I watched the whole thing but only listened to key points of it while I did work stuff in the background. My understanding is his point is basically, we're an entire civilization built upon...
I watched the whole thing but only listened to key points of it while I did work stuff in the background.
My understanding is his point is basically, we're an entire civilization built upon non-renewable fossil fuels and things will collapse before that changes because in order to change the way that we do things, it must collapse.
Right, we're too far down the current path and too unwilling to change course at a point before society destabilizes, and it's hard to tell what recovery from that destabilization will look like.
Right, we're too far down the current path and too unwilling to change course at a point before society destabilizes, and it's hard to tell what recovery from that destabilization will look like.
Predicting the end of civilization is useless if you cant predict it on a precise timeline. Thats the problem with all Malthusian economics. Like, yeah, I guess if you want to bring the 2nd law of...
Predicting the end of civilization is useless if you cant predict it on a precise timeline. Thats the problem with all Malthusian economics.
Like, yeah, I guess if you want to bring the 2nd law of thermodynamics into it then eventually civilization will become unsustainable, but eventually doesnt matter to those of us who only plan to live a few thousand years at the most.
His EROI theory is just rationalizing a gut feeling and pretending its science. Look at how he starts off talking about EROI, ENERGY Return On Investment. And then later he talks about nuclear, geothermal, and tidal power and subtly switches to talking about ECONOMIC Return On Investment to dismiss it.
If he had looked at Energy returns from nuclear fuel, then it no longer looks like there is an impending cap on civilizational complexity, because nuclear fuel is very energy dense and its EROI would be very high. So at that point he switches to worrying about the financial costs as though thats the same issue.
His argument is based on the idea that if we give up fossil fuels, civilization will collapse because we wont be able to replace fossil fuels with a energy source that has a lower EROI. We can debate over whether or not that assertion actually makes sense, but it doesnt matter either way, because we do indeed have at least one available energy source with a higher EROI that fossil fuels.
If it ever became a problem that the EROI was the limiting factor on civilizational growth, then nuclear power would become high demand and the economics would shift to respond to that.
The big problem with nuclear power's implementation, in a world since this lecture's release where developed nations with notable energy needs like Germany have shuttered their nuclear sector and...
The big problem with nuclear power's implementation, in a world since this lecture's release where developed nations with notable energy needs like Germany have shuttered their nuclear sector and reverted to non-renewables, is that the amount of money and time it takes to reactivate or construct new nuclear facilities able to effectively prevent or negate a destabilizing event is undesirable in the current economic conditions.
By the time it becomes desirable, the time to implement will be too long coupled with where else the resources to implement will need to be going. Return on investment for a technology like that is one measured in decades, decades that it's difficult to predict time and support being available for at any time other than now, especially when there are so many other issues at such a great scale being created almost on impulse rather than in coordinated fashion.
My point is not to get into the weeds about what is or is not a sound energy policy. I am just highlighting that the first half of this talk he sets up EROI like this is an important piece to this...
My point is not to get into the weeds about what is or is not a sound energy policy.
I am just highlighting that the first half of this talk he sets up EROI like this is an important piece to this logical deduction about the fate of civilization, and then fails to compare the potential alternatives to this metric.
I watched the whole thing but only listened to key points of it while I did work stuff in the background.
My understanding is his point is basically, we're an entire civilization built upon non-renewable fossil fuels and things will collapse before that changes because in order to change the way that we do things, it must collapse.
Right, we're too far down the current path and too unwilling to change course at a point before society destabilizes, and it's hard to tell what recovery from that destabilization will look like.
Predicting the end of civilization is useless if you cant predict it on a precise timeline. Thats the problem with all Malthusian economics.
Like, yeah, I guess if you want to bring the 2nd law of thermodynamics into it then eventually civilization will become unsustainable, but eventually doesnt matter to those of us who only plan to live a few thousand years at the most.
His EROI theory is just rationalizing a gut feeling and pretending its science. Look at how he starts off talking about EROI, ENERGY Return On Investment. And then later he talks about nuclear, geothermal, and tidal power and subtly switches to talking about ECONOMIC Return On Investment to dismiss it.
If he had looked at Energy returns from nuclear fuel, then it no longer looks like there is an impending cap on civilizational complexity, because nuclear fuel is very energy dense and its EROI would be very high. So at that point he switches to worrying about the financial costs as though thats the same issue.
His argument is based on the idea that if we give up fossil fuels, civilization will collapse because we wont be able to replace fossil fuels with a energy source that has a lower EROI. We can debate over whether or not that assertion actually makes sense, but it doesnt matter either way, because we do indeed have at least one available energy source with a higher EROI that fossil fuels.
If it ever became a problem that the EROI was the limiting factor on civilizational growth, then nuclear power would become high demand and the economics would shift to respond to that.
The big problem with nuclear power's implementation, in a world since this lecture's release where developed nations with notable energy needs like Germany have shuttered their nuclear sector and reverted to non-renewables, is that the amount of money and time it takes to reactivate or construct new nuclear facilities able to effectively prevent or negate a destabilizing event is undesirable in the current economic conditions.
By the time it becomes desirable, the time to implement will be too long coupled with where else the resources to implement will need to be going. Return on investment for a technology like that is one measured in decades, decades that it's difficult to predict time and support being available for at any time other than now, especially when there are so many other issues at such a great scale being created almost on impulse rather than in coordinated fashion.
My point is not to get into the weeds about what is or is not a sound energy policy.
I am just highlighting that the first half of this talk he sets up EROI like this is an important piece to this logical deduction about the fate of civilization, and then fails to compare the potential alternatives to this metric.