High guys! A new episode with Art Berman is now available on the Evolution Show. Part 1 on the "Perfect Energy Storm" below! :) I hope you like it! Best, Johan Arthur Berman: The Perfect Energy Storm - Peak Chep Oil and Peak Gas is here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rv85LTMO8TQ.html
My wife and I have always been frugal, not wanting to waste our children's future. I am sure we could do with less, but, not enough change to make any difference. We need to eat, go get the food, cook the food, keep warm in winter, go to the doctor or work. What can we stop doing, other than living. No action by the governments is going to happen, even if they knew what to do, they will try some "Hail Mary" when it is too late. What I think is going to happen is terrible, but, I do not see an alternative. We took up agriculture, the ability to feed more people, and the result is that we now have too many people, living above minimum requirements. We can increase the amount of food but the nutritional value of that food is diminished and we are all sicker as a result. Fasten your seat belt!
Humans naturally procrastinate so the climate problems will have to get to the point that they are so severe no rational person will be able to deny. This guy is completely wrong both wind and solar are cheaper than fossil and nuclear. So it takes less resources to produce the same power.
Hi! Thanks! Sorry for late reply, I´m working on my energy house (it will have a masonry oven and wood stove too along with alot of solar and rainwater supply for WC, washing and gardening!) We agree on many things, especially how dependant we are on fossil fuel into the foreseable future. I will have Art back again soon to talk about his recent piece on the peaking of the shale oil production in US, that will probably be even more interesting so stay tuned the next couple of weeks! :) Best, Johan
Oh how humanity has boxed itself into a corner! We are akin to the metaphorical frog in slowly boiling water. Your guest made reasonable arguments that are deep in the money - IMHO. He's probably/ very likely right, but hopefully wrong; and either way, incredibly intelligent! A mind boggling segment of our planet seems asleep while Rome burns. Very sad to note the abysmal amount of views and likes this video has received to date. Am hopeful that it's exposure would grow exponentially over time.
Thank you for the input! Yes Art has a clear and brilliant mind but I think many missunderstand his message or simply don´t take time to think about what it means. I´m working to inspire and keep people informed on the challenges we face but also the oppurtunities with overshoot, AI development and transport and energy solutions! Cheers! /Johan
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.
Art Berman, even in this video, is much too polite. I've been trying to relay the information that billions of people will die worldwide if we stop using fossil fuels, and people just roll their eyes and laugh. They have no understanding that producing fertlizer WITHOUT fossil fuels is ALSO a fantasy. The only way it can be done is in people's minds. Art is being WAY too simplistic, (trying to speak in layman's terms), only talking about energy as if it's just one giant blob. That the only thing that actually matters is electricity, let's say. I know that's not at all what he thinks, because I've heard him state the opposite, but people just don't get it. They watch The Young Turks, and read AOC's braindead tweets, and think that we can go 'carbon neutral' by 2025. Ok, so even if that doesn't necessarily mean not producing and burning any fossil fuels, and offsetting the fossil fuels that we DO burn, that's still a giant leap from where we are now. I'm not even that educated on the subject, but just watching how hopelessly addicted people are in Cartopia USA to their ridiculous lifestyles, they would go berzerk just if they weren't able to drive to drive-throughs and eat hamburgers whenever they please.
At 2:04 Art distinguishes between (electric) power and total energy production. He’s perfectly clear about this @ 3:08. It would be good if you could edit your comment accordingly. Art does however contradict his point about the Maximum Power Principle @41:39 immediately after explaining it however. See my more fulsome comment which I just posted. We’re toast.
I agree with Art’s point that maintaining anything remotely close to the status quo for 8B or more of us, billions of whom are minimally surviving now, is pure fantasy. We’re probably right now over the precipice, accelerating towards freefall. James Hansen has a paper under review which says that the carbon currently in the atmosphere is enough to get the planet to +10 degrees Celsius. There’s a significant lag time involved and carbon dioxide removal and sequestration in time to save the day is simply more hopium. We are like panicking drowning people frantically and unthinkingly grasping for any small bit of junk science to sustain us. Art’s explanation of the Maximum Power Principle @ 41:39 is fundamental to our predicament. All else is hopium blather, IMHO. Even Art attempts to transition this point to a note of hopium about enacting sustainable policies globally. Fagedaboudit. We simply cannot consciously overcome the most basic genetic coding of all life that has ever existed on Earth. Absurd to the max.
