Comment on Recharge by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/comment-page-1/#comment-1218">False Progress</a>. PEAK OIL I would welcome a clear peak and fairly sharp decline in oil! In a sudden oil crisis, there are laws and policies and procedures that society used during WW2. Rationing would see many of us cycle more. There's an awful lot of 'energy fat' in society. Distribution systems might change from the Big Box Walmart style shop, to corner stores suddenly set up in suburban homes. While Electric Semi's are only just being deployed now, there are already many electric delivery trucks. Other ICE vehicles can have an emergency retrofit with wood-gas burners for trucks and buses and tractors and harvesters - check the stats from WW2 here. There is even the potential for emergency laying of electrical cables and catenary lines to quickly electrify mining systems. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/sudden-oil-crisis/ ENOUGH AREA As I have explained before (pretty sure I already posted this?) Many who object to wind and solar have probably seen some wind farms put up in the wrong places, or heard stories about solar displacing desert turtles. The industry is still learning - and is vastly different today - understanding more about bird migration and other issues. But what they tend to forget is how much land it takes for them to have steak and 3 veg on their plate! Unless someone is vegetarian or vegan - they should not complain about wind and solar while regularly eating red meat or pork. Livestock is the most inefficient means of getting protein - and uses about 34% of the non-ice land on earth! That's 3400 TIMES the land that renewables will require. Not 3400% more - but 3400 TIMES more land! Land that would otherwise have rainforest or wetlands, and be habitat to wildlife and soaking up excess CO2. In comparison just 0.1% of the world’s land would supply all our power. https://theconversation.com/really-australia-its-not-that-hard-10-reasons-why-renewable-energy-is-the-future-130459 Also keep in mind:- ROOFTOPS: Half our rooftops would provide all today’s electricity. http://theconversation.com/solar-panels-on-half-the-worlds-roofs-could-meet-its-entire-electricity-demand-new-research-169302 NATURE journal reports floating solar on existing hydro power dams (already wired up!) would close global coal. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01525-1 NATURE reports floating solar could power 154 large cities and thousands of communities - and save fresh water from evaporating. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01089-6 Floating on our calmest seas could provide 5 times the total energy a world of 10 billion could need! https://theconversation.com/limitless-energy-how-floating-solar-panels-near-the-equator-could-power-future-population-hotspots-210557 Just 0.1% of the world’s land would supply all our power. https://theconversation.com/really-australia-its-not-that-hard-10-reasons-why-renewable-energy-is-the-future-130459 Even allowing for a tenfold increase due to Ai server farms and the next few billion people before the population peaks, that's still only 1%. Also:- ROOFTOPS: Half our rooftops would provide all today’s electricity. http://theconversation.com/solar-panels-on-half-the-worlds-roofs-could-meet-its-entire-electricity-demand-new-research-169302 NATURE journal reports floating solar on existing hydro power dams (already wired up!) would close global coal. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01525-1 NATURE reports floating solar could power 154 large cities and thousands of communities - and save fresh water from evaporating. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01089-6 Floating on our calmest seas could provide 5 times the total energy a world of 10 billion could need! https://theconversation.com/limitless-energy-how-floating-solar-panels-near-the-equator-could-power-future-population-hotspots-210557

Comment on I didn’t think Trump could shock me – or get any lower. was wrong. by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2025/02/20/i-didnt-think-trump-could-shock-me-or-get-any-lower-was-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-1217">False Progress</a>. True. But there are Generals in Russia that do not want to push that button - and would rebel against Putin if he ordered it. Sometimes standing your ground and helping allies is actually worth it! The Berlin wall collapsed. This could also be one of those moments if we handle it right and bankrupt Russia. They're not that big an economy - and if NATO actually cooperated instead of letting the man-baby have a sulk about a few hundred billion dollars in a nearly 28 trillion dollar economy - we might just outlast Russia and bankrupt them. It could lead to a safer world long term.

Comment on Recharge by False Progress

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Be aware that none of this "electrify everything" talk has been tested in a post Peak Oil world, and there's major SCALE denial of what it takes to build sprawling, ugly wind turbines and solar arrays that smother deserts.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Once fossil fuels are insufficient to build, maintain and back up all that scenery-killing chattel, it will start to fail (already tricky to maintain, especially offshore wind). There's only so much you can do in the field with heavy batteries.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Before he died, Hew Crane tried to make this clear to the public with his <strong>Cubic Mile of Oil</strong> (CMO) concept. That made a temporary logic splash, but the "green growth" movement still assumes technology has no bounds, and has relegated nature to isolated parks, visited by EVs driving through "clean energy" ravaged countryside. Take your Rivian to the remnants, in other words.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Comment on I didn’t think Trump could shock me – or get any lower. was wrong. by False Progress

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Trump functions as a sleazy sledgehammer who might stop this overlong war, whereas others would drag it out with delicate maneuvering. <em>That's not to say he's operating with true wisdom.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>There are just situations in life where you have to sacrifice what seems like a good cause for longer-term stability. Until Putin dies or is replaced (with someone milder), we can't have the world constantly fearing his ego. Nuclear weapons are a far greater evil than Ukraine ceding territory.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

I didn’t think Trump could shock me – or get any lower. was wrong.

Now Zelenskyy’s a dictator? 😡 Trump’s only been in a month in and he’s more erratic and unstable than ever! Trump promised to end the war in 24 hours. Now that he’s discovered the world is a great big complicated … Continue reading →

Comment on X continues to fall under Musk, but is Bluesky viable? by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2025/01/20/x-continues-to-fall-under-musk-but-is-bluesky-viable/comment-page-1/#comment-1215">gas4gaza</a>. Hi G4G, I mainly blog as an archive or summary of my thoughts. The real action is on various forums where I link back to my blog as sort of a footnote for more information. Maybe one day I'll have the time for a Youtube channel - but the thing is as I'm not an expert in any of the fields I write about - but more like an enthusiastic promoter - there are hundreds of thousands of Youtube Channels and millions of blogs like mine out there. This is more like a summary for friends at this stage. (Even though I keep it anonymous. I can't have anyone finding out my 'secret identity'.) ;-)

Comment on X continues to fall under Musk, but is Bluesky viable? by gas4gaza

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Hey Eclipse, You do expressive commentary on the external world. How can you reach a wider audience? </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Tariffs

Trade is good. It lets me produce the thing I can produce the cheapest, and you do the same, and we swap so we all get richer. Cheaper stuff means we all win. I guess I’m a ‘globalist’ in terms … Continue reading →

X continues to fall under Musk, but is Bluesky viable?

The problem isn’t X becoming Musk’s personal megaphone. It’s that he has systematically destroyed usability of the product and morale at the company. Engineers have fled the company – and as a result half the ‘engagement’ with anything I post … Continue reading →

BIG BOY Funnel Web discovered in Newcastle!

Never has ‘beauty’ been SO in the eye of the beholder. I really think Kane Christensen needs his eyes checked! More here

This Open Source rant from Youtube has been reading my brain!

I love the idea of Open Source. But lately I’m just finding some of the apps just so bad.(I’m not discussing the Linux OS as such because I delayed my leap from Windows to Linux Mint for a few years, … Continue reading →

Border control? After the ‘election-flip-flop’ spike – Biden and Kamala started to win…

This first image is Trump’s view of the world. It must be nice to have such a simple view of things. I mean – isn’t that why people vote for him? Look at that! Just build a ‘great big beautiful … Continue reading →

The weird new way I’m using Google Calendar as a Project Management System!

Working or playing? Does your hunt for the perfect PKMS (Personal Knowledge Management System) mean you are procrastinating? What about constantly tinkering with your PKMS – be it your Notion notes or page layout or database to manage all those … Continue reading →

We absolutely, positively, CANNOT use hydrogen for heating!

Electrify Everything. Heat Pumps. Etc. It’s just vastly cheaper and easier. As us Aussies say – “Der!”

The EU is broken – but can be put on the right track!

I love the EU – and think that it is the main reason Europe has not already descended into another war. But it has so many faults it is becoming increasingly fragile. The EU is undemocratic – in that citizens … Continue reading →

Open Source Gene therapy!

