Perfectly succinct point, Chuck! I did technological forecasting in my bachelor's degree at CSM (Colorado School of Mines) and I do see some weaknesses in the presentation, but the overall assumptions are correct. My strong major in college was energy production and I'll admit I was a little zealous in those days, but I calmed down and did rational studies on similar energy "production methods" and changed my politic to republican as I realized it was all unsustainable due to energy density issues alone. The problem is this topic is more complex and difficult than the average American voter can deal with.
You are absolutely RIGHT and to point the finger at the Greenies for NOT UNDERSTANDING the scope of the problem. You, Mark Mills and 1,000s of other clowns can ALSO ACCEPT responsibility FOR NOT ALLOWING anything to get done that you didn't like. I am an engineer and there is a staggering amount of blame ON BOTH SIDES of the energy transition debate and BOTH SIDES need to STFU and get out of the road. I applaud Mark Mills, Simon Michaux and others for pointing out the basic facts of how much stuff we need, but I would not behave very well in their presence BECAUSE they are also a massive part of the problem. As Mark said NOTHING LASTS FOREVER it all wears out eventually. Across the entire developed world are energy systems that are falling apart because we didn't keep up with maintenance and didn't keep replacing older energy systems that had reached the end of their useful life. We have to stop talking and DO WHAT CAN BE DONE. I'm Australian and we should have built at least 4 large base load power stations during the last 10-15 years to cover population growth and we haven't because every time someone said something 10 others stood up and started talking and wouldn't shut up. Plus we have no end of media maleficence where they pumped their opinions as fact and stomped on anything they thought would not get them the ratings they demand. Right now we do not have a single plan on the table to even discuss, because to many people just wont shut up.
Very true. One wouldn't be wrong calling Norway a "quiet country". There is no political arrogance. That is why their economy is more successful than the US. Most importantly it looks at scientific data with impartiality.
@@rohintonchothia9821 It also helps that Norway has a functioning education system, functioning health care system and has a staggering amount of money in its sovereign wealth fund to pay for things like education, health care and ENERGY TRANSITIONS. Norway is a great lesson in fiscal responsibility for a NATION and for its future. Instead of spending their North Sea oil & gas income on whatever the next government whim was they put it places where it could eventually pay for those whims. FYI - I'm not Norwegian. I'm Australian and hate the fact none of our governments we elected over the last 40+ years have been as foresightful as the Norwegians and instead listened to numbnut American Economists from places like Harvard.
Similar was in ~1969 imposed by the "club of Rome" based on serious studies. And supported by most serious scientists. According tot their studies we would run out of all oil and gas reserves in the earth in 2000....
Well put. The extreme energy utilization of “developed” countries is not sustainable regardless of what technology we use to enable it. At some point we must find a way to be comfortable having more in common with the lifestyle of people in “undeveloped” countries.
Yep ..👍🏆 Well stated. That makes homo sapiens the most virulent destructive cancer on the face of the earth...which will obviously destroy it self by means of over expansion of numbers, combined with greed...BUT try to explain that to a cancer....especially a cancer which believes itself to be intelligent.....but the so called intelligence makes it the most stupid species ever.....also the most arrogant....made in the IMAGE OF AN IMAGINED PERFECT GOD....What can I say as a pragmatic atheist,but: "God help us....save us from your arrogant bleating sheep (followers)..."
Ah…like machetes and dirt floor single room homes?? Tell me who wants that? Go spend real time in a third world country and see if your ideas are consistent with your experience. 😮
He speaks a lot of past with great accuracy. He has no clue what will happen in next 10 to 15 years. His great material theory is thinking of past. Things are changing and changing fast.
@@lib1007 I hear you. We never know what lies ahead, and necessity is the mother of invention, so there may be a breakthrough, such as happened with the Covid vaccines against what was a pretty nefarious Chinese bio weapon. That said, he is very measured in his presentation, and he states clearly that given the existing state of affairs with regards to resource extraction and processing (he mentions the China angle again) - which is all we have to go on in terms of investable options- the energy transition is an aspiration which cannot be fulfilled.
@@lib1007”no clue .. 10 yrs” But you do? No. Nobody knows the future, but people w engineering training and experience know how things have been done, how much X it takes to build Y, and therefore IF a trend continues, here’s what is likely to happen. Because at least he doesn’t think energy is made in a wall socket. He may be wrong, but Yeah, he has a clue.
@@Nill757 May be he has a clue. But he is extremally biased and talk like Oil lobbyist. He kind of claim that it's impossible to reduce Oil/fossil fuel usage in the next 10 years. That is not true and propaganda.
@@lib1007 He didn’t claim anything impossible. It’s a hard problem not solved by fantasies. The guy asked questions and it appears you want him to shut up.
@@dylanbrown5414 No you missed the whole point. Climate change is a reality we have to deal with but it won't be as simple as many would think. No one said climate change is not real, but it not just the question of endless optimism about renewables.
@Me Care to elaborate on the poisononous ideology ? I mean It isn't really contraversial to state the obvious, renewables will not be the sole silverbullet solutions for climate change, or for any societal problems for that matter. And yes they play a role, they are a step to the right direction and we should support blah blah blah but also think about where does this train goes next.... and when you think critically, you realize it won't be an easy fix. You can either give a better concrete solution or live with these stubborn facts.
because they push for unreliable renewables like wind and solar which depend on backup which is always fossil fuels. The actual transition will happen with reliable clean sources like hydro, geothermal and nuclear energy.
Any transition away from oil and gas must necessarily be funded by oil and gas because those are how you do 97% of activity before you install non-renewables.
This is just one of many great analysis that are showing up on the challenges we face.... If you understand this presentation and aren't moving to a farm and getting skills to grow food and supply your own energy you didn't understand what he is saying....
@@petefluffy7420 8 billion people can't live on farms. We as a global society have grown our population beyond the carrying capacity. As long as 80mbd of oil comes out of the ground life will go on, if that doesn't happen nature steps up with her 3 clubs of famine, disease and war and culls the human pop. Canadianbear is warning you to get as self sufficient as possible, to get yourself a farm.
@Simon John That is only for the FIRST car; after that they can be recycled and the SECOND electric car uses far less minerals if not less than the first whereas the ICE will always be thirsty!
@@simonjohn6156 Actually, the car needs replacing, because in most EVs you can't replace the battery. That means the 2nd hand car market is dying and people who depend on it for mobility can start walking, cycling, or buying horses again.
@@snake7197 "Actually, the car needs replacing, because in most EVs you can't replace the battery." That won't last long. Where we are heading is battery replacement stations where you just pull in and you get a new battery and are out if there in 5 minutes. There's a company in Australia that is already creating these systems for 18-wheelers. You pull your truck in, and in 5 minutes, you have new batteries, and the batteries have shown excellent performance for power and range.
At 11:15 "...2,000 to 7,000 percent increase in metals to deliver the same vehicle..." these numbers make no sense. He is saying that an EV must weigh 20 to 70 times as much as an internal combustion vehicle or that there is a gigantic amount of wasted metal in the construction of EVs. There must be something much more complex about the numbers he is quoting. They must be trying to account for the amount of metal invested in creating infrastructure to support the EV manufacture, but even that doesn't make sense because such investments are amortized over very large numbers of vehicles so the per vehicle cost of that infrastructure is small compared to the vehicle itself. No, he's failed to explain the argument adequately and I suspect that a closer examination would show that there are large holes in it.
Go back and listen.. I did.. He was talking about energy delivery and how much metals would be required to deliver that energy. Not vehicle specifically but includes the infrastructure needed to deliver the energy. Look at any proposal for your country, then check the costing.. It will blow your mind. It did for me in Australia.
I don't think I've ever seen a review of resources that's as free of political bias, as this is. Finally, I feel I'm being given adequate data, on which to make a viewpoint.
@Jo Helsen Basically that the situation is extremely complicated and not solvable by any single, simple solution. There has to be new technology - new batteries that are inexpensive and that can be made without rare metals. We need cheap, clean electricity by nuclear fusion - (possibly this is not going to happen) - or fission.
Given the importance of the data presented, I would appreciate legends showing what the various colors and line types or bars indicate. It is challenging to both listen to the auditory information while looking at something that is vague.
Pause the video and look more closely? If it is still not legible, I am sure that you can get the slides if you contact the Skagen fund or the speaker directly.
The interesting fact he gave at the introduction about Norway's energy system I felt needed to be expanded on a little more. Their vast majority of renewable electricity is generated via Hydro power, & virtually none is with Wind & Solar! That is the reason it is so cheap in comparison to Wind & Solar in other countries such as the UK! as was indicated Hydro dam schemes last for at least 4 times the average Wind or Solar farm and are at least 4 if not 5 times as efficient! Also Norway exports well over half of its Oil from the North Sea and that feeds their "Wealth Fund" making them the richest per head of population by a massive margin, in the world!
There are additional reasons for the very fortunate position of the Norwegians. Together with their geology and weather, allowing them to utilise hydro and have great oil and gas reserves, they have a smaller population and a relatively tiny infrastructure. Consequently, they have a lot of money coming in and much lower maintenance costs compared with somewhere like the UK.
@@bradleyheights5905 It's simply that if you look at the gross value of the nation and divide by the population, you get a figure. America would be down the list because, while the value of it is seemingly high, so is the national debt. Norway effectively has no national debt because its government assets are greater than what it owes.
He forgot the cost savings Factors for Wind and Solar that you dont have with Hydro. he is not comparing the LCOE. Hydro is still cheaper but its like $.01 kwh until probably end of this year or next when the learning factor for solar hits and wind isnt far behind.
What bothers me about this situation is the fact that the news and media are all going about a recession which is understandable due to the war and pandemic but still the same media still publish articles about folks in the same economy pulling off hefty 6figure profit(Averg. 200k in barely 8weeks) in this downtrend how is that possible?
Well the US-stock market has been on it’s longest bull-run in history, so the mass hysteria and panic is understandable seeing as we’re not used to such troubled market, but there are opportunities lurking around if you know where to look while everybody’s been screaming falling sky, I’ve netted over $850k in the past 10months.
@@floxydorathy6611< well good for you buddy, your market knowledge paid off. I've actually been thinking of reaching a portfolio-adviser, my 401k and stocks been losing everything it's gained since 2019, mind if I looked-up this one coach you use?>
When Obama unleashed his green push,one energy execgave a few an audience.He stated they han no concept basic physics to evaluate their ideas.Eas all ' pie in the sky '.thenthete is all fed funds that disappeared in the Solentra adventure.
China is already produced no hundreds of GWh of LFP batteries - no cobalt and no magnesium. Getting close to 300 miles EPA range from 75kwh packs. On top of this Redwood and many others are now ramping up battery recycling businesses: battery materials do not degrade (the ion intercalation rate decays but the chemicals are as new once recycled). Then there is the absolute limit of cars on our roads: very soo, most cities will valve without cars; mobility as a service will replace sole owner transport. The calculation is not linear.
Lithium and phosphate will peak this century. Using them for batteries will make them peak faster. EV battery recycling: how much does this reduce the EROI of the auto transport system? From what I have read, it will reduce it quite a bit. Also, transport as a service will not put a very big dent in the energy and minerals necessary for moving all those people and goods around. It is not a real savings, or not very much. And finally, a lot of our transport fuels are used for heavy trucks, shipping, and airliners. You can't run heavy transport on batteries.
@@michaels4255 Short haul air transport is already in testing phases with batteries. Diesel electric will greatly reduce emissions from heavy trucking and shipping. Prototypes are already underway for the trucking end at least.
@@michaels4255 Lithium and phosphate use will peak or mining will peak? There is enough lithium in the water from thermal power plants in the US to supply all of its EV battery needs.
I am starting to think that governments might just be beginning to realise their mistakes. Theresa May decide to stop ICE car sales in the UK in 2030. This seemed like a long way off when she said it. To todays politicians it is not and they are being forced by circumstances to realise that it was wholly unrealistic.
Norway has a population of 5.4M and 1.3M live in Oslo alone so much of the land is unhabitable because of mountains and cold. Only 3 percent of Norway's total area is arable land, and 30 percent of this can be used for grain production and vegetables. The rest of the area can only be used for grass production. This means for a small population infrastructure costs are small compared to say Germany which about the same size which has a population of 84M and 51% arable land. it looks great but its a microcosm not transferable to other places.
The fundamental elephant in the room that's ignored is FUEL. The mass associated with fuel. Pumping it out of the ground, transporting it to be processed and then to fuel the engines that convert the thermal energy into work at 16-60% thermal efficiency. Power plants on the high end and things with tires on the low end. These last 10-30 years. Over their life, the fuel mass consumed...is SIGNIFICANTLY greater than any mass that goes into the production of vehicles/gen sets, whereas the fuel is free for the life of wind and solar generators...and economies of scale are working in the favor of these new assets, while, at the same time, working against their counterparts. Supply and demand of key minerals will likely limit the transition speed but simple economics will continue to play out this transition. It's not going to happen over night.
Wind has a low energy density and wind power is centuries out of date. Wind turbines are highly dependent upon taxpayers subsidies. Solar panels are only economical in sunny areas between the 35th parallels. I reside in such an area and even though only a minority of buildings have solar panels, they can overload the grid on a sunny day. Conversely, unusually cloudy weather can result in solar panel/ battery backed up devices failing. Effective large scale storage has not been commercially demonstrated. Both geothermal and nuclear energy are currently under-utilised. It is much much cheaper adapting to small and largely beneficial changes to the earth’s climate than trying to prevent them. The current push for wind and solar power and battery vehicles is badly misguided. Net Zero is delusional insanity.
Nukes have fuel of high energy density. Over a 60-80 year life, I bet they do OK on the mass consumed per energy output. Some designs have fuel that lasts 8 years before refueling.
@@johngeier8692 I always feel like those power players are adding us into the "Net Zero" equation hence the lack of investment into getting the raw materials from the earth. They're ALWAYS planning 20, 40, 100 years out while average people can bearly plan a week ahead 🤔
@@johngeier8692 FREE FUEL FOR THE LIFE OF THE ASSET... why would energy density matter? Efficiencies will continue to improve over time. Light switches work to turn off lights when not needed right?... Then why wouldn't their utility scale counterparts do the same for unnecessary solar power. Plus, when there are no moving parts, there are significantly lower maintenance costs. If we're being honest here, we all understand that both renewables and O&G benefit from subsidies. A diversified grid is needed, exists today and will likely continue to exist going forward. It's just the composition that's changing.. Have you read anything about the Hornsdale Power Reserve? The 100MW battery pack was built in 2017 and had a payback period of ~2 years and has been printing money since. ... Delusional insanity... Opinions are like... And they all smell like 💩. The numbers are what they are. Is BIAS a better term here?
Thorium MSR.........its the only answer. At one of the THEAC conferences, resource experts discussed that as planned for the EV and Renewables targets, that 400 million tons of refined copper metal would need to be produced in the next 27 years. Not including gigantic quantities of Lithium,Nickel,Cobalt and rare earths. Total environmental destruction,economic destruction and a treadmill that leads to one thing.......collapse of civilization.
You mean those politicians bought by Musk&Co ? Or those politicians who's party "contributions" come from mineral companies ? As long as lobbying is legal=no democracy.
Maybe 35 years ago, I was at a friend's house. Her dad had just purchased a used outdoor wood furnace/central boiler. He showed me the boiler and explained how it provided hot water for the house year round and heating in the winter. He said on average in the summer months, he would put one log a day in the furnace. In the winter months, he said that average increased to four. He had already calculated how many trees he would have to have for 50 years. Over the years, as solar and wind power became more popular, I often wondered if we don't lose sight of how much energy is "spent" due to the complexity of the "energy system" itself. The wood burning furnace itself had been produced "locally" using a relatively--compared to solar panels, for example--simple process. The total "energy cost" for producing and transporting the furnace, it seems to me, would be significantly lower than more complex solutions. And, I would imagine, the energy required for maintenance would be exponentially lower. And then there is longevity: that particular heater had already been used for years. It's still being used now. In a rural area where you have plenty of trees it seems to me that a wood burning furnace is, all things considered, a much more efficient and effective means of "energy transition."
"...how much energy is "spent" due to the complexity of the "energy system" . I hope you understand your statement is word salad. Energy efficiency is energy out divided by energy in. Complexity, as you express it here is neither an engineering concept nor a physics concept.
@JM Circular argument. Start with terms used in physics or engineering. Develop your conclusion with scientific facts. Or dispute what I said with scientific facts. Skip the word salad.
Quite a few dramatic assertions without substantiation. I'm not an authority, but even with my limited understanding, I could see all sorts of problems and unmentioned possible alternative approaches. I appreciate that I am doing the same sort of thing. It's all very complicated, and I figure the market will make the ultimate decisions, although it is possible governments and vested interests may be able to distort market messages for a long time.
@@michaels4255 The mineral demand is based on the assumption of a battery economy. That distorts things. Your ensuing flip trolling remarks only serve to reduce your credibility.
Mark seemed to confuse the annual rate of consumable resources like gas with the one off requirement for EVs. Evs burn electrons, while with gas you need to fill up your tank every week.
You seemed to cherry pick what you wanted to see and hear. EVs currently need non renewable energy sources to be recharged, unless you have your own several hectare solar farm.
Where did you see this confusion? I didn't see it. What he was saying is not that the ongoing operation of EVs uses fossil fuels, but that an enormous amount of fossil fuel expenditure has to occur just to make an EV, and that fossil fuel expenditure is 5x larger for an EV than for an ICE. Thus there is a crossover point at roughly 70,000 miles of use, where the EV finally repays its carbon debt and becomes greener than a diesel powered ICE. Also, at end of life, the diesel ICE vehicle has only used maybe 2x the fossil fuels of the EV. So switching to EVs is not a panacea. Please note well that he is NOT saying we shouldn't switch to EVs. He is only pointing out that EV's are not zero emission.
@McKenzie Keith Who says ev is zero emissions. It's still less emissions than ice. Also evs can be recycled in the future, ice cars emissions won't decrease.
It's beyond a leap of faith for someone to believe that an energy transiton to EV's and renewables can be done in a few years,or even by 2050(Net Zero).Or ever!This should be required watching for all politicians and woke high school/university students.
That would be because it's not true. They have been predicting catastrophic scenarios for the past fifty years and not one of their predictions have come true. Fictitious propaganda propped up by scientists, MSM and politicians who have sold us out. If you know nothing about the WEF, look up their website. They don't try to hide what they're up to. Whenever you see a sentence that includes the word "consensus", it means information that was bought and paid for.
Yes, they deny the role of halogens in forming ozone holes, they deny acid rain, they deny the millions of dead in the US by lead in petrol, they deny man made global warming. They deny coral bleaching, they deny extinction if several species, They want more of the same and deliver no solutions... they once believed that the sun circles the Earth.
29:19 Where EVs would potentially make a lot of sense is for things like taxis, food delivery vehicles, or maybe rental cars, that will get driven a lot more than regular household vehicles. At least where I live in Canada, age is a major factor in how long a car lasts, rather than miles driven, due to the corrosive impact of road salt. So if an EV Taxi can last 500,000 miles, which it might achieve after about 5-10 years of use, then that would be greatly reduce the CO2 used compared to regular gasoline vehicles.
Good point, yet there are very few Uber drivers or Taxi fleets going electric and unless mandated. What about EVs (mostly Tesla in US) do you think makes that so?
@@Nill757 Probably charging time and lack of range. If charging time can be reduced, and range increased, they might become more viable. Or if they become driverless, then the time cost is no longer a factor. However, the jury's still out on whether we'll be seeing driverless cars soon. I remember ten years ago everyone seemed to be predicting that we'd see self-driving cars on the road beginning in 2017-2018 and that they'd be dominating the roads by the 2020s, but yet, they're still in the testing phase. The other model I can see maybe working for EVs as commercial vehicles is if the driver doesn't own and isn't attached to any one particular vehicle. Once their taxi needs to be recharged, they just park it and quickly switch to a different vehicle that's already been charged. But maybe EV technically just isn't quite there yet in terms of economic viability.
@@memph7610 "driverless" That's nonsense and hype unfortunately. Companies keep hyping it to suggest to people their vehicle could suddenly be worth more after the buy. While driverless might be safer for some intoxicated guy (2/3 of all accidents), its not going to beat a sober good driver taking kids to school for many years.
@@Nill757 Yeah, I agree. I think it'll be hard to get driverless AIs to know how to make the judgement call between a big black garbage bag blowing across the road and a black bear running across the road. And how well do the cameras work in poor visibility (rain, snow, dust storms, fog)? If they see a basket-ball going across the road, will they know to slow down in case a kid runs after it? If there's a pedestrian standing by an intersection, will the AI be able to judge whether they want to enter the cross-walk based on their body language (rather than just standing there to take photos of a nice building, or waiting for the bus)? Will the AI be able to find the lane if it's faded or covered in snow or mud?
