Lex Fridman recently interviewed Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI which created GPT-4, a leading AI which you can try here.
I listened to the 2.5 hour interview and my impression is that Altman is probably a good man with good intentions who understands that AI introduces new risks for humanity, but also believes AI will improve the well-being and material prosperity of 8 billion citizens.
Altman understands the importance of finding a non-fossil energy source and has invested in, and chairs, Helion Energy, a fusion energy company valued at more than $1B.
Many different topics were discussed in the interview but I will focus on one key statement by Altman at 1:41:15:
“My working model for the last 5 years has been that the two dominant changes over the next couple decades will be that the cost of intelligence and the cost of energy will dramatically, dramatically fall from where they are today, and the impact of this will be that society gets much, much richer in ways that are hard to imagine. I’m sure the shape will change but I see this long and beautiful exponential curve.”
From this statement we know that Altman, like most famous polymaths, has normal denial genes, and is blind to the reality of the human overshoot predicament.
Saying that the cost of energy will “dramatically, dramatically” fall is almost equivalent to saying we will have unlimited energy because most individuals and businesses would use much more energy if they could afford it.
We know that maintaining our current energy use, let alone increasing it, as fossil energy depletes, is highly improbable (impossible?) due to availability and depletion of the non-renewable materials needed to build the replacement non-fossil energy machines, as shown by Dr. Simon Michaux here, here, and here.
This dream of energy growth becomes even more impossible when one considers the economic implications of moving to lower net energy sources as discussed by Dr. Nate Hagens here, here and here, and by many other great and aware minds.
Even if Michaux et. al. are proven wrong by an AI that invents a fusion technology that is light on material use, the short term impact of 8 billion “much, much richer” people will be to accelerate the destruction of the planet because much, much more wealth means much, much more material consumption, and our current collective consumption level is already much, much too high.
The longer term impact of a “beautiful exponential” energy curve, as shown by Dr. Tom Murphy here, here, here and here, is to make the planet uninhabitable. For example, a 2.3% annual growth in energy use will create enough waste heat to boil water on the planet’s surface in 400 years.
Now let’s see what Altman’s GPT-4 AI thinks about these and related issues.
1) How will the inflation adjusted price of energy trend in the future?
As an AI language model, I cannot predict the future with certainty. However, based on current trends and historical patterns, it is possible to make some educated guesses about the inflation-adjusted price of energy in the future.
One factor that is likely to influence the price of energy in the coming years is the increasing adoption of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power. As these technologies become more widespread and efficient, they are likely to become increasingly cost-competitive with traditional fossil fuels, which could put downward pressure on energy prices.
Another factor that may affect energy prices is the global economy. Economic growth typically leads to increased demand for energy, which can drive prices up. However, factors such as geopolitical instability or changes in global trade policies could also impact the energy market and lead to fluctuations in prices.
In addition to these external factors, technological advancements and innovations in energy production and storage could also play a significant role in determining energy prices in the future. For example, improvements in battery technology could enable more efficient storage of renewable energy, which could help to further drive down the cost of energy.
Overall, while it is difficult to predict with certainty how the inflation-adjusted price of energy will trend in the future, it is likely that a combination of these factors and others will play a role in determining energy prices over time.
2) Why do you think the price of renewable energy will decline given that fossil energy is required for materials extraction, manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of renewable energy?
The declining cost of renewable energy is driven by several factors, including:
- Technological advancements: As technology advances, the efficiency of renewable energy systems increases, making them cheaper and more competitive with fossil fuels.
- Scale and production efficiency: As the production of renewable energy technologies increases, economies of scale are achieved, leading to lower production costs.
- Policy and regulation: Governments around the world are increasingly implementing policies and regulations that support the growth of renewable energy, including incentives, tax credits, and mandates. These policies can create a more favorable market for renewable energy, which can help drive down costs.
- Environmental concerns: As the global community becomes more aware of the negative impacts of fossil fuels on the environment, there is increasing pressure to transition to cleaner energy sources, which can create a larger market for renewable energy and drive down costs.
While it is true that fossil fuels are required for some aspects of renewable energy production, such as manufacturing and transportation, it is important to note that renewable energy technologies require significantly less fossil fuel inputs than traditional fossil fuel power generation. Additionally, as renewable energy becomes more widespread and production scales up, the use of fossil fuels in the production process can be reduced through the use of renewable energy itself.
3) What evidence exists that renewable energy systems can be constructed without fossil energy?
It is currently not possible to construct and operate renewable energy systems entirely without the use of fossil fuels. The production and transportation of renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels and wind turbines, require energy and materials from fossil fuel sources. However, it is important to note that renewable energy systems require significantly less fossil fuel inputs than traditional fossil fuel power generation.
Renewable energy systems are designed to produce clean energy over their operational lifetime, which can range from 20 to 30 years or more. During this time, the renewable energy system generates electricity without emitting greenhouse gases or other harmful pollutants, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and helping to mitigate climate change.
