People have been looking for that decoupling, but not finding it. Turns out that the energy and materials use that supports a service economy is just a layer or two farther under the surface. Nate mentioned in this podcast, that in the U.S, even though it has a large and growing service component, GDP and energy is still 99% plus coupled.
What percentage of animal biomass is human?
Humans make up just 0.01% of Earth's life - what's the rest ...
Humans comprise a very small share of life on Earth - 0.01% of the total, and 2.5% of animal biomass
Why be a nuclear advocate xD damn i definitely would fuckin hate my life more if i d have to preach for big energy firms
What's the point? Make a life and a world worth inheriting. Self gratification is the dopamine problem. Seratonin means I like that but I have had enough. Self control is an issue taught by Buddhist monks. Billionaires are the dopamine dealers. Buddhist monks are the Serotonin sellers. Take your pick. How much is enough. Typically $70,000 per year per person and a $700,000 net worth. Billionaires strive and never arrive seeking world dominion. Buddhist monks have the cure.
The world has more debt growth and inflation on everything than economic growth. More advantageous during the past are developed countries where industrial revolution started and progressed and all these is dedicated to inventions and innovations which advanced the economic growth on a polarized world and abundance of all resources, including energy resources.
The last 150-200 years on industrial revolution based initially on coal and later on oil and gas are using these fossil fuels accumulated during millions of years from biomass which captured the sun energy and are cooked from geothermal energy. So oil coal and natural we use today are "biofuels" the nature has prepared and is the invention who make this possible, and inventions come from few peoples and their job help all the others to benefit.
Inventions to harvest energy of water, inventions to transform the mechanical energy to electricity and transferee, inventions to use atomic energy from fission, inventions to harvest sun energy or wind energy, inventions to harvest wave and tidal energy, and many inventions helped polarized economic development on the world.
During these 150-200 years of polarized development the developed world has inspired the developing world for a better life. These developing world increased the knowledge and understand that developed world benefited from inventions and industrialization and from the import from developing countries. Today they have a dream for a better life and they believe they have all what they need even knowledge, and this is true, what they do not have is 200 years past and need not only capital but investment on industry to have a developed economy.
Really the world has reached this development based on energy and on complex the world use around 174000 TWhr a year and this may increase even more. This primary energy is 80-85% from fossil fuel with which is working all the world and 15-20% are hydro, nuclear, solar, etc etc., and these feed 8 billion peoples on earth, sure not all are equal. If peoples will be equal and live like average American live, or average Europeans live, they will consume multiple time the energy they consume today. Living a dream generation after generations and living the reality on poverty is painful for billions of peoples, and so is painful for all of them who have height average standard of living if heading to austerity. Today and for many years this has happened and is accelerating and the main reason is energy scarcity on the world which comes on a time when energy on the nature is abundant. The nature has accumulated trillions of barrel oil and quadrillion standard cubic feet gas undergrounds, and even more coal, all the three have sequestered the CO2 from the earth and have stored gigantic value of energy which can be used for a better life but the industry has not developed technologies to bring this easy to surface, to use it and store the CO2 back underground. So on this point the world economy as it is today need technologies to produce fossil fuels with rates the economy need and return CO2 underground or use it for other beneficial products. Coming around and around we see that the world is missing technologies which have these future and produce with rates the economy need. Unfortunately with actual technologies the PEAK OIL has reached and it is estimated that this peak or plateau very soon will decline and the gap between supply and demand will increase.
The question now with economic sustainability or economic growth depends haw fast the new renewable technologies will fill the gap, and not only but this need adopting existing technologies and techniques with new energy input. It is true that the sun and wind or other renewable energies, are abundant every day, but the ability of mankind to harvest and use on economy is limited and everything is more expensive which does not benefit peoples wellbeing. And when all peoples wellbeing is not satisfied, a polarized world with different societies has problem to line in peace and democratic way together, only dictator may keep peoples but this is like a social bomb which may explode any time.
The solution for the world we live today is not simple, and not one, but these has a solution which can help. The world government and oil and gas industry must work together and partner with inventors on technologies which increase oil production and gas production and increase the recoverable oil reserves from all 15 trillion barrel oil or more the world has underground, and this will keep the actual industry working with energy needed.
On other side the government and renewable energy industry must work on new technologies they already know, and on the same time they must partner with inventors who know to generate energy from gravity based on a so called "Stationary Gravity Engine" which generate energy on demand so this will make more effective investment.
These undisclosed technologies mentioned are powerful direction to help countries and economic development and can further discussed only privately with government interested and industry representatives.
