Wark Mills really helps ground the conversation and keep it real. I really like the part about the efficiency of EV vs ICE vehicles, I've not heard it explained that well before. I've heard the claims that ICE vehicles are more efficient but never explained properly.
@@chapter4travels I guess you're among those scientifically illiterate I mentioned earlier then. I did actually watch the whole video despite the cringe. Just because the unrelated facts stated are physics, doesn't make the argument any more compelling, if you try to merge them into some kind of pseudo relation. I'm sure Mills' financial involvement in fossil fuels and nuclear has nothing to do with his misleading the public about the viability of renewables, though.
Btw, if you specifically refer to the 'efficiency' of the combustion engine he mentioned though: Sure, if you compare the energy storage, his 80 pounds tank with a 50% efficiency engine (wherever he sees THOSE ICEs in real life) beats the 500 pounds battery. And then you realize that the ICE involved is probably heavier than the electric motors in the BEV. But then you realize that there's more than an additional ton of car attached to the whole thing, so those 90% (real) vs. 50% (theoretical?) make a lot more sense now. And when I'm listing a few 'then's here, let's be realistic, the whole thought process takes about a second and then you realise the guy is basically a fraud.
I'm 42 minutes into this video and have yet to see or hear any evidence or data that disproves peak oil. Other than his smug laugh when he said they're just wrong. Oh, and we should buy his books. I guess all the data is in there. People who work for the oil industry are so cocky it's sickening. I've known lots of them in southern Louisiana.
What is the progress going in the negative direction of efficiency - SUV? Making less damage to humans? Stay longer alive? Requiring medicine because of body do like to be moved by SUVs. What is the social value of an SUV. By the way bicycle is far better in any metric which he refer. And there are countries like the netherland which doing better. He is picking examples where his story works. Sell books. I do not buy into this.
It seems to me that the growth that comes from efficiency gains always leads to higher order problems in the future, and the highest order problems must ultimately impose a loss of efficiency on the system. We can continue to improve our technology, but if we need to expend increasing energy rebuilding and repairing the damage to our systems, then cornucopism runs out of road eventually.
It is endless which is not bottomless... there is a finite supply of work, shared within the geoecosphere, driven by the sunlight. Some of it fossilized hydrocarbons/sunlight.
Yeah this framing seems really dumb (or calculated for provocation). Did this guy really just tell me that technically everything is energy... that's an eye-roller in the context of debates about limits to growth, like worse than a joke.
*The issue has **_never_** been about the existence of energy* . The issue is whether we can get _useful work_ done within our limitations. So making claims about an unlimited amount of energy available is misleading. For us, our societies, the problems lay in economics and politics, not just physics.
Mark isn't saying that though. He speaks extensively about the energy efficiency of processes and conversions and what that means. And he talks about the importance of hydrocarbons in the energy mix. But what he's saying fundamentally (at least as I read it) is that humans are gonna human - and you can see that in a positive light or a negative light.
12:35 “just as wrong,” how? He is right about efficiency. About the light weighting of vehicles. Blanket statement about a person is usually erroneous.
Little too pessimistic Solar is already cheap Batteries are almost there Which is why the world is going to install ~600GW of solar @ 15% CF = ~800TWh of electricity So in one year, the world is installing the equivalent of 70 years of US nuclear If batteries break the $100/KWh (fully installed and good for 10,000 cycles) barrier, we will have solar + battery in sunny locations become very economic Probably not cheaper than coal and gas because coal and gas will have to sell at lower and lower prices to stay in the game but perfectly cheap enough to take more and more market share Also while fossil fuels are great and useful many nations dont have any so importing them is more costly and more of a security risk than deploying long life solar wind nuclear batteries
I need to think about Marks point..... way deeply as am tempted to dismiss his point as simple trolling stawmen, but am withholding conclusion till ive fully read his material - as am hopefully wrong. Thanks for having diverse & counter opinions on you channel, to conventional wisdom & counter to unconventional wisdom too. Isaac Arthur has similar well rationaled techno optimist views. I'll ask Steve Keen about this approach, as his too seems to be rigorous realisim about laws of thermo dynamics on economics & useing ecological tropic levels etc as inspiration for applying data driven systems dynamics to economics not the culturally institutionalised ideolgies governing policy for 30yrs - 200yrs
Production of crude oil and condensates peaked in November 2018. Maybe it's rise again but conventional oil peaked around 2005, with fracking saving the day. What saves the day if total crude production can't be increased?
That's generally what prices were for. In 2006 when I graduated Highschool the price of Oil was over $100 a barrel. That high price meant it was worthwhile to look for new sources of energy, including Oil and Natural gas. That was the beginning of the large adoption of Solar. Many people bought a Prius and the Tesla came along. High prices mean investments in alternatives become worthwhile.
If oil is abundant why are governments hell bent on lowering its consumption?. Why all aiming for dates of 2030/50?. A window of time when peak oil should be in full bloom for all to see. Climate change is the official explanation, but I suspect the other much more profound explanation is a world of steadily falling oil production. We already have new buzzwords like peak demand, well thats what we're going to see, peak demand falling every year till theres no demand at all.