This guy cooked up a viral gene-tweak to cure his lactose intolerance – and it worked for 18 months! (Wears off over time.) He’s got a new version he’s sharing under an OPEN SOURCE licence – and that just blows … Continue reading →

Wow – one thing I agree with Dutton on!? Strange Days indeed!

Although I’m sceptical about the motives, the ONE thing I agree with Dutton about is IF Australia is to go nuclear – it should be PUBLIC and BIG! Nuclear is expensive. You don’t build one test reactor ‘to see’ – … Continue reading →

Umbrella Academy is just weird!

Let’s just face it – Umbrella Academy is weird. Take some X-Men, a little “Series of Unfortunate Events” meets Loki’s Time Variance Authority, a tiny splash of Guardians of the Galaxy (not a lot sadly!) – stir – and add … Continue reading →

Neom project nearly bankrupt

Saudi’s scaling back 2030 ambition from 1.5 million to 300,000 residents But at this stage, and according to this news – I wonder if they will even have a few thousand living there in any kind of viable city?

Comment on Rosie Barnes on Off-shore wind by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2024/03/28/rosie-barnes-on-off-shore-wind/comment-page-1/#comment-1211">False Progress</a>. I'm an Ecomodernist climate activist. I had a nasty environmental awakening in 2004 - and basically looked around at the intermittency of renewables and sheer expense of Overbuild - and had no hope. Also, as an Australian with a Social Sciences background - I had no real understanding of nuclear and basically inherited the cultural air we breathe - an unthinking anti nuclear position. But year after year passed where I tried to convince myself that renewables would fumble forward somehow. But I had concerns about their sheer cost in Overbuilding - and also what to do about transport and a number of other issues. Then I started reading Brave New Climate and became an Ecomodernist - especially once I understood breeder reactors could eat nuclear waste! So from 2010 to about last year I was an avid fan of nuclear. But I finally read one too many reports about how cheap wind and solar had become - and how Overbuilding was no longer a barrier. Even pro-nuclear activist Dr Barry Brook said renewables were not technically impossible - just economically impossible. So - I still have nuclear on my energy page. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/nuclear/ But I doubt Australia will need it. It's currently illegal in our country. By the time we got the law overturned, renewables would already have done the job. Check my Overbuild page where I've collected a bunch of amazing studies. Come on - I mean this isn't just dry peer-reviewed stuff any more - this is in the popular culture. Overbuild hit Scientific American in 2015 for crying out loud! https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/overbuild/ Overbuild reduces storage. Radically!

Comment on Rosie Barnes on Off-shore wind by False Progress

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The larger size of offshore wind turbines also requires them to be even further away from shoreline views, including red lights all night. There was a general benchmark of 30+ miles when turbines were maybe 600 feet high, tops.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Talk of future 1,000-foot tall wind turbines doesn't give high confidence of limited impact. There's no honest way to greenwash machines on that scale, but it's common practice among windustrial environmentalists who reject the better solution of nuclear power.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://falseprogress.home.blog/2016/08/29/wind-turbines-desecrate-nature/" rel="nofollow ugc">https://falseprogress.home.blog/2016/08/29/wind-turbines-desecrate-nature/</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Rosie Barnes on Off-shore wind

Yes – it’s twice as expensive as on-shore wind. But it can be less visible (so less complaints and less environmentally destructive than on-shore wind. It also can be much larger, mainly because transporting the super-sized structures is easier by … Continue reading →

Liquid air electricity storage being built across UK and one in Australia – cheap and no rare earths required

Nice short piece by PBS on the population crash later this century

Kurzgesagt covers Nuclear Winter

It seems like some of the biggest Youtube channels have decided this really needs covering. A truly horrifying subject! (Um, Americans – vote Biden. He’s old – but at least he listens to input from his team! The “Narcissist in … Continue reading →

Your part of a wind turbine blade is less than a bicycle!

Worried about recycling wind turbine blades? Today’s wind turbines are SO MASSIVE and generate so much power that the per-person amount of composite material used is less than a carbon fibre bicycle! And they tend to last 25 to 30 … Continue reading →

Something BORING that could help save the world!

I found an old theme as a nice short TED talk – under 10 minutes. Wind and solar can now offer really cheap electricity for industrial heat. But there’s a problem – shown in this graphic. They’re intermittent – where … Continue reading →

Hemp crops mature in 100 days

The points below went straight into my tall timbers page as hemp can supplement the global demand for wood as we build more sustainable skyscrapers from wood.

Davos – “It’s not the Lizard People – it’s worse!”

THE GUARDIAN: “Human ‘behavioural crisis’ at root of climate breakdown, say scientists.”

I immediately winced when I read this headline. Blame the citizen, not fossil fuel multinationals. Nor State Capture of our governments. Nor the fact that dirty energy systems are responsible for 3/4 of our carbon emissions! (With agriculture and land … Continue reading →

Why Snowpiercer is impossible from SRM!

When I jump onto Reddit I’m never sure which forum I’ll end up in or what subject I’ll end up reading about. I guess that’s why it’s fun – the ‘gambler’s reward’ of Social Media? (Look out Eclipse – your … Continue reading →

Added some great new material to my Overbuild page

Hi all, I finally got around to adding some new material to my Overbuild page – and tidying up some of the writing there. Some of the updates:-

The next steps towards a Federal Europe!

Simon Michaux has lost it! He wants to study Zero Point Energy, water powered cars, UFO tech, and other hippie rubbish!

To think his “we’re running out of minerals” rants still really scare young people! This guy wants to play town planner, build a Utopian little circular city (remember the Venus project?), establish an engineering institute, and study the energy sources … Continue reading →

Comment on Recharge by Eclipse Now

Good question! Maybe my introductory sentence on my "Electrify Everything" page should have read "we shouldn’t even burn ALL the oil we do have in the first place"... The carbon budget allows us to burn the CO2 for the Energy Transition at least. The entire energy cost to mine and build the entire Energy Transition over the next few decades is about 4.5 to 9 months of today’s global annual emissions. Once. Fossil fuel emissions will have stopped forever. (Figures here - but I converted to months equivalent CO2 emissions for ease of comparison.) https://www.energy-transitions.org/new-report-scale-up-of-critical-materials-and-resources-required-for-energy-transition/ The Energy Transition is an increase in mining - but not that much in terms of our overall mining today. EG: To build fast enough to limit to 1.5 degrees of warming we will have to increase aluminium mining by 17% of the total aluminium we mine today, cement 2%, copper 14%, nickel 6%, and steel (iron ore) a whopping 5%! https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/minerals-for-electricity Very roughly - the 5% increase in iron ore is 150 million tons (because iron or is the vast majority of all metal mining we do) but even the TOTAL iron ore for all our bridges, skyscrapers, battleships and cars etc is 'only' 3 billion tons a year. (It decreases in industrialised nations as recycling starts to take over.) Compare that to the 14 BILLION tons we mine for fossil fuels each and every year! So overall mining will decrease as the Energy Transition unfolds.

Comment on Recharge by n6f5xs2w64

Carbon budgets preclude this. Solutions 20 years ago won't work because of non-linears in the biophysical system. Good luck working that one out.

Comment on If you enjoyed “Leave the World Behind…” by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/12/19/if-you-enjoyed-leave-the-world-behind/comment-page-1/#comment-1201">elizaphanian</a>. Great to hear! If you have any more holiday reading time check his other stuff. Weapons of choice is a modern battle group that runs a physics experiment that goes wrong and shoots them back into midway. It's a dirty old SciFi trope - but because it's Birmingham - it's SO good! Forget the new technological arms race, it's the 21sts and WW2 cultures in conflict that are interesting. There's also fun background info, like one character hears that Stalin got an iPad and his favourite TV series is The Sopranos!

Comment on If you enjoyed “Leave the World Behind…” by elizaphanian

Thanks for this recommendation - have just finished Birmingham's trilogy!

