The Evolution Show is a platform to share inspiration and ideas on Sustainable Energy, Electric Transports and AI with a focus on how to decrease humanity´s current dependance Fossil Energy. I invite company leaders, inventors, researchers and other inpspiring that inspire me and that I hope can be helpful and interesting to others making the journey into a more sustainable future! I will also share some of my ideas on investing and hope this can be a platform for people interested in sustainble tech investments as well.
About me: I am Swedish full time investor and writer in sustainable tech since about 15 years, I have driven an EV since 2014 and I have designed my own energy house with my father that will be built in 2024 something I plan to share here on the Evolution Show. I´m also interested in growing my own food and I have been a beekeeper for 8 years. Linkedin Profile: www.linkedin.com/in/johan-landgren-ba619728/
In Melbourne, Australia, I run my house and car about 85% on solar during the six high-sun months. The difficulty is winter when my solar goes down to about 20%. It would take about 80 more panels and battery to power my home all year round which in a solar farm would cost maybe $60K . Apart from selling electricity to me in the low sun months, such a system would produce a lot of extra power during the summer months if a use could be found for it.
Hi! Interesting! I have designed my own energy house that is being built in central Sweden now with south facing solar roof and wall mounted solar panels on south facing wall and east facing wall of the house. The wall mounted solar panels hopefully will provide a few hours of charging of the batteries during winter time. Perhaps you could mount some panels on a wall to get more of the sun winter time?/different angle from the sun. Cheers! /Johan
The idea of reverting to the standards of living of the 50's is quite reasonable, in principle. However, the sociodemographic makeup of the actual US population is substantially different, if not totally incompatible, with the demographics of the past. The quality of the current demographics, driven by welfare, dismal immigration, reverse discrimination, and quota mentality, make it impossible to replicate the transaction cost of the past, now that decent people have to cage themselves to avoid all the calamities lurking in the surroundings.
The 1960's had a stable climate perfect for large scale agriculture, 3 billion people, tons of fertile lands and healthy ecosystems, thriving animal and insect populations. It also wasn't facing the collapse of the AMOC, the death of all coral reefs and kelp forests, the disappearance of most aquifers and the mountain glaciers much of our drinkable water sources depend on. Temperatures were also not starting to soar at levels plants and animals are already reaching their limits of tolerance in certain areas (and we are a decade away from feeling the full effect of even 1.5.... while currently shooting for 3+!!!). There was also MUCH more livable/usable land than there will be once the oceans rise a meter and certain areas become too hot even for desert animals. We are NOT "going back to living like in the 1960's". According to several top climate scientists? We don't have several decades to cut back on fossil fuels by 20%. We don't have the luxury of waiting for those companies to choose to change out of the kindness of their hearts. Are they evil? Yes. 100%. They knew the science before (and better) than anyone else... and yet spent the past 40+ years funding climate denial projects, derailing attempts at divesting from fossil fuels, bribing politicians to get rid of ecological protections, and bribing politicians to implement tons of projects that would cement our societies dependence on their product. Are we fully dependent on fossil fuels? Yes. Can we stop ALL fossil fuels? No. Does this mean we just shrug and pray that these companies won't drive us all off a cliff? That is complete (un@living) madness.
thank you for the great conversation, Love from Iranian living in New Zealand, that is a big issue for oil rich area in our planet when the supply is declined, what all humanity can do 🎉 ❤
“But a team in Scotland are warning exactly that-we’re running out. Fast. Alister Hamilton is a researcher at the University of Edinburgh and the founder of Zero Emissions Scotland. He and his colleagues self-funded research into oil depletion around the world and the results are shocking: We will lose access to oil around the world in the 2030s. “? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-r79rxfOFJJY.html
Putting aside algorithms feeding me what they calculate I am interested in and biasing my view bc now lately I see vids and articles from many sources, I would have to gently correct Art in his statement that we don't think much about plastic. Lately there seems to be a lot of news breaking about microplastics and them getting in everywhere, the oceans, our bodies, our blood clots, everywhere. People are indeed thinking more about plastics. And we noticed more and more about ocean pollution and entrapment of animals and etcetera. Which okay fine I just would want to gently correct him on that but I do find it to be very tragically ironic that the medical industrial complex uses so much plastic and yet now we know that plastic is something that is just getting everywhere into everything. So, and forgive me it's a little late here where I am, the industry that exists to help people be healthy, stay alive, is also an industry that is directly or indirectly and not deliberately, although maybe in the future might be a little more deliberately because we're becoming so educated, that this industry is also potentially doing harm by using so much plastic. I hope I made sense! Cheers!
The oft-repeated phrase "since the invasion of Ukraine by Russia" is quite deliberately misleading. It should be "since Europe stopped directly importing Russian gas due to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia".