I would separate global warming from the arising shortage of heavy fraction crude oil. Most of these guys are university professors and have to go along with all the nonsense pushed by pseudosciences. They're not allowed to argue with "experts" in other fields even when their arguments. Make zero sense. Just look at the Covid gene therapies. Global warming is one of the most easily debunked theories ever. We were supposed to be under water by 2000. CDN channel on RU-vid debunks global warming. I can't remember off the top of my head the names of other channels or debunkers.
Enjoy Arts work! Would add that we have countless acres and acres of already existing structures for solar. Roofs. Population overshoot does not require "culling" of humans. We've already stemmed the tide over last several decades as women are having fewer children. Coordinate and accelerate this trend. IMO world's #1 issue is nation states and their borders. The nation state model has been in existence only several centuries. We've changed systems several times over recorded history. This time we have an opportunity to come together globally to negotiate and work as humans to enable humans to live where they are needed and the environment can handle the load. Of course there's good old four horseman of the apocalypse should we CHOOSE to continue divisive barbarian warmongering of our ancestors. BTW this barbarism is costing over $7 trillion annually while spewing billions of tons of greenhouse gases pollution into our shared atmosphere annually while using raw materials needed for CONSTRUCTIVE change. Look at the catastrophe in Ukraine and realize this was a POLITICAL DECISION. US refused to even talk about the concerns of Russia and Russia decided to go back to the barbaric practices. There is a huge hidden FF subsidy in that at no cost to the industry we allow now 51 billion tons of greenhouse gases pollution into our shared atmosphere. We allow pollution of our water table, land gratis. At least renewables once built add little or no incremental pollution.
By energy do you mean the sun and buried fossil fuel? Either or both we do have them already. Regardless of the energy source we use now and on the future we are heating the planet to a point that is incapatible with life for humans and other animals.
Dear Mr Berman. A 2 year old podcast and not a bit outdated. Excellent! I just had to laugh with the analogy of technology and the straw. And on you went to promote a specific fizzy soft drink brand😂😂😂. And appropriate in a way, because Coke is a typical, most often useless and sometimes damaging consumption product. Useless comment, Great work. Keep going!
Hi! Smil has alot of great data ,I used some of it for a graph showing fossil energy consumption vs population growth in my Swedish book -how to transition from a fossil based economy to a sustaniable. I highly recommed you also check out my recent episode with solar entrepreneur and inventor Ron Swenson from California who also is a friend of Berman! He brings alot of hope on what we can do to decrease our energy dependance from fossil fuels as well as smart transport solutions. I´ve also added a link to my interview with Linnea Kornehed as well, co-founder and CMO of Einride below, a Swedish company that is revolutionizing the heavy trucking industry with self driving heavy electric truck that doesn´t even have a cabin, they recently had their launch in US! :) Cheers, Johan Links: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FrPDXnS-qjc.html&t ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6SRVvEI9t5U.html&t
An electric truck takes energy to create, and then consumes energy, but it does not create energy. Better to invest in trains, canals, and ocean transport because they consume less energy.
Hi! @@Thomas-wn7cl We need both but as I see it. I would prefer to see much more trains, trams and electric buses for example but in Sweden road transports are dominating freight of goods and there is unfortunately no quick fix. When it comes to inbedded energy electric trucks have the advantage to have much more efficient and reliable electric drive trains than diesel engines that not only pollute with emissions and sound but need service much more often. When it comes to batteries they can continnue to serve a purpose long after they stop being used for the truck, as energy storage and finally they can be disassembled and the raw materierals used in new batteries. Swedish battery maker is building a huge battery recycling plant for lithium batteries right now and Tesla woll likely do the same soon. Cheers! /Johan
@@EvolutionShowNr1 hi Johan, I definitely agree with you on the electric trams and trains. They are existing tech that does not rely on batteries. I think the future will be more about using less than sustaining what we have with electric batteries. I would suggest the book "The Geography of Nowhere" for viewing the problems of urban sprawl (at least in the USA) as part of an all encompassing approach to the energy problem. My area used to have trains that connected all small towns in the area. They went out of business in the 1930s-1950s with the rise of the car. I do not think, as was alluded to in the video, that we will be able to continue things as usual by other means.