“EU Made Simple” calls for a united European military

This episode is great and went straight on my “Federal EU” page. It covers:- EU integrated defence command vs Nato command: does it have to compete or will a stronger integrated European military with a united command structure actually increase … Continue reading →

Australians QUADRUPLE the rate of EV’s they buy in one year – from 2% to 8.3%!

The Guardian (Dec 2023) reports that fast chargers doubled, and will be doubled again across the next 3 years. The National EV Strategy, with investments from federal and state governments, plans for a further 1,000 charging locations within the next … Continue reading →

If you enjoyed “Leave the World Behind…”

Cyberattack seems to be all the rage these days. If you enjoyed this – read John Birmingham. He’s one of Australia’s best speculative fiction authors. Seriously! ZERO DAY CODE describes this scenario – but with meticulous, analytical detail – and … Continue reading →

Simon Michaux to respond to Collapse Reddit “Ask Me Anything”!

I don’t have great hopes for some kind of breakthrough. As in – any hopes of a breakthrough. But I did my best trying to explain the context to these concepts before asking the question. Reddit’s post size limit meant … Continue reading →

Comment on Michaux on Germany by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/11/10/michaux-on-germany/comment-page-1/#comment-1199">emigtztrrs</a>. His arguments are just unreal! I have a mere Social Sciences background but even I can detect the rubbish.

Comment on Michaux on Germany by emigtztrrs

There's more to it, Simon plagiarized some sections of his report from Wikipedia without properly citing. https://twitter.com/GrahamWalkerNRG/status/1568212850367242241

Comment on Mike quotes Mark Mills: it’s Michaux 2.0 by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/02/06/mike-quotes-mark-mills-its-michaux-2-0/comment-page-1/#comment-1197">False Progress</a>. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But as wind turbines grow in size, less are required. Indeed, some very cluttered wind fields might one day be recycled and a few much larger super-turbines placed there for less impact. On my wind page I cite studies into mitigating bird kill by careful selection of sites, and even deploying bird-radar that shuts the turbines down if migratory birds are flying through! https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/wind/#wind-can-kill-rare-eagles-how-to-fix-that Also, don't forget solar is a thing. Just covering our rooftops and calm fresh water reservoirs with 'float-avoltaics' would give us somewhere between 10 to 12 TIMES the electricity we use today. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/solar/#but-it-will-use-too-much-land But don't forget - we're electrifying everything as well. ELECTRIFYING EVERYTHING WILL ONLY NEED 40% OF THE ORIGINAL FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY As we “Electrify Everything” in transport and industry, we’re dumping awfully inefficient thermal energy systems which lose so much energy because we’re changing from one energy format to another. Burning stuff like cavemen just isn’t that efficient. EG: Think of cars and trucks. Diesel wastes half the energy, and gasoline wastes 80%! But EV’s USE 80% and only waste about 20% of the original solar power. This has flow on effects into their economics, and even their EROEI. (Energy Return over Energy Invested.) If an oil EROEI study counted the energy taken at the wellhead over the energy invested in the well, and didn’t measure how wasteful the oil system was to the end product - a moving vehicle - then I think they’re kidding themselves. Just look at this graph. Look at all the massive mining of grey fossil fuels on the left, and how it shrinks into actual energy services on the right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Energy_2021_United-States_0.png Renewables will be more efficient because they produce electricity and we build a system that mostly consumes electricity directly. There’s no 2nd law of thermodynamics getting in the way. If you have solar on your foot and an EV, it’s like having an oil field AND refinery on the roof of your house, charging directly into your battery. Think about the support systems. Australia’s NRMA are going to be installing off-grid EV charging stations with an expansive solar roof charging a grid-scale battery (probably sodium due to cost and thermal safety?). It gets installed once and lasts maybe 20 years (or more.) But oil must be mined and refined and shipped around the globe. Fossil fuels make up 40% of all shipping - about 22,000 massive steel cargo boats! Then oil must be driven by dangerous tankers down highways each week to fill the gas station. Now, expand your gaze across the entire industrial ecosystem, from mining and smelting metals to EV’s and rail and you cut the need for about 60% of the original fossil fuel energy! Anyone who says we’ve got to build solar or wind equivalent to 100% of the original fossil fuels we mine today are double-dippers. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electrification-energy-efficiency We are left with a vision of wind and solar doubling every 5 years - twice the doubling rate of oil in the 20th Century. We notice that not only are renewables racing to the finish line, but as we electrify everything, the finish line is slowly starting to move back towards us, and will accelerate soon! https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/mining/ NUCLEAR NOTE: I've been a passionate supporter of nuclear for well over a decade - against my anti-nuclear Australian culture - where there is a ban on nuclear power stations. However, everything has changed in the many years since I began asking about clean energy. Renewables are now 16 times cheaper than when they started, and are having subsidies gradually phased out - at least in Australia. Overbuild and Geographic spread - the 2 things I used to fear on an economic basis - are now assets. Once we get through winter we'll have "Super-Power". https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/overbuild/#tony-seba Also, I'm not sure where you got 17 times more subsidies from. "This section brings together the IRENA estimates for subsidies for renewables and the adjusted combined IEA/OECD fossil-fuel subsidies, as outlined in the previous sections. Combining the estimates of fossil fuel, renewable and nuclear power subsidies yields an estimate of total direct energy sector subsidies for 2017 of USD 634 billion (Figure 10). The total is dominated by the subsidies received by fossil fuels, which account for 70 % (USD 447 billion). Subsidies to renewable power generation technologies account for around 20 % of total energy sector subsidies (USD 128 billion), biofuels for 6 % (USD 38 billion) and nuclear for at least 3 % (USD 21 billion), but potentially more, as already noted." IRENA - page 44 of this PDF https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Apr/IRENA_Energy_subsidies_2020.pdf renewables subsidies are gradually being phased out. But they're still getting cheaper and more efficient. The EROEI of solar is increasing as it uses less materials, is built in more efficient factory processes (to save money) AND captures more sunlight. It's projected to edge closer to 29% efficiency by 2030. (Professor Blakers)

Comment on Mike quotes Mark Mills: it’s Michaux 2.0 by False Progress

Why is there nothing in this article about these environmental & energy facts? 1) Wind turbines use vast amounts of land (and ocean) and have already industrialized millions of acres of scenic viewsheds, with up to 10X more planned than today's roughly 350,000 (Mark Jacobson wants 3.8 million). How can anyone who claims to respect "the planet" yearn for so much ugly, man-made blight on mountaintops, plains, farms, off coastlines, and all the rest? It's already bad enough, including blinking red lights all night. And dying birds & bat numbers will keep growing. There are fewer "appropriate" places to site these goliaths every day. 2) Not one eyesore wind turbine of any useful scale has been built without fossil fuels, namely oil. They're made from materials that must be mined, smelted, assembled in various factory steps, transported (by truck), installed (by cranes), maintained (with more oil) and backed up when the wind dies (often with fracked gas). How can such giant machines exist after oil peaks? Where are the miracle batteries that can do heavy, portable work? Omission of the above isn't surprising, since wind power fans have thrown away natural aesthetic values, welcome urban sprawl as long as it's not houses, and tend to ignore future ERoI after oil peaks. Another thing rarely mentioned is that wind power gets about 17 times more govt. subsidies than nuclear, adding to the illusion of "low cost" for something that only works around 30% efficiency at many sites. Nuclear also has a far smaller footprint, which is a big deal for true respecters of nature.

