Dear Pandreco, I stumbled across this today. Absolutely fantastic! I can appreciate the sheer effort that would have gone into this three-part series. The finished product is a must ready for those seeking to understand the world we inhabit and should be induction material for all politicians and their advisors.
I feel we have been following very similar trains of thought. Largely provoked I suspect by reading and synthesizing many of the same authors. I must be about halfway through Dr Tim Morgan’s book life after growth currently.
You may also find the work of Tim Garrett an atmospheric physicist from Utah State University interesting. I was startled by the implications of his work using the thermodynamic model of a snowflake to model the global economy and net primary energy requirements.
He has collaborated with Steve Keen on much of the subsequent work that has come out of this. I agree with you that despite Steve’s climate fixation his work is very insightful.
Thank you - this stuff lives in my head - and it has indeed been (to use the cliche) " a journey" - with lots of very thoughtful people providing the stepping stones. There is something very empowering about the spread of ideas - despite the Orwellian Trifecta of Media-Public Opinion-Politics pushing the green utopian dream. Connecting with like minded people is a great bonus! - and for what its worth... here is a short article about time I spent in NZ :-)
Deep thoughts -- and the synopsis of creation of energy and its relation to creation of well-being in societies.
Well-done.
But, of course, if we just keep subsidizing everything, it will eventually all get better -- no?
And what is subsidization but an artificial construct of what society owes itself anyway? We shouldn't worry about it if the overall circular output is better, no?
(I can't quickly think of a third canard, sorry).
But real question: how serious could this ever-delayed energy transition be if every emerging city in the world (along with Cancun and Tulum) are building Taj Mahal-style airports to serve the emerging wealthy class of the 7 Billion person emerging economies? While they 'emerge', is the developed, democratic world's role to be submerging our economies?
It is baffling to me how people seem to think that the pot of money will be infinitely deep, such that subsidies can just keep flowing. Origoinally these were just to help "create scale" and overcome the advantage that legacy systems have in terms of paid-for infrastructure. Now, after 25 years we (esp in Europe) are seeing that subsidies are simply "necessary" - even claimed "subsidy free" examples miss the structural subsidies embedded. So to relate to John Constable's graphics, the Non-Energy Economy will shrink because we are dipping into that pool to ensure that the Energy Economy is at least not shrinking. But that becomes a downward spiral as we iterate year after year.
Someone somewhere will win a prize in Economics when the figure this out and formalized it.
If green energy creates jobs, that implies that more human effort is required to create green energy, and less is available for the non energy economy. It signals economic decline, not prosperity.
Consider how often advances in technology have massively expanded, or created entirely new, resources. The fundamental error of Malthus and now modern neo-Malthusians who believe humans will run out of resources, including energy resources, is that those resources are fixed. Two hundred years ago no one knew that nuclear power was possible.
Nevertheless, the laws of thermodynamics will not become obsolete. So your main point that EROI matters a lot is quite true.
Thanks for you comment. There is an interesting question - as you say Malthusian views have always been rendered obsolete by technical progress. At the same time I don't fully subscribe to the "techno-optimist" point of view (notable in Sapiens for example) in that "yes there is a problem, but we don't need to consider it because tech has always saved us and always will" (I'm paraphrasing but not much).
My post was already too long and I hesitated about adding a paragraph about nuclear - and maybe should have. Oil and gas are finite - not to the point of "peak oil theory" - but cheap and accessible oil and gas will be slowly replaced by expensive hard-to-get deposits (this is already happening) - so nuclear is the future for sure.
You claim that renewables are “low quality” energy, but that’s misleading: what matters is useful energy, not wasted heat. An EV turns about 70% of its electricity into motion, while a gasoline car uses barely 20% of its fuel. Heat pumps are two to three times more efficient than gas boilers. Renewables paired with electrification deliver more work per unit of input, not less.
The piece also insists GDP and energy are inseparable, ignoring the reality that U.S. and European economies have grown while primary energy use has flatlined or declined. Services, digitalisation, and efficiency gains mean economic growth no longer mechanically depends on burning ever more fossil fuels.
The bad faith here is pretending the transition will inevitably shrink prosperity, while dismissing innovation, efficiency, and the falling costs of clean energy already reshaping economies. This isn’t realism — it’s defending the fossil status quo with outdated arguments.
I’m trying to have an open mind here, and I agree energy is fundamental to life. But it’s clearly not as central to the modern economy as it once was. Services now account for the vast majority of growth, and they are far less energy intensive. Primary energy use hasn’t grown much in the U.S. over the past five years and has even declined in Europe, all while GDP expanded. That suggests economic growth and energy demand are increasingly decoupled. Framing today’s situation as if high energy demand were inevitable feels more like defending the energy status quo than reflecting economic reality.
Dear Pandreco, I stumbled across this today. Absolutely fantastic! I can appreciate the sheer effort that would have gone into this three-part series. The finished product is a must ready for those seeking to understand the world we inhabit and should be induction material for all politicians and their advisors.
I feel we have been following very similar trains of thought. Largely provoked I suspect by reading and synthesizing many of the same authors. I must be about halfway through Dr Tim Morgan’s book life after growth currently.