Thank you for the interview, good information, the amount of views demonstrates the greater population does not have much interest...ah well, we can try engaging and hope for the best!
I like Art and appreciate his work and passion for conservation. However, I think he is wrong about Climate Change and the role of CO2, he needs to drill into the atmospheric physics harder. I must admit it is not an subject. Perhaps, if he can understand the science, not the narrative based on climate model projection, he might not be so pessimistic.
i can't figure out what side Art is on?? he says we need cleaner energy but then he says its not enough??? of course it will take sacrifice- and people will cooperate IF they think they need this for survival. we tested this during world war 1 and 2- people came together to fight for their survival and freedom. at least we have to try! it will take sacrifice no doubt. and we don't want subsidies- subsidies got us to where we are now! we want sacrifice (for examble a tax on pollution) AND expensive but clean energy! we waste 1/2 of the energy we use now- and its been very obvious how to conserve energy since the first energy crisis back in the late 70's- but we did nothing at that time! this time we have to! then he dumps on "extinction rebellion"???? shit they are the ones leading the way away from pollutive energy. then he says growth is unstopable! no its not- yes make growth painfull!
Existing technology cannot supply the energy needs of the future. To increase energy supply with "renewables" would require massave land use coverage hundereds of thousands of acres of land on which to install solar panels and wind turbines on thousands more propereties than are utilized today. If we want to completely rid ourselves of burning fossil fuels for motive and heating uses we will have to have a lower standard of living which most people will not abide. Big changes are coming but in the meantime the use of oil will be very strong and growing for the next 20 years at least.
Art presents himself as a logical, data driven expert but he shows strong bias and makes a lot of somewhat outlandish statements without presenting data. He asserts there is nothing we can do with efficiency, nuclear, hydro and renewables which will allow decreasing fossil fuels without causing billions of death. The Paris agreement and IEA pathway see around a 50% decline in oil and 40% decrease in gas over 26 years and certainly have planned not to cause the death of billions. He has some good points but is unable to acknowledge that fossil fuels must decrease to control climate change and the hundreds of thousands it is killing yearly now.
Great explanation from Art Berman about "subsidies" which are "free money" and these are "tax credit" and subsidies is "just part of doing business" and talking about these "is propaganda" and "technology does not create energy, technology is like a straw" etc etc. (see min 23:10 to 26:00). On min 41:00 Art Berman express his thought about carbon tax, and he think that humans tents to consume more energy and as long as they will pay carbon taxes they will pollute more. I think that peoples need energy and not only for consumption but for a better life, if peoples can have clean energy and possess equipment with higher efficiency then they will be happy to use less energy. On other side punishing masses with taxes does not solve the problems, only some consumers homeowners will not be able to pay so the consumption will decrease, the emission will decrease, but peoples will lose the wellbeing. The solution is technology invention and innovation and these innovations must be adoptable with existing technologies with reasonable prices based on competition. The world have seen these with TV, with computer oe cells etc, etc. On these path must go and EV to compete with ICV or appliances at home etc. etc.. Carbon taxes and inflation on food and goods are only a hidden way to Increase GDP and decrease peoples wellbeing, and here mainly all peoples who work hard and keep this world with good and food as well as services.
Sorry, I'm an engineer working in energy for > 20 years. There is no technological solution. Energy is not technology, and historically more technology went hand in hand with more energy consumption.
Art I hope you have opened his eyes. You shure have opened My eyes. I already new it was not like Al Gore states. No problem at all just do. LOL, yes I know it's not something to laugh about. But thank you for telling everyone you can.