Comment on Two would-be doomers thank me for my ‘hopium’ posts by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/08/26/two-would-be-doomers-thank-me-for-my-hopium-posts/comment-page-1/#comment-1195">emigtztrrs</a>. Thank you so much for your post. Yes - Nafeez is a smart guy across many subjects. I'm only a part-time blogger with a busy family life and local community commitments - he's a professional investigative journalist. Yet he did the honour of quoting my very simple maths in subtracting the "Batteries that ate the world" from Michaux's own paper. That's quite <em>humbling</em>, really. Now, back on subject. I think we owe Tainter and Diamond a great debt. At least they get us asking the right questions to avoid some sticky scenarios, almost like a civilisation-wide Work Health and Safety inspector walking around kicking things and asking, "OK, what have we got here then?" ;-) However, I've missed some of the more recent critiques of these works. I have a lot more reading to do! My initial impression is that I love the works that point out that sometimes it's not so much a Civilisation collapsing, but a political realignment. I mean, was the Soviet Union collapsing really a Civilizational collapse? I don't call it that. I think it's more of a regime change. While there was a massive economic event and the realignment of smaller nation states breaking away - that's all regime change. The people were still pretty much there. The languages and cultures are pretty much the same. The infrastructure and trade with other nations may have changed - but that stuff is almost always updating and morphing in the modern world. So I agree - the whole paradigm of 'civilizational collapse' is being thrown around too broadly. Also, I think some authors are tempted to oversell their work. It's tough getting published, and I wonder if there's an appeal to more grandiose theories? I mean - there are certain things we can learn from the "Collapse" of the Roman empire. It had resource scarcity issues, but also political leadership blunders. Military blunders in allowing people not really loyal to Rome, who had never been in Rome, to run certain legions. It had economic and trade issues. But finally - it got invaded! And half the Roman empire didn't collapse - and still thought of themselves as Romans. It's just we - from our modern point of view - call them Byzantium. So did Rome really 'Collapse' or was it weakened by resource issues, bad political strife, and poor military judgement in appointing leaders? Then we start moving away from some sort of <em>Theory of Civilisation</em> and into areas of history, economics, and military strategy. But some of us sulk at this point. Boring! I mean- what happened to some grand <em>Theory of Civilisation</em>? It's the old temptation to look for comforting certainty in the face of anxiety provoking uncertainty. Also, I think Isaac Asimov's <em>Foundation</em> series might have affected our culture more than we realise. We want to pretend we're Hari Seldon with a grand theory of Psychohistory - and can predict the future! My favourite futurist Isaac Arthur says <a href="https://youtu.be/6Uh-VQy24l8?si=OULV1Y39Wgv94ghI" rel="nofollow ugc">that ain't going to happen!</a> Things are just too chaotic to model like that. Or we want to be Sarah Connor, using the emotional trauma of what we <em>think </em>we 'know' about the future to excuse our melodramatic anxiety disorders and tendency to want to dominate conversations at parties! ;-) OK, enough picking on doomers. But what about Stuart Brand's book? Boy - I'm not sure I have time to read it - but I really should if I'm going to attack it. But from a distance it sounds like it's applying various ecosystems concepts to a broad idea of civilisation, and I'm not sure that works. Sure, civilisation requires energy. So do ecosystems. But civilisations are made up of sentient people that act on ancient impulses but also modern trends in culture. Some cultures become car based like America and Australia, and require double the oil of the average European. Some cultures run "Stop murdering our children!" campaigns against traffic, and become more like Amsterdam which uses <em>less </em>oil and cars than the average European! So a civilisation does not have to always be growing in energy consumption - but can <em>vote </em>to actually reduce it. With my Social Sciences background I love a good paradigm shift trying to view society from different angles and agendas. Patriarchy theory, sure! Capitalism critiques, sure! Free-market ideology, let me at it! I nearly developed split personality syndrome after my studies years ago, especially in <em>Political Economy of the Welfare State</em>. But these days I get suspicious when someone seems to be trying too hard to make the facts fit their theory. <a href="https://ageoftransformation.org/the-collapse-of-civilisation-is-an-unprecedented-opportunity/#the-global-phase-shift" rel="nofollow ugc">EG: From Nafeez</a>: <blockquote><strong>EG: The spectre of collapse signals two things</strong>. Firstly, the eruption of identity politics and culture wars, the resurgence of far-right, Islamist and other forms of extremism, the escalation of geopolitical destabilisation and so on are all symptoms of the decline of civilisation’s organising system: the prevailing order, worldview, value-set and mindset are becoming increasingly obsolete because they simply cannot understand reality and solve our problems.</blockquote> Really? Is it a symptom of collapse, or a bunch of other things. Surely with so much mobility and migration in the last half century, we have new forms of multicultural tension arising in Europe. And the predictable backlash from the conservative right (or is that racist right?) afraid of all the change. Then we have migration in the US leading to the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) starting to feel threatened. Is this a sign of collapse, or migration? If completely unmoderated by any sane government responses, these are <a href="https://youtu.be/Yilgr2SJ3xQ?si=igEBgigPHchj6o-1" rel="nofollow ugc">some of the ingredients that can spark civil wars</a>. But - as horrific as civil wars are - what happens afterwards as long as the conflict ends and one side takes over? Unless the victor is an extremely repressive warlord, it seems the society rebuilds itself. The infrastructure is rebuilt, the people go back to work, the economy recovers, and some of the culture might survive as well. It's a collapse into warfare - but is it a collapse? Did Germany and Japan <em>collapse </em>at the end of WW2, or were they <em>defeated</em>? Now let's consider today's <em>Culture wars</em>. Seeing them as a sign of a civilisation collapsing seems to really be putting the cart before the horse. What more concrete, testable development have we seen in the last 20 years that might explain this? Rather than looking to a Theory of Civilisation to explain something this primal - try Psychology. Psychologies have been employed to create dopamine hits through the power of social media. Have you seen the <a href="https://youtu.be/uaaC57tcci0?si=cn_ZWpJTFf8ijB4Z" rel="nofollow ugc">Social Dilemma on Netflix (see preview)</a>? It really is spectacular. Psychologists use the “gambler’s reward” of dopamine hits in various echo-chambers to earn clicks and money. But it's got out of hand - and now high level VP's and coders are leaving various platforms due to their conscience! They just can't continue with their careers without speaking out against what has been happening. Kids only getting one side of the story have dopamine hits, tribal loyalties employed, and cult-like leaders they look up to explaining the world in some kind of pattern that makes sense to them. It's manipulative, addictive, and awful - creating awful consequences in society. Anti-vaxxers, Trump-supporters, climate-deniers, 9/11 Troofers - they all have their online tribes. This is so well understood that young adults I know are taking breaks from social media to have a ‘dopamine detox’. They try to appreciate a slower, calmer, more intentional pace to life. It’s a trend in youtube mental health videos. Because if they don't - some of them know it's going to drive them nuts, and have them fall down a rabbit hole. So - watch the documentary. It's a frightening phenomenon. But afterwards, ask yourself - is this an area that should be studied by a grand Theory of Civilisation? Or does it fall into the realm of Psychology, Psychiatry, and Sociology? I'd be keen to hear what you think. Sure - the rise of the internet and social media and the consequent culture wars is a phenomenon that can be studied from a civilisational framework. Information flow is important! But labelling the Culture Wars as a signal of "collapse" might be stretching it. A risk factor for tension, strife, and even civil war maybe!? But these things already have disciplines - sociology and history. <blockquote>And secondly, that process is inherently connected to the technological decline of the prevailing fossil fuel-dominated production system, where escalating costs and diminishing returns are derailing the foundations of how our societies create the things we need.</blockquote> Again - is this the territory of a Theory of Civilisation? Yes - this clean energy upgrade will have massive benefits. As you know, I'm a fan! It will prepare us for peak fossil fuels, end $5 TRILLION a year in health-costs due to fossil fuels (thereby paying for itself when it's finished!), disempower petro-dictators, create local energy jobs in rural areas, change trade relationships between many nations, and of course help stop the worst of climate change. I think I agree with Tony Seba's reflections on past transitions and hopes for these future ones, but while a brilliant futurist - and one of the most accurate ones I've ever seen, the irony is I'm not sure even HE is saying he has a kind of "Psychohistory." It's more applied economics with some sociology theory. It's brilliant, and draws up a picture of civilisations and how different parts fit together. But I'm not sure it is meant to be some sort of "law" of Civilisation that will perfectly predict the future every time. Empires can <em>seem </em>to come and go based on recognisable economic and resource and power relationships. But sometimes they don't. After all, if the Berlin wall can fall because an East German news reporter misunderstood his instructions - anything can happen.