The company i work for thought so, and bought an EV as a delivery Car. Unfortunately the charging time was to long, the range barely suficient (and that only with the heater turned Off) and the electricity bill skyrocketet. The next car was a diesel again.
How is implicitly denying reality remotely intelligent?? We have to go fossil free in 2050 at the latest and after showing that a transition to renewables is going to emit a lot of CO2 he just goes "Ehh, we will have two kind of vehicles still polluting a lot ¯\_ (ツ) _/¯ " No buster, we will have very, very few vehicles and we have to stop growthism and scavenge the military for resources. Anything else will end in chaos.
Im old enough to remember talking heads like this in the 70's saying we would be out of oil by 1995 too. Do you own research. Lithium? Is as common as salt. There is enough in the Nevada desert to electrify the entire western hemisphere. And equally large amounts in Canada Mexico and Chile. Its a metallic salt itself btw. There are already half a dozen lithium battery chemistries in use that do not use cobalt at all. Chiefly Lithium Iron Phosphate. Which is what is going into the vast majority cars in China already today, as well as Ford Tesla and others are moving that way too.
@@davefroman4700 Watch the presentation by Mills. He’s a former battery CEO. He does not say lithium will run “out”, as in be depleted in the ground. The problem is mining, and how fast it can be increased to accommodate plans to increase Ev production fast enough to ban other car sales by 2030. Not restrict or just subsidize EVs, but *ban* combustion. Five Decades ago the US had one lithium mine. For the last 20-30 years there have been many proposals to build more in the US, and today there is … still one US lithium mine, all proposals rejected by the gov or tied up w law suits by people in the area. The metal refining is also difficult to do cleanly, is energy intensive, and so is dominated by China. The US gov has determined for years that metal mining and its high land use per ton in particular was a harm to the environment and resisted mining. Is that suddenly wrong because EVs? “common as Salt” Lithium compounds don’t accumulate and concentrate like the enormous sodium salt domes do, where the extraction mechanism is basically a bull dozer. Lithium requires digging up much more ground or ground water. Thus, global lithium mining is in tens of thousands of tons, and global salt is hundreds of millions of tons.
@@Nill757 We have 2 methods that do not involve mining in the traditional sense. One is from large aqueous deposits, the other a simple clay deposit system where the clay is returned minus the lithium and no toxic residues. And ample deposits in the US and Canada that can utilize it. Demand DRIVES development. And fast tracking by governments to get vital resources is a matter of historical record.
@@davefroman4700 Fast tracked vital resources? The whole point of EVs is for environmental improvement. Now either we agree large scale mining w 30x increase in production is going to cause environmental damage and yet another system of dependency on large land grabs and big business, or admit all the environmental rules restricting mining of the last 50 years was all a fraud, in which case this EV debate is a fraud as well. “Demand drives development” If that were a hard rule w no limits then oil and gas would last and be used forever. They won’t. Or there would never be food or fresh water or medicine shortages. There are. “large aqueous deposits” Yes, that means ground water, vast amounts of it, about a half million gallons per ton of lithium, under vast amounts of land. The Salar de Altecama Flats in Chile with the worlds largest (area) li aqueous mining operation covers 1200 sq miles, annual production Li is about 30,000 tons. The worlds largest coal mine is in WY, 76 sq mi, w annual production 100 million tons. The world doesn’t need the same amount of lithium as it does coal, but this difference in displaced land - water is important to consider when people like Musk say one kind of mining is just replaced by another, no problem. The Altecama has the purest concentration of Li in the world, by far, and everywhere else will be worse, more water, more land, more money per unit, for aqueous. I’m not saying there can’t be any more li mines, but I have no time for the assertion that there is no environmental trade off after the Congo cobalt disaster because of “vital resource” euphemisms. Yea I’m aware of LFP, and also know that cobalt based lithium batteries will be a large part of the global market for at least another dozen years.
@@Nill757 Switching to renewables IS a drastic reduction in mining and resource extraction. Its a one time extraction. It is already cheaper today to recycle and reclaim all of the metals that go into a battery, than it is to mine and refine new materials. Our ability to recycle products has taken leaps and bounds over the last 20 years. Down to even the atomic scale now. We likewise can cleanly and efficiently recycle and re manufacture wind turbines and solar panels. I should add the manufacturers of wind turbines have already perfected new blade designs that can be recycled easily as well. Secondly the data shows that due to the efficiency gains that are acquired by going fully electric will actually result in a 30-40% reduction in the actual amount of energy being needed by out civilization. Burning stuff for energy is horribly inefficient in comparison to the efficiency of heat pumps and electric motors.
I already had an outline of understanding through being fortunate in getting in front of other quality presentations and articles. Now with Mark Mills presentation I feel as if I have reached the level of understanding that is necessary to quell the absurd goals set by our 'political leaders and the many idiotic industrial influencers or leaders'. Thank you Mark, your presentation skills through your stance, tone and information deliver and easy to absorb summary with detailed explanations. Undoubtedly, a formidable presentation.
Manhattan Institute is a Conservative think tank that promotes fossil fuels and downplays human-caused climate change. it has received $1.21 million in funding from a Koch-owned charity and ExxonMobil.
what mark is not considering is that the goal he is talking about here as rather questionable or better- it’s not likely possible- he does not seem to think it possible that the intention behind certain industry and political leader goals are pure evil and not because “they don’t know what they are talking about”, or as many people seem to think they can dismiss these “absurd…” goals as for example as “idiotic”. i never doubt the potency and capacity government and leaders have or the research resources exploited by people in Davos ie Bill Gates and his alike insane evil co-conspirators display. Far too often we the sheeple seem to be fed that false truth scapegoat that “these leaders are either idiots or unrealistic “ in some way. They are not. And that makes this namely so intentionally evil. this is what the world must realize in order to prevent the “frog boiling in water”. … when we consider that the green goal would be very realistic, however for a global population density much much much smaller than we dare to talk about. Think “500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000” max
@@paulsmith3921 You had a moment there ^^^ to throw out a piece of data or two to the OP, contrary to the long list Mills presented, but you did nothing but strike a pose.
First McKinsey and company says plenty of lithium for the transition to e-mobility. MIT says the same. Then look at the latest 60 Minutes story: “California’s Lithium Valley could power electric vehicle industry”. Add to that CATL is making lithium sodium batteries that will be in Chinese cars this year and confirmed by the car manufacturer. I’m all for arm chair hypothesizing - but that is all this presentation does - we will have more energy use in the future, and we already have cheaper ways to create it. But important to consider his arguments and do your research. Most importantly the US must not fall behind in this technology and the US military has made massive investments in green tech - it’s quiet, it’s distributed (not centralized - I.e. easier to attack), and it’s cheaper (not just drones but solar power of bases and EVs).
As technologically-innovative humans are replaced by people with different kinds of gifts, the rate of scientific advancements could slow, even with the benefit of all the tools we have recently developed. Thus, demographic change could materially impinge upon the kinds of forecasts we have seen here.
So...the argument that battery prices will decline as production scales is fallacious as input costs will actually rise due to organic constraints on supply
Ignores the volume of cobalt used in petroleum refining, the massive electricity requirements of petroleum refining, opportunity (loss) costs, economies of scale, manufacturing improvements... and does not compare an energy transition with the alternative ("business-as-usual"). I mean _all_ the consequences. Yes, we'll need new mines, but it's something we know how to do. Many statistics presented here seem cherry-picked, with the least favorable trajectories given, rather than the spread, or likely future scenarios. Liberty ships, anyone? So is it all motivated reasoning? Surely not. But a lot of it is.
Ignores that half of new EVs have LFP batteries without cobalt or nickel in them. Also he's a partner at a VC firm in the oil and gas industry. Guy is warping sooooo many things
Every politician in America should be required to view this presentation. Aspirations for no internal combustion engines after 2035 (California) are great, but then reality set in.
I'm guessing that when you do look in a few years, you'll see how wrong Mills was. Look up the facts he spouts as true and you will be disappointed that he fudged all the numbers. His numbers are all at best misinterpretation and at worst designed to deceive the uninformed listener. This is really sad.
@@quicksilver0201 Except it doesn't. The only thing an EV has going for it, it doesn't spew CO2 out the tail pipe. That's it. Everything else about a personal vehicle is environmentally destructive and batteries are an environmental nightmare. If CO2 wasn't demonized, EV's wouldn't exist.
Interesting talk. For sure that shortages are baked into the cake, not only with lithium and cobalt but class 1 nickel and copper. It would be interesting to hear of any alternatives such as nuclear energy which didn't really get addressed as well as others fuels such as green ammonia (ammonia being zero carbon). The shortcomings with nuclear are the obvious cost overruns and the probably overblown public opposition, but they are most certainly clean, have close to 50yr life cycle (twice that of renewables) and provide gigawatt scale energy. There probably isnt enough uranium to build 10x as many plants (currently some 400 plants worldwide provide some 10% of total eneryg) but they certainly are a part of the mix we need. FOr instance Ontario the Bruce, and two other plants provide some 65% of the provinces total electricity generation. In contrast some 2700 wind turbines built since 2010 provide at best 7% of total electricity generation (an assuming at a cost of 3-4million each so roughly 10billion, Ontario probably could have built more nuclear capacity for that amount. And it is baseload and large scale. BTw the renewables still have c02 emissions, lots of steel and concrete and heavy equipment needed to build (so a lot upfront) but also a lot of storage is needed which no matter what it is will have c02 emissions. According to Sabine Hossenfelders video on renewables currently we have 34 gw of non pumped hydro storage. Worldwide there is 2.2 terrawatts of pumped hydro storage and what is needed if we use only renewables is 1 petawatt of storage (so 500x existing current pumped hydro).. Also the emissions of renewables with storage are some 350-407 kg of c02 per kwh and that comes near the lower end of natural gas energy generation (410-650 kg of c02 per kwh). Finally its worth looking at what the Japanese are doing, regarding the use of ammonia for power plants and possibly marine shipping as it is c02 free. Also liquid ammonia can be a hydrogen carrier as it has more hydrogen than liquid hydrogen but has similiar storage and transport properties as propane. There are already some 10,000miles of liquid ammonia pipelines in the US (Mostly for fertilizer purposes) Currently the world burns 7.6billion tonnes of coal - if we replace that with natural gas we can cut those emissions in half. Rather like the US emissions fell simply by natural gas replacing coal plants and no govt input. Contrast that with Germany's Energiewende spending 560billion in 20years and going from 84% fossil fuels to 78%. Had they built nuclear plants for that amount they could have been near zero and not dependent on foreign gas.
Nuclear is, imo, the only practical way we have of getting the energy we need and not be held ransom to other countries. The fact that we are willing to build a nuclear plant and send it underwater for months at a time, potentially to be destroyed in a war, tells me we should be using micro nuclear reactors all over the western world. Our politicians are made up of too many lawyers and not enough scientists.
@@TomCoutfit absolutely. While there have been cost overruns in the US and public opposition, Sweden and South Korea built a number of plants within a short time frame like 10yrs. The hopeful thing is that both parties in the US are on side with small reactors. Though ultimately there not enough uranium to increase the existing plants 10fold.
@@TomCoutfit as far ransom to other countries, unfortunately Russia is a major source of uranium. Interesting though is Rosatom is not under sanctions at all.
I think the problems with nuclear will largely be overcome with technological advancements in the field of small, modular reactors that are more flexible, cost effective and safer than the old behemoths.
"A lot of this green agenda is being pushed because someone somewhere is making a lot of money from it. Just like in COVID, when of course there was a great redistribution of wealth to the most richest people in the world and the biggest corporations. As well as power being taken away from the likes of you and I." ~Robert Oulds
No policies should be adopted that curtail freedom and liberty. The best way to lower population levels is through wealth creation, education, access to birth control, family planning and the emancipation of women. All of these things lead to smaller families.
I've often wondered if we will have the resources for a clean energy transition. This has left me thinking that we can't. Mark Mills has clearly illustrated we can't. I believe Mark Mills has made the strongest case I've seen so far for a degrowth economy.
"In the period 2010-2020, 207 million tonnes of copper have been mined. In that same period however, reserves have grown by 240 million tonnes to 870,000 million tonnnes copper . This reflects additional exploration, technological advances and the evolving economics of mining." You can make wind turbines with 1.5 tons per mw. With 2 million tons, you can make a terawatt. 7 terawatts more gets you in the ballpark. Solar pannels don't use copper, only the wires do, which can be aluminum. I'm not saying it will be. I'm saying we have enough copper.
Thanks for this very, very competent and researched presentation. I note that the VW study, after 27:50, makes its assessment on SUV comparisons. It would be great to see comparisons for a Golf or a Polo vehicle size. Most EV's currently bought today are far heavier than their "space-equivalent" IC counterparts. Smaller vehicles have tendencially been acquired by poorer people. EV's currently are beyond the reach of that lower income group. Rich income groups definitely purchase much heavier vehicles, which have a far greater resource, energy consumption and emissions cost. The whole issue of carbon emissions, Ultra Low Emission Zones restrictions (ULEZ in London), rare minerals and the scrapping of vehicles that could run for another decade, needs to be looked at in a social, economic and environmental context. Governments and scientists are not doing this adequately - and the consequences for the poorest in society, and for the environment, will be disastrous.
The other glaringly simple advantage of liquid fuel powered vehicles is that they can be driven home, left there for days or weeks with just enough fuel to get to the station, and then within a matter of minutes be filled up and be performing at the desired level. BEVs will require a lot more effort or maybe in the case of swap n go batteries lifting equipment. In high crime areas charging and stored batteries will be desirable targets for vandalism or theft. /shrug...as this speaker points out: these challenges are real and will have to be dealt with (or at least endured).
@@lieshtmeiser5542 Yes, the costs and impracticality of EV's, the inequity caused by prohibitions on IC cars, bode badly for the environment and society. As you say, theft could be increased, especially if the poorer in society are massively disadvantaged, and even businesses struggle.
What I found, is that it is based on a Golf, the eGolf and the Diesel Golf. Mark says it himself in the video that the number represents about half of the actual CO2 when compared to typical larger batteries that are usually bought in Teslas (popular in Norway). Later in the video, after your time stamp.
@@lieshtmeiser5542 People are already going around cutting the cord off EV chargers so they can steal the copper. Not just once or twice but a serious crime wave, each cable has about £200 worth of copper inside so easy pickings.
3:37 Saying that the manufacture of electric cars requires fossil fuel is meaningless if you don’t compare it to 10 years ago or to the fossil fuel it takes to make gas powered cars. The amount will drop as our use of fossil fuels transitions to renewables.
This is a good video, I want to use this say something, I will forever be indebted to you Gardner 😇you’ve changed my whole life I’ll continue to preach about your name for the world to hear you’ve saved me from a huge financial debt with just little investment in money market, thanks so much Mrs Rose Gardner
I got introduced to Ms, Gardner during the pandemic year, I cried about challenges I was facing here in Ireland, during my time working with her, I was able generate returns on my investment
As a first time investor, I was skeptical so I tried out with just 1000 bucks, to my surprise in just a week I got 3 times my initial deposit, truth be told she's the most reliable!
sorry but I'm new to the trading market, some say local market I don't understand, I need help generate side allowance, how do I reach out to her, is she still active?
Excellent! The price of metals are very sensitive to supply. When I worked for Inco in 1979, a war in Congo caused the supply of cobalt to shrink and the price shot up to $30/lb.
@@WeighedWilson Congo is one of the worst examples of the mining industry today. Basically, you have slavery there and mining companies have their own armies to i.e. dig cobalt and this metal is used in electrical batteries for cars.
@@robertbucsh8840 ; just a minor correction: during that period cobalt price was around $12/lb; there was no time in the past 30 years that cobalt price was as low as you describe ( 2 - 3 US$/lb)
So when a large portion of global oil used in 23% efficient ICE vehicles drops off due to conversion to 90% efficient EVs, where does his materials demand curve change? Most EVs have greatly shrunk harness sizes to reduce overall vehicle weight and costs. None of his cherry picked info seems to accurately compare the differences in this transition. Also cobalt is consumed in ICE fuels. It's retained and recyclable in EV batteries ultimately making its demand go to zero for mined resources. Plus battery chemistry is one of fastest changing technologies on the planet.
That oil demand will only drop off if e vehicles become affordable and only if there is a reliable source of electricity, which renewables clearly don't provide.
@@colinmacdonald5732 just look at California. If you think you can just quickly add cars to the grid you're insane. The energy costs are going to get very bad in the EU. People don't get the other motives for this. It's actually to reduce driving overall and car ownership overall. The sacrifice isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Germany is ahead in the green energy movement and now they shuttered their nuclear power and now they are back to burning coal. And Germany is one of the most technologically advanced counties on earth.
@@Tential1 It could be a feature, if they want to reduce car use they should just say rather than resort to underhand methods. For what it's worth I think America made a huge mistake by opting go for almost total car dependency, but strongarming people into non existent buses is just collective punishment and will completely tank the economy. And where's the upside? It'll make no measurable difference to atmospheric CO2. I myself have the ditched the car and trust me, it ain't easy relying on public transport in a city that wasn't designed around it.
You assume that those in charge of Western governments are not fraudulent scheisters on the take, using this pipe dream to enrich themselves and friends.
Car ownership is not as prevalent in Norway as in the US or Canada. Many of our relatives there struggle to pay to heat their homes and cannot afford to keep their cars charged.
This is interesting. But one thing all of these Malthusian projections get wrong is the innovation that happens over time due to scarcity. The aluminum can has 80% less aluminum in it today than when it was invented in the 1960s. The upcoming shortages he predicts will actually will drive people to come up with new solutions that don't use nearly as much of the materials as the first versions of the products we use today.
One other factor rarely discussed is how the lifespan of a vehicle has dramatically fallen over the past generation, and will continue to fall through the electric transition. Can anybody imagine an electric vehicle lasting longer than a decade? Each of those obsolete vehicles need to be replaced, and much of the plastic is not recyclable at all....
Politicians need to get realistic about their green agenda but since most have no understanding of engineering, mining or industry they have an overly optimistic and flawed vision.
If an EV requires 4 times more metals to build, it would be roughly 4 times heavier. They aren't. Something is wrong with that estimate. Please state your sources.
It’s not the whole car, not all minerals like steel. it’s the “increase” in some metals important to an EV. See that bar chart on materials @9min. He states data from IEA. Copper increases 300%, EV to conventional. Of course. High power E motor, motor controller, battery.
Thank you for a very thought-provoking presentation. I share many of your concerns about this aspirational technology transition. The question of whether or not we can ultimately make the math work -- from scale-up and management of supply chains to realizing compelling techno-economic value propositions -- remains to be seen. I do have a different point of view on some of the subtopics you covered in your presentation. I'll mention a few: 1) Batteries for electric vehicles (EVs): Techno-economic pressure is being brought to bear to expand supply chains for raw materials such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel. But in parallel, work is well underway toward EV batteries based on far more earth-abundant materials. One such objective, the development of sodium-ion batteries that eliminate requirements for cobalt and minimize nickel content, is well underway. In contrast to early-stage Li-ion battery development, the economic payoff for successfully developing such Na-ion battery technology is both self-evident and at least two orders of magnitude greater. There are no physical laws that dictate EV batteries must be constructed from scarce materials. Rather, each candidate battery chemistry has a host of potential nuisance problems that may or may not yield to highly focused research and development. Fortunately, there are many credible candidate battery chemistries on the table, and only one of them needs to succeed in a given application. 2) Li-ion battery technology: It has paved the way for early-introduction EVs, but as noted above, it faces very serious challenges with scale-up. But in my opinion, that's not the whole story. EV manufacturers are now talking about one-million-mile and two-million-mile Li-ion batteries, which would drastically reduce the cost of battery ownership for a typical 200,000-mile EV. This improvement in charging cycle lifetime was largely a by-product of R&D to seek out and eliminate parasitic effects (chemistry side reactions and damage to electrode morphology) that occur during rapid charging. Consumers want 400-mile-range EV batteries that can recharge in five minutes, and in response to that market pressure, the industry turned its attention to the rapid charging challenge. There were no physical laws that dictated the capacity-fade problems of early-stage Li-ion EV batteries, and some of the lessons learned about overcoming capacity fade in the context of Li-ion batteries are likely to be applicable to Na-ion batteries. 3) Rare-earth magnet materials (Nd, Dy): In both wind turbines and electric vehicles, rare-earth batteries are very helpful. But they aren't necessary. In EVs, induction motors can be used instead of permanent-magnet motors with an efficiency penalty of only a few percent. Likewise, the direct-drive generators used in modern utility-scale wind turbines benefit from rare-earth permanent magnets, but wire-wound electromagnet rotors can be used instead. 4) Copper price increases: In your presentation, you stated that aluminum can be substituted for copper when building transmission lines, but otherwise cannot replace copper. But aluminum can be used in a wide variety of power electronics applications as a viable substitute for copper. For example, large transformers are often built with aluminum rather than copper windings because of the resulting cost savings. Aluminum is also now being considered for the Litz wire windings of EV motors, and can be readily applied to generator windings (e.g. for utility-scale wind turbines), industrial motors, and building wiring (despite problems circa 1970 with troublesome aluminum/copper interconnections). There is no shortage of bauxite ore to make aluminum, and the required electrical power can now be provided at very competitive prices by renewables. 5) Recycling: Nearly any metal that is valuable can employ product design for recycling. Accordingly, once enough of these metals are in circulation, the demand for newly mined materials will begin to roll off. For example, once a million-mile Li-ion battery finally succumbs to capacity fade, the lithium metal inside the battery does not get "used up". This is in contrast to fossil fuels, where mining and extraction must go on forever. I'll leave you with this list of five things I view differently, but I can articulate others if that would be of interest. I would also be happy to provide literature citations and reference data for any of the above assertions if that is of interest as well. Thank you again for a stimulating discussion.