Unfortunately, those with power are addicted to that power. The consequence is business as usual is by far the highest probability till the supply of energy hit economic depletion, when the cost of supply of commodities is more than the ability to pay. That is economic collapse.
They have not talked about nuclear energy which could easily rescue us from a looming energy crisis. And it is the safest known means of energy creation.
Building non throwaway products cteates maintenance jobs and parts inventory. Psychologically people compare themselves to hiw their peers live.... the reality of a economic collapse due to climate change, end of cheap energy or environmental collapse will drive home the reality of situation.
So the enforcer of the carbon tax will be the one being taxed. Obviously that will not work. Over consumption will end only with depletion. And depletion is inevitable. Pressure will precede planning. Even people who can read ignore safety signs every single day with deadly results. I suggest insulation and plenty of it. A circular economy is sowing seeds of plants you use like hemp into a natural meadow gathering it by hand while having the drain field for your septic tank under the meadow to return the nutrients you took from it for food and clothing.
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
The more efficient the fracking process becomes at getting more oil and gas in a shorter time from a well simply makes the well decline happen sooner. Art used to talk about this. He was really down on fracking. I wonder what has happened to change his mind?
Yes, this is something I forgot to ask, thanks for bringing it up! I did ask about when Art expects an overall decline in the US shale oil production though and he did not expect to see this in the next 5 years at least. This is a concern if we consider that it could lead to an increase in the use of fossil consumption, in the US and in terms of US oil exports. Cheers, Johan
There is no climate emergency,total scam,with all the money spent on unreliables,we are still using more coal and oil,and all we are doing is driving up the price ,we are just using more energy,zero carbon is a doomsday scenario!
Yeah. I wrote several comments before getting all the way through. See how shell shocked the host is at 39 minutes. He has zero idea how energy transfer works. He thinks they can use some industrial waste heat to generate hydrogen. The first principal of energy transfer is that you have to have a high temperature and a lot of it to create efficient, usable energy transfer. Look at how boilers work. Just because you have some heat doesn't mean you can do anything with it. I too was shocked when I took this stuff in technical school 30 years ago. You people can't deal with this because of emotional reasons. You can't grieve. Just accept it and experience the pain that goes along with it. There's no other way other than denial, and that's what you are all doing already. Hydrogen is the worst form of energy storage for several reasons. The main being that it gives off or absorbs heat when transitioning from water to hydrogen or back. Art is correct in saying hydrogen uses 15 parts energy input to get 1 part back. I worked out 8% efficient at best in a car but that doesn't take into consideration the enormous amount of energy to build the equipment and things such as boil off of the hydrogen to cool itself. The maintenance costs are gigantic with hydrogen. In California they walked away from a bus refueling station because the costs to repair it were so large. There just is no way around energy issues. The bible is correct. There is a God and the world is ending. We will have gigantic wars and we'll all die. God said "I will confound the wise." Our sciences are a joke. 200 years of studying electromagnetism and they haven't figured out how electricity works. Science is a false god if there ever was one.
Very true, I try to do what I can with neighbours and friends and share ideas with others. Small steps that matters and can make a big difference locally.
I have to dispute one point that the guest made, and that is that tax credits ARE a subsidy for a corporation. The company's profits and equity are a function of its cost and revenue structure, like a bathtub where the costs are the drain and the revenue is the faucet. That profitability can be enhanced either by more money coming from the spigot via direct subsidy or its costs being reduced on the drain end via tax credits or rebates. Functionally, tax credits work the same.
Battery technology for grid scale storage is not mature. Waste heat cannot make hydrogen. I agree with Art. Only perhaps on the nuance of energy crisis, whether energy inflation is a part of energy crisis.
Just as likely billions are not born. Which would represent a better way out. Fully appreciate the potential severity of our predicament yet will not throw hands in the air in submission to the worst possible outcome.