Comment on Two would-be doomers thank me for my ‘hopium’ posts by emigtztrrs

I also have to thank you for your posts. You got me out of the doomers Stasse. Rees and Friedemann. There's a really good paper from Marco Raugei pointing out the problems of this "dichotomy" of systemic Low EROI pessimists vs "technological optimism" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-023-00113-9 So, on doomers, what do you think of Nafeez article on collapse(and also Ugo's book on the topic) https://ageoftransformation.org/the-collapse-of-civilisation-is-an-unprecedented-opportunity/ I mean, I think that yes, some form of minor collapse is already locked in in the majority of countries, but I'm with Nafeez that precisely(and counterintuitively) those moments of crisis are where we can lever the most political change to actually transform our system because it will lose control, and what once was unthinkable(Universal Basic Services, moving away from growth and more to a wellbeing Steady-State Economy) can actually be possible.

Comment on Physix – or how Stasse re-purposes a great youtube channel to his own doomer ends by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/08/18/physix-or-how-stasse-re-purposes-a-great-youtube-channel-to-his-own-doomer-ends/comment-page-1/#comment-1193">Shaheer Cassim</a>. It's just more of the same anti=renewables Degrowth rubbish I debunk all the time. These people all read like old peak-oil Doomers that are upset that their Degrowth manifesto's no longer have legs now that high EROEI renewables are here with great performing EV's - and they're just getting better. Don't get me wrong - I vastly prefer Ecocities and energy efficiency and New urbanism and all that. Cars are <em>not </em>great. See my Neighbourhoods tab if you want evidence. But ultimately we don't have to hit people over the head with enviro-guilt. I'm convinced the T in I=PAT will so fix our impact on nature that eventually it will supply us with everything we need, and this will usher in a world wide demographic transition. As we green up our Industrial Ecosystem - we'll give everyone everything they need, Decouple Impacts on nature, and let humans and nature both thrive. So if you're claiming to be an environmentalist why promote authors that can be misquoted by the alt-right climate-denying Fox news crowd? Ever noticed how much people like these get quoted by the Deniers? Ever seen Simon Michaux gloating on Sky News? It's revolting. Now - to their claims about renewables: "GND proponents are appallingly tolerant of the inexplicable." Rubbish - they're peer reviewed engineers totally informed of 99% of the answers to the questions in this paper. "They fail to address how the gigatons of already severely depleted metals and minerals essential to building so-called RE technologies will be available in perpetuity considering typical five to 30-year life spans and the need for continuous replacement [17,18,19]." Dude - I have a Social Sciences background and am not very technical and have not read THAT many papers - but even I know this to be a whopper of a lie. Or at least a good cherry-pick. Seriously. While there are some materials that might run short, there are 'plainer' alternatives to everything that makes up a renewable energy and electric transport system that all come from super-abundant minerals that are decent fractions of the earth's crust! https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/materials/ "They offer no viable workarounds for the ecological damage and deplorable working conditions, often in the Global South, involved in metal ore extraction [20,21]." First of all - social justice issues are important. Biden's IRA <em>is </em>starting to effectively stimulate domestic industries by bringing a lot of this mining and manufacturing home. And America just found the world's single largest lithium deposit by far. Second, renewables engineers are busy trying to deal with making a sustainable grid and power and transport system. Could we not also hit them with the industrial relations responsibilities of ANOTHER COUNTRY? This stuff <em>is </em> on the radar of sustainability advocates - and these authors are offensive and lose intellectual credibility when they suggest it isn't. I mean - do they even listen to normal 'bright green' environmental podcasts at all? Or are they all sunk so deep in their own doomer echo-chambers they're just not aware what's happening in the real world? The mining practices and consequences of certain mining industries in other countries is an important concern. But with Australia and America rising as suppliers of all this, their first world WHS laws should soon take over some of this supply. Yes - watch those other countries. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and attack clean energy systems for what are essentially Domestic WHS issues in those countries. It's actually a separate conversation. Deal with it. "Green New Dealers advance no viable solutions (technical or financial) for electrifying the many high-heat-intensive manufacturing processes involved in constructing high-tech wind turbines and solar panels (not to mention all other products in modern society) [22,23,24,25]." Rubbish. I've documented ample material about the birth of a whole new Electrify Everything suite of technologies. Try this! A third of Australia's stock exchange - our largest industrial groups like BHP, Bluescope, etc - have a plan to Overbuild Australia's 2020 electricity supply by 5 TIMES times to make green steel, aluminium, etc from abundant renewables, hydrogen, and clever alternative strategies. Industry going green https://energytransitionsinitiative.org/ "The waste streams generated by so-called renewables at the end of their short working lives are either ignored or assumed away, to be dealt with eventually by yet non-existent recycling processes [26,27,28]." (Sighs) Even <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recycling-renewables/" rel="ugc">wind turbine BLADES can now be recycled</a> - they were one of the last issues. <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recycling-batteries/" rel="ugc">Recycling EV batteries is growing exponentially</a> and is fast becoming 'above ground lithium mines' - a resource like oil - with geopolitical <em>competition</em> over dead EV's - not considered a waste product at all! "Proposals for electrifying the 80% of non-electrical energy demand overlook crucial facts, namely that the national-scale transmission systems and grids required for electrified land transportation do not even exist today, nor is the needed build-out likely given material, energy, and financial constraints" This one scores some points - mainly because it is so political to get HVDC lines through new areas. But even the engineers and companies are now starting to talk about "Social Licence." A lot. They're even involving <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/energy-insiders-podcast-wind-solar-and-social-licence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">behavioural scientists</a>. But yes - more power-lines are CRUCIAL to the renewable master plans. Yet many off these systems could actually be <em>off </em>grid. Australia's NRMA is building <a href="https://www.mynrma.com.au/media/press-releases/2023/nrma-leading-the-charge-with-off-grid-energy-solution-for-ev-charging" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">off-grid EV charging stations where local solar charges a mega-pack that little EV's come up to sip at</a>. <a href="https://www.januselectric.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Janus Australia</a> could potentially build off-grid charging stations for their giant truck battery swap system. They can run 10 trucks from solar on the warehouse roof - out in rural areas why not buy a paddock and install their own solar farm for on site recharge? This impacts the efficiency of the whole system. Instead of shipping oil around the planet and then driving it up and down our highways every week, we install the thing once and it might last 20 years etc - especially with some of the new <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/grid-batteries/" target="_blank" rel="noopener ugc">liquid metal or liquid flow batteries.</a> As for materials - tell me. What percent of the earth's crust is silicon? Iron ore? Aluminium? They're the most important materials - and are super-abundant and super-easy to recycle. Also, they're working on doping aluminium with graphene to mimic copper anyway - but aluminium itself would also work for bulk electricity transmission. That's just one paragraph of their paper. Full of lies. Next?

Comment on Physix – or how Stasse re-purposes a great youtube channel to his own doomer ends by Shaheer Cassim

I recommend you read this study. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/15/4508