Glad you like it! :) Recording a new episode with the CEO and founder of Heart Aerospace next week (so for the delay, my energy is starting construction in less than 2 weeks so alot to prepare..) -that is devoloping the world´s first 30 seat hybrid electric plane! (200 km fully electric on 2 electric motors and onbard batteries, extended range with 2 turbroprop engines). Cheers! Johan
I love how Art always says "I'm not being critical, I'm not criticizing" then he proceeds to deeply criticize whatever it is he's mentioning 😅. To be fair, these things deserve to be criticized. No need to apologize Art.
Berman was dissing Goehring and Rozencwajg peak shale warnings as too grim, which was odd since erring on the side of caution seems like his usual stance.
Hubbert proposed peak oil in 1956. Perhaps now 68 years later the chicken will finally come home to roost. If we are lucky all these oil companies will begin to build nuclear reactors using Thorium. We have thousands of years of Thorium. Alas, I doubt if they are that forward thinking.
Live efficiently in a step van. Employ yourself to cook and store your own food and be your own mechanic and general manager. Have panels and a use a cell phone. No rent to pay and you look like a good capitalist. Buy a property that's inexpensive. Go where any work is. You are a mobile labor without expenses.
Speculation here, but as time passes how many AI researchers will use their models as a sounding board for affirmation in an inverted form of RLHF . Acronymns anyone ?. T for transference is admitted .
37:50 This boundary between the upside and downside is a very tenuous perception . Unless there is an explicit constraint on the "creative" propensities of an otherwise liberally enabled model , the problem space will be unbounded .
Language is clearly a catalyst for change or rather enabler to gather and spread information to be used to reach specific goals, ie achieve intelligence at various levels. The more language you skillfully master the easier you learn the next language which in turn can be an enabler to achieve higher levels of intelligence. But in terms of a powerful AI we are talking about a potential intelligence level on or beyond collective human intelligence levels. Right now certain language levels are already close to or beyond such levels at certain tasks. Problem is that most look at AI:s unable to "tie a shoe" as a reseblance of its overall capacity, missing that AI:s already achieve things AI experts thought impossible or far into the future, only a few years ago... Cheers, Johan
As a probably decentralised paradigm in the case of an AGI with a potential for disassociative doppelgangers , let us reflect on how we deal with such an adversary.
So how does some AI running in a computer magically start taking our atoms? The AI would have to have a physical instrumentation to do that. How does that happen? Suppose right now a super advanced AI was lose on the internet, how is it going to go crazy converting matter? The only way I can see this happening would be a "long game", where the AI acts nice for decades and decades until it's so massively embedded in society so that there is manufacturing from top to bottom that could be controlled by the AI.
Well your mention of a long game is not impossible . With an exponentially improving system , long can become surprisingly less . A very astute game master would play both strategies simultaneously , remember we would be duelling with silicon ( inter alia ) .
99% of human existence occured prior to capitalism, industry, rich people, or private property. Life will return to peace and harmony after ridding the world of the virus.
Not until minute 36 does Arthur Berman implicitly say that less investment into oil and gas exploration is due to ESG. He says this without mentioning the three-letter word by saying that funds are internally generated by the oil companies.
Most are in denial - and denial is what allows them to maintain their "buy, buy, buy" mentality. I've watched this previously. Will it be ignored this time, too. Thank you Johanne. Is Sweden still pushing ESG for their survival into the future?
The so-called renewables cause long term environmental devastation from mining, manufacture, transport, installation and commissioning all of which are fossil fuel dependent, to produce something that may last 10-15 years at the most, with fossil fuel backup. There's no such thing as renewables. The greatest con job in history.
Hi! I have a neighbour with solar thermal installed in the 80s still working very well to save alot energy on heating water so no solar thermal installations normally can run 30-40 years with very little maintenance. And yes it currently takes fossil fuels to make almost anything in the modern world but solar thermal has a relative energy payback time that is relatively short and once you have made such energy investment you have effectively bought yourself 30-40 years of cheap energy generation and thus become less dependant on the price fluctuations on the energy market and redudant in times of crisis. That said, mining etc for renewables can indeed be devasting, we need to consume less stuff we don't really need and stop wasting energy in general like driving +2 tons vehicles with 1-2 people in it when we could build personal rapid transit systems like the one running in Morgantown in West Virginia. Food production should primarily be done locally etc. All to decrease the waste of energy, pollution and indeed resource waste and devastion that comes with human's appetite for stuff! Cheers, Johan
The irony of all this is that, if c02 were causing temperature rise, u people want to not use coal and oil for heating!! Think about it 🤔 If what u believe is true, then u Shld continue using carbon so that one day your region’s temperature becomes moderate and u won’t need so much artificial heating anymore. 😂
Seems like, btwn sun and wind, we should stick w sun, solar, bc that is what we receive abundantly. But, and a bit of pessimism, even w mass adoption, 20 years down a road, electricity will still be expensive. Bc many reasons to do w greed!