GM ev1, they were all crushed by them to eliminate the threat they posed to their IC business, used Na ion batteries. The battery supplier was forbidden to say they had a viable battery. All the celebrities who used them, ev1, were more than impressed by their performance, utility and practicality for town usage. The main problem with using aluminium is the need for higher voltage to reduce the amperage needed for transmitting power. Given Al alloys have much greater strength than copper, much thinner windings, given sufficient insulation, would resolve the low amperage practical for Al windings. The problem with rare earth mines goes back to the suppression of the Oak Ridge Nuclear reactor design development. Since Thorium is considered a source material for nuclear weapons in the US, and it is associated with heavy rare earth mines, such mines face administrative problems.Had the Oak Ridge designs being implemented, the demand for Thorium would have solved the need for heavy rare earth mines. For domestic purposes, prior to WW 2, lead wires were used instead of copper. (Few houses have original pre-war wiring, but those that do demonstrate that lead wiring is a viable alternative. )
I would abandon this green revolution for the thorium molten salt reactor. We can use the molybdenum it produces for cancer diagnostics therapies and research. The xenon could be used for NASA interstellar space travel. Excess heat would be good for water desalinization and petroleum distillate manufacturing, i.e. diesel fuel, heating oil, kerosene, etc. They can’t blow up because they’re not pressurized. Instead of a pool of water with fuel rods, the thorium is mixed with a salt and goes through a heat exchanger
I've heard an interview with a Thorium MSR startup engineer complaining about some people upholding the technology as the holy grail that will solve all our climate and energy problems. In his view, it's very counterproductive to think MSRs will be the miracle solution because the expections are so out of line with the reality of the difficulties and timescale of developing this technology. Many people go on the internet tend to watch some youtube videos, discover thorium, other types of GEN IV reactors, breeders, maybe even fusion, and suddenly think they are now part of this 'Enlightened Gathering of Rational Thinkers', the truth-seekers that look beyond the veil of short sighted politicans and climate activists, who know that there are miracle technologies just waiting to be implemented, underdeveloped because of anti-nuclear hysteria. That if only, society would become more rational and critical-thinking, all our problems would melt before our eyes. They are just as, if not more so, deluded as the furthest fringes of climate alarmists. Reality is complex, there are no miracle solutions, we will need to develop many, many technologies and lifestyle changes.
Yes, however as the presenter said; we all dream of some magic technological breakthrough to save us. But meanwhile we will have to get along with what's available to us.
Superb presentation of the difficulties in transitioning to clean energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by changing the source of energy. Excellent illustration on the efforts required to protect our environment.
Don't call it "clean" either. It's actually worse than the existing sources. Including coal (which you can easily filtrate to release just CO2 and no microparticles/shoot).
@Alan Doane absolutely wrong! Capitalism is not the problem. Poverty and statism is. If it wasn't for government printing money and creating bubbles of consumption, the tons of plastic waste we would produce would be of much higher quality and therefore recyclable and used for a long time. Where capitalism thrives the environment does too. Look at Switzerland and compare that to any sub saharan society (where socialism and corruption prevail).
This talk imparts a good dose of realism. What's missing is acknowledgement of the supply constraints caused by global heating, flooding, soil depletion, ocean current alteration and ecosystem collapse. All of these will increase to the extent that we continue to burn fossil fuels and may increase at a geometric rate due to our exceeding tipping points. We are looking at dramatic and unavoidable whole system change. For that reason its too complex for any one person to grasp the whole detail and talk with any authority. We need a simple message. What needs to be acknowleged is that we will not be able to replicate society as it is currently organised. We need to save the best bits, in particular around health care, sanitation and sufficient healthy food. All man needs to live well is clean air, water and food, housing and physical security. If we reorder our expecations we can meet the challenge easily. Greed is our greatest enemy.
Austin, the change in global temperature is not man made. The impact of co2 on the globe’s average surface temp may be generously assigned 30% of the warming since 1750 or 1800 or whatever baseline you prefer. 😊
None of these four items are behaving in any abnormal or unusual way compared to historic norms, nor will they. (Of course, historic norms are a lot more variable than what you have observed in your lifetime.)
We also have to remember that the wind and solar plants that exist now are located in the most geologically favorable locations (we obviously put them in the best places first). So when we make estimates about future needs, we base it on a model that overestimates future performance. This is one reason Germany failed so badly at their transition, because they based future need on current output with no decay scale added. Doubling energy output will require more than double the current number of existing infrastructure, and that trend will grow exponentially. It's similar to the ore grade problem.
German here, this is completely false. We started off with a green energy initiative in 2000 with the green party and social democrat government and the next conservative gonvernment starting 2004/5 under Merkel slowly but completely reversed course and pushed coal as much as humanly possible while keeping the green rhetoric. We were leaders in photovoltaic production worldwide but under Merkel the entire industry intentionally got crushed - China bought all the shattered German companies with their knowhow and now China is market leader. Similar story with wind with a slight delay. Needless to say the political donations from coal companies to the conservatives are substantial. Coal became too expensive and non-competitive during the last decade, so what did the conservatives do? Announce that because of the green transition they'll ban coal plant in the year 2035 and because of the ban, the energy companies get financial compensations starting now, an absurd amount of many many billions of taxpayer money. The crushed solar industry got nothing by the way - they were many small competitors, no giant lobbyists. During the natural gas crisis caused by Putin, the people who installed renewables even though it was made artificially financially non-viable made cash like there was no tomorrow since their costs stayed the same but market prices went up tenfold. What is the conservative rhetoric worldwide? Look at Germany, renewable don't work out after all, huh? .... it's infuriating how much of a lie that is.
Not so. There's so much wind potential - more than enough to meet world total energy demand many, many times over. Solar and geothermal also have tremendous and wide spread potential. The carving out of "inferior" spaces is a very marginal issue on a global scale even if may be important at the local level, but then the answer is to pivot to another preferred source.
@@meibing4912 Except that global warming is nonsense, so investing in energy systems when we already have very sustainable and clean energy is also nonsense. Not a single prediction of disaster made by global alarmists has ever come close to occurring. The oceans are not rising, food production is not falling behind, and no one is NOT building and investing in coastal structures. Your idea of "potential" is also contrary to just common sense. You can't cause the sun to shine more than it does, and neither can you force the wind to blow more than it does wherever you place a windmill. Solar and wind are just fine as complimentary energies, but to think they can replace what we now use is not evidenced anywhere except in computer-generated models.
he talks like batteries are going to be li ion nmc forever. thats not the case. he also talks like oil and gas will last forever and that there is no need for transition. guess what. the crust is full of minerals. we will run out of oil first.
I'm not aware that there is ANY new mine which environmentalists have not opposed building. By comparison, oil drilling is VERY low impact on the environment.
The crust is full of minerals, but only concentrated deposits are minable. The rest require too much energy to extract. And regardless of what you make the batteries out of, you are going to run into supply constraints.
Fantastic. So well and so clearly put. A certain section of society will find this both annoying and worthy of censorship given that it clearly dismantles their religious fervour.
Very good information that's left out of the main stream discussions of renewables. One thing I'd like to point out is that coal and wood are solids. So, it's not a 100% transition from liquids & gases to solids. One of the inconvenient truths for the Green movement is that coal will never completely go away. While it's possible to transition away from coal fired power plants, there are no green technologies that scale to replace what coal is used for in other industrial applications.
When will coal "completely go away?" I don't know, but it certainly is not "never!" Coal is finite too. Coal production as measured by energy content is forecast to go into decline during the next 13 years, if it is not in decline already. When man uses the last extractable ton of coal, I don't know, but a great deal of coal will never leave the ground. It will either remain stranded because of remote location, or it will provide so little surplus energy after mining, transport, processing, etc., that it will not justify the energy use necessary to dig it up.
Technology today can produce 100% renewable hydrogen at less than ff costs, and will be developed at scale in several years time. So your point about green technologies is right today, but not for long. There are also other storge alternatives that enable a green transition with zero coal. But economics plays a HUGE role in the transition, so why increase energy costs while the transition remains well and truly in place.
@@remakeit2628 Do you have any idea of the land requirements for renewables? Nuclear takes up a tiny footprint of land by comparison. It also provides clean reliable energy 24/7 for up to eighty years. Modern nuclear plants can recycle the depleted uranium to power lower energy requirements. Industrial scale solar is only viable commercially for around twenty years. Wind turbines last 15 to 20 years and batteries around 10 years. Different parts of these projects will be constantly being replaced. How is that sustainable? And if they are cheap, they are cheap off the backs of slave labour, including child slavery, and from taking advantage of developing nations. As this video confirms, all mining has increased and will increase exponentially with the global push for so called green energy. The refining of the raw materials creates massive amounts of toxic waste which can be particularly problematic to dispose of, and some of which has varying levels of radiation. Coal requirements have increased significantly and are an essential commodity for the manufacture of renewables infrastructure. Coal is not only used for coal-fired power plants in China to manufacture wind, solar, backup batteries and EV's it is an essential 'ingredient' necessary to make the silicon ingots for crystalline silicon solar panels. Mined quartz, metallurgical grade coal, hardwood timber and charcoals are the main ingredients to make these ingots. There are three thermal processes necessary to make the silicon ingots and just one of the processes requires the heat to be held at 1100C for five days! This process is done in coal-fired furnaces. After all that half of the silicon is lost when sawn into silicon wafers. The resulting silicon wafers are then polished with acids. They make billions of solar panels! The entire green industry cannot exist without coal. The true C02 contribution from the green industry is not disclosed. Shipping is one of the highest contributors of global emissions and has increased significantly with the push for green energy. Mined materials are predominantly refined in China and they were shipped there from around the globe. The processed materials are transported to the manufacturer and the finished product is shipped around the globe. But the C02 journey doesn't end there. Massive trucks along with support vehicles make thousands of return journeys to the site of installation, which in our case is 300 kilometres from the port. Just one wind, solar and BESS project near us will take almost 3 years to complete. The longest lasting component will last around only 20 years and we have been told that to decommission, dismantle and rehabilitate the land will take almost as long as it did to install. We have more than 32 such projects in the planning stages just in our region alone, and we're up to more than 800 wind turbines some of which, the 7MW turbines, will stand 280m high and 200m wide. They are looking to install 12GW of wind/solar and what I have described to you amounts to just over the halfway mark. Australia will have many thousands of square kilometres of renewables installed on prime agricultural land of which we have a total of only 6%. We will also require 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines. All this for a form of energy that only produces energy for around 30% of the time on average and has a very short lifespan. They blow up our coal-fired power plants, so there's no turning back. We have a moratorium against nuclear power here in our country. We tried geothermal unsuccessfully and hydroelectricity isn't suitable in too many places in Australia. Who will we turn to when the lights go out?
One quibble - the manufacture of classical lead-acid batteries for conventional ICE automobiles has, since the late 1940s, been done primarily by recycling the lead recovered from worn-out batteries. Yes, there is some small percentage of newly mined lead, but it is a SMALL contribution. We also recycle aluminum, copper & steel in enormous quantities. The analysis of future metal mining requirements is much more complex than the simplistic numbers presented here.
I’m curious how you get to that place in your thinking. You know the world of a billion cars already has a world of worn out lead starter batteries to recycle. There is no billion cars of worn out EV power batteries using lithium nickel graphite copper. They all have to be dug out of the ground. And lead has been heavily mined for centuries, there is plenty of it in circulation, like steel. You also likely know the EV battery weighs about 20x more than the lead starter battery. So again, how do you get to the lead batteries work so these must too position?
@@Nill757 Apologies if my comment wasn't clear enough. I'm saying two things: Firstly, eventually, once the EV commuter auto transition is complete in a couple [or three/four[?] decades, there will be a pool of lithium battery materials in existence just as there are lead-acid battery materials circulating at present. I think my analogy is correct, but if you can disprove it please let all of us know. Secondly, I am not convinced that there is a desperate world-wide shortage of the various metals & other materials necessary to create that "pool of lithium battery materials". While cobalt & nickel are indeed somewhat scarce, most EV battery makers are now generally using LiFePO4 recipes to avoid using those metals. Market prices will have a large influence. If, for instance, there is a shortage of copper, new mines will become operational if copper prices rise high enough. A lack of materials won't stifle EV production directly, but high prices may do so? Time will tell. Maybe metal shortages will slow the adoption of EVs, but it isn't happening right now. The shortage today is of factories to build enough EVs to meet demand.
@@jrb_sland thanks for the response. I agree that once there is a world full of EVs, then recycling can theoretically take over. I suggest replacing global ground combustion vehicles is more like 50 years. As for battery type, see IEA: “2022, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) remained the dominant battery chemistry with a market share of 60%, followed by lithium iron phosphate (LFP) with a share of just under 30%, and nickel cobalt aluminium oxide (NCA) with a share of about 8%.” It’s going take years to eliminate cobalt from the massive global battery supply chain. “desperate” It’s fairly simple. I think you acknowledge all the new lithium copper etc must be dug up and refined. There is no hidden stash. So, if the global sales of EVs is to go from 5% to 100%, (20X) and grid storage battery production must increase 10x or 20x, then the global production of those materials must increase maybe 30X. That is 30x more global mining, 30x refining. The largest rate of mining increase from a mature industry seen previously with a jump in demand was a doubling every ten years or so. The price of lithium already jumped 600% starting 2020, then relieved when a large new mine came online recently in Australia.
@@Nill757 Currently BEVs account for 10% of worldwide sales or so. One can fit a typical sales curve to the current sales data and it will show you that the ICE is basically dead by 2030-2035. If that's not enough for you, just look at R&D spending on new combustion engine technologies. The industry is done with the ICE.
@@schmetterling4477 “typical sales curve ” might apply to the future and it might be post hoc rationalization. By 1900 hydroelectric power had jumped out to 40% of all US electric generation then … 30% by 1940, today 6%. There are several aspects of EVs that would seem to have problems at scale. The current large govt subsidies for instance can not scale to 100% car fleet, then there is the minerals production limitations which Mills details in the video, and charging limitations. The current EV owner in the US for instance is overwhelmingly a single family home owner that can charge at home, upper half of income, and has two or three vehicles, one of which is the BEV. If you want further evidence that EV production is ahead of itself, see Cox Automotive data on July dealer sales backlog. US has a 92 day supply of EVs in stock, and gasoline combustion vehicle stock is 54 days. Industry average is 70 days. Note: data doesn’t apply to Tesla direct sales.
Wow! Pretty scary stuff. Reminds me of my early 20's, when I read Paul Ehrlich's book, The End Of Afluence. I'm a techno-pessimist. I don't believe that human society, the way it is set up, is capable of using resources wisely. We have so many levels of privilege in our society, where the definition of privilege is much greater say on how resources are used and distributed. All too often, the ones making these decisions are the same ones who benefit most from them, while suffering the least negative consequences.
Humans are susceptible to mass psychological phenomena such as popular delusions. It is a ridiculous popular delusion that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous. Both the current mean surface temperature of Earth (15 degrees centigrade) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (415 ppm) are suboptimal for plant growth. The main effect of carbon dioxide emissions is greening of the planet with increased agricultural yields. A slightly increased mean surface temperature would also have the beneficial effects reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia as well as further augmenting agricultural yields. Fossil fuels are finite resource. There are enough reserves for several centuries. Geothermal energy is under-utilised as is Nuclear Power which also encounters delusional opposition (The Nuclear Power is Unsafe Delusion). The Western World is currently wasting trillions of dollars on uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects.
It's the human condition. Since Ogg the caveman clubbed to death the first inventor of the wheel, making Ogg the smartest man to lead the tribe. Still, we are here.
An ICE car consumes about 12 to 15 barrels of oil per year with average usage and the speaker doesn't say how many barrels of oil are used in the building of an ICE car. Additionally the fact that an ev will outlive an ICE car significantly is not factored it. It is also often forgotten in presentations like this that at some point enough batteries will have been made that mining and environmental degradation will be greatly reduced as batteries will be recycled. Tesla's LFP battery doesn't use cobalt or nickel. 15 years ago most said EV's were not practicable. Now Tesla has designed a sedan that competes with ICE super cars in performance at a fraction of the cost. When power generation is decentralized, located at your home, you don't need to transmit the power via long copper cables. As happens with gold, when the price for a mineral increases, then the finding, mining and processing of said mineral also increases. As usual, subsidies for alternative energy are highlighted without making reference to the existing subsidies for fossil fuels. And of course fossil fuel subsidies dwarf alternative energy subsidies. The existing grid is powered by fossil fuels, as transition occurs that will less and less be the case. The efficiency of EV's means that over the course of their life they save tremendous amounts of energy even if their source is a coal fired plant.
"LFP battery doesn't use cobalt or nickel" - Lithium and phosphate are not found in sufficient quantities either. And the remaining phosphate is better used to enrich the world's soils anyway.
Cars don't have a long useful life because they are manufactured now as throwaway items. The current crop of vehicles have plastic bits along with the various electronics and the parts are mostly not available and the labor cost to replace them is prohibitive. It is easier or at least possible to get parts for a car from the 1950's up to the 70's versus parts for a car built from the 80's through to the early 2000's. Labor costs are also lower because it is easier to get in and replace that part. I often joke that to replace a part on a 2004 Audi one should first check their insurance policy and then set the car on fire. My Subaru isn't quite as bad but it is bad enough. Things like wheel bearings are destroy on removal items so they have to be replaced and cannot be serviced. Many parts are no longer available and the little plastic bits up in the gas tank have started to crack. They don't cost much if you can find them but you have to drop the drive train to remove that tank and that ends up being quite expensive. Given everything else on the car is failing it generally makes the car a throw-away. Volvo and other vehicles with automatic transmissions are pretty much totalled as soon as the transmission goes. I get that EV's won't have a transmission but the same idea will apply when the motor or expensive battery goes in a car that is more than 10yrs old. While you can argue the same for an ICE vehicle the issue will be whether you get the green benefit from a vehicle with a short life span. The other thing nobody ever talks about is the fact that HP keeps going up. Nobody is buying a Tesla that is 1/2 as fast or even merely as fast as a standard economy vehicle and even something like a toyota 4 door sedan has more HP than a big v8 muscle car of the 70's.
@@danielboughton3624 Ok, I will just add that a Toyota Camry has horse power of 203 and a Standard model Y has 270 hp. So, if your argument is that ev's don't have adequate horse power, I disagree. In relation to the parts, an ICE car has 2000 parts and an ev has less than 200. Does this need explanation? Ev's will outlast and out perform ICE vehicles. Whether they're plastic parts or metal, they're too many in an ICE vehicle. The only thing you're gonna miss is the sound of the engine and most folks who are in houses or on the side of the road will welcome the silence of ev's. For a long time I tried to stick with my flip phone but eventually it became ridiculous and I went with a smart phone. Needless to say I had much more function with the smart phone.
@@danielboughton3624 Do we even have to bring up the 1020hp Tesla Plaid ? You don't seem to realize that electric motors have gobs more torque than any gasoline or diesel engine could ever produce. That's why modern locomotives are diesel-electrics, for example. Gasoline-based muscle cars are a dying breed, I'm sorry to say, because they just can't compete even with many of the consumer-level EVs, let alone any EV designed for speed.