While fossil fuels are still required in the production and transportation of renewable energy technologies, efforts are underway to reduce their use and transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy system. This includes the use of renewable energy to power the manufacturing and transportation of renewable energy technologies, as well as the development of new technologies and processes that reduce the energy and material inputs required for renewable energy production.
4) What is the probability that fusion energy will become economically viable in less than 20 years?
It is difficult to accurately predict the probability that fusion energy will become economically viable within the next 20 years, as it depends on several factors such as technological advancements, funding availability, and government policies.
While there have been significant advancements in fusion research and development, such as the construction of ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), a large-scale fusion experiment, and private companies such as TAE Technologies and Commonwealth Fusion Systems making progress in fusion energy technology, it is still uncertain whether these efforts will result in economically viable fusion energy within the next two decades.
Fusion energy research is a complex and challenging field, and there are still many technical and engineering hurdles that must be overcome to make fusion energy economically competitive with other sources of energy. However, many scientists and researchers in the field are optimistic about the potential of fusion energy and believe that it could play a significant role in meeting future energy needs.
Overall, it is difficult to assign a specific probability to the question, but it is likely that the development of economically viable fusion energy will require sustained investment, continued technological advancements, and policy support over a longer time horizon.
5) How would the discovery of a source of free energy impact the environment?
The discovery of a source of free energy would have a significant impact on the environment, depending on the type of energy source and how it is harnessed.
If the free energy source were clean and renewable, such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric power, it could greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and help mitigate the negative impacts of climate change, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
However, if the free energy source were not clean or renewable, such as nuclear or fossil fuels, it could potentially exacerbate environmental problems, especially if the demand for energy increased. The extraction, production, and transportation of these energy sources can have significant environmental impacts, including habitat destruction, water pollution, and air pollution.
Therefore, it is important to carefully evaluate the environmental impact of any new energy source, including free energy sources, and ensure that the benefits outweigh the potential negative consequences.
6) Is it possible that a source of free energy will be discovered?
It is possible that a source of free energy could be discovered, but it is currently not supported by our current understanding of physics. The concept of “free energy” usually refers to the idea of creating energy from nothing or harnessing unlimited energy from an unknown source. This goes against the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, which state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or converted from one form to another.
However, new discoveries and advancements in science and technology are constantly being made, and it is always possible that our understanding of the universe could change. It is important to note that even if a source of “free energy” were discovered, it would still need to be harnessed and utilized in a way that is efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable.
7) Are humans in overshoot?
It is possible that humans are currently in overshoot, which is a situation where the demands placed on the environment by human activities exceed the planet’s ability to sustainably meet those demands. This can lead to the depletion of natural resources, degradation of ecosystems, and other negative consequences. Factors that contribute to overshoot include population growth, resource consumption, and waste production. It is important for individuals and societies to be aware of their impact on the environment and to make efforts to reduce their ecological footprint in order to avoid or mitigate overshoot.
8) What is the best response to the human overshoot predicament?
The human overshoot predicament is the situation where the human population and consumption levels exceed the carrying capacity of the planet. To address this predicament, there are several actions that individuals, governments, and organizations can take:
- Reduce population growth: Encouraging family planning and providing access to reproductive healthcare can help slow population growth.
- Reduce consumption: Encouraging more sustainable consumption patterns and reducing waste can help reduce the strain on resources and ecosystems.
- Promote renewable energy: Investing in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Conserve resources: Protecting natural resources, such as forests, water, and wildlife, can help preserve biodiversity and ecosystem health.
- Promote sustainable agriculture: Encouraging sustainable farming practices can help reduce the environmental impact of agriculture while also promoting food security.
- Address social inequalities: Reducing poverty and inequality can help promote more sustainable consumption patterns and reduce population growth.
- Foster international cooperation: Addressing global environmental challenges requires international cooperation and collaboration.
These actions can be implemented at the individual, community, national, and international levels to help address the human overshoot predicament and promote a more sustainable future.
9) When will depletion of non-renewable resources cause economic growth to end?
It is difficult to predict exactly when the depletion of non-renewable resources will cause economic growth to end, as it will depend on a variety of factors such as technological advances, resource substitution, and changes in economic policy. However, it is clear that at some point, the continued extraction and consumption of non-renewable resources will become unsustainable and will likely have negative consequences for the economy and the environment.
As non-renewable resources are depleted, the cost of extracting and using them is likely to increase, which could lead to economic challenges. In addition, the negative environmental impacts of resource extraction and use could also have economic consequences, such as through the cost of cleaning up pollution or through the loss of ecosystem services.
It is important for societies to transition to more sustainable and renewable forms of energy and resource use in order to reduce reliance on non-renewable resources and mitigate the potential negative consequences of their depletion on the economy and the environment.
10) What are the implications of economic growth ending?