Comment on Michaux responds to critics and mentions Andrew Blaker’s study! by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/07/15/michaux-responds-to-critics-and-mentions-andrew-blakers-study/comment-page-1/#comment-1191">emigtztrrs</a>. Hi again, as a New Urbanist I'm a bit ashamed of constantly defending EV's as I don't even like cars. I'm not buying into the myth that cars saved us from horse manure - just that the adoption rate was quite fast amongst those who owned horses to those who owned cars. But as you point out, the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/figure/1-Vehicle-Ownership-Rates-The-United-States-from-1900-to-2000-and-15-Other-Countries_fig1_264967305" rel="nofollow ugc">actual ownership per 1000 Americans</a> was quite low in the 1920s when all this was happening. I don't think Seba accurately portrays that - but to be fair - it's not the point of his talk. He is about the existing industries of the day being disrupted. You can see that there was a dramatic increase in total car ownership in the 1920's and horse ownership started to decline. https://i.redd.it/rfxlhjb7ple51.jpg I used to buy into the robot-taxi TAAS hype, but not so much these days. Now, remember we tend to think in a very linear way. But exponential growth is sneaky! Nothing substantial appears to be happening for a long time - but that's the very nature of exponential growth. Remember the old example of bacteria in a Petri dish. Assume you know it doubles every minute, and the dish will be full in an hour. When is the dish half full? In 59 minutes! The bacteria has been almost invisible for 50 minutes then in the last 10 minutes goes from a tiny blotch to an eighth, then a quarter, then a half, and suddenly the dish is full! Most of us have been ignorant of the slow but accumulating breakthroughs in both renewable technology and the ability to scale it. Indeed, until a year ago I was pro-nuclear (for at least half the grid) because I just couldn't see how renewables could be Overbuilt sufficiently to offset winter and "Dunkelflautes". But renewables are now <em>so </em>cheap they <em>can </em>be Overbuilt for our needs. Supply lines and new tech and new investments are all kicking in, but behind the scenes. So if this were in my Petri dish metaphor, renewables are just becoming visible on the side of the dish. It's reached a critical mass and is about to explode exponentially across the next decade. So many solar <em>factories </em>are being built today that when they are finished in 2025 <a href="https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-184-eroi-of-re/" rel="nofollow ugc">they will build FOUR TIMES the solar built in 2022!</a> This is 6% of today's electricity built EVERY YEAR! 17 years to the job from solar alone! It's all growing SO FAST that the head of the International Energy Agency <a href="https://www.iea.org/news/growth-in-global-oil-demand-is-set-to-slow-significantly-by-2028" rel="nofollow ugc">predicts that oil DEMAND will peak by 2026</a> and decline from there. Experts think p<a href="http://theconversation.com/theres-a-huge-surge-in-solar-production-under-way-and-australia-could-show-the-world-how-to-use-it-190241" rel="nofollow ugc">eak FOSSIL FUELS will be reached soon</a>, and phased out WELL before 2050!

Comment on Michaux responds to critics and mentions Andrew Blaker’s study! by emigtztrrs

Sorry to hear that on the doomer group, now I understand why you comment all the time on "doomer" stuff, and yeah, I agree it is a dangerous thing, (guys like McPherson for example) and recently deep greens like Wilbert and Derrick Jensen have been revealed to be a cult. https://twitter.com/krustelkram/status/1670560780419211264?s=20 and definitely I agree uncertainty is our biggest problem here. But also I think, why people sometimes cling to the idea of a "collapse". They are afraid that we continue the status quo that has failed too much people so they rather prefer collapse(the break approach that Nate mentions) rather than the bend approach. And young people nowadays with the loneliness pandemic that is happening is extremely vulnerable to this. On Simon I don't think he is a doomer, his work on a Circular economy is really valuable and I find a book of open access in which he writes a chapter, really good. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003244196/impossibilities-circular-economy-harry-lehmann-christoph-hinske-victoire-de-margerie-aneta-slaveikova-nikolova https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350857127_Restructuring_the_Circular_Economy_into_the_Resource_Balanced_Economy On pumped hydro, it would be nice to know if that thing is resistant to droughts because if the proyections of the UN are true, next decade water demand is going to oustrip supply, so how that affects pumped hydro? We are already seeing how electricity from hydro dams is being affected by droughts, saltwater can solve the problem here? And rereading all of this, you are right on your YT comment, he should model the overbuild scenario with pumped hydro. I have watched Tony Seba's presentation and I have problems with his disruption model. The examples he uses are the car and the horse, and Uber, but there is actually a very good bulk of evidence suggesting this is more a corporate myth than an actual thing. The car-horse disruption myth comes from a book called "superfreakonomics", and pretty much that book has a strong bias towards a growth economy and his chapter on climate change is atrocious. And it's your typical economic lens that there are good and bad externalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperFreakonomics But here are the problems with this Myth, there has been books that actually state the opposite. Here is a good article on it referencing also books on the topic. https://nautil.us/did-cars-rescue-our-cities-from-horses-238349/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvcwnb9k https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262516129/fighting-traffic/ In that time the dominant mode of transport were street cars and streets were used for gathering. Cars were actually really restricted. So people in the car industry started lobbying and shaming people that walked But there's more info on this book https://roadtonowherebook.com/ the chapter on cars debunks the whole disruption myth. On the same book, actually, the author also debunks the Uber myth of disruption. Actually Uber lobbied a lot to rewrite laws and of course, sabotaging competitors with dirty business and squeezes his employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_involving_Uber https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-playbook-for-sabotaging-lyft https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign?fbclid=IwAR0aNg644A1SOIGAEffEDYSa7TEZuFx_VEklhzy4ZJCKNe55yke7LOH-yDE This is the whole modus operandi of Silicon Valley of moving fast and breaking things which on the long term actually ends up being disastrous. To date, Uber and all of those companies have never solved traffic congestion, they have made it worse and it actually induces more travel, increase emissions and exclude the most vulnerable. Not to mention that it took advantage of the precarious financial conditions of people in 2008 crisis. In fact the book discovered that a normal taxi company was more efficient than ride-hailing service. But I recommend you to read the books and RethinkX prediction on Autonomous Cars has not aged well. "Calculated that autonomous technology could be five times safer than human drivers by 2020 and ten times by 2022."Tesla’s data indicates that their EVs with Autopilot engaged are now between six and nine times safer than the average human-driven car in America." This prediction is far from being true. The fact is that Tesla has been hiding a lot of stuff from the public and has exaggerated his claims on Autonomous Vehicles. They have a much higher death toll and probably are not as safe as they claim to be and have been trying to hide this info(I could do a whole thread on Tesla and it's exaggerated claims, failures and hiding info to the public, but I'm mainly focusing on EVs) https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/elektromobilitaet-mein-autopilot-hat-mich-fast-umgebracht-tesla-files-naehren-zweifel-an-elon-musks-versprechen/29166564.html?fbclid=IwAR0Rm-2x-KS7Lvw4_WuepSzMsWxIHcxX_IJlzhsRUTa924lt1wBAjNmsr_w https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-autopilot-crashes-elon-musk/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWJpZCI6IjQ3NjI3MDk0IiwicmVhc29uIjoiZ2lmdCIsIm5iZiI6MTY4NjM2OTYwMCwiaXNzIjoic3Vic2NyaXB0aW9ucyIsImV4cCI6MTY4NzY2NTU5OSwiaWF0IjoxNjg2MzY5NjAwLCJqdGkiOiI2ZGI1MjYzNC05NzJkLTQ5YzktYTc3OC04YWE4ZjJmZjRlNjkiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy53YXNoaW5ndG9ucG9zdC5jb20vdGVjaG5vbG9neS8yMDIzLzA2LzEwL3Rlc2xhLWF1dG9waWxvdC1jcmFzaGVzLWVsb24tbXVzay8ifQ.EP2E76fynFEw-k90zJWT-f3waLFhjaFidAVDqZJu6-Q&fbclid=IwAR32n1KG9HrjsF7b__xcGIU-Tr3TwLK30MPYKJlycFlUTZh2CW4bwjbRLy0 Still, by 2030 they predict this: "By 2030, within 10 years of regulatory approval of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), 95 percent of U.S. passenger miles traveled will be served by on-demand autonomous electric vehicles owned by fleets, not individuals, in a new business model we call “transport-as-a-service” (TaaS)." But the previous book, Road to Nowhere exposes all the flaws of this approach. And here is a good lecture on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQtCZ44rI-k&t=21958s (Starts at 6:06:33 and ends, at 6:34:00). Frankly, the transportation report of RethinkX looked very suspicious and sounds more like a corporate memo advocating a car centric culture that benefits the auto industry. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bbf9b/t/59f279b3652deaab9520fba6/1568193053392/RethinkX+Transportation+Report?fbclid=IwAR1Vr29Y4vsoJAYe3LiDWxjk_JRkZuGpkujj7AHzHNPD-sCiBbm3T8OU7Ek There were several paragraphs that freaked me out. "TaaS will have the benefits of better connectivity and reduced travel time compared to public transport, along with lower costs compared to driving private vehicles. In the U.S., where the average proximity of residents to the nearest public transport stop is lower than in Europe, TaaS will likely reduce travel times even more. Faster and cheaper commutes will help to ensure that access to job opportunities, health and education services are available to all."(p.51) And the references they use to back that claim after that phrase(114) actually contradict. (the below link is the reference they use) https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/turns-uber-clogging-streets-article-1.2981765?fbclid=IwAR0AUf61SNcmNWYeHP1NGJeZdp1QDUReMVFwQHhWTY4MhVuqpAhdqcXNqb0 And also this: "We foresee a merging of public and private transportation and a pathway to free transportation in the TaaS Pool model (a subset of TaaS that entails sharing a ride with other people who are not in the passenger’s family or social group — the equivalent of today’s Uber Pool or Lyft Line). Corporations might sponsor vehicles or offer free transport to market goods or services to commuters (i.e. Starbucks Coffee on wheels4)." That sounds like they want to keep at all costs a consumer culture. That's why I'm skeptical of Seba's model, and actually on energy, it can be argued that even if Seba's disruption model is correct, energy transitions behave differently. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/renewables-growth-did-not-dent-fossil-fuel-dominance-2022-statistical-review-2023-06-25/ Renewables are growing exponentially, but they've barely made a dent on our FF consumption. They are adding to the energy demand, not substituting. When plotted that RE exponential growth with other energies, it looks like this. That's why I'm worried. https://twitter.com/Duncan_BBR/status/1669251007891603456?s=20 and there has been rebound effects. https://twitter.com/NJHagens/status/1669072120939159553?s=20&fbclid=IwAR3BAWMlVQZDtpQPmSLw63yS0VWxyyxxKR-rfUalZZklKsHcPLgTtQdkO_Y Still, it looks like I can be wrong because there has been a lot of modelling on this that suggests that the exponential phase-shift, may be true, but still most of these models think the phase-shift is happening because of the costs going down when we have actually not replaced anything. Even in one of those references it says "In 2018 renewable energy accounted for almost two thirds of new installations for electricity generation.", but still no substitution, how is the delay going to look like when we tear infrastructure down? https://ageoftransformation.org/energyphasetransition/ and we have also need to consider that we are going to blow up most of the carbon budget on the transition https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33976-5, so we should be careful with that. And the study assumes that energy demand will not grow. "The assumption that global energy demand will keep rising should be questioned. Global energy demand has the potential to level out or even fall 40% without sacrificing services and quality of life according to new energy scenarios." Probably next year(and the next 5 years) we will confirm which of these arguments is true. But hope this ends up well.