@@RawandCookedVegan My argument is that is we are interested in less emissions we can maybe focus on less HP to get there. It won't matter if if is ICE or EV. Less energy used means greater range for the same amount of energy. In terms of vehicles and parts it depends on the vehicle but new EVs will still have a bunch of parts and the same service issues unless somehow the manufacturers have moved or will move to a serviceable vehicle model. I'm betting not. I have some old cars. My 55yo AH Sprite gets 40mpg but will never top 90mph and won't win any speed contests. My 70yo pickup gets around 15mpg but it is also still in great shape. It is a 1 ton 4wd so the mileage isn't bad relative to the function. All parts for both cars are still available. With the exception of the clutch slave cylinder on the AH Sprite both have lots of room to get to everything and maintain them. I'd bet that a modern EV is very unlikely to be in service at the same age as either of those cars and parts will be totally unavailable. As far as an EV 4wd I'm waiting for hub motors that I can individually control for max traction. The military has them for their diesel over electric big big rigs but that is it. Your smart phone is a spy gadget as much as it is a convenience and that is on purpose. Just try deleting the vendor apps that pay attention to what you do and where you go and who is around you even when you ask them not to. Modern cars are trending in the same direction. Changing lanes too fast? Driving too many miles? Didn't stop for long enough at the last stop sign? Somebody knows and is watching. If you live in a big city it isn't if someone is watching it is how many agencies are watching.
c. 18:30. The use of aluminum conductor is not restricted to high voltage, long distance transmission. The National Electrical Code approves the use of aluminum for low voltages and short distances, and it is used. The use of copper or aluminum in building construction is influenced by the price of copper. Copper, due to its reliability in connections, is preferred but not required. Aluminum is usually the conductor of choice for utility distribution voltages as well. Aerial utility service conductors to homes and commercial buildings are also typically aluminum. The speaker is in error on this point. I would also point out that a high price for copper usually assures its recycling, and recycling copper need not be as expensive as mining it. It is also understood that the recycling of lithium batteries must increase. Again, price will stimulate that market. The speaker also seems to assume the stability of the price of petroleum v. electricity. An energy transition can help stabilize petroleum prices by taking some pressure off of the demand for petroleum. Otherwise, to me, he does a good job of moderating expectations as to the energy transition.
Hi Mark, Could you look at the energy production potential of the new geothermal ‘Eavor Loop’, compared with the energy demand of mines, to see if these industries could use this more broadly adaptable geothermal system to reduce co2 from mining? Eavor Loops could be installed adjacent to mines because they do not require exceptional underground heat levels like conventional geothermal, nor do they rely on limited supply of rare metals. The capacity may not be there, but would be interesting it is, and I don’t have the background to run the numbers. The first Eavor Loops are currently in construction in Canada and Germany, and are a very clever, low key Canadian solution. And have there not been advances in small scale nuclear tech? Which could be a wise trade off until we dial down co2 and create other options, like a harm reduction approach?
You do understand that C0-2 is an essential compound for the growth of both plants and animals(humans) right? The push to minimize C0-2 will be/is, a death blow to ALL life on the planet.
@@donhammer186 Spot on. This is the essence. How can so many nominally intelligent folk forget so easily their first - and most important - school lesson in biology? Yet look at the numbers of the convinced, even for instance under this video. Technically-minded people seem to fall for it easily - perhaps a belief in experts is necessary for their own emotional security. Anyway, It's now a mass-formation phenomenon, and unfortunately it will not be checked until much more economic ruin affects many more people.
@@donhammer186 in nature, production and absorption of CO2 gases are balanced and sustainable. Human generated CO2 from methane & fossil fuels from agribusiness, production, construction etc adds an additional 35 billion or so tons / year…into an atmosphere that’s only 12 miles thick. It’s like emitting all those extra gases inside a snow globe…what did you think was going to happen? From space apparently every astronaut marvels at the fragility of the atmosphere that makes life on earth possible.
@@sherylmatthew4875 So then, you think taking away millions upon millions of acres of forest and crop land will decrees naturally occurring Co-2 and methane release?? I'm not sure where you came by the misrepresentative figures you site but... During the studies and surveys of natural emissions conducted (in the late 80's>early 2,000's)and the resulting conclusions were that human activity introduced less than 12% of all atmospheric methane while deforestation and reduced crop yield contributed an increase of 8% while increasing average global temperatures less than 1/2c and mean global sea level rise of less than 1/2" per every ten years since the late 1800's when such record keeping (sea level) began. Mean global temperatures were in decline until scientists switched from warning about a coming ice age to global warming because they understood it was much more profitable (I was an earth sciences major in college at the time. 1985ish). Since that time the global mean temp. has dropped a whooping 1.5deg.c. If your interested in the reality of atmospheric disparity's in the last two decades I would suggest a visit to geoengeneeringwatch. ORG . Listen closely to what is offered there and then ask yourself why so many country around the world and so many municipalities and state's in the U.S.(currently 20 states with more joining) have filed law suites against the current admin to "Cease and Desist" all operations involving Terraforming in their Domain. Wake up or be starved to death, your choice...
Global transition investments may be growing, but are insignificantly tiny compared with what needs to be done. The latest podcast of The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe goes into this.
It is not a problem of lack of investment. It is a problem of insufficient natural resources. They're just not there in sufficient quantity to maintain the industrial age way of life, no matter how much of society's resources are invested.
@@michaels4255 I must strongly disagree. We have more than enough natural resources, that isn't the limiting factor. The problem is how those resources are used. For example, we have LED light bulbs that use a 1/3 of the energy, this is not new technology. When talking about natural resource extraction...there has been little advancement in the technology used. A simple solution to consumption issues, is to factor in the recycling of products into the design of products. For example EV batteries can be reused for Energy storage, then recycled... extracting about 90% of the materials to be used in new batteries. There are many ways to reduce our consumption and increase or extraction, it is a matter of desire.
Why is a physicist concerned about energy? I'm very sure he is aware of a controlled fusion reaction in the center of our solar system. He said: A single EV manufactured consumed ~25 gallons of oil before it is used ( 3:30)). Apparently, manufacturing ICV (internal combustion vehicle) is a zero energy process. That is amazing!! How was that accomplished?. It also appears that oil extraction and fractional refining of petrochemicals is a zero energy process. Mill is not comparing apples to apples here, just complaining against another option for consumers.
It’s barrels, not gallons, so about 1300 gallons. Yes you’re right it does take energy to make conventional cars too, but it takes nearly double the energy to make an 80 KWh BEV. The battery metals are energy intensive.
I was a big EV advocate until i saw this. Almost stopped the video after the first few minutes. I was convinced, this is a presentation powered by big oil and stuff. Then he came with the irrefutable principles: number of material types needed to be sourced; how much do we mine now and how much will be needed. Even if the numbers would be a lie, the principles have such a strong foundation, only idiots would deny them.
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (renamed from the International Center for Economic Policy Studies) is a conservative American think tank focused on domestic policy and urban affairs, Actions include forming the Center for Education Innovation (promote private education), program directors have published "Wealth and Poverty", a book that some reviewers called the "bible" of the Reagan administration, also "The Dream and the Nightmare" described by George Bush as "[this] crystallized for me the impact the failed culture of the '60s had on our values and society". In 2001 the Institute formed "the Center for Tactical Counterterrorism (to advise government bodies and police). An institute senior fellow a published "Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer" and ex-Mayor Rudi Juliano has been a a regular at Institute dinners and lectures. The Institutes advocates regulatory reform to allow private industry to develop medical devices and pharmaceuticals, and a Institute senior fellow has released "Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys". .. some examples of their "areas and attitudes"
@@moki123g He's not stupid, just makes a lot of factual mistakes. For example, most of the world's EVs are made in China with 35% renewable energy, and that share is increasing annually. And, according to the International Energy Agency the share of renewable energies in the global energy mix is expected to increase sharply, from 16% in 2020 to about 30% in 2030.
@@edsteadham4085 No point. The "Manhattan Institute" is a known mis-information site. It is up to them to prove their thesis, rather than put the onus of proof on the reader. Why should people waste hours of their precious time researching a proper debunking of a video like this when it will fall on deft ears anyway? The answer is... we shouldn't. It doesn't take much intelligence to see that the authors are intentionally distorting almost everything they present, followed up by a steady stream of absurd assumptions and a complete lack of interest in either projecting technological trends forward or even examining more recent advancements (LFP battery production is running at scale now, for example, but the authors completely ignore it). He also completely ignores the incredibly fast resource extraction developments happening for lithium, including locations in the U.S. itself... 16 years? Try less than 4. Their statistical cherry-picking is completely obvious to anyone with even a high-school education and basic electrical knowledge who is up-to-date on what EV and renewables industries are making now. This can only be intentional on the authors part, which means that anyone with even half a fart's worth of intelligence should know better than to believe the nonsense in the video. Now, if you want to delude yourself otherwise... well, that's on you. Not something that anyone else here is under any obligation to fix.
These are things I've been pondering on for years and came to a similar conclusion. Apart from the mining/refinement demands, plus the geopolitical consequences (rarely talked about but it's going to be a fundamental issue), what about the end of life of all these renewables ? what is the cost of reusing all these materials ? If you watch mainstream media, or politicis, or advertisements (e.g. energy providers saying "100% durable" by 2030), it seems none of these people actually know what they're talking about and are just jumping on the popularity train rather than dealing with reality. What about human rights ? Every smart phone uses a mineral called tantalum to build capacitors, in order for your mobile phone not to lose data when it loses power. 97% of that is mined in Congo, by people getting paid almost nothing and literally risking their lives + child labour, the new serfs. And the same applies for many other mining companies, or companies producing parts in the products we use. It would seem logical to first fix the real systemic issues, improve what you have, before starting a whole new transition, which, in reality will take a heck longer than what is being advertised. It feels like a runaway train, replacing a existing problem with a new one further down the road. Also, the narrative people are fed is that nothing will have to change, nothing will have to be given up, or downsized, which obviously is ludicrous to anyone with common sense. If one truly believes, no matter what timeframe, that we are going to have net zero energy, without any changes in all the systemics underlying the production and exploitation of it, is also truly ignorant.
Well said. “Net zero”. Unfortunately that’s another neo colonial term, push the problem over there, somewhere, trade some coal emissions here for saving some fewer combustion miles flown there. For *global* carbon, it needs to Zero, Zero, not net zero. That means looking hard, now, at solutions being avoided. Seems to me, only nuclear works.
Interesting if heavily biased talk. Note for example that he says that wind energy consumes 1400% more tons of minerals per watt than fossil energy. I suppose this physicist can be forgiven for not knowing that oil, coal and gas are minerals and should therefore be included in his maths. Using that and a modest 10 year life expectancy for each generation modality coal oil and gas consume thousands of times more minerals than even offshore wind energy.
I lived in LA in the early 1970s, the atmospheric pollution was atrocious, visibility was often less than 300 metres and the air stank, not just occasionally but most of the time. At the time it was thought to be economically and technically impossible to clean the air. Today you can see the San Bernardino Mountains from most parts of the city. A third world country I lived in during the 1970s was poverty stricken, notably squalid and filthy. Today it is reasonably prosperous with a clean environment. Progress and improvement is hard but also inexorable.
The most of the smog over big cities at the time was caused by simble nitrogen oxide pollution of private vehicles. The solution was not required any massive change, it was dealt by very simble little thing as EGR. Wikipedia "In internal combustion engines, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is a nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions reduction technique used in petrol/gasoline, diesel engines and some hydrogen engines.[1] EGR works by recirculating a portion of an engine's exhaust gas back to the engine cylinders. "
In real terms US wages have barely moved since the 70s while productivity increased substantially. Developed countries will feel the effects of energy poverty, meanwhile some developing countries (Sri Lanka) have completely collapsed due to the increased price of commodities like energy and fertilizer.
He left out Geothermal which I admit is smaller than wind and solar, but is being developed and is available 24/7 and 365 independent of weather. The developing process will also keep drillers in jobs as fossil fuels are replaced over time. He also ignores recycling which is becoming more available especially for lithium. As far as the battery weight goes, that will be coming down as Lithium-sulfur batteries come online. They weigh about half as much as current batteries and have faster recharge times, battery life will be longer and fire hazard is almost eliminated along with a few other things.
It's impossible to replace fossil fuels. That means the whole medical industry which relies on fossil fuels would be no more, same with the 6000 other derivatives we get from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels is not energy, it is far greater than that and we need to be aware of this fundermental fact. No fossil fuels, no renewable energy.
@@tomnguyen9931 You could make the same case for nuclear with the new reactors. If you make those statements, you need to apply the potential improvements everywhere. And nuclear wipes the floor with everything in terms of material efficiency, CO2 emitted per energy produced and dangerous waste.
@Me Well. He's not saying anything that I haven't already heard from other, decidedly not neocon, sources. The Limits to Growth discussed similar things decades ago, when I was young. He just put it all in a very succinct way. To assuage your potential suspicions: I don't own a car, I walk everywhere, my CO2 emissions are 4 metric tons per year (I measure them annually). I take climate change VERY seriously. I keep my house at 60° in the winter and I don't have air conditioning (I live in the far northern part of the Midwest in the US). Sadly, high tech solutions to climate change are extremely problematic. I favor a different, more low tech, approach. Less consumption per capita and demilitarization in the US and the G8 would probably do far more to resolve the issue than any shiny new tech that depends on exotic materials.
You can’t be “serious” about climate change and then claim the important parts are how much people in the US and GB walk. US per capita CO2 emissions are now falling below 1960 levels after peaking in the 2000s. Another ten year it will be below 1900.
@@Nill757 Hm. Curious. I never claimed it mattered how much those in the G8 walked. I do claim, however, that consumerism and the huge military expenditures of the G8, which includes transportation and home energy use, are (according to the research) the prime movers of greenhouse gas emissions. I also claim that decreasing those emissions immediately is imperative, and the simplest and most direct way to do so is by eschewing those things which create them. The best and most direct way to eschew those things, given all the information I've ever seen about everything from technological advancements to mining and etc, is by decreasing consumption. Which I've done. And I'm certain we all could do (us being those who live in the G8). That's all I'm saying.
@@Nill757 Something else I should have addressed. This "per capita" emissions figure which I keep seeing bandied about confuses me. Sure, each person in the G8 is spewing out less CO2 now than back when I was born, but there's a great deal more people now than then, and all the charts and graphs I've seen show nothing but ever more greenhouse gas emissions as time goes by. So.....all that nifty tech that we've got now (including this irritating phone) hasn't really stopped the everlasting march of emissions. "Potential demographic collapse" notwithstanding.
Plenty of engineers do. We have been trying to explain this sort of stuff for years but there's 2 packs of emotional clowns who just wont stop screaming into the microphone every chance they get. On one side are the Greenies and the other are the minions of the Fossil Fuel Oligarchs. Engineers are trapped in between them *AND IT SUCKS.*
@@tonywilson4713 it shouldn't matter to the facts who's screaming into the microphone. The engineers just need to lay out the facts and forget about the rhetoric swirling around them.
@@mc-lb9dk Look at what you're both saying. I'm an engineer and I can guarantee you that many, many people a lot of what's been said here. There's over 1.5 BILLION cars in the world and almost 500 million trucks. There's a staggering number of people on the left who know nothing about what it will take to swap those out. They have no idea of the energy required, materials required, or what it will actually take to manufacture. The amount of materials needed means we can have electric cars, electric trucks or giant mega batteries *BUT NOT ALL 3.* there's just not enough stuff to do all 3. THEN THERE IS THE OTHER PROBLEM. Where are all the power stations going to be that are required to provide the power for almost 2 billion vehicles? There's a world wide issue with ageing power stations that people are struggling to keep operational because they are so old. They will have to be replaced *BEFORE* we start building new power stations to supply cars and trucks.
Getting into commodities in a capacity similar to this was always my professional dream. Too bad it has all but passed me by. Nice job with the presentation.
Hey, what a great idea! The old boys from the CBOT used to tell me trading commodities was the fastest and cheapest way to turn a large fortune into a smaller one.
@@chicagofineart9546 You are a bot and a sh@tty one at that. David Ellison was adding to the conversation. Get a refund from the moron who wrote this software.
Thank God. Someone talking sense. I woke up to this problem listeningto Peter Zeihan a couple of yeara ago. Without a MAJOR tech breakthrough we cannot transition to.renewables on current trajectory. Our governments are reckless.
Regarding the emissions of EV against conventional cars current information has the crossover point at about 20000 miles and not 60000 miles which is a big difference. Does anyone have more information on this? There was a report commissioned by some car manufacturers which put the crossover at 50000 miles but that study was apparently shown to be false.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
This presentation should be given to the environmental classes in all of the universities, colleges, and school in the US. Thku very much.
Perfectly succinct point, Chuck! I did technological forecasting in my bachelor's degree at CSM (Colorado School of Mines) and I do see some weaknesses in the presentation, but the overall assumptions are correct. My strong major in college was energy production and I'll admit I was a little zealous in those days, but I calmed down and did rational studies on similar energy "production methods" and changed my politic to republican as I realized it was all unsustainable due to energy density issues alone. The problem is this topic is more complex and difficult than the average American voter can deal with.
You are absolutely RIGHT and to point the finger at the Greenies for NOT UNDERSTANDING the scope of the problem.
You, Mark Mills and 1,000s of other clowns can ALSO ACCEPT responsibility FOR NOT ALLOWING anything to get done that you didn't like.
I am an engineer and there is a staggering amount of blame ON BOTH SIDES of the energy transition debate and BOTH SIDES need to STFU and get out of the road.
I applaud Mark Mills, Simon Michaux and others for pointing out the basic facts of how much stuff we need, but I would not behave very well in their presence BECAUSE they are also a massive part of the problem. As Mark said NOTHING LASTS FOREVER it all wears out eventually. Across the entire developed world are energy systems that are falling apart because we didn't keep up with maintenance and didn't keep replacing older energy systems that had reached the end of their useful life.
We have to stop talking and DO WHAT CAN BE DONE.
I'm Australian and we should have built at least 4 large base load power stations during the last 10-15 years to cover population growth and we haven't because every time someone said something 10 others stood up and started talking and wouldn't shut up. Plus we have no end of media maleficence where they pumped their opinions as fact and stomped on anything they thought would not get them the ratings they demand.
Right now we do not have a single plan on the table to even discuss, because to many people just wont shut up.
Very true. One wouldn't be wrong calling Norway a "quiet country". There is no political arrogance. That is why their economy is more successful than the US. Most importantly it looks at scientific data with impartiality.
@@rohintonchothia9821 It also helps that Norway has a functioning education system, functioning health care system and has a staggering amount of money in its sovereign wealth fund to pay for things like education, health care and ENERGY TRANSITIONS.
Norway is a great lesson in fiscal responsibility for a NATION and for its future. Instead of spending their North Sea oil & gas income on whatever the next government whim was they put it places where it could eventually pay for those whims.
FYI - I'm not Norwegian. I'm Australian and hate the fact none of our governments we elected over the last 40+ years have been as foresightful as the Norwegians and instead listened to numbnut American Economists from places like Harvard.
Similar was in ~1969 imposed by the "club of Rome" based on serious studies.
And supported by most serious scientists. According tot their studies we would run out of all oil and gas reserves in the earth in 2000....
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”
Isn't it a shame that almost no American economists or business executives can understand that?
Well put. The extreme energy utilization of “developed” countries is not sustainable regardless of what technology we use to enable it. At some point we must find a way to be comfortable having more in common with the lifestyle of people in “undeveloped” countries.
Translation: "FUCK capitalism."
Yep ..👍🏆 Well stated. That makes homo sapiens the most virulent destructive cancer on the face of the earth...which will obviously destroy it self by means of over expansion of numbers, combined with greed...BUT try to explain that to a cancer....especially a cancer which believes itself to be intelligent.....but the so called intelligence makes it the most stupid species ever.....also the most arrogant....made in the IMAGE OF AN IMAGINED PERFECT GOD....What can I say as a pragmatic atheist,but: "God help us....save us from your arrogant bleating sheep (followers)..."
Ah…like machetes and dirt floor single room homes?? Tell me who wants that? Go spend real time in a third world country and see if your ideas are consistent with your experience. 😮
I want to hear more from this man. He speaks a great deal of sense.
He speaks a lot of past with great accuracy. He has no clue what will happen in next 10 to 15 years. His great material theory is thinking of past. Things are changing and changing fast.
@@lib1007 I hear you. We never know what lies ahead, and necessity is the mother of invention, so there may be a breakthrough, such as happened with the Covid vaccines against what was a pretty nefarious Chinese bio weapon.
That said, he is very measured in his presentation, and he states clearly that given the existing state of affairs with regards to resource extraction and processing (he mentions the China angle again) - which is all we have to go on in terms of investable options- the energy transition is an aspiration which cannot be fulfilled.
@@lib1007”no clue .. 10 yrs”
But you do? No. Nobody knows the future, but people w engineering training and experience know how things have been done, how much X it takes to build Y, and therefore IF a trend continues, here’s what is likely to happen. Because at least he doesn’t think energy is made in a wall socket. He may be wrong, but Yeah, he has a clue.