I've been following Arthur for years and his land mass comment for solar is a lie . im actually shocked he is a a world renowned expert and I've learned so much from him
5:15: need to dedicate 25% of land mass to solar and wind. False. Crazily false. I had to stop listening right there. The real figure is a small fraction of that. The guy is either lying, or is dreadfully ignorant, or perhaps is really stupid. In any case, not worth spending even 5 minutes on him.
Thanks, I realized that too, but thanks for bringing it up, a very important point! I will make several episodes on solar energy, including my own experience with solar+energy storage installed 3 years ago :) I´m currently in the process of planning my own energy house, with a large solar system, large energy storage and a 3,5 windmill :) Stay tuned for that! Cheers, Johan
@@EvolutionShowNr1 Thanks for your reply. I continued listening for a few minutes, but no improvement. 6:30: non-fossil energy can only support 3 billion people. Oh? Calculated how? He simply assumes that energy used is energy required to support people. Where in the fuck did that assumption come from? It is as though he is totally unaware of it. He is blind to what is easily the most fundamental question pertaining to what he is saying. In fact, the great bulk of energy consumed is luxus consumption, unrelated to human needs. You can see this in the graphs of CO2 emissions by income strata. The great bulk of all CO2 emissions (and hence fossil fuel consumption) goes to the upper 20% in terms of income/SES. Only a tiny fraction of that CO2, and hence fuel, is required to meet their needs; the vast bulk goes to meet their WANTS -- for big cars, big houses, jet air travel, and on and on. The truth is that non-fossil energy can easily support not only the population we now have, but a considerably larger one. The only catch being that by "support" I mean the meeting of real human needs, not human lusts for costly, resource-intensive, non-essential luxuries. You could argue that "the wealthy [top 20%] will never voluntarily reduce consumption, so the point is moot". My answer: you would be correct if the point were about what is politically and socially likely at this moment. But it is not. The point has to do with real resource use and requirements for human life and health, not what is socio/politically likely. This guy is making sweeping claims re population numbers that the earth can support, not related to material reality, (i.e. NOT related to what the earth actually, materially can support), but instead related to socio/political probability -- and presenting those claims AS THOUGH they were derived from material reality. This is what neo-Malthusians do, and it sucks. They take collective choices (expressed in politics, policies, society) and represent them as hard, unchangeable material/resource realities. It is a way of lying.
And further: advancements in renewables and storage and related areas, as well as advances on all other fronts (fermentation, materials, precision ag, etc.) bode well for sustainability going forward -- even possibly of sustainability of the kinds of luxus consumption that I just denounced. We probably are headed toward a zero-marginal-cost world of abundance (or close enough to it) within a few decades, albeit with a bottleneck between then and now, with choppy waters within. If we can keep from blowing ourselves up in a nuclear holocaust, we might find ourselves in a very different world, shortly.
@@alan2102X Hi Alan, I agree, and you raise many important points, all of which I have considered. Knowing Art I don´t think he is lying but is unaware of the progress sustainable energy and as you point to, sufficient survival resources can take us, albeit at a different standard of living/consumption level/"luxory living" many rich people live today. I recall talking to a farmer only using organic crops and he told me he can grow more food per hectar than his neighbouring conventioal farmers. They have less and less productive soil and don´t use perennials with longer and more resilient roots. Now with more droight and less productive contentional farming, with less diversity in crops they come to him for advice, which is ironic when they laughed at him not many years ago. That said, a big problem is turning soil that has been used with pesticides for a long time, to productive organic farming. One thing is clear we need much more smaller farms/people growing organic crops. Anyway, I think you might appreicate my conversation with Ron Swenson on solar energy: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FrPDXnS-qjc.html&t
@@alan2102X I think that it is possible but there are many hurdles on the way. On the heavy electric transport side you might like my conversation with one of the founders of Swedish tech company Einride that has developed a heavu electric truck that doesn´t even have a cabin: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PIefLR1rs7g.html&t Cheers, Johan
Arthur said in another video that diesel, kerosene-jet, heating oil and bunker crude are considered to be the same because the group (fraction) are so similar. Obviously they aren't exactly the same or they wouldn't come out of a different level of the fractionation column. I'm not certain if he was trying to be concise or what. I find that when I try to simplify things I actually become incorrect.