Hi! Totally agree that costs for electricity for most people (those without their own power generation from solar roofs, mainly in cities) will likely be increasing for many years. Short term planning by politicians and vested interests by large energy companies including utilities is slowing and stopping the much needed transition. Another huge problem is lack of awareness of how to combine renewable energy technologies. And yes while I expect China will burn coal for many more years the country has and is investing alot in a vast railway system, EVs and solar tech. China also supplies most of the world with solar panels and energy storage systems (mainly BYD in terms of batteries) But I think we have a lot to learn from the vision and planning by the City of Helsinki! By 2030 the beautiful finnish city is planning to replace the current burning of 500 000 tons of coal per year, by a combination of primarily solar heat and solar heat storage (seasonal storage) and other renewables including heat pumps and solar PV- connected to the existing district heating network. In Denmark 126 communities already run district heating like this, either completely or to a large degree on solar heating and solar storage! Meanwhile my own country Sweden seem happy to burn mainly biomass from the forrest even during the summer (!) as the primary source for heating of buildings when we probably could at least cut the annual use of biomass burning in half if we invested in seasonal heat storage using large water pits and connect it to existing district heating systems. And in the rest of Europe there are 6000 district heating cities but most burn Natural Gas and Coal… Even in Spain (hello!!) We can do much better! Cheers, Johan
Hi! Joakim Byström is clear about that. In part 1 he talks about the relative fossil consumption in terms of lifecycle analysis and solar thermal has very low carbon footprint/coal use in manufacturing compared to most alternatives and generates energy quickly/payback time is short and lifetime long. Nut you are correct that right now getting off fossil energy completely is not possible (without a complete collapse of society) but we can lower the use/our reliance on fossil energy significantly by combining solar thermal with seasonal storage and stop burning fossil fuels during summer and combine it with solar PV and biofuels. This is step one and the low hanging fruit that can buy us time to find alternatives for the rest of the year/all places. Cheers, Johan
I actually undertook an exercise recently to cost using solar thermal with pit storage, and compared the cost to heat pumps. This was for the university i attend which is currently heated by natural gas. I found that the electricity needed to pump the water from the collectors to the pit, and from the pit to the radiator system, cost far more than just using heat pumps. Its possible im missing something though. Have you run the math? Great pod btw
Hi! In Helsinki they looked at combining heat pumps and solar thermal with seasonal storage in water pits, this was the way they came to the conclusion it would it possible to go 100 % fossil free for the heating of the city. Heat pumps are indeed effective, especially air to water heat pumps. I will have a air to water heat pump with a Scop of 4.3 for my energy house combined with a masonry oven (both connected to water based floor heating). The heat pumps are indeed great especially for individual houses/buildings but not to store energy or at -15 or below when the efficiency is down at a minimum. So combining heat pumps with solar thermal with storage for large scale district heating is a good option I think. And this will be replacing coal for the district heating in Finland. Cheers, Johan
@@EvolutionShowNr1 thanks for the info. You should do a video on your house and cost, would be very interesting to know how much a super energy efficient house would cost
I tried listening for the first 10 minutes, but it's too illogical and banal. 2:00 - "It's important to say the International Energy Agency has an agenda"? - It's a strong claim and he provides no sources 3:40 - "like to question the IEA if coal plants are included or excluded" Why doesn't he investigate this if he is asking the question? 3:50 - "We have to put a little bit of a filter on the sources that we use" "I'm not here to question the IEA" I don't what we're supposed to do then, what sources should we use...? 4:00 - "How many solar / wind / renewable energy workers does it take to replace a natural gas worker? Based on the physics, it takes about 1000" I understand his point, but he's comparing the power density W/m2 for solar panels from a study in 2011 and 2008. Efficiency's have significantly improved since then and continue to improve year on year, along with costs. There is such an over-production that solar panels can be substituted for building materials (e.g. fencing). No-one has ever claimed that solar panels have a high power density than coal, gas or petroleum in watts per m2. It's pointless. 5:22 - "You need to dedicate a huge amount of land mass" Large scale plants are placed on land, but solar can be placed on residential and commercial buildings. Wind turbines can be placed off-shore. There are some areas of the USA that have high potential for solar power (e.g. desert). Projections with ~20% efficient solar panels, it would require the size of Lake Erie or well under the area of Maricopa County in Arizona. Bloomberg cites a University of Arizona study that says USA would need 4 x South Dakota's to fulfil 100% renewable energy needs for 2050, but I can't find the source for this study. elements.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-land-power-us-solar/ environmath.org/2022/05/04/how-much-land-would-it-take-to-generate-all-us-electricity-with-solar-alone/ www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81644.pdf physicsworld.com/a/jacobsons-new-100-renewables-model-aims-to-rebut-critics/ 6:00 - "If we look at the total energy consumption of the world today, fossil vs non-fossil (including nuclear), remove fossil, the non-fossil can only support a population of about 3 billion people on the planet." No-one is thinking of doing this? It makes no sense to talk about this in the context of an energy transition, to completely remove fossil power today and let billions starve? Ridiculous point.
Hi! I hope you find my most recent conversation with Art Berman more interesting and relevant. I agree with many of your points above. Part 1: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rv85LTMO8TQ.html Cheers, Johan