@@Nill757 May be he has a clue. But he is extremally biased and talk like Oil lobbyist. He kind of claim that it's impossible to reduce Oil/fossil fuel usage in the next 10 years. That is not true and propaganda.
@@lib1007 He didn’t claim anything impossible. It’s a hard problem not solved by fantasies. The guy asked questions and it appears you want him to shut up.
Excellent. Finally somebody pointing out that our puny human economic ideas will not bend the realities of nature just because we wish it really hard.
Do; don't say.
You’ve missed the point. Climate change is a physics reality. Don’t change emissions and see what happens.
@@dylanbrown5414 No you missed the whole point. Climate change is a reality we have to deal with but it won't be as simple as many would think. No one said climate change is not real, but it not just the question of endless optimism about renewables.
@Me Care to elaborate on the poisononous ideology ? I mean It isn't really contraversial to state the obvious, renewables will not be the sole silverbullet solutions for climate change, or for any societal problems for that matter. And yes they play a role, they are a step to the right direction and we should support blah blah blah but also think about where does this train goes next.... and when you think critically, you realize it won't be an easy fix. You can either give a better concrete solution or live with these stubborn facts.
@@CraftyF0X Renewables is only part of the answer. Efficiency is as important. Use less, need less.
Ironic that Norway's push to clean is funded by oil and gas!
because they push for unreliable renewables like wind and solar which depend on backup which is always fossil fuels. The actual transition will happen with reliable clean sources like hydro, geothermal and nuclear energy.
Any transition away from oil and gas must necessarily be funded by oil and gas because those are how you do 97% of activity before you install non-renewables.
An irony that Canadians would like to have.
Appears to be an “inconvenient truth”
Exactly! And the ultimate conclusion is that the Earth simply doesn't have inexhaustible resources. Inconvenient indeed!
@@thinktoomuchb4028 humanity is done for
@@EmeraldView "Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."
It's also a rather incomplete one.
If built in obsolescence was abolished in a sustainable product initiative the demand on raw materials would be hugely mitigated.
This is just one of many great analysis that are showing up on the challenges we face....
If you understand this presentation and aren't moving to a farm and getting skills to grow food and supply your own energy you didn't understand what he is saying....
How can 8 billion people live on farms, 2 or 3 billion farms would be needed, size depending on soil fertility. Many areas have too poor a climate.
@@petefluffy7420 8 billion people can't live on farms. We as a global society have grown our population beyond the carrying capacity. As long as 80mbd of oil comes out of the ground life will go on, if that doesn't happen nature steps up with her 3 clubs of famine, disease and war and culls the human pop. Canadianbear is warning you to get as self sufficient as possible, to get yourself a farm.
@Simon John That is only for the FIRST car; after that they can be recycled and the SECOND electric car uses far less minerals if not less than the first whereas the ICE will always be thirsty!
@@simonjohn6156 Actually, the car needs replacing, because in most EVs you can't replace the battery. That means the 2nd hand car market is dying and people who depend on it for mobility can start walking, cycling, or buying horses again.
@@snake7197 "Actually, the car needs replacing, because in most EVs you can't replace the battery." That won't last long. Where we are heading is battery replacement stations where you just pull in and you get a new battery and are out if there in 5 minutes. There's a company in Australia that is already creating these systems for 18-wheelers. You pull your truck in, and in 5 minutes, you have new batteries, and the batteries have shown excellent performance for power and range.
At 11:15 "...2,000 to 7,000 percent increase in metals to deliver the same vehicle..." these numbers make no sense. He is saying that an EV must weigh 20 to 70 times as much as an internal combustion vehicle or that there is a gigantic amount of wasted metal in the construction of EVs. There must be something much more complex about the numbers he is quoting. They must be trying to account for the amount of metal invested in creating infrastructure to support the EV manufacture, but even that doesn't make sense because such investments are amortized over very large numbers of vehicles so the per vehicle cost of that infrastructure is small compared to the vehicle itself.
No, he's failed to explain the argument adequately and I suspect that a closer examination would show that there are large holes in it.
Go back and listen.. I did.. He was talking about energy delivery and how much metals would be required to deliver that energy.
Not vehicle specifically but includes the infrastructure needed to deliver the energy.
Look at any proposal for your country, then check the costing.. It will blow your mind.
It did for me in Australia.
One of the biggest holes is that he ignores the mineral costs of acquiring, refining, transporting, and burning fuel.
I don't think I've ever seen a review of resources that's as free of political bias, as this is. Finally, I feel I'm being given adequate data, on which to make a viewpoint.
So WHAT is your viewpoint now?
Being free of political bias, is now considered a political bias. Lmao unfortunately people won't trust this basic science.
@Jo Helsen
Basically that the situation is extremely complicated and not solvable by any single, simple solution. There has to be new technology - new batteries that are inexpensive and that can be made without rare metals. We need cheap, clean electricity by nuclear fusion - (possibly this is not going to happen) - or fission.
Just burn petroleum. It is good for us
And we need to vote out Democrats that push this zero emission delusion, @@NoosaHeads.
Given the importance of the data presented, I would appreciate legends showing what the various colors and line types or bars indicate. It is challenging to both listen to the auditory information while looking at something that is vague.
Pause the video and look more closely? If it is still not legible, I am sure that you can get the slides if you contact the Skagen fund or the speaker directly.
Thanks for the great work you do.
The interesting fact he gave at the introduction about Norway's energy system I felt needed to be expanded on a little more. Their vast majority of renewable electricity is generated via Hydro power, & virtually none is with Wind & Solar! That is the reason it is so cheap in comparison to Wind & Solar in other countries such as the UK! as was indicated Hydro dam schemes last for at least 4 times the average Wind or Solar farm and are at least 4 if not 5 times as efficient! Also Norway exports well over half of its Oil from the North Sea and that feeds their "Wealth Fund" making them the richest per head of population by a massive margin, in the world!
There are additional reasons for the very fortunate position of the Norwegians. Together with their geology and weather, allowing them to utilise hydro and have great oil and gas reserves, they have a smaller population and a relatively tiny infrastructure. Consequently, they have a lot of money coming in and much lower maintenance costs compared with somewhere like the UK.
@@bradleyheights5905 It's simply that if you look at the gross value of the nation and divide by the population, you get a figure. America would be down the list because, while the value of it is seemingly high, so is the national debt. Norway effectively has no national debt because its government assets are greater than what it owes.
Wait until governments start to apply a road tax to the electricity to replace what they are losing from switch from carbon fuels
He forgot the cost savings Factors for Wind and Solar that you dont have with Hydro. he is not comparing the LCOE. Hydro is still cheaper but its like $.01 kwh until probably end of this year or next when the learning factor for solar hits and wind isnt far behind.
He mentions that point.
What bothers me about this situation is the fact that the news and media are all going about a recession which is understandable due to the war and pandemic but still the same media still publish articles about folks in the same economy pulling off hefty 6figure profit(Averg. 200k in barely 8weeks) in this downtrend how is that possible?
Well the US-stock market has been on it’s longest bull-run in history, so the mass hysteria and panic is understandable seeing as we’re not used to such troubled market, but there are opportunities lurking around if you know where to look while everybody’s been screaming falling sky, I’ve netted over $850k in the past 10months.
@@floxydorathy6611< well good for you buddy, your market knowledge paid off. I've actually been thinking of reaching a portfolio-adviser, my 401k and stocks been losing everything it's gained since 2019, mind if I looked-up this one coach you use?>
@@2024Red-j5t
@@floxydorathy6611 Found her, I wrote her an email and scheduled a call, hopefully she responds, I plan to start 2023 on a woodnote financially.
When Obama unleashed his green push,one energy execgave a few an audience.He stated they han no concept basic physics to evaluate their ideas.Eas all ' pie in the sky '.thenthete is all fed funds that disappeared in the Solentra adventure.
China is already produced no hundreds of GWh of LFP batteries - no cobalt and no magnesium. Getting close to 300 miles EPA range from 75kwh packs. On top of this Redwood and many others are now ramping up battery recycling businesses: battery materials do not degrade (the ion intercalation rate decays but the chemicals are as new once recycled). Then there is the absolute limit of cars on our roads: very soo, most cities will valve without cars; mobility as a service will replace sole owner transport. The calculation is not linear.
Lithium and phosphate will peak this century. Using them for batteries will make them peak faster. EV battery recycling: how much does this reduce the EROI of the auto transport system? From what I have read, it will reduce it quite a bit. Also, transport as a service will not put a very big dent in the energy and minerals necessary for moving all those people and goods around. It is not a real savings, or not very much. And finally, a lot of our transport fuels are used for heavy trucks, shipping, and airliners. You can't run heavy transport on batteries.
You forgot to mention sodium batteries. Imagine turning salt from desalination plants into batteries!
@@michaels4255 Short haul air transport is already in testing phases with batteries. Diesel electric will greatly reduce emissions from heavy trucking and shipping. Prototypes are already underway for the trucking end at least.
@@michaels4255 Lithium and phosphate use will peak or mining will peak? There is enough lithium in the water from thermal power plants in the US to supply all of its EV battery needs.
Excellent. Thanks very much. This is important for us all to know.
Gee, someone actually speaking the truth. My goodness.
I am starting to think that governments might just be beginning to realise their mistakes. Theresa May decide to stop ICE car sales in the UK in 2030. This seemed like a long way off when she said it.
To todays politicians it is not and they are being forced by circumstances to realise that it was wholly unrealistic.
Norway has a population of 5.4M and 1.3M live in Oslo alone so much of the land is unhabitable because of mountains and cold. Only 3 percent of Norway's total area is arable land, and 30 percent of this can be used for grain production and vegetables. The rest of the area can only be used for grass production. This means for a small population infrastructure costs are small compared to say Germany which about the same size which has a population of 84M and 51% arable land. it looks great but its a microcosm not transferable to other places.
The fundamental elephant in the room that's ignored is FUEL. The mass associated with fuel. Pumping it out of the ground, transporting it to be processed and then to fuel the engines that convert the thermal energy into work at 16-60% thermal efficiency. Power plants on the high end and things with tires on the low end. These last 10-30 years. Over their life, the fuel mass consumed...is SIGNIFICANTLY greater than any mass that goes into the production of vehicles/gen sets, whereas the fuel is free for the life of wind and solar generators...and economies of scale are working in the favor of these new assets, while, at the same time, working against their counterparts. Supply and demand of key minerals will likely limit the transition speed but simple economics will continue to play out this transition. It's not going to happen over night.
Wind has a low energy density and wind power is centuries out of date. Wind turbines are highly dependent upon taxpayers subsidies.
Solar panels are only economical in sunny areas between the 35th parallels. I reside in such an area and even though only a minority of buildings have solar panels, they can overload the grid on a sunny day. Conversely, unusually cloudy weather can result in solar panel/ battery backed up devices failing.
Effective large scale storage has not been commercially demonstrated.
Both geothermal and nuclear energy are currently under-utilised.
It is much much cheaper adapting to small and largely beneficial changes to the earth’s climate than trying to prevent them.
The current push for wind and solar power and battery vehicles is badly misguided. Net Zero is delusional insanity.
Nukes have fuel of high energy density. Over a 60-80 year life, I bet they do OK on the mass consumed per energy output. Some designs have fuel that lasts 8 years before refueling.
@@johngeier8692 I always feel like those power players are adding us into the "Net Zero" equation hence the lack of investment into getting the raw materials from the earth.
They're ALWAYS planning 20, 40, 100 years out while average people can bearly plan a week ahead 🤔
@@johngeier8692
FREE FUEL FOR THE LIFE OF THE ASSET... why would energy density matter? Efficiencies will continue to improve over time.
Light switches work to turn off lights when not needed right?... Then why wouldn't their utility scale counterparts do the same for unnecessary solar power. Plus, when there are no moving parts, there are significantly lower maintenance costs.
If we're being honest here, we all understand that both renewables and O&G benefit from subsidies. A diversified grid is needed, exists today and will likely continue to exist going forward. It's just the composition that's changing..
Have you read anything about the Hornsdale Power Reserve? The 100MW battery pack was built in 2017 and had a payback period of ~2 years and has been printing money since.
... Delusional insanity... Opinions are like... And they all smell like 💩. The numbers are what they are. Is BIAS a better term here?
😂😂😂😂
Thorium MSR.........its the only answer. At one of the THEAC conferences, resource experts discussed that as planned for the EV and Renewables targets, that 400 million tons of refined copper metal would need to be produced in the next 27 years. Not including gigantic quantities of Lithium,Nickel,Cobalt and rare earths. Total environmental destruction,economic destruction and a treadmill that leads to one thing.......collapse of civilization.
Excellent stuff. Could you make this compulsory viewing for all the delusional politicians?
For all the delusional first world people who think you can just switch like flipping off one switch and turn on another just like that
You mean those politicians bought by Musk&Co ? Or those politicians who's party "contributions" come from mineral companies ? As long as lobbying is legal=no democracy.
Manhattan Institute = Professional liars paid to trick the people by making fake science.
Politicians only care what happens before the next election. There is zero incentive for any politician to take a long-term view.
If politicians became rational, the voters would replace them...
Maybe 35 years ago, I was at a friend's house. Her dad had just purchased a used outdoor wood furnace/central boiler. He showed me the boiler and explained how it provided hot water for the house year round and heating in the winter. He said on average in the summer months, he would put one log a day in the furnace. In the winter months, he said that average increased to four. He had already calculated how many trees he would have to have for 50 years. Over the years, as solar and wind power became more popular, I often wondered if we don't lose sight of how much energy is "spent" due to the complexity of the "energy system" itself. The wood burning furnace itself had been produced "locally" using a relatively--compared to solar panels, for example--simple process. The total "energy cost" for producing and transporting the furnace, it seems to me, would be significantly lower than more complex solutions. And, I would imagine, the energy required for maintenance would be exponentially lower. And then there is longevity: that particular heater had already been used for years. It's still being used now. In a rural area where you have plenty of trees it seems to me that a wood burning furnace is, all things considered, a much more efficient and effective means of "energy transition."
"...how much energy is "spent" due to the complexity of the "energy system" . I hope you understand your statement is word salad. Energy efficiency is energy out divided by energy in. Complexity, as you express it here is neither an engineering concept nor a physics concept.
The OPs point is perfectly clear & valid. In real world situations, high system complexity can be an indicator of lower than optimal efficiency
@JM Circular argument. Start with terms used in physics or engineering. Develop your conclusion with scientific facts. Or dispute what I said with scientific facts. Skip the word salad.
@JM To summarize "often indicates" is weasel talk. The speaker in the video doesn't know what he is talking about.
@@ws6002 I'd love to know more from you if you'd be so kind.
Quite a few dramatic assertions without substantiation. I'm not an authority, but even with my limited understanding, I could see all sorts of problems and unmentioned possible alternative approaches. I appreciate that I am doing the same sort of thing. It's all very complicated, and I figure the market will make the ultimate decisions, although it is possible governments and vested interests may be able to distort market messages for a long time.
What are your "alternative approaches?" Mining asteroids??? The jig is up.
@@michaels4255 The mineral demand is based on the assumption of a battery economy. That distorts things. Your ensuing flip trolling remarks only serve to reduce your credibility.
This needs to be briefed to both houses of Congress.
Mark seemed to confuse the annual rate of consumable resources like gas with the one off requirement for EVs. Evs burn electrons, while with gas you need to fill up your tank every week.
You seemed to cherry pick what you wanted to see and hear. EVs currently need non renewable energy sources to be recharged, unless you have your own several hectare solar farm.
Where did you see this confusion? I didn't see it. What he was saying is not that the ongoing operation of EVs uses fossil fuels, but that an enormous amount of fossil fuel expenditure has to occur just to make an EV, and that fossil fuel expenditure is 5x larger for an EV than for an ICE. Thus there is a crossover point at roughly 70,000 miles of use, where the EV finally repays its carbon debt and becomes greener than a diesel powered ICE. Also, at end of life, the diesel ICE vehicle has only used maybe 2x the fossil fuels of the EV. So switching to EVs is not a panacea. Please note well that he is NOT saying we shouldn't switch to EVs. He is only pointing out that EV's are not zero emission.
Where do you get the electrons?
@McKenzie Keith Who says ev is zero emissions. It's still less emissions than ice. Also evs can be recycled in the future, ice cars emissions won't decrease.
@@frankreynolds9930😂 haha just google zero emission vehicles for your answer.
Speech title, “How I Invalidated Al Gores Life in a One Hour Speech”.
It's beyond a leap of faith for someone to believe that an energy transiton to EV's and renewables can be done in a few years,or even by 2050(Net Zero).Or ever!This should be required watching for all politicians and woke high school/university students.
Also, planes will never fly, and computers will never be much use, cars will never drive themselves...
A small group of people keeps delaying an energy transition. First they questioned man made global warming - for decades.
That would be because it's not true. They have been predicting catastrophic scenarios for the past fifty years and not one of their predictions have come true. Fictitious propaganda propped up by scientists, MSM and politicians who have sold us out. If you know nothing about the WEF, look up their website. They don't try to hide what they're up to. Whenever you see a sentence that includes the word "consensus", it means information that was bought and paid for.
Yes, they deny the role of halogens in forming ozone holes, they deny acid rain, they deny the millions of dead in the US by lead in petrol, they deny man made global warming. They deny coral bleaching, they deny extinction if several species, They want more of the same and deliver no solutions... they once believed that the sun circles the Earth.
29:19 Where EVs would potentially make a lot of sense is for things like taxis, food delivery vehicles, or maybe rental cars, that will get driven a lot more than regular household vehicles. At least where I live in Canada, age is a major factor in how long a car lasts, rather than miles driven, due to the corrosive impact of road salt. So if an EV Taxi can last 500,000 miles, which it might achieve after about 5-10 years of use, then that would be greatly reduce the CO2 used compared to regular gasoline vehicles.
Good point, yet there are very few Uber drivers or Taxi fleets going electric and unless mandated. What about EVs (mostly Tesla in US) do you think makes that so?
@@Nill757 Probably charging time and lack of range. If charging time can be reduced, and range increased, they might become more viable.
Or if they become driverless, then the time cost is no longer a factor. However, the jury's still out on whether we'll be seeing driverless cars soon. I remember ten years ago everyone seemed to be predicting that we'd see self-driving cars on the road beginning in 2017-2018 and that they'd be dominating the roads by the 2020s, but yet, they're still in the testing phase.
The other model I can see maybe working for EVs as commercial vehicles is if the driver doesn't own and isn't attached to any one particular vehicle. Once their taxi needs to be recharged, they just park it and quickly switch to a different vehicle that's already been charged. But maybe EV technically just isn't quite there yet in terms of economic viability.
@@memph7610 "driverless"
That's nonsense and hype unfortunately. Companies keep hyping it to suggest to people their vehicle could suddenly be worth more after the buy. While driverless might be safer for some intoxicated guy (2/3 of all accidents), its not going to beat a sober good driver taking kids to school for many years.
@@Nill757 Yeah, I agree. I think it'll be hard to get driverless AIs to know how to make the judgement call between a big black garbage bag blowing across the road and a black bear running across the road. And how well do the cameras work in poor visibility (rain, snow, dust storms, fog)? If they see a basket-ball going across the road, will they know to slow down in case a kid runs after it? If there's a pedestrian standing by an intersection, will the AI be able to judge whether they want to enter the cross-walk based on their body language (rather than just standing there to take photos of a nice building, or waiting for the bus)? Will the AI be able to find the lane if it's faded or covered in snow or mud?
The company i work for thought so, and bought an EV as a delivery Car. Unfortunately the charging time was to long, the range barely suficient (and that only with the heater turned Off) and the electricity bill skyrocketet. The next car was a diesel again.
It is always a pleasure to listen to intelligent people. I have learned a lot.
pity we don't have more intelligent people in governments. dave
Nice try. Mahattan Institue is an 'extreme' conservative thinktank. Do you think they wish to stick to the billionaires status quo?
How is implicitly denying reality remotely intelligent??
We have to go fossil free in 2050 at the latest and after showing that a transition to renewables is going to emit a lot of CO2 he just goes "Ehh, we will have two kind of vehicles still polluting a lot ¯\_ (ツ) _/¯ "
No buster, we will have very, very few vehicles and we have to stop growthism and scavenge the military for resources.
Anything else will end in chaos.
God Bless you, Sir! You have presented this topic in a clear and rational manner. Thank You.
Im old enough to remember talking heads like this in the 70's saying we would be out of oil by 1995 too. Do you own research. Lithium? Is as common as salt. There is enough in the Nevada desert to electrify the entire western hemisphere. And equally large amounts in Canada Mexico and Chile. Its a metallic salt itself btw. There are already half a dozen lithium battery chemistries in use that do not use cobalt at all. Chiefly Lithium Iron Phosphate. Which is what is going into the vast majority cars in China already today, as well as Ford Tesla and others are moving that way too.