You may also find the work of Tim Garrett an atmospheric physicist from Utah State University interesting. I was startled by the implications of his work using the thermodynamic model of a snowflake to model the global economy and net primary energy requirements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN0fal80K1I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M01Q3ZR-Mzs
He has collaborated with Steve Keen on much of the subsequent work that has come out of this. I agree with you that despite Steve’s climate fixation his work is very insightful.
This link may also be useful.
https://www.rebuildingmacroeconomics.ac.uk/post/labour-without-energy-is-a-corpse-capital-without-energy-is-a-sculpture
Thanks again I really appreciate this series!
Thank you - this stuff lives in my head - and it has indeed been (to use the cliche) " a journey" - with lots of very thoughtful people providing the stepping stones. There is something very empowering about the spread of ideas - despite the Orwellian Trifecta of Media-Public Opinion-Politics pushing the green utopian dream. Connecting with like minded people is a great bonus! - and for what its worth... here is a short article about time I spent in NZ :-)
Thank you Pandreco, sorry but you didn’t leave a link to the article about your time in NZ?
https://pandreco.substack.com/p/the-bat-of-a-dragons-eye?utm_source=publication-search
Deep thoughts -- and the synopsis of creation of energy and its relation to creation of well-being in societies.
Well-done.
But, of course, if we just keep subsidizing everything, it will eventually all get better -- no?
And what is subsidization but an artificial construct of what society owes itself anyway? We shouldn't worry about it if the overall circular output is better, no?
(I can't quickly think of a third canard, sorry).
But real question: how serious could this ever-delayed energy transition be if every emerging city in the world (along with Cancun and Tulum) are building Taj Mahal-style airports to serve the emerging wealthy class of the 7 Billion person emerging economies? While they 'emerge', is the developed, democratic world's role to be submerging our economies?
Thanks Greg. Much appreciated.
It is baffling to me how people seem to think that the pot of money will be infinitely deep, such that subsidies can just keep flowing. Origoinally these were just to help "create scale" and overcome the advantage that legacy systems have in terms of paid-for infrastructure. Now, after 25 years we (esp in Europe) are seeing that subsidies are simply "necessary" - even claimed "subsidy free" examples miss the structural subsidies embedded. So to relate to John Constable's graphics, the Non-Energy Economy will shrink because we are dipping into that pool to ensure that the Energy Economy is at least not shrinking. But that becomes a downward spiral as we iterate year after year.
Someone somewhere will win a prize in Economics when the figure this out and formalized it.
If green energy creates jobs, that implies that more human effort is required to create green energy, and less is available for the non energy economy. It signals economic decline, not prosperity.
100%. That politicians can loudly proclaim that the "transition will create millions of well paid jobs" would indicate that they have no clue.
Great references all. The chart from Constable is brilliant, I am going to find that and watch. Awesome piece.
Really excellent, and I see why this has been in gestation for a year. Very important ideas, and first-principles thinking, as you do, is critical.
Consider how often advances in technology have massively expanded, or created entirely new, resources. The fundamental error of Malthus and now modern neo-Malthusians who believe humans will run out of resources, including energy resources, is that those resources are fixed. Two hundred years ago no one knew that nuclear power was possible.
Nevertheless, the laws of thermodynamics will not become obsolete. So your main point that EROI matters a lot is quite true.
Thanks for you comment. There is an interesting question - as you say Malthusian views have always been rendered obsolete by technical progress. At the same time I don't fully subscribe to the "techno-optimist" point of view (notable in Sapiens for example) in that "yes there is a problem, but we don't need to consider it because tech has always saved us and always will" (I'm paraphrasing but not much).
My post was already too long and I hesitated about adding a paragraph about nuclear - and maybe should have. Oil and gas are finite - not to the point of "peak oil theory" - but cheap and accessible oil and gas will be slowly replaced by expensive hard-to-get deposits (this is already happening) - so nuclear is the future for sure.
You claim that renewables are “low quality” energy, but that’s misleading: what matters is useful energy, not wasted heat. An EV turns about 70% of its electricity into motion, while a gasoline car uses barely 20% of its fuel. Heat pumps are two to three times more efficient than gas boilers. Renewables paired with electrification deliver more work per unit of input, not less.
The piece also insists GDP and energy are inseparable, ignoring the reality that U.S. and European economies have grown while primary energy use has flatlined or declined. Services, digitalisation, and efficiency gains mean economic growth no longer mechanically depends on burning ever more fossil fuels.
The bad faith here is pretending the transition will inevitably shrink prosperity, while dismissing innovation, efficiency, and the falling costs of clean energy already reshaping economies. This isn’t realism — it’s defending the fossil status quo with outdated arguments.
I’m trying to have an open mind here, and I agree energy is fundamental to life. But it’s clearly not as central to the modern economy as it once was. Services now account for the vast majority of growth, and they are far less energy intensive. Primary energy use hasn’t grown much in the U.S. over the past five years and has even declined in Europe, all while GDP expanded. That suggests economic growth and energy demand are increasingly decoupled. Framing today’s situation as if high energy demand were inevitable feels more like defending the energy status quo than reflecting economic reality.