Have you ever noticed if dead body animal or otherwise is left laying on the ground, flys along with other insects, and organisms from the soil gradually feast on it, some laying their eggs, and so the body within a few days is a writhing masss of activity until it consumed. And that’s exactly what we are doing with the sequestered sunlight of finite carbon and hydrocarbons formed over millions of years but now extracted and consumed ten million times faster than sequestered, until the point it’s so scarce it’s no longer economic (EROEI). And so with respect to just Oil an energy source we will never be able to match due to the scale and complexity we’ve put its uses to, and so cometh Nate Hagens “The Great Simplification”, that or the breakdown of civilisation and a return to survival of the barbaric fittest🤔
The market for these kinda of energy conversion related to grid scale energy is also reliant on amortization.
In that things cannot significantly change until the old fuel refineries and generation projects amortize out their planned 20-40 year lifecycles.
There is little funding interest in launching new projects to replace projects that are still young. The investors in this category need their money out of the old project before funding new projects.
So a lot of the obstruction for new style energy projects is created to stall the market until profit is realized in the old projects. Once a group is scrapping an old project, they may consider a new style project for their next investment.
Just like the "traditional" auto makers taking 10 years to launch their first EVs. They all could have launched these cars 10 years ago easy. But they had all invested R&D in efficient ICE over the last few decades. They needed that R&D investment in ICE to amortize out before they could start new R&D into EV. Now that a lot of ICE R&D is topped out we could see way more I to EV. (Also driven by the new manufacturers starting ground up as EV, not having the ICE R&D to buffer out taking market share forcing the change sooner than later)
the carbon coin, if economics was pinned to sustainable farming and social justice the the market could serve humanity while we evolved to decouple
What do you call self nate.
Plebesight volunteer.
Bingo nate.
Rebel extinction last night.
Numbers watch lighted up.
Per our discussion. Oil drum.
End of this conversation.
Douglas scott Foreman showboating.
Literally know everything like back of my hand.
Nate's solutions don't work, though his criticisms are fine.
What won't work?
@@Rawdiswar he is advocating us canada people reducing energy consumption down to 70time from current 100times thats laughable .
Oh, DO enlighten us.
you're not wrong as nothing could save this civilization, but there's always a potential for the foundation to restart under a new paradigm.
Ben Jones, what will work?
Empty comments are useless.
Until nuclear solves the waste problem, I feel conventional nuclear energy growth is a non-starter. There is a reason large insurance companies won't insure these industries. Do YOU want to live near a spent fuel pool? Fusion has been just a few years away for 40 years. Collapse now, beat the rush.
You have not kept up with the Nuclear Energy industry.
Do your research!
All of africa, plenty of parts of south america and even parts of asia, not to mention most of the ocean are under explored. I don't get where this peak oil thesis comes from and why we should be so worried about it. If oil goes above 100$ a barrel and stays there for a few years you will start finding oil in all sorts of places.
Not if governments stand in the way. They can't even get a pipeline from Canada through Oregon, after ten years. They gave up.
Hope you're right. It is a finite resource which we are burning 10,000 times faster than it is naturally generated though.
@@davidcarey9135unless the abiotic oil theories are true. Not that I am suggesting there is massive evidence for that yet. But there isn’t no evidence
@@howardmoon1234 Considering the hydro-carbons found on other planets/ moons,...
Abiotic oil makes more sense, than old rotten plants,.....
@@howardmoon1234 as cold climates melt hydrocarbons will be released as ancient carcasses of large animals decompose releasing METHANE. How will methane be captured for use of energy?
"After the shale oil there is nothing left ..." where have I heard that before.
"The world is running out of oil and that's bad" ... and ... "Russia has huge amounts of oil and that's bad". Its just all bad?
It is repeated because it is true. We get used to MAGAnomics, where the more it is repeated, the more false it is, but these people are talking about conventional science.
@@atanacioluna292 Wait to you find out we can create synthetic fuel from coal, which we a 1000 year supply. That's what happens when actual science and engineering work together.
This guy was on track until he started bashing the gold standard, saying it was a "canard". He didn't even know when the Federal Reserve was created. "1915?" I'm a fossil fuel energy investor, but we have never issued money tethered to any other natural resource than gold. You can't price money in oil, because Brent crude is not the same as WTI, which is not the same as Nigerian Bonny Light, which is not the same as Saudi Light. There are not ten different grades of gold.
“You can’t price money in oil…” As a fossil fuel energy investor, please enlighten me on the Petrodollar, understanding that Nate knows all about light and heavy crude, and where it is extracted. Thank you for any response.
you're joking right? the gold standard has been a lie since its inception, the reserves were never really there and fiat has always been the underpinning of growth going back to 1650 for capitalism and in previous civilizations back to the 3000 year reign of the Sumerians
ruclips.net/video/nvAbKE8-jYA/видео.html
Nature may have given everyone a wonderful energy source that was beyond the imagination of Victorian England as they were enthralled by steam engines, dynamos, and electric motors. They chose the second law of thermodymamics instead of full realization of the well supported finding that energy can change form but not be created or destroyed.