@@davefroman4700 Watch the presentation by Mills. He’s a former battery CEO. He does not say lithium will run “out”, as in be depleted in the ground. The problem is mining, and how fast it can be increased to accommodate plans to increase Ev production fast enough to ban other car sales by 2030. Not restrict or just subsidize EVs, but *ban* combustion.
Five Decades ago the US had one lithium mine. For the last 20-30 years there have been many proposals to build more in the US, and today there is … still one US lithium mine, all proposals rejected by the gov or tied up w law suits by people in the area. The metal refining is also difficult to do cleanly, is energy intensive, and so is dominated by China. The US gov has determined for years that metal mining and its high land use per ton in particular was a harm to the environment and resisted mining. Is that suddenly wrong because EVs?
“common as Salt”
Lithium compounds don’t accumulate and concentrate like the enormous sodium salt domes do, where the extraction mechanism is basically a bull dozer. Lithium requires digging up much more ground or ground water. Thus, global lithium mining is in tens of thousands of tons, and global salt is hundreds of millions of tons.
@@Nill757 We have 2 methods that do not involve mining in the traditional sense. One is from large aqueous deposits, the other a simple clay deposit system where the clay is returned minus the lithium and no toxic residues. And ample deposits in the US and Canada that can utilize it. Demand DRIVES development. And fast tracking by governments to get vital resources is a matter of historical record.
@@davefroman4700 Fast tracked vital resources? The whole point of EVs is for environmental improvement. Now either we agree large scale mining w 30x increase in production is going to cause environmental damage and yet another system of dependency on large land grabs and big business, or admit all the environmental rules restricting mining of the last 50 years was all a fraud, in which case this EV debate is a fraud as well.
“Demand drives development”
If that were a hard rule w no limits then oil and gas would last and be used forever. They won’t. Or there would never be food or fresh water or medicine shortages. There are.
“large aqueous deposits”
Yes, that means ground water, vast amounts of it, about a half million gallons per ton of lithium, under vast amounts of land. The Salar de Altecama Flats in Chile with the worlds largest (area) li aqueous mining operation covers 1200 sq miles, annual production Li is about 30,000 tons. The worlds largest coal mine is in WY, 76 sq mi, w annual production 100 million tons. The world doesn’t need the same amount of lithium as it does coal, but this difference in displaced land - water is important to consider when people like Musk say one kind of mining is just replaced by another, no problem.
The Altecama has the purest concentration of Li in the world, by far, and everywhere else will be worse, more water, more land, more money per unit, for aqueous.
I’m not saying there can’t be any more li mines, but I have no time for the assertion that there is no environmental trade off after the Congo cobalt disaster because of “vital resource” euphemisms. Yea I’m aware of LFP, and also know that cobalt based lithium batteries will be a large part of the global market for at least another dozen years.
@@Nill757 Switching to renewables IS a drastic reduction in mining and resource extraction. Its a one time extraction. It is already cheaper today to recycle and reclaim all of the metals that go into a battery, than it is to mine and refine new materials. Our ability to recycle products has taken leaps and bounds over the last 20 years. Down to even the atomic scale now. We likewise can cleanly and efficiently recycle and re manufacture wind turbines and solar panels. I should add the manufacturers of wind turbines have already perfected new blade designs that can be recycled easily as well.
Secondly the data shows that due to the efficiency gains that are acquired by going fully electric will actually result in a 30-40% reduction in the actual amount of energy being needed by out civilization. Burning stuff for energy is horribly inefficient in comparison to the efficiency of heat pumps and electric motors.
And that Is Why Nuclear is the best , and Cleanest form of Power Generation.
I already had an outline of understanding through being fortunate in getting in front of other quality presentations and articles. Now with Mark Mills presentation I feel as if I have reached the level of understanding that is necessary to quell the absurd goals set by our 'political leaders and the many idiotic industrial influencers or leaders'. Thank you Mark, your presentation skills through your stance, tone and information deliver and easy to absorb summary with detailed explanations. Undoubtedly, a formidable presentation.
What you mean is that because you have listened to one opinion for so long that you now don't question it or the data left out.
Manhattan Institute is a Conservative think tank that promotes fossil fuels and downplays human-caused climate change. it has received $1.21 million in funding from a Koch-owned charity and ExxonMobil.
Manhattan Institute = Professional liars paid to trick the people by making fake science.
what mark is not considering is that the goal he is talking about here as rather questionable or better- it’s not likely possible- he does not seem to think it possible that the intention behind certain industry and political leader goals are pure evil and not because “they don’t know what they are talking about”, or as many people seem to think they can dismiss these “absurd…” goals as for example as “idiotic”. i never doubt the potency and capacity government and leaders have or the research resources exploited by people in Davos ie Bill Gates and his alike insane evil co-conspirators display. Far too often we the sheeple seem to be fed that false truth scapegoat that “these leaders are either idiots or unrealistic “ in some way. They are not. And that makes this namely so intentionally evil. this is what the world must realize in order to prevent the “frog boiling in water”. … when we consider that the green goal would be very realistic, however for a global population density much much much smaller than we dare to talk about. Think “500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000” max
@@paulsmith3921 You had a moment there ^^^ to throw out a piece of data or two to the OP, contrary to the long list Mills presented, but you did nothing but strike a pose.
First McKinsey and company says plenty of lithium for the transition to e-mobility. MIT says the same. Then look at the latest 60 Minutes story: “California’s Lithium Valley could power electric vehicle industry”. Add to that CATL is making lithium sodium batteries that will be in Chinese cars this year and confirmed by the car manufacturer. I’m all for arm chair hypothesizing - but that is all this presentation does - we will have more energy use in the future, and we already have cheaper ways to create it. But important to consider his arguments and do your research. Most importantly the US must not fall behind in this technology and the US military has made massive investments in green tech - it’s quiet, it’s distributed (not centralized - I.e. easier to attack), and it’s cheaper (not just drones but solar power of bases and EVs).
As technologically-innovative humans are replaced by people with different kinds of gifts, the rate of scientific advancements could slow, even with the benefit of all the tools we have recently developed. Thus, demographic change could materially impinge upon the kinds of forecasts we have seen here.
Is anybody listening to this? Please let these thoughts prevail for the sakes of our progeny. Thanks Mark.
Fantastic presentation. Thanks :-)
So...the argument that battery prices will decline as production scales is fallacious as input costs will actually rise due to organic constraints on supply
Ignores the volume of cobalt used in petroleum refining, the massive electricity requirements of petroleum refining, opportunity (loss) costs, economies of scale, manufacturing improvements... and does not compare an energy transition with the alternative ("business-as-usual"). I mean _all_ the consequences. Yes, we'll need new mines, but it's something we know how to do. Many statistics presented here seem cherry-picked, with the least favorable trajectories given, rather than the spread, or likely future scenarios. Liberty ships, anyone? So is it all motivated reasoning? Surely not. But a lot of it is.
Ignores that half of new EVs have LFP batteries without cobalt or nickel in them. Also he's a partner at a VC firm in the oil and gas industry. Guy is warping sooooo many things
Norway. NEVER had a Real Car Culture to contend with.....Much of the Developed World LOVE our Gas (ICE) powered Cars......YESSSS.
Is there a place we can download the slides? These data are, by far, the best aggregation I’ve seen to date.
Just view the video on a laptop and screenshot the slides?
@@Danny-qt5vt generally, with scientific lectures, a pdf is available for download - with references.
Every politician in America should be required to view this presentation. Aspirations for no internal combustion engines after 2035 (California) are great, but then reality set in.
It will be interesting to revisit this in a few years
I think I have to make a note to remember
I'm guessing that when you do look in a few years, you'll see how wrong Mills was. Look up the facts he spouts as true and you will be disappointed that he fudged all the numbers. His numbers are all at best misinterpretation and at worst designed to deceive the uninformed listener. This is really sad.
People who think an EV is environmentally friendly needs their head examined.
In the long run, it is more efficient and reduces waste.
@@quicksilver0201 Except it doesn't. The only thing an EV has going for it, it doesn't spew CO2 out the tail pipe. That's it. Everything else about a personal vehicle is environmentally destructive and batteries are an environmental nightmare. If CO2 wasn't demonized, EV's wouldn't exist.
Outstanding talk and presentation. Thanks for posting.
Interesting talk. For sure that shortages are baked into the cake, not only with lithium and cobalt but class 1 nickel and copper. It would be interesting to hear of any alternatives such as nuclear energy which didn't really get addressed as well as others fuels such as green ammonia (ammonia being zero carbon).
The shortcomings with nuclear are the obvious cost overruns and the probably overblown public opposition, but they are most certainly clean, have close to 50yr life cycle (twice that of renewables) and provide gigawatt scale energy. There probably isnt enough uranium to build 10x as many plants (currently some 400 plants worldwide provide some 10% of total eneryg) but
they certainly are a part of the mix we need.
FOr instance Ontario the Bruce, and two other plants provide some 65% of the provinces total electricity generation. In contrast some 2700 wind turbines built since 2010 provide at best 7% of total electricity generation (an assuming at a cost of 3-4million each so roughly 10billion, Ontario probably could have built more nuclear capacity for that amount. And it is baseload and large scale.
BTw the renewables still have c02 emissions, lots of steel and concrete and heavy equipment needed to build (so a lot upfront) but also a lot of storage is needed which no matter what it is will have c02 emissions. According to Sabine Hossenfelders video on renewables currently we have 34 gw of non pumped hydro storage. Worldwide there is 2.2 terrawatts of pumped hydro storage and what is needed if we use only renewables is 1 petawatt of storage (so 500x existing current pumped hydro).. Also the emissions of renewables with storage are some 350-407 kg of c02 per kwh and that comes near the lower end of natural gas energy generation (410-650 kg of c02 per kwh).
Finally its worth looking at what the Japanese are doing, regarding the use of ammonia for power plants and possibly marine shipping as it is c02 free. Also liquid ammonia can be a hydrogen carrier as it has more hydrogen than liquid hydrogen but has similiar storage and transport properties as propane. There are already some 10,000miles of liquid ammonia pipelines in the US (Mostly for fertilizer purposes)
Currently the world burns 7.6billion tonnes of coal - if we replace that with natural gas we can cut those emissions in half. Rather like the US emissions fell simply by natural gas replacing coal plants and no govt input. Contrast that with Germany's Energiewende spending 560billion in 20years and going from 84% fossil fuels to 78%. Had they built nuclear plants for that amount they could have been near zero and not dependent on foreign gas.
Nuclear is, imo, the only practical way we have of getting the energy we need and not be held ransom to other countries. The fact that we are willing to build a nuclear plant and send it underwater for months at a time, potentially to be destroyed in a war, tells me we should be using micro nuclear reactors all over the western world. Our politicians are made up of too many lawyers and not enough scientists.
@@TomCoutfit absolutely. While there have been cost overruns in the US and public opposition, Sweden and South Korea built a number of plants within a short time frame like 10yrs. The hopeful thing is that both parties in the US are on side with small reactors. Though ultimately there not enough uranium to increase the existing plants 10fold.
@@TomCoutfit as far ransom to other countries, unfortunately Russia is a major source of uranium. Interesting though is Rosatom is not under sanctions at all.
I think the problems with nuclear will largely be overcome with technological advancements in the field of small, modular reactors that are more flexible, cost effective and safer than the old behemoths.
@@peterkratoska4524 What's the problem with Russia producing uranium? They've always been cheap and reliable. Is that a problem?
"A lot of this green agenda is being pushed because someone somewhere is making a lot of money from it. Just like in COVID, when of course there was a great redistribution of wealth to the most richest people in the world and the biggest corporations. As well as power being taken away from the likes of you and I." ~Robert Oulds
If we ever get serious, the the one woman one baby policy solves everything.
No policies should be adopted that curtail freedom and liberty. The best way to lower population levels is through wealth creation, education, access to birth control, family planning and the emancipation of women. All of these things lead to smaller families.
I've often wondered if we will have the resources for a clean energy transition. This has left me thinking that we can't. Mark Mills has clearly illustrated we can't.
I believe Mark Mills has made the strongest case I've seen so far for a degrowth economy.
May I ask what does a de-growth economy look like ? do you mean reducing "consumerism" via individual and societal changes?
I, too, would ask about a 'degrowth' economy. @Emilio asks a good question there.....
Hmmmm....a de-growth economy....as long as it's you who gets poorer and not me
Really high level presentation - thanks.
"In the period 2010-2020, 207 million tonnes of copper have been mined. In that same period however, reserves have grown by
240 million tonnes to 870,000 million tonnnes copper . This reflects additional exploration, technological advances and the evolving economics of mining." You can make wind turbines with 1.5 tons per mw. With 2 million tons, you can make a terawatt. 7 terawatts more gets you in the ballpark. Solar pannels don't use copper, only the wires do, which can be aluminum. I'm not saying it will be. I'm saying we have enough copper.
Thanks for this very, very competent and researched presentation. I note that the VW study, after 27:50, makes its assessment on SUV comparisons. It would be great to see comparisons for a Golf or a Polo vehicle size.
Most EV's currently bought today are far heavier than their "space-equivalent" IC counterparts. Smaller vehicles have tendencially been acquired by poorer people. EV's currently are beyond the reach of that lower income group. Rich income groups definitely purchase much heavier vehicles, which have a far greater resource, energy consumption and emissions cost.
The whole issue of carbon emissions, Ultra Low Emission Zones restrictions (ULEZ in London), rare minerals and the scrapping of vehicles that could run for another decade, needs to be looked at in a social, economic and environmental context.
Governments and scientists are not doing this adequately - and the consequences for the poorest in society, and for the environment, will be disastrous.
The other glaringly simple advantage of liquid fuel powered vehicles is that they can be driven home, left there for days or weeks with just enough fuel to get to the station, and then within a matter of minutes be filled up and be performing at the desired level.
BEVs will require a lot more effort or maybe in the case of swap n go batteries lifting equipment.
In high crime areas charging and stored batteries will be desirable targets for vandalism or theft.
/shrug...as this speaker points out: these challenges are real and will have to be dealt with (or at least endured).
@@lieshtmeiser5542 Yes, the costs and impracticality of EV's, the inequity caused by prohibitions on IC cars, bode badly for the environment and society. As you say, theft could be increased, especially if the poorer in society are massively disadvantaged, and even businesses struggle.
As a rule of thumb, "government policies" tend to negatively impact the poor, and the poor alike.
What I found, is that it is based on a Golf, the eGolf and the Diesel Golf. Mark says it himself in the video that the number represents about half of the actual CO2 when compared to typical larger batteries that are usually bought in Teslas (popular in Norway). Later in the video, after your time stamp.
@@lieshtmeiser5542 People are already going around cutting the cord off EV chargers so they can steal the copper.
Not just once or twice but a serious crime wave, each cable has about £200 worth of copper inside so easy pickings.
3:37 Saying that the manufacture of electric cars requires fossil fuel is meaningless if you don’t compare it to 10 years ago or to the fossil fuel it takes to make gas powered cars. The amount will drop as our use of fossil fuels transitions to renewables.
where do i get the presentation so i can see the sources quoted ?
This is a good video, I want to use this say something, I will forever be indebted to you Gardner 😇you’ve changed my whole life I’ll continue to preach about your name for the world to hear you’ve saved me from a huge financial debt with just little investment in money market, thanks so much Mrs Rose Gardner
I got introduced to Ms, Gardner during the pandemic year, I cried about challenges I was facing here in Ireland, during my time working with her, I was able generate returns on my investment
As a first time investor, I was skeptical so I tried out with just 1000 bucks, to my surprise in just a week I got 3 times my initial deposit, truth be told she's the most reliable!
sorry but I'm new to the trading market, some say local market I don't understand, I need help generate side allowance, how do I reach out to her, is she still active?
You can communicate her on here telegrm page.
@ROSEGARDNERBIS
Excellent! The price of metals are very sensitive to supply. When I worked for Inco in 1979, a war in Congo caused the supply of cobalt to shrink and the price shot up to $30/lb.
From?
@@alanc1491 Do you mean what was the price of cobalt before? About $2 to $3 / lb.
And when the price dipped back down did they reduce production? I bet they did.
@@WeighedWilson Congo is one of the worst examples of the mining industry today. Basically, you have slavery there and mining companies have their own armies to i.e. dig cobalt and this metal is used in electrical batteries for cars.
@@robertbucsh8840 ; just a minor correction: during that period cobalt price was around $12/lb; there was no time in the past 30 years that cobalt price was as low as you describe ( 2 - 3 US$/lb)
Norway is “green”, but got wealthy with oil exports, Sweden is “peaceful and neutral”, but a major arms exporter…
So when a large portion of global oil used in 23% efficient ICE vehicles drops off due to conversion to 90% efficient EVs, where does his materials demand curve change? Most EVs have greatly shrunk harness sizes to reduce overall vehicle weight and costs. None of his cherry picked info seems to accurately compare the differences in this transition. Also cobalt is consumed in ICE fuels. It's retained and recyclable in EV batteries ultimately making its demand go to zero for mined resources. Plus battery chemistry is one of fastest changing technologies on the planet.
That oil demand will only drop off if e vehicles become affordable and only if there is a reliable source of electricity, which renewables clearly don't provide.
@@colinmacdonald5732 just look at California. If you think you can just quickly add cars to the grid you're insane. The energy costs are going to get very bad in the EU. People don't get the other motives for this. It's actually to reduce driving overall and car ownership overall. The sacrifice isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Germany is ahead in the green energy movement and now they shuttered their nuclear power and now they are back to burning coal. And Germany is one of the most technologically advanced counties on earth.
@@Tential1 It could be a feature, if they want to reduce car use they should just say rather than resort to underhand methods. For what it's worth I think America made a huge mistake by opting go for almost total car dependency, but strongarming people into non existent buses is just collective punishment and will completely tank the economy. And where's the upside? It'll make no measurable difference to atmospheric CO2. I myself have the ditched the car and trust me, it ain't easy relying on public transport in a city that wasn't designed around it.
“Leading star in ESG”…In other words, a guy who convinces companies that it’s ok to lose money as long as you can feel good about it.
Mark mills should be advising all western governments, his intelligence on these issues are second to none, what a fantastic presentation this was.
Manhattan Institute = Professional liars paid to trick the people by making fake science.
Why, EVERYONE already knows this, the "transition" is about CONTROL, PERIOD!
They don't want to hear it or believe it. Stuck on stupid.
You assume that those in charge of Western governments are not fraudulent scheisters on the take, using this pipe dream to enrich themselves and friends.
Car ownership is not as prevalent in Norway as in the US or Canada. Many of our relatives there struggle to pay to heat their homes and cannot afford to keep their cars charged.
Why are you telling us that your family is poor? We don't care and nobody is going to send you money. ;-)
This is interesting. But one thing all of these Malthusian projections get wrong is the innovation that happens over time due to scarcity. The aluminum can has 80% less aluminum in it today than when it was invented in the 1960s. The upcoming shortages he predicts will actually will drive people to come up with new solutions that don't use nearly as much of the materials as the first versions of the products we use today.
One other factor rarely discussed is how the lifespan of a vehicle has dramatically fallen over the past generation, and will continue to fall through the electric transition. Can anybody imagine an electric vehicle lasting longer than a decade? Each of those obsolete vehicles need to be replaced, and much of the plastic is not recyclable at all....
Politicians need to get realistic about their green agenda but since most have no understanding of engineering, mining or industry they have an overly optimistic and flawed vision.
If an EV requires 4 times more metals to build, it would be roughly 4 times heavier. They aren't. Something is wrong with that estimate. Please state your sources.
It’s not the whole car, not all minerals like steel. it’s the “increase” in some metals important to an EV. See that bar chart on materials @9min. He states data from IEA. Copper increases 300%, EV to conventional. Of course. High power E motor, motor controller, battery.
Thank you for a very thought-provoking presentation. I share many of your concerns about this aspirational technology transition. The question of whether or not we can ultimately make the math work -- from scale-up and management of supply chains to realizing compelling techno-economic value propositions -- remains to be seen. I do have a different point of view on some of the subtopics you covered in your presentation. I'll mention a few:
1) Batteries for electric vehicles (EVs): Techno-economic pressure is being brought to bear to expand supply chains for raw materials such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel. But in parallel, work is well underway toward EV batteries based on far more earth-abundant materials. One such objective, the development of sodium-ion batteries that eliminate requirements for cobalt and minimize nickel content, is well underway. In contrast to early-stage Li-ion battery development, the economic payoff for successfully developing such Na-ion battery technology is both self-evident and at least two orders of magnitude greater. There are no physical laws that dictate EV batteries must be constructed from scarce materials. Rather, each candidate battery chemistry has a host of potential nuisance problems that may or may not yield to highly focused research and development. Fortunately, there are many credible candidate battery chemistries on the table, and only one of them needs to succeed in a given application.
