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.
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.