It may be possible to borrow thermal energy from our planetary air, water, or ground, convert it to electricity, and use the electricity as we wish and then return the thermal consequences of this use to the planet. Refrigerators and air conditioners in this system would produce electricity in exact equivalence to the heat they absorb.
Here is a thought experiment device that hypothetically creates self powered thermal diversification. The thought experiment device is impractical but easy to visualize and check for mechanical workability. It's parts are large enough to act as everyday materials but small enough to work well with the nanometer scale thermal motions of gas molecules.
Sketch made with keyboard characters:
COLD ROOM ())--:WALL:-->> HOT ROOM
Key
()) = Paddlewheel.
-- = Axle. (Continuous from end to end)
: : = Axle tunnel going through a wall.
>> = Lumped friction element
Please visualize two roome full of air separated by a very thin wall that allows the rooms to hold their heat independently with minor leakage through the wall. The wall is thin to delicately support billions of separate nanometer scale short axles running straight through loosely enough to rotate freely but not leak very much heat so the rooms can hold separate temperatures.
On the left side, a very small paddlewheel is mounted at the left end of each axle. On the right side, lumped friction elements are mounted stationary in place on the wall, one for each axle, for the right end of each axle to run through. The lumped friction elements convert the mechanical rotation of their axle into heat. The lumped friction elements do not impart Brownian motion to their axle.
Brownian motion (a nanometer scale effect) turns the paddlewheels at random speeds randomly clockwise or counterclockwise. This random rotation is turned into heat by the lumped friction elements.
The committed, linked, and functional roles of the walls, paddlewheels, axles, and lumped friction elements in differnt places should systemically produce a divergence in the thermal energy in the two rooms without adding external energy.
Here is a hypothetical practical method with the working name thermary: The thermary mainly consists of two electrodes closely face to face (~1 micrometer) in a vacuum wired to an external electrical load. The face of the [Emitter] electrode is covered with a uniform array of LaB6 tipped small diameter carbon nanotubes grown straight out. The face of the [Absorber] electrode is covered with small scale graphine flake char. [Rice U 2014]
Thermal energy mobilized unattached electrons will tend to free themselves outward from the emitter tips and drift at ~1 million meters / second @ 25 millivolts (thermal electron energy @ 20 C) to the absorber which tends to collect them.
A negative charge accumulates on the absorber. This repels oncoming electrons slowing their forward drift, cooling them. The absorber electrode charge is simultaneously the repelling cooling and the external electrical load voltage. The drift current and external wire route current are the same. The DC electrical power consumed by the electrical load depends on the load resistance. Thermal energy absorption always equals the electrical yield.
Wire resistance is a practical loss not a true loss so lt is overcome by added thermary output. The extra cooling balances the heat given off by the wire loss. The performance of the device is expected to be modest in the beginning but improve rapidly. Even early devices are expected to last a long time. There is little place for obsolence if the first installed thermary works adequately. They will withstand being short circuited indefinately up to an electromigration limit.
Cell phones wouldn't die or need power cords or batteries or become hot. They would cool when transmitting radio signal power. Frozen food storage would be reliable and free or value positive. That means homes and markets would have independent power to preserve food. Vehicles wouldn't need fuel or fueling stops. Elevators would be very reliable with independent power. Water and sewage pumps may be placed anywhere. Nomads could raise their material supports item by item carefully and groups of people could modify their settlements with great technical flexibility. Zone refining would involve little net power. Reducing Bauxite to Aluminum, Rutile to Titanium, and Magnetite to Iron, would have a net cooling effect. With enough cheap power H2O and CO2 levels in the biosphere could be modified. There should be a unitary agency to look after our planetary concerns.
I am not interested in any more patents. I have enough of a reputation with patent us3890161A Diode Array. Exclusionary use of patents breaks up synergistic benefits. Public participation is needed for wide scientific, general, and spiritual discourse, efficient use and efficient further development. Wide exposure to the public renders invention concepts unpatentable. Other teams have built low power prototypes of their concepts too so breakeve perpetual motion is likely to emerge somewhere.
I think fundamentally new as well as updated older products should be manufactured in AI operated / human managed
cooperative conglomerates (cooperative internally and externally). Business details would be open public knowledge. Associated people should freely talk and move as negotiated. Semicustom products would be sold at honest accounting commodity prices. No wealth draining top commanders are needed. It may be partly capitalized by factoring and the factorers may have parts of the conglomerate somewhat dedicated to production of their preferred products. The conglomerate may operate with wide participation for the betterment of civilization.
I forsee a lot of people working for creative expression because the benefits of clean abundant pervasively useful energy will propagate through many manufacturing chains resulting in a materials web where material goods are inexpensive and a services web where people don't have to struggle to survive but can synergize and socialize with each other. Living will be inexpensive. Money will be left with individuals to donate as they wish instead of being trickled back by conspicuous philanthropy.
Aloha
Charles M Brown lll
Kauai, Hawaii