2) Li-ion battery technology: It has paved the way for early-introduction EVs, but as noted above, it faces very serious challenges with scale-up. But in my opinion, that's not the whole story. EV manufacturers are now talking about one-million-mile and two-million-mile Li-ion batteries, which would drastically reduce the cost of battery ownership for a typical 200,000-mile EV. This improvement in charging cycle lifetime was largely a by-product of R&D to seek out and eliminate parasitic effects (chemistry side reactions and damage to electrode morphology) that occur during rapid charging. Consumers want 400-mile-range EV batteries that can recharge in five minutes, and in response to that market pressure, the industry turned its attention to the rapid charging challenge. There were no physical laws that dictated the capacity-fade problems of early-stage Li-ion EV batteries, and some of the lessons learned about overcoming capacity fade in the context of Li-ion batteries are likely to be applicable to Na-ion batteries.
3) Rare-earth magnet materials (Nd, Dy): In both wind turbines and electric vehicles, rare-earth batteries are very helpful. But they aren't necessary. In EVs, induction motors can be used instead of permanent-magnet motors with an efficiency penalty of only a few percent. Likewise, the direct-drive generators used in modern utility-scale wind turbines benefit from rare-earth permanent magnets, but wire-wound electromagnet rotors can be used instead.
4) Copper price increases: In your presentation, you stated that aluminum can be substituted for copper when building transmission lines, but otherwise cannot replace copper. But aluminum can be used in a wide variety of power electronics applications as a viable substitute for copper. For example, large transformers are often built with aluminum rather than copper windings because of the resulting cost savings. Aluminum is also now being considered for the Litz wire windings of EV motors, and can be readily applied to generator windings (e.g. for utility-scale wind turbines), industrial motors, and building wiring (despite problems circa 1970 with troublesome aluminum/copper interconnections). There is no shortage of bauxite ore to make aluminum, and the required electrical power can now be provided at very competitive prices by renewables.
5) Recycling: Nearly any metal that is valuable can employ product design for recycling. Accordingly, once enough of these metals are in circulation, the demand for newly mined materials will begin to roll off. For example, once a million-mile Li-ion battery finally succumbs to capacity fade, the lithium metal inside the battery does not get "used up". This is in contrast to fossil fuels, where mining and extraction must go on forever.
I'll leave you with this list of five things I view differently, but I can articulate others if that would be of interest. I would also be happy to provide literature citations and reference data for any of the above assertions if that is of interest as well. Thank you again for a stimulating discussion.
Please pardon the typo in my comment. Where I said "rare earth batteries" I meant "rare earth magnets".
Well done
GM ev1, they were all crushed by them to eliminate the threat they posed to their IC business, used Na ion batteries. The battery supplier was forbidden to say they had a viable battery. All the celebrities who used them, ev1, were more than impressed by their performance, utility and practicality for town usage.
The main problem with using aluminium is the need for higher voltage to reduce the amperage needed for transmitting power. Given Al alloys have much greater strength than copper, much thinner windings, given sufficient insulation, would resolve the low amperage practical for Al windings.
The problem with rare earth mines goes back to the suppression of the Oak Ridge Nuclear reactor design development. Since Thorium is considered a source material for nuclear weapons in the US, and it is associated with heavy rare earth mines, such mines face administrative problems.Had the Oak Ridge designs being implemented, the demand for Thorium would have solved the need for heavy rare earth mines.
For domestic purposes, prior to WW 2, lead wires were used instead of copper. (Few houses have original pre-war wiring, but those that do demonstrate that lead wiring is a viable alternative. )
I would abandon this green revolution for the thorium molten salt reactor. We can use the molybdenum it produces for cancer diagnostics therapies and research. The xenon could be used for NASA interstellar space travel. Excess heat would be good for water desalinization and petroleum distillate manufacturing, i.e. diesel fuel, heating oil, kerosene, etc. They can’t blow up because they’re not pressurized. Instead of a pool of water with fuel rods, the thorium is mixed with a salt and goes through a heat exchanger
corrosion is an unsolved issue with MSRs. More research is needed. I wouldn't bet on them yet.
I've heard an interview with a Thorium MSR startup engineer complaining about some people upholding the technology as the holy grail that will solve all our climate and energy problems. In his view, it's very counterproductive to think MSRs will be the miracle solution because the expections are so out of line with the reality of the difficulties and timescale of developing this technology.
Many people go on the internet tend to watch some youtube videos, discover thorium, other types of GEN IV reactors, breeders, maybe even fusion, and suddenly think they are now part of this 'Enlightened Gathering of Rational Thinkers', the truth-seekers that look beyond the veil of short sighted politicans and climate activists, who know that there are miracle technologies just waiting to be implemented, underdeveloped because of anti-nuclear hysteria. That if only, society would become more rational and critical-thinking, all our problems would melt before our eyes. They are just as, if not more so, deluded as the furthest fringes of climate alarmists. Reality is complex, there are no miracle solutions, we will need to develop many, many technologies and lifestyle changes.
Yes, however as the presenter said; we all dream of some magic technological breakthrough to save us. But meanwhile we will have to get along with what's available to us.
Superb presentation of the difficulties in transitioning to clean energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by changing the source of energy. Excellent illustration on the efforts required to protect our environment.
Don't call it "clean" either. It's actually worse than the existing sources. Including coal (which you can easily filtrate to release just CO2 and no microparticles/shoot).
@Alan Doane absolutely wrong! Capitalism is not the problem. Poverty and statism is. If it wasn't for government printing money and creating bubbles of consumption, the tons of plastic waste we would produce would be of much higher quality and therefore recyclable and used for a long time. Where capitalism thrives the environment does too. Look at Switzerland and compare that to any sub saharan society (where socialism and corruption prevail).
We all need to learn how to get by with 95% less stuff.
This talk imparts a good dose of realism.
What's missing is acknowledgement of the supply constraints caused by global heating, flooding, soil depletion, ocean current alteration and ecosystem collapse. All of these will increase to the extent that we continue to burn fossil fuels and may increase at a geometric rate due to our exceeding tipping points.
We are looking at dramatic and unavoidable whole system change. For that reason its too complex for any one person to grasp the whole detail and talk with any authority. We need a simple message.
What needs to be acknowleged is that we will not be able to replicate society as it is currently organised.
We need to save the best bits, in particular around health care, sanitation and sufficient healthy food.
All man needs to live well is clean air, water and food, housing and physical security.
If we reorder our expecations we can meet the challenge easily.
Greed is our greatest enemy.
Very well said
Austin, the change in global temperature is not man made. The impact of co2 on the globe’s average surface temp may be generously assigned 30% of the warming since 1750 or 1800 or whatever baseline you prefer. 😊
@Todd Cory Explain how the rapid warming between 1750 and 1800 could be man made.
None of these four items are behaving in any abnormal or unusual way compared to historic norms, nor will they. (Of course, historic norms are a lot more variable than what you have observed in your lifetime.)
@@chriskshaw7601 And 30% (of a 0.6 Celsius increase since circa 1900) is very generous IMO.
We also have to remember that the wind and solar plants that exist now are located in the most geologically favorable locations (we obviously put them in the best places first). So when we make estimates about future needs, we base it on a model that overestimates future performance. This is one reason Germany failed so badly at their transition, because they based future need on current output with no decay scale added.
Doubling energy output will require more than double the current number of existing infrastructure, and that trend will grow exponentially. It's similar to the ore grade problem.
Very good point!
German here, this is completely false. We started off with a green energy initiative in 2000 with the green party and social democrat government and the next conservative gonvernment starting 2004/5 under Merkel slowly but completely reversed course and pushed coal as much as humanly possible while keeping the green rhetoric. We were leaders in photovoltaic production worldwide but under Merkel the entire industry intentionally got crushed - China bought all the shattered German companies with their knowhow and now China is market leader. Similar story with wind with a slight delay. Needless to say the political donations from coal companies to the conservatives are substantial.
Coal became too expensive and non-competitive during the last decade, so what did the conservatives do? Announce that because of the green transition they'll ban coal plant in the year 2035 and because of the ban, the energy companies get financial compensations starting now, an absurd amount of many many billions of taxpayer money. The crushed solar industry got nothing by the way - they were many small competitors, no giant lobbyists.
During the natural gas crisis caused by Putin, the people who installed renewables even though it was made artificially financially non-viable made cash like there was no tomorrow since their costs stayed the same but market prices went up tenfold.
What is the conservative rhetoric worldwide? Look at Germany, renewable don't work out after all, huh? .... it's infuriating how much of a lie that is.
Not so. There's so much wind potential - more than enough to meet world total energy demand many, many times over. Solar and geothermal also have tremendous and wide spread potential. The carving out of "inferior" spaces is a very marginal issue on a global scale even if may be important at the local level, but then the answer is to pivot to another preferred source.
Not true. We have not had the need to look for huge reserves of lithium previously. It is quite prevalent.
@@meibing4912 Except that global warming is nonsense, so investing in energy systems when we already have very sustainable and clean energy is also nonsense. Not a single prediction of disaster made by global alarmists has ever come close to occurring. The oceans are not rising, food production is not falling behind, and no one is NOT building and investing in coastal structures. Your idea of "potential" is also contrary to just common sense. You can't cause the sun to shine more than it does, and neither can you force the wind to blow more than it does wherever you place a windmill. Solar and wind are just fine as complimentary energies, but to think they can replace what we now use is not evidenced anywhere except in computer-generated models.
he talks like batteries are going to be li ion nmc forever. thats not the case. he also talks like oil and gas will last forever and that there is no need for transition. guess what. the crust is full of minerals. we will run out of oil first.
I'm not aware that there is ANY new mine which environmentalists have not opposed building. By comparison, oil drilling is VERY low impact on the environment.
The crust is full of minerals, but only concentrated deposits are minable. The rest require too much energy to extract. And regardless of what you make the batteries out of, you are going to run into supply constraints.
Great presentation
An excellent presentation.
Fantastic. So well and so clearly put. A certain section of society will find this both annoying and worthy of censorship given that it clearly dismantles their religious fervour.
Not at all, because it is mostly wrong. Bad data, twisted logic and an absence of the important facts.
@@paulsmith3921 hook, line and sinker.
@@paulsmith3921So give us your contrary facts. I'll wait.
In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
Very good information that's left out of the main stream discussions of renewables. One thing I'd like to point out is that coal and wood are solids. So, it's not a 100% transition from liquids & gases to solids. One of the inconvenient truths for the Green movement is that coal will never completely go away. While it's possible to transition away from coal fired power plants, there are no green technologies that scale to replace what coal is used for in other industrial applications.
When will coal "completely go away?" I don't know, but it certainly is not "never!" Coal is finite too. Coal production as measured by energy content is forecast to go into decline during the next 13 years, if it is not in decline already. When man uses the last extractable ton of coal, I don't know, but a great deal of coal will never leave the ground. It will either remain stranded because of remote location, or it will provide so little surplus energy after mining, transport, processing, etc., that it will not justify the energy use necessary to dig it up.
Technology today can produce 100% renewable hydrogen at less than ff costs, and will be developed at scale in several years time. So your point about green technologies is right today, but not for long. There are also other storge alternatives that enable a green transition with zero coal. But economics plays a HUGE role in the transition, so why increase energy costs while the transition remains well and truly in place.
Nuclear can replace coal.
@@Krunch2020 That's China's plan,
however most countries can go with cheaper wind and solar, plus pumped hydro.
@@remakeit2628 Do you have any idea of the land requirements for renewables? Nuclear takes up a tiny footprint of land by comparison. It also provides clean reliable energy 24/7 for up to eighty years. Modern nuclear plants can recycle the depleted uranium to power lower energy requirements.
Industrial scale solar is only viable commercially for around twenty years. Wind turbines last 15 to 20 years and batteries around 10 years. Different parts of these projects will be constantly being replaced. How is that sustainable? And if they are cheap, they are cheap off the backs of slave labour, including child slavery, and from taking advantage of developing nations.
As this video confirms, all mining has increased and will increase exponentially with the global push for so called green energy. The refining of the raw materials creates massive amounts of toxic waste which can be particularly problematic to dispose of, and some of which has varying levels of radiation. Coal requirements have increased significantly and are an essential commodity for the manufacture of renewables infrastructure. Coal is not only used for coal-fired power plants in China to manufacture wind, solar, backup batteries and EV's it is an essential 'ingredient' necessary to make the silicon ingots for crystalline silicon solar panels. Mined quartz, metallurgical grade coal, hardwood timber and charcoals are the main ingredients to make these ingots. There are three thermal processes necessary to make the silicon ingots and just one of the processes requires the heat to be held at 1100C for five days! This process is done in coal-fired furnaces. After all that half of the silicon is lost when sawn into silicon wafers. The resulting silicon wafers are then polished with acids. They make billions of solar panels!
The entire green industry cannot exist without coal. The true C02 contribution from the green industry is not disclosed. Shipping is one of the highest contributors of global emissions and has increased significantly with the push for green energy. Mined materials are predominantly refined in China and they were shipped there from around the globe. The processed materials are transported to the manufacturer and the finished product is shipped around the globe. But the C02 journey doesn't end there. Massive trucks along with support vehicles make thousands of return journeys to the site of installation, which in our case is 300 kilometres from the port. Just one wind, solar and BESS project near us will take almost 3 years to complete. The longest lasting component will last around only 20 years and we have been told that to decommission, dismantle and rehabilitate the land will take almost as long as it did to install. We have more than 32 such projects in the planning stages just in our region alone, and we're up to more than 800 wind turbines some of which, the 7MW turbines, will stand 280m high and 200m wide. They are looking to install 12GW of wind/solar and what I have described to you amounts to just over the halfway mark.
Australia will have many thousands of square kilometres of renewables installed on prime agricultural land of which we have a total of only 6%. We will also require 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines. All this for a form of energy that only produces energy for around 30% of the time on average and has a very short lifespan. They blow up our coal-fired power plants, so there's no turning back. We have a moratorium against nuclear power here in our country. We tried geothermal unsuccessfully and hydroelectricity isn't suitable in too many places in Australia. Who will we turn to when the lights go out?
One quibble - the manufacture of classical lead-acid batteries for conventional ICE automobiles has, since the late 1940s, been done primarily by recycling the lead recovered from worn-out batteries. Yes, there is some small percentage of newly mined lead, but it is a SMALL contribution. We also recycle aluminum, copper & steel in enormous quantities. The analysis of future metal mining requirements is much more complex than the simplistic numbers presented here.
I’m curious how you get to that place in your thinking.
You know the world of a billion cars already has a world of worn out lead starter batteries to recycle. There is no billion cars of worn out EV power batteries using lithium nickel graphite copper. They all have to be dug out of the ground. And lead has been heavily mined for centuries, there is plenty of it in circulation, like steel.
You also likely know the EV battery weighs about 20x more than the lead starter battery.
So again, how do you get to the lead batteries work so these must too position?
@@Nill757 Apologies if my comment wasn't clear enough. I'm saying two things: Firstly, eventually, once the EV commuter auto transition is complete in a couple [or three/four[?] decades, there will be a pool of lithium battery materials in existence just as there are lead-acid battery materials circulating at present. I think my analogy is correct, but if you can disprove it please let all of us know.
Secondly, I am not convinced that there is a desperate world-wide shortage of the various metals & other materials necessary to create that "pool of lithium battery materials". While cobalt & nickel are indeed somewhat scarce, most EV battery makers are now generally using LiFePO4 recipes to avoid using those metals. Market prices will have a large influence. If, for instance, there is a shortage of copper, new mines will become operational if copper prices rise high enough.
A lack of materials won't stifle EV production directly, but high prices may do so? Time will tell. Maybe metal shortages will slow the adoption of EVs, but it isn't happening right now. The shortage today is of factories to build enough EVs to meet demand.
@@jrb_sland thanks for the response.
I agree that once there is a world full of EVs, then recycling can theoretically take over.
I suggest replacing global ground combustion vehicles is more like 50 years.
As for battery type, see IEA:
“2022, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) remained the dominant battery chemistry with a market share of 60%, followed by lithium iron phosphate (LFP) with a share of just under 30%, and nickel cobalt aluminium oxide (NCA) with a share of about 8%.”
It’s going take years to eliminate cobalt from the massive global battery supply chain.
“desperate”
It’s fairly simple. I think you acknowledge all the new lithium copper etc must be dug up and refined. There is no hidden stash. So, if the global sales of EVs is to go from 5% to 100%, (20X) and grid storage battery production must increase 10x or 20x, then the global production of those materials must increase maybe 30X. That is 30x more global mining, 30x refining. The largest rate of mining increase from a mature industry seen previously with a jump in demand was a doubling every ten years or so. The price of lithium already jumped 600% starting 2020, then relieved when a large new mine came online recently in Australia.
@@Nill757 Currently BEVs account for 10% of worldwide sales or so. One can fit a typical sales curve to the current sales data and it will show you that the ICE is basically dead by 2030-2035. If that's not enough for you, just look at R&D spending on new combustion engine technologies. The industry is done with the ICE.
@@schmetterling4477 “typical sales curve ” might apply to the future and it might be post hoc rationalization. By 1900 hydroelectric power had jumped out to 40% of all US electric generation then … 30% by 1940, today 6%. There are several aspects of EVs that would seem to have problems at scale. The current large govt subsidies for instance can not scale to 100% car fleet, then there is the minerals production limitations which Mills details in the video, and charging limitations. The current EV owner in the US for instance is overwhelmingly a single family home owner that can charge at home, upper half of income, and has two or three vehicles, one of which is the BEV.
If you want further evidence that EV production is ahead of itself, see Cox Automotive data on July dealer sales backlog. US has a 92 day supply of EVs in stock, and gasoline combustion vehicle stock is 54 days. Industry average is 70 days. Note: data doesn’t apply to Tesla direct sales.
Wow! Pretty scary stuff. Reminds me of my early 20's, when I read Paul Ehrlich's book, The End Of Afluence.
I'm a techno-pessimist. I don't believe that human society, the way it is set up, is capable of using resources wisely. We have so many levels of privilege in our society, where the definition of privilege is much greater say on how resources are used and distributed. All too often, the ones making these decisions are the same ones who benefit most from them, while suffering the least negative consequences.
Humans are susceptible to mass psychological phenomena such as popular delusions.
It is a ridiculous popular delusion that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous. Both the current mean surface temperature of Earth (15 degrees centigrade) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (415 ppm) are suboptimal for plant growth.
The main effect of carbon dioxide emissions is greening of the planet with increased agricultural yields. A slightly increased mean surface temperature would also have the beneficial effects reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia as well as further augmenting agricultural yields.
Fossil fuels are finite resource. There are enough reserves for several centuries.
Geothermal energy is under-utilised as is Nuclear Power which also encounters delusional opposition (The Nuclear Power is Unsafe Delusion).
The Western World is currently wasting trillions of dollars on uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects.
It's the human condition. Since Ogg the caveman clubbed to death the first inventor of the wheel, making Ogg the smartest man to lead the tribe. Still, we are here.
Usual marxist crap.
Amazing lecture
An ICE car consumes about 12 to 15 barrels of oil per year with average usage and the speaker doesn't say how many barrels of oil are used in the building of an ICE car. Additionally the fact that an ev will outlive an ICE car significantly is not factored it. It is also often forgotten in presentations like this that at some point enough batteries will have been made that mining and environmental degradation will be greatly reduced as batteries will be recycled. Tesla's LFP battery doesn't use cobalt or nickel. 15 years ago most said EV's were not practicable. Now Tesla has designed a sedan that competes with ICE super cars in performance at a fraction of the cost. When power generation is decentralized, located at your home, you don't need to transmit the power via long copper cables. As happens with gold, when the price for a mineral increases, then the finding, mining and processing of said mineral also increases. As usual, subsidies for alternative energy are highlighted without making reference to the existing subsidies for fossil fuels. And of course fossil fuel subsidies dwarf alternative energy subsidies. The existing grid is powered by fossil fuels, as transition occurs that will less and less be the case. The efficiency of EV's means that over the course of their life they save tremendous amounts of energy even if their source is a coal fired plant.
"LFP battery doesn't use cobalt or nickel" - Lithium and phosphate are not found in sufficient quantities either. And the remaining phosphate is better used to enrich the world's soils anyway.