Comment on Michaux responds to critics and mentions Andrew Blaker’s study! by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/07/15/michaux-responds-to-critics-and-mentions-andrew-blakers-study/comment-page-1/#comment-1189">Eclipse Now</a>. Also - if you take climate change seriously - why are you supporting a man that basically undermines action on it? I've seen Michaux attacking renewables on Sky News - Australia's right wing channel a bit like Fox News in the States. What did they take home from him? Stay with fossil fuels until something "reliable" like Fusion arrives! Also, nuclear is illegal in Australia. So do you want to explain to me how you can support someone that promotes strawman attacks on renewables when there ARE answers to his points, but the right wing just hear him as another reason NOT to do anything?

Comment on Michaux responds to critics and mentions Andrew Blaker’s study! by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/07/15/michaux-responds-to-critics-and-mentions-andrew-blakers-study/comment-page-1/#comment-1188">emigtztrrs</a>. Way back in 2004 I became a peak oiler during a family health crisis. I was a support carer in hospital, and over tired, and my filters were down. Crazy internet stuff nearly sent me over the edge. I joined a peak email list, learned a lot about the world, and led a group that presented to State politicians in my area. I thought the world was ending - but had carer burnout. Another 19 year old engineering student I know of wasn't as lucky, and committed suicide! Unlike the cowardly leader of the peak oil doomer group I was in, I actually met with the father. That kind of pain is just not right - and these online doomer groups caused it! Now read my summary page. I get it. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/eclipse/ But I do not have time for ideologues that have got addicted to their cult-like online status and warp the truth the way Michaux has. Read point 3 here - it's such an outrageous strawman lie that I don't know why he's got such an online following. And it's NOT that hard to find out - I mean - I did and I have a SOCIAL SCIENCES background. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/michaux/ As you point out, the climate and biodiversity ecosystem crisis is bad enough - without people like Michaux intentionally lying about the potential for renewable and nuclear energy systems and robbing young people of hope. I find him intensely annoying - like a "Smart Trump" if you can imagine such a thing. He's bombastic and self-congratulating and makes me cringe as he pronounces his annoying half-truths. There's just GOT to be hope - and there is! On the other hand, we could all give up, become navel gazing doomers and try and save our own little village - and maybe lose a bunch of young people to suicide along the way. But in reality solar is doubling every 4 years, wind every 4.5 years, and just like exponential trends nothing appears to happen and then EVERYTHING HAPPENS AT ONCE! Have you watched Tony Seba's talks? It starts here, goes for about 20 minutes each, and there are 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7vhMcKvHo8&t=3s Watch them and get back to me. As for talking to Simon - no. He's vastly more knowledgeable and technical than me, and I get flustered live. But if I have time to research I can gather sources and show how silly he is being. He is not one of the good guys. Doomers like him are trying to push their theories and sell a book or something. They rob young people of hope. There is hope. Stuff is about to explode exponentially - watch Tony Seba to find out more.

Comment on Michaux responds to critics and mentions Andrew Blaker’s study! by emigtztrrs

There is no need to be spamming all the time on Simon's videos, seriously. Nafeez Ahmed who actually agrees with your evidence on renewables had a very constructive conversation with Michaux, I'm worried that we are focusing on fighting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Ga3UNp3vE&t=2419s. Ugo Bardi has actually had also a really good reply https://www.senecaeffect.com/2023/05/is-energy-transition-feasible-future-as.html We are losing time on technical details, when we actually should be working together, the debate is right in pointing out that things have become polarized. But here is my view on this issue. The great problem here is even if we have all the technologies you show on your links, I have my doubts that transition will take place on time and I think Nafeez here makes a really good argument. An optimal solar system relies on us making the right choices to avoid collapse. Now, I know from your blog that you are against the degrowth doomer views. I'm a degrowther myself and I think this position is a minority in the movement and actually most of the main degrowth/post-growth representatives are optimistic and have always repeated to not fall on the doomer side, even if things look dire. We can agree that we must degrow our economies as a transition to a post-growth economy https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/05/20/what-is-state-capture-and-how-to-reverse-it/ But still, for me there is a high risk of collapse I must say. Climate has gone nuts recently and scientists don't know WTF is happening and social problems are scalating everywhere and authoritarianism is returning /https://twitter.com/JuanBordera/status/1674436565689602055?s=20 https://twitter.com/NinaBGallo/status/1645700279965302789?s=20 What new evidence is suggesting on climate is that 1.1°C(our current level) is already a danger zone that may trigger several tipping points, we can't know for sure. https://thebulletin.org/2023/04/faster-than-forecast-climate-impacts-trigger-tipping-points-in-the-earth-system/ https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/catastrophic-climate-doom-loops-could-start-in-just-15-years-new-study-warns https://twitter.com/djspratt/status/1680105927981297664?s=20 We have been breaking climate records non stop this week, and sadly I think Dr. James Hansen(which is far from being an alarmist and his predictions since he testified on congress have been really accurate) is correct and his hypothesis of the aerosol termination shock I think will be right. https://mailchi.mp/caa/the-climate-dice-are-loaded-now-a-new-frontier?e=5df0f65e7f https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474 He has warned since his book of 2010, Storms of my Grandchildren that 1.5°C is not a safe limit https://www.amazon.com/Storms-My-Grandchildren-Catastrophe-Humanity/dp/1608195023 and we pass the 1.5°C by 2033(and also lose Summer Ice Sea). And scientists are starting to corroborate this https://twitter.com/Irreductible/status/1678354657431674880 https://twitter.com/AlisonNiEochaid/status/1677289581819973632 https://twitter.com/postcarbonsteve/status/1676293637041459200 https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1676505239740985344 So, here the thing is, and the main problem lies on how we can communicate better with each other to avoid this polarized debate and actually start a counter movement against state capture, corporate profits, etc? otherwise this is becomig dystopia This Michaux/Ahmed stuff which has involved Art Berman, Nate Hagens, etc, has caused an entire war on Twitter. Right now FF industries have infiltrated every level, even "green movements" and they are already on the move, if we die you all die with me. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/05/double-agent-fossil-fuel-lobbyists And now more than ever we should be collaborating, and definitely a better world is possible. Ahmed has put it succintly, next decade determines the fate of humanity, period. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-03-14/the-next-decade-will-be-the-most-pivotal-in-history-this-is-the-global-phase-shift/ So, is it possible to you to have an actual good dialogue with Simon or have you tried? i think a call in person would clarify lot's of things.