They only use bunker fuel out in open waters because of the carbon emissions. They use diesel when they come closer to American and European shores and other areas that have emissions regulations.
@@larawrightt I thought that was because up until recently they were using high sulfur bunker crude. When they did the switch over a couple years ago to lower sulfur bunker crude was when the world went all screwy over diesel supplies.
An analogy of Art Berman's attitude towards renewables is an 18yo who just got a moderate sized inheritance. He is told he still needs to get a job and have a career, but instead says "No, I'll just live off of grandpa's money because I can't get a job that pays enough to support the lifestyle I want." Then he proceeded to spend away his principle while not building up his career. Then a few years later he's broke, older, and has no job skills.
If you are down for the clean energy movement, are you willing to sacrifice your current lifestyle of living at third world level/pre 1940s standard of living, abandon retirement, your technology, employment, all safety nets and transportation, then you are delusion like a lot of pro ESG movement. I'm willing to bet you are not willing to radically alter your lifestyle to satisfy capping energy consumption. Even more ignorant about your comment is that even the green energy you are implicitly supporting replies on mineral intensive consumption of rare earth metals; which are even in severe shortage than fossil fuels. Not to mention purifying metals, creating alloys relies onb far more consumption of fossil fuels used both for energy consumption of producing those parts as well as extracting impurities of the metals produce large amounts of toxic byproducts(Arsenic, Phosphorus, chlorine, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, etc). All that hazardous toxic waste ends up been produced for low amount of joules of energy (exclude energy loss). Energy production creates waste as a byproduct in any living or non living process which is just physics. This is just a chemistry and physics problem not a political reductive issue that you a misconstruing.
@@georgeokello8620 continued burning of fossil fuels guarantees the collapse of civilization this century. Only stopping that practice does humanity have a chance of avoiding a new dark age. I, BTW, drive an electric vehicle (ALL parts of which are infinitely reusable and recyclable), have a geothermal heated home with solar collection, and all electric cooking. Only those with a cynical fiscal entitlement could possibly support the sociopathic continuation of burning fossil fuels.
6:30 this dude is absolutely clueless . Non fossil fuels can support nobody since all non fossil fuel energy systems are all based in fossil energy systems (production maintenance etc) as of volume of non fossil vs fossil the ratio in reality is someting 1 to 100 and with that not even 100ths of the current population can be supplyed since even food production/fertilizers (haber-bosch process) is solely dependent on fossil fuels as raw material . So this guy is completely and utterly clueless and misleading and doesn't know what he is talking about 😮
Well, I met Art back in 2010 during an energy conference in Washington D.C. I dedicated about 3 years after that to write a 300 page book on Peak oil that was published and well received in 2015. I know how the EROI has changed over the years from 1 :100 during the 1950s in Saudi Arabia to 1:20 for off shore oil drilling and about 40:1 for Shale oil and 5-10:1 for oil sand. Everything is not what it seems ;) The purpose with the Evolution Show is to have balanced talks and open people´s minds to our fossil dependance while still be open to the potential for change with a step by step transition away from fossil fuel use for the global economy. It will mean using less energy for sure and changing alot of the global trade and production, especially food production. It is not only possible, it is necessary but the transition will be difficult and my own country Sweden for example rely on more than 50 % of our food production from imports and most of our domestic food production involve fossil fuels in way or another. The peaking of oil and natural gas production will have enormous impacts on the global economy but it will affect regions and countries differently. I don´t see it as the collapse of the civilisation as we know it but it will likely lead to a smaller global population and the idea of metropolitan mega clusters like we have today may change into smaller units to be able to make and deliver food locally. How fast this transtion happens and indeed whether climate change and naive use and exponential development of AI in our life´s, wille determine if it leads to World War 3, starvation or even extinction of our species. So I agree in many aspects and don´t agree in others with Art. He is a brilliant man and I have alot of respect for his knowledge and experience in the oil and gas field as well as the energy market in general. Cheers, Johan