Cars don't have a long useful life because they are manufactured now as throwaway items. The current crop of vehicles have plastic bits along with the various electronics and the parts are mostly not available and the labor cost to replace them is prohibitive. It is easier or at least possible to get parts for a car from the 1950's up to the 70's versus parts for a car built from the 80's through to the early 2000's. Labor costs are also lower because it is easier to get in and replace that part. I often joke that to replace a part on a 2004 Audi one should first check their insurance policy and then set the car on fire. My Subaru isn't quite as bad but it is bad enough. Things like wheel bearings are destroy on removal items so they have to be replaced and cannot be serviced. Many parts are no longer available and the little plastic bits up in the gas tank have started to crack. They don't cost much if you can find them but you have to drop the drive train to remove that tank and that ends up being quite expensive. Given everything else on the car is failing it generally makes the car a throw-away. Volvo and other vehicles with automatic transmissions are pretty much totalled as soon as the transmission goes. I get that EV's won't have a transmission but the same idea will apply when the motor or expensive battery goes in a car that is more than 10yrs old. While you can argue the same for an ICE vehicle the issue will be whether you get the green benefit from a vehicle with a short life span.
The other thing nobody ever talks about is the fact that HP keeps going up. Nobody is buying a Tesla that is 1/2 as fast or even merely as fast as a standard economy vehicle and even something like a toyota 4 door sedan has more HP than a big v8 muscle car of the 70's.
@@danielboughton3624 Ok, I will just add that a Toyota Camry has horse power of 203 and a Standard model Y has 270 hp. So, if your argument is that ev's don't have adequate horse power, I disagree. In relation to the parts, an ICE car has 2000 parts and an ev has less than 200. Does this need explanation? Ev's will outlast and out perform ICE vehicles. Whether they're plastic parts or metal, they're too many in an ICE vehicle. The only thing you're gonna miss is the sound of the engine and most folks who are in houses or on the side of the road will welcome the silence of ev's. For a long time I tried to stick with my flip phone but eventually it became ridiculous and I went with a smart phone. Needless to say I had much more function with the smart phone.
@@danielboughton3624 Do we even have to bring up the 1020hp Tesla Plaid ? You don't seem to realize that electric motors have gobs more torque than any gasoline or diesel engine could ever produce. That's why modern locomotives are diesel-electrics, for example. Gasoline-based muscle cars are a dying breed, I'm sorry to say, because they just can't compete even with many of the consumer-level EVs, let alone any EV designed for speed.
@@RawandCookedVegan My argument is that is we are interested in less emissions we can maybe focus on less HP to get there. It won't matter if if is ICE or EV. Less energy used means greater range for the same amount of energy. In terms of vehicles and parts it depends on the vehicle but new EVs will still have a bunch of parts and the same service issues unless somehow the manufacturers have moved or will move to a serviceable vehicle model. I'm betting not.
I have some old cars. My 55yo AH Sprite gets 40mpg but will never top 90mph and won't win any speed contests. My 70yo pickup gets around 15mpg but it is also still in great shape. It is a 1 ton 4wd so the mileage isn't bad relative to the function. All parts for both cars are still available. With the exception of the clutch slave cylinder on the AH Sprite both have lots of room to get to everything and maintain them.
I'd bet that a modern EV is very unlikely to be in service at the same age as either of those cars and parts will be totally unavailable.
As far as an EV 4wd I'm waiting for hub motors that I can individually control for max traction. The military has them for their diesel over electric big big rigs but that is it.
Your smart phone is a spy gadget as much as it is a convenience and that is on purpose. Just try deleting the vendor apps that pay attention to what you do and where you go and who is around you even when you ask them not to. Modern cars are trending in the same direction. Changing lanes too fast? Driving too many miles? Didn't stop for long enough at the last stop sign? Somebody knows and is watching. If you live in a big city it isn't if someone is watching it is how many agencies are watching.
c. 18:30. The use of aluminum conductor is not restricted to high voltage, long distance transmission. The National Electrical Code approves the use of aluminum for low voltages and short distances, and it is used. The use of copper or aluminum in building construction is influenced by the price of copper. Copper, due to its reliability in connections, is preferred but not required. Aluminum is usually the conductor of choice for utility distribution voltages as well. Aerial utility service conductors to homes and commercial buildings are also typically aluminum. The speaker is in error on this point. I would also point out that a high price for copper usually assures its recycling, and recycling copper need not be as expensive as mining it. It is also understood that the recycling of lithium batteries must increase. Again, price will stimulate that market.
The speaker also seems to assume the stability of the price of petroleum v. electricity. An energy transition can help stabilize petroleum prices by taking some pressure off of the demand for petroleum.
Otherwise, to me, he does a good job of moderating expectations as to the energy transition.
Hi Mark,
Could you look at the energy production potential of the new geothermal ‘Eavor Loop’, compared with the energy demand of mines, to see if these industries could use this more broadly adaptable geothermal system to reduce co2 from mining? Eavor Loops could be installed adjacent to mines because they do not require exceptional underground heat levels like conventional geothermal, nor do they rely on limited supply of rare metals. The capacity may not be there, but would be interesting it is, and I don’t have the background to run the numbers. The first Eavor Loops are currently in construction in Canada and Germany, and are a very clever, low key Canadian solution.
And have there not been advances in small scale nuclear tech? Which could be a wise trade off until we dial down co2 and create other options, like a harm reduction approach?
You do understand that C0-2 is an essential compound for the growth of both plants and animals(humans) right? The push to minimize C0-2 will be/is, a death blow to ALL life on the planet.
@@donhammer186 Spot on. This is the essence. How can so many nominally intelligent folk forget so easily their first - and most important - school lesson in biology? Yet look at the numbers of the convinced, even for instance under this video. Technically-minded people seem to fall for it easily - perhaps a belief in experts is necessary for their own emotional security. Anyway, It's now a mass-formation phenomenon, and unfortunately it will not be checked until much more economic ruin affects many more people.
@@robwilde855 I call that "White Lab Coat Syndrome. "Well, their waring a white lab coat so it must be TRUE".
@@donhammer186 in nature, production and absorption of CO2 gases are balanced and sustainable. Human generated CO2 from methane & fossil fuels from agribusiness, production, construction etc adds an additional 35 billion or so tons / year…into an atmosphere that’s only 12 miles thick. It’s like emitting all those extra gases inside a snow globe…what did you think was going to happen?
From space apparently every astronaut marvels at the fragility of the atmosphere that makes life on earth possible.
@@sherylmatthew4875 So then, you think taking away millions upon millions of acres of forest and crop land will decrees naturally occurring Co-2 and methane release?? I'm not sure where you came by the misrepresentative figures you site but... During the studies and surveys of natural emissions conducted (in the late 80's>early 2,000's)and the resulting conclusions were that human activity introduced less than 12% of all atmospheric methane while deforestation and reduced crop yield contributed an increase of 8% while increasing average global temperatures less than 1/2c and mean global sea level rise of less than 1/2" per every ten years since the late 1800's when such record keeping (sea level) began. Mean global temperatures were in decline until scientists switched from warning about a coming ice age to global warming because they understood it was much more profitable (I was an earth sciences major in college at the time. 1985ish). Since that time the global mean temp. has dropped a whooping 1.5deg.c. If your interested in the reality of atmospheric disparity's in the last two decades I would suggest a visit to geoengeneeringwatch. ORG . Listen closely to what is offered there and then ask yourself why so many country around the world and so many municipalities and state's in the U.S.(currently 20 states with more joining) have filed law suites against the current admin to "Cease and Desist" all operations involving Terraforming in their Domain. Wake up or be starved to death, your choice...
Global transition investments may be growing, but are insignificantly tiny compared with what needs to be done. The latest podcast of The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe goes into this.
It is not a problem of lack of investment. It is a problem of insufficient natural resources. They're just not there in sufficient quantity to maintain the industrial age way of life, no matter how much of society's resources are invested.
Looking forward to Tesla Investor Day :D
@@michaels4255 I must strongly disagree. We have more than enough natural resources, that isn't the limiting factor. The problem is how those resources are used. For example, we have LED light bulbs that use a 1/3 of the energy, this is not new technology. When talking about natural resource extraction...there has been little advancement in the technology used.
A simple solution to consumption issues, is to factor in the recycling of products into the design of products. For example EV batteries can be reused for Energy storage, then recycled... extracting about 90% of the materials to be used in new batteries. There are many ways to reduce our consumption and increase or extraction, it is a matter of desire.
Maybe if we would stop subsidising fossil fuels...
"Global transition investments may be growing"
Just not in the mining required to sustain it for more than a couple of years.
This brilliant presentation should be mandatory for whoever thinks/plans for the future
Why is a physicist concerned about energy? I'm very sure he is aware of a controlled fusion reaction in the center of our solar system. He said: A single EV manufactured consumed ~25 gallons of oil before it is used ( 3:30)). Apparently, manufacturing ICV (internal combustion vehicle) is a zero energy process. That is amazing!! How was that accomplished?. It also appears that oil extraction and fractional refining of petrochemicals is a zero energy process. Mill is not comparing apples to apples here, just complaining against another option for consumers.
It’s barrels, not gallons, so about 1300 gallons. Yes you’re right it does take energy to make conventional cars too, but it takes nearly double the energy to make an 80 KWh BEV. The battery metals are energy intensive.
I was a big EV advocate until i saw this.
Almost stopped the video after the first few minutes.
I was convinced, this is a presentation powered by big oil and stuff.
Then he came with the irrefutable principles: number of material types needed to be sourced; how much do we mine now and how much will be needed. Even if the numbers would be a lie, the principles have such a strong foundation, only idiots would deny them.
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (renamed from the International Center for Economic Policy Studies) is a conservative American think tank focused on domestic policy and urban affairs, Actions include forming the Center for Education Innovation (promote private education), program directors have published "Wealth and Poverty", a book that some reviewers called the "bible" of the Reagan administration, also "The Dream and the Nightmare" described by George Bush as "[this] crystallized for me the impact the failed culture of the '60s had on our values and society". In 2001 the Institute formed "the Center for Tactical Counterterrorism (to advise government bodies and police). An institute senior fellow a published "Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer" and ex-Mayor Rudi Juliano has been a a regular at Institute dinners and lectures. The Institutes advocates regulatory reform to allow private industry to develop medical devices and pharmaceuticals, and a Institute senior fellow has released "Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys". .. some examples of their "areas and attitudes"
Thanks for looking that up, that confirms what I thought: Right wing nut bag.
@@moki123g He's not stupid, just makes a lot of factual mistakes. For example, most of the world's EVs are made in China with 35% renewable energy, and that share is increasing annually. And, according to the International Energy Agency the share of renewable energies in the global energy mix is expected to increase sharply, from 16% in 2020 to about 30% in 2030.
Noted. Now critique what he said. Present facts and make arguments.
@@edsteadham4085 No point. The "Manhattan Institute" is a known mis-information site. It is up to them to prove their thesis, rather than put the onus of proof on the reader. Why should people waste hours of their precious time researching a proper debunking of a video like this when it will fall on deft ears anyway? The answer is... we shouldn't.
It doesn't take much intelligence to see that the authors are intentionally distorting almost everything they present, followed up by a steady stream of absurd assumptions and a complete lack of interest in either projecting technological trends forward or even examining more recent advancements (LFP battery production is running at scale now, for example, but the authors completely ignore it). He also completely ignores the incredibly fast resource extraction developments happening for lithium, including locations in the U.S. itself... 16 years? Try less than 4. Their statistical cherry-picking is completely obvious to anyone with even a high-school education and basic electrical knowledge who is up-to-date on what EV and renewables industries are making now.
This can only be intentional on the authors part, which means that anyone with even half a fart's worth of intelligence should know better than to believe the nonsense in the video.
Now, if you want to delude yourself otherwise... well, that's on you. Not something that anyone else here is under any obligation to fix.
"some examples of their "areas and attitudes""
Now that you've shown us how to poison the well, how about disputing any of his findings.
These are things I've been pondering on for years and came to a similar conclusion. Apart from the mining/refinement demands, plus the geopolitical consequences (rarely talked about but it's going to be a fundamental issue), what about the end of life of all these renewables ? what is the cost of reusing all these materials ?
If you watch mainstream media, or politicis, or advertisements (e.g. energy providers saying "100% durable" by 2030), it seems none of these people actually know what they're talking about and are just jumping on the popularity train rather than dealing with reality.
What about human rights ? Every smart phone uses a mineral called tantalum to build capacitors, in order for your mobile phone not to lose data when it loses power. 97% of that is mined in Congo, by people getting paid almost nothing and literally risking their lives + child labour, the new serfs. And the same applies for many other mining companies, or companies producing parts in the products we use.
It would seem logical to first fix the real systemic issues, improve what you have, before starting a whole new transition, which, in reality will take a heck longer than what is being advertised. It feels like a runaway train, replacing a existing problem with a new one further down the road.
Also, the narrative people are fed is that nothing will have to change, nothing will have to be given up, or downsized, which obviously is ludicrous to anyone with common sense. If one truly believes, no matter what timeframe, that we are going to have net zero energy, without any changes in all the systemics underlying the production and exploitation of it, is also truly ignorant.
Well said.
“Net zero”.
Unfortunately that’s another neo colonial term, push the problem over there, somewhere, trade some coal emissions here for saving some fewer combustion miles flown there. For *global* carbon, it needs to Zero, Zero, not net zero. That means looking hard, now, at solutions being avoided. Seems to me, only nuclear works.
Peter Zeihan has been saying this for months now ….
That's a wacko
Interesting if heavily biased talk. Note for example that he says that wind energy consumes 1400% more tons of minerals per watt than fossil energy. I suppose this physicist can be forgiven for not knowing that oil, coal and gas are minerals and should therefore be included in his maths. Using that and a modest 10 year life expectancy for each generation modality coal oil and gas consume thousands of times more minerals than even offshore wind energy.
He clearly distinguishes between fixed and fluid material.
You are wrong. Mineral: "a solid, INORGANIC substance of natural occurrence." Hydrocarbons are not inorganic.
I lived in LA in the early 1970s, the atmospheric pollution was atrocious, visibility was often less than 300 metres and the air stank, not just occasionally but most of the time. At the time it was thought to be economically and technically impossible to clean the air. Today you can see the San Bernardino Mountains from most parts of the city.
A third world country I lived in during the 1970s was poverty stricken, notably squalid and filthy. Today it is reasonably prosperous with a clean environment.
Progress and improvement is hard but also inexorable.
Inexorable until collapse.
So what do you think of Mr. Mills facts and conclusions? Any rebuttal? Do you have a better non sequitur?
The most of the smog over big cities at the time was caused by simble nitrogen oxide pollution of private vehicles.
The solution was not required any massive change, it was dealt by very simble little thing as EGR.
Wikipedia
"In internal combustion engines, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is a nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions reduction technique used in petrol/gasoline, diesel engines and some hydrogen engines.[1] EGR works by recirculating a portion of an engine's exhaust gas back to the engine cylinders. "
In real terms US wages have barely moved since the 70s while productivity increased substantially. Developed countries will feel the effects of energy poverty, meanwhile some developing countries (Sri Lanka) have completely collapsed due to the increased price of commodities like energy and fertilizer.
Some would say California is a 3rd world country. Or at least parts of its.
He left out Geothermal which I admit is smaller than wind and solar, but is being developed and is available 24/7 and 365 independent of weather. The developing process will also keep drillers in jobs as fossil fuels are replaced over time. He also ignores recycling which is becoming more available especially for lithium. As far as the battery weight goes, that will be coming down as Lithium-sulfur batteries come online. They weigh about half as much as current batteries and have faster recharge times, battery life will be longer and fire hazard is almost eliminated along with a few other things.
It's impossible to replace fossil fuels. That means the whole medical industry which relies on fossil fuels would be no more, same with the 6000 other derivatives we get from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels is not energy, it is far greater than that and we need to be aware of this fundermental fact. No fossil fuels, no renewable energy.
And they will figured out how to squeeze more power out of these batteries. He based on today and not what will be improve tomorrow.
@@tomnguyen9931 You could make the same case for nuclear with the new reactors. If you make those statements, you need to apply the potential improvements everywhere. And nuclear wipes the floor with everything in terms of material efficiency, CO2 emitted per energy produced and dangerous waste.
This was refreshing. Finally a reasonable person.
@Me Well. He's not saying anything that I haven't already heard from other, decidedly not neocon, sources. The Limits to Growth discussed similar things decades ago, when I was young. He just put it all in a very succinct way.
To assuage your potential suspicions: I don't own a car, I walk everywhere, my CO2 emissions are 4 metric tons per year (I measure them annually). I take climate change VERY seriously. I keep my house at 60° in the winter and I don't have air conditioning (I live in the far northern part of the Midwest in the US).
Sadly, high tech solutions to climate change are extremely problematic. I favor a different, more low tech, approach. Less consumption per capita and demilitarization in the US and the G8 would probably do far more to resolve the issue than any shiny new tech that depends on exotic materials.
You can’t be “serious” about climate change and then claim the important parts are how much people in the US and GB walk.
US per capita CO2 emissions are now falling below 1960 levels after peaking in the 2000s. Another ten year it will be below 1900.
@@Nill757 Hm. Curious. I never claimed it mattered how much those in the G8 walked. I do claim, however, that consumerism and the huge military expenditures of the G8, which includes transportation and home energy use, are (according to the research) the prime movers of greenhouse gas emissions.
I also claim that decreasing those emissions immediately is imperative, and the simplest and most direct way to do so is by eschewing those things which create them.
The best and most direct way to eschew those things, given all the information I've ever seen about everything from technological advancements to mining and etc, is by decreasing consumption. Which I've done. And I'm certain we all could do (us being those who live in the G8).
That's all I'm saying.
@Me Why not look at the facts the guy lays out instead of putting a label in the guy?
@@Nill757 Something else I should have addressed. This "per capita" emissions figure which I keep seeing bandied about confuses me. Sure, each person in the G8 is spewing out less CO2 now than back when I was born, but there's a great deal more people now than then, and all the charts and graphs I've seen show nothing but ever more greenhouse gas emissions as time goes by. So.....all that nifty tech that we've got now (including this irritating phone) hasn't really stopped the everlasting march of emissions. "Potential demographic collapse" notwithstanding.
awesome presentation. thank you so very much.
Really impressive lecture. Thanks!
A superb lecture!!! Cheers from Australia.
Nice to see that this kind of content has so many views.
Amazing. More people should know about this.
It's tragic that it has had only 109 views. It should have millions.
Plenty of engineers do.
We have been trying to explain this sort of stuff for years but there's 2 packs of emotional clowns who just wont stop screaming into the microphone every chance they get. On one side are the Greenies and the other are the minions of the Fossil Fuel Oligarchs. Engineers are trapped in between them *AND IT SUCKS.*
@@tonywilson4713 it shouldn't matter to the facts who's screaming into the microphone. The engineers just need to lay out the facts and forget about the rhetoric swirling around them.
you think there are people who do NOT know this? tell me what rock they live under
@@mc-lb9dk Look at what you're both saying.
I'm an engineer and I can guarantee you that many, many people a lot of what's been said here.
There's over 1.5 BILLION cars in the world and almost 500 million trucks. There's a staggering number of people on the left who know nothing about what it will take to swap those out.
They have no idea of the energy required, materials required, or what it will actually take to manufacture.
The amount of materials needed means we can have electric cars, electric trucks or giant mega batteries *BUT NOT ALL 3.* there's just not enough stuff to do all 3.
THEN THERE IS THE OTHER PROBLEM.
Where are all the power stations going to be that are required to provide the power for almost 2 billion vehicles?
There's a world wide issue with ageing power stations that people are struggling to keep operational because they are so old. They will have to be replaced *BEFORE* we start building new power stations to supply cars and trucks.
Getting into commodities in a capacity similar to this was always my professional dream. Too bad it has all but passed me by. Nice job with the presentation.
Hey, what a great idea! The old boys from the CBOT used to tell me trading commodities was the fastest and cheapest way to turn a large fortune into a smaller one.
@@chicagofineart9546 You are a bot and a sh@tty one at that. David Ellison was adding to the conversation. Get a refund from the moron who wrote this software.
@@steverobertson6393 Language?!! So sorry you have no sense of humor. Must be a Fox News bot.
@@chicagofineart9546 Ha ha! I completely misread your post and zero explanation as to why. As to the rest of bigotry, uh, wrong team big boi #🏳🌈#🏳⚧
@@steverobertson6393 Keep the faith bro! 😉
Thank God. Someone talking sense. I woke up to this problem listeningto Peter Zeihan a couple of yeara ago. Without a MAJOR tech breakthrough we cannot transition to.renewables on current trajectory. Our governments are reckless.
Regarding the emissions of EV against conventional cars current information has the crossover point at about 20000 miles and not 60000 miles which is a big difference. Does anyone have more information on this? There was a report commissioned by some car manufacturers which put the crossover at 50000 miles but that study was apparently shown to be false.