Because we are in the grips of a millenniarian, apocalyptic religious fervor. Once voters begin feeling the full effects of anti-energy policies, this fervor will end. With nuclear energy probably being the peg on which politicians hang their hats.
Because that's an extremely expensive way to make reliable, dispatchable grid-level electricity. Solar is completely dependent on the time of day, the weather, location, season, massive amounts of raw materials and land. Land for the solar farms and the thousands of miles of transmission corridors.
@chapter4travels crap. Rooftop PV is dirt cheap, and no new grid is needed. BV batteries are evolving massively fast, nuclear is a dead economic duck when the sunshines.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 What% of world population owns their own house, 2%? Of that 2%, how many can afford a solar system that can meet all to their own needs, 10%. Then of those how many can afford a system that has excess for the grid, 5%. Can you see where this is going?
@chapter4travels Yes, good point, but the ones I'm talking about are the most polluting and the most capable of changing. New technology is getting cheaper, so hopefully, this will help.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 In their 2024 report Lazard assigns an LCOE to rooftop solar between 122 and 284 USD/MWh; it's literally one of the most expensive forms of electricity production there is, and if you don't see it reflected in your bills it's because someone else is paying for your externalities. Specifically, those ratepayers who can't afford a single family home.
Are you funded by the Manhattan Institute? You seem to have a thing for people that are in that circle. The Manhattan Institute has long been active in obfuscation over climate change and also in promoting fossil fuels.
The Manhattan Institute also funds dissident voices. Many Climate Change scientists are funded by people who benefit from the replacement of current infrastructure by New technologies. Everyone has a bias. This is one of the few podcasts that doesn't begin with the dogmatic "Climate Change is causing massive destruction unless we take drastic change." I don't believe anyone who says spend tons of money or else everyone will die. The "Climate Emergency" is basically for Leftists what the War on Terror is for Neocons, justification for overreacting and taking money from the government coffers.
The point that matters is , where is your criticism of the actual points raised where this author is incorrect ? Perhaps they are talking down the green revolution because they don't agree with the direction based on engineering facts
Couldn't you say that the myriad of activist climate change organizations have been active in overplaying the effects of climate change in a mirror image of the Manhattan Institute?
Comparing solar cell efficiency to combustion engine efficiency must be the worst dick move I've ever heard of. To the scientific literate it doesn't make any sense at all, but for the illiterate majority it probably sounds quite convincing.
Regarding Amory Lovins being wrong. Actually, he is right and you are wrong. You dress up what you said twenty years ago with fancy words, but the issue is still learning to live within limits.
@@VarieTea729 So, you have been reading Robert Bryce. True some of Levin's prediction's have turned out wrong. Over fifty years that is to be expected. Many of his predictions have developed far beyond his estimates. As Mr. Mills is a minerals man a lot of his predictions are also wrong. There are shortages because the technologies are successful. Short term or long term, hydrocarbons will eventually become commercially unavailable. The soft energy path will prevail.
@@gregorymalchuk272 Interesting choices for comparison. Yes, Amory Lovins has concerns about nuclear and I would say that he advocates for other options. I would also say that he would prefer the use of renewable energy sources.
Most vehicles drive 10,000 miles per year. Most years are less than 10,000 hrs One hour drive everyday 23hrs parked everyday day. BVs oversized battery topped up everyday, ezi pezi. Half ideas on top of half ideas is not exciting. Millions and millions and millions of sunshine powered vehicles or huge CO2 emissions from ICE vehicles.
20:24 my peak oil, solar panels, batteries, and an electric car. My oil use not only peaked, it went to almost zero. Amazing how much more efficient 8 minute old energy is compared to millions of year old energy. 😂 I’m 20 minutes into this thing and still waiting for him to say something of substance.
You use oil every single day, that hat on your head is not possible without oil, and your breakfast is the same way. Oil is embedded into every single aspect of your live and will be till you die and beyond.
@benchapple1583 Rooftop PV is dirt cheap, and no new grid is needed. BV batteries are evolving massively fast, nuclear is a dead economic duck when the sunshines.
There is a nice channel here, “Thies the Atomic Jedi“. A lot of common topics, but he makes “classic” videos where drawings and graphs fit in easier. And many thanks for your thorough decoupling, too, of course!
Wow mark mills, that was great. I felt like this was the non-anon Doomberg. For people that mistrust the anon identity, send them to Mark P Mills I think? Agreed on a surprising amount of points. Ah, that's decouple for you!
So .. there's no limits to same old .. same old, drill baby drill .. hello +5 degrees. For a thermal dynamics guy he doesn't say anything about the thermal dynamics limits of the earth and human survival in a warming world. He seems to have a lot of blind spots
What about the costs of crop failure because of depletion of nutrients in the soil? What about the costs of increased natural disasters as we approach 2 degrees of global warming? Or species loss because of human agriculture?