Comment on “The Eclipse” – my summary page of the combined challenges we face this century by geoff mckee (@gamke)

Very moving and brilliantly written. You are a writer, that's why you write. I will email you about this issue. You have helped me understand a little better.

Comment on Michaux “Paints the world Singapore.” by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/02/01/message-for-michaux/comment-page-1/#comment-1179">mikestasse</a>. So Mike – good to see you don’t have a defence for Michaux? Going to “unfollow” him on the Ecomodernist show now you know his paper is crap? Going to Recant on your blog about “following” Michaux? Seriously – he wanted to “paint the world Singapore” with 15 metre hills worldwide. You agree that’s just not on, right? But Michaux is correct when he calls pumped hydro the cheapest form of power storage by far. It's just a few big water reservoirs and pipes and a turbine room - and they last 100 years. We know how to build them off-river and cover them in floating solar panels. Easy. Anyway - Murphy. 7 days storage hey? Better than Michaux's 4 weeks - but still over triple what we need. You really need to learn one energy concept Mike - Overbuild. Right now you’re ignoring the world of renewable energy engineer David Osmond, who modelled one of Australia's worst energy years - 2022's La Nina weather! He analysed all the weather and problems on a daily basis and had a very public conversation about it all on his blog. Just a 70% Overbuild fixes this. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/overbuild/ At that link above I show where a Griffith University study into 4 decades of Aussie whether also concludes that Overbuild can help firm the grid. Blakers et al just plan the most economised grid, with plenty of wind and solar but also HVDC between Queensland and Victoria and enough storage for 2 days. They’ve tested the model with years of weather data – and it works. Now – even Murphy’s own writing gives away the period of history he was writing in. It was just a different energy world, where wind and solar were an order of magnitude more expensive than they are today. "Note that 7 days of storage does not literally mean that we are prepared to experience 7 days with zero input from the renewable infrastructure. Operating at 30% of the break-even amount over a period of 10 days also leaves the system with a 7-day energy deficit, for instance. This circumstance is not too difficult to imagine: a cloudy winter week over the southwest while the wind speed over the country is half its average value (means eight times less power) over the same period." Tom Murphy has sown the seeds of his own argument’s destruction here. All that was needed? A decade to enter a different world – when the learning curves and economies of scale finally kick in and solar becomes 90% cheaper. Solar is now ¼ the cost of nuclear. If your renewables drop to 30% during winter in the USA – you CAN now build THREE TIMES the solar! It’s that cheap! I basically would have agreed with Tom Murphy’s vibe back then – because wind and solar were too expensive to Overbuild. Now they’re not. Sure – America could probably build more solar down south where there’s less snow and HVDC it up to the northern states. But here it is – Lazard’s LCOE. With these super-cheap prices (and getting cheaper!) – it’s a different world. But that doesn’t stop you quoting a 12 year old paper, does it Mike? LAZARD: https://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/LazardLCOEunsubs.jpg Now - to be fair to nuclear – Lazard includes all recent nuclear costs combined. There's been some really bad project management and even public sabotage and legal challenges that have overblown nuclear costs in the western world lately. South Korea can still build them affordably - but that seems to be a lost art in America. IF some bold party in the West got their act together and started something like the French 1970's Mesmer plan, we could standardise the best Gen3.5 reactor today and arrange to build 30 or so. Then the prices would come down and you would have an easier grid to manage. But even then - would it be as cheap? Apparently solar is STILL getting learning curve benefits – and has maybe another 7 years of cost drops before it finally levels out!

Comment on Michaux “Paints the world Singapore.” by mikestasse

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

Comment on Fortescue kills the last Doomer myth by Eclipse Now

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/01/30/fortescue-kills-the-last-doomer-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-1174">mikestasse</a>. "Research also pointed to INTJ’s as being Masterminds, not something I’ve ever really thought of as a personal trait, but I did feel chuffed, I have to admit……. brought a smile to the dial." Oh wow. A puff piece to show much of a genius you are? That's what you're resorting to? Ha ha ha! First - Myer's Brigg's is to psychology as Astrology is to the stars. OCEAN is a more rigorous personality system - but even it has limits. But trying to justify your peak energy worldview based on a Myer’s Brigg’s test is too funny! Second - a personality profile does NOT check intelligence! Third - your appeal to "big picture thinking" is a logical fallacy to hide that you cannot actually justify your opinion. There are a variety of big picture paradigms to view the energy transition – such as economic, sociological, technological, and geological (as in the metals resource base.) Yours is none of those in particular – just “the vibe of the thing.” “Everything is connected” but you refuse to label how – which discipline you’re thinking from. The more you click your ruby slippers together and just assert “There’s nothing like oil, there’s nothing like oil…”, the more the world comes up with real, concrete alternatives. We’ve already invented 95% of what we need. (Airlines and shipping are still open questions – but there are possible answers to even those.) You want “big picture thinking”? Have you heard of “Electrify Everything?” It makes everything vastly more efficient, from charging cars from the roof through to using heat pumps for warmth. All we must do is deploy these things. I’m not saying deployment will be smooth – we may have left it too late to avoid a Recession or even Depression. But there is a huge difference between a Depression and Mad Max. Still having food and the ability to call 000 is a LOT! Anyone who has studied the history of oil should be able to spot an exponential growth pattern. You refuse to see it. Maybe in 7 years when Australia is 80% or 90% done – you’ll finally admit to yourself what’s happening? In the meantime you quote Michaux and Morgan, M&M and they have about as much credibility as a pack of M&M’s! They seem technically smart in their different fields – but if someone like myself can spot their wonky presuppositions then imagine what the peer-reviewed guys would find! Not "enough metals" or "high enough EROEI" – as if! Both were debunked years ago. It’s not my fault you rave about M&M’s. Fourth, you want to be congratulated for your pessimism – as if you alone have special insights into the world. But we ALL know there’s a resource and biodiversity crisis. There are very real reasons for concern. But also very real reasons for action and hope! Sadly you appear unable to get your identity out of anything more than being the self-appointed “leader” of a flipping doomer email list! You’re like a secular-version of an end-times prophet thumping your tub and exclaiming "I TOLD YOU 20 YEARS AGO!" Here’s the thing Mike. I joined your email list for activist advice – not life advice. I was going through a family health crisis at the time – and joining your email list was probably the dumbest thing I ever did. This sort of peak energy Doomerism has certain well-known outcomes. http://restoringmayberry.blogspot.com/2008/12/moment-of-darkness.html "Peak energy" is a myth because the studies have shown that a renewable energy system from renewable materials will do power the world abundantly, cheaply, sustainably, effectively (in most areas) and clean the air and stabilise the climate. So rather than doom and gloom - I say "Electrify Everything!"

Comment on Fortescue kills the last Doomer myth by mikestasse

In reply to <a href="https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2023/01/30/fortescue-kills-the-last-doomer-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-1171">Eclipse Now</a>. See, that's YOUR PROBLEM. Too much specificity and not enough big picture thinking so you can join the dots. We think completely differently because we have totally different personalities. It's now clear to me that you will never get it. Everything is connected. https://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/to-be-or-not-to-be/