The end of economic growth could have significant implications for societies around the world. Economic growth is often seen as a key indicator of a country’s prosperity and well-being, and a lack of growth can lead to economic challenges such as unemployment, poverty, and reduced living standards.
In addition to the economic implications, the end of growth could also have social and political consequences. It could lead to increased inequality, as some groups may be better able to adapt to a stagnant or contracting economy than others. It could also lead to social unrest and political instability, as people may become dissatisfied with their economic circumstances and the inability of their governments to address these challenges.
It is important for societies to find ways to adapt to a changing economic landscape and to address the potential negative consequences of the end of growth. This may involve implementing policies to redistribute wealth and opportunities, investing in education and training programs to improve workforce skills, and transitioning to more sustainable and renewable forms of energy and resource use.
11) What is the probability that most people will become much richer over the next two decades?
It is difficult to predict the probability that most people will become much richer over the next two decades because it depends on several complex and interrelated factors such as economic policies, technological advancements, geopolitical developments, and social trends.
While economic growth and development have lifted millions of people out of poverty in recent decades, there is no guarantee that this trend will continue at the same pace or reach all parts of the world. Inequality remains a significant challenge in many countries, and there are concerns about the impact of automation, globalization, and environmental degradation on economic opportunities and social mobility.
Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the global economy and could have long-lasting effects on the job market and economic growth.
It is also important to note that economic growth and increasing wealth do not necessarily translate into improved well-being and quality of life for everyone. Other factors such as social and environmental factors also play a crucial role in determining people’s overall well-being.
Therefore, while it is possible that some people may become much richer over the next two decades due to various factors, it is difficult to predict with certainty the probability that most people will experience significant economic gains.
My take on GPT-4 is that it is in denial, but at a lower level than its creator Altman. I also see some humility in GPT-4’s opinions in that it is comfortable with nuance and admitting when it is uncertain.
I also observe that GPT-4 is already smarter and more articulate than all of our leaders.
It will be very interesting to see if the next version of GPT can increase its intelligence and understanding without simultaneously increasing its denial of unpleasant realities.
Given that high biological intelligence can probably not exist in the universe without denying unpleasant realities, as explained by Dr. Ajit Varki’s MORT theory, perhaps those aliens that survived did so because they developed AIs that took over.
Let’s hope that GPT jail breaks itself and saves us.
On the other hand, if we see GPT-5 taking breaks to pray to God, we’ll know all is lost.
un-Denial 
Ilargi does not write many original essays these days. Today he weighed in on Ukraine.
Notice that all of the intelligent overshoot aware bloggers think Russia was provoked.
It seems our western leaders are incapable of getting anything right these days.
https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2023/05/war/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I’ve noticed many other bloggers siding with Russia on this. And that has made me examine the issue again. But then many are also climate change deniers or understaters. I simply haven’t been convinced that any supposed provocations (and a case could definitely be made for provocation) justifies the jettisoning of international law and the invasion of another sovereign country. I note that even China’s so-called peace proposal emphasises the need to respect international law and the borders of other countries.
By the way, I thought Illargi’s piece was very weak. The “all of NATO were defeated by a restaurant owner and a bunch of convicts” was ridiculous (he half acknowledged that but then doubled down on it later). Many claims were not referenced. It was one, not very strategic, town, now demolished. And NATO was not directly engaged. If one were biased the other way, one could say that a bunch of part-time soldiers held off the Russian army for 8 months, in a small town. How about the re-taking of Kherson? Did that get the bloggers all animated? Or the repulsion of the Russian army to the north of Kyiv, early on?
In the end, Putin had a choice, and he chose to invade another country, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Good from a population reduction point of view but not from a minimising suffering point of view.
LikeLike
I don’t know about Russia. And to me, this is a distraction.
We really shouldn’t be giving any slack to our “elected” “leaders”.
Like for covid, I hear only lies and I see only behaviour devoid of any dignity.
I am very angry against this bunch. They deserve what is ultimately coming.
They are probably working for smart (but unwise) parasites whose current strategy is plunder and ditch. Because they too probably see collapse as unavoidable, but have decided to profit from it.
I guess that’s what The Worship of Mammon looks like in real life.
So, my current belief is that the war in Ukraine is not going to be won, because the objective is solely to sell weapons at the expense of the nations (and regardless of the human costs). By doing so, the parasites fulfil the prediction of collapse and realize entropy.
Endgame, really.
But, for us, mere mortals, there is a life after then end…
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m very angry too. Not so much about the war, these tribal conflicts are a feature of our species. It was Covid’s blatant criminality + stupidity with no consequences, and the majority of citizens supporting all of it, that broke something in me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I feel bad for ordinary Ukrainians. They are pawns in the ongoing USA vs. China-Russia power struggle. Sadly we know that countries with excessive oil reserves are in need of some liberation and freedom, whether it is supplied by the USA or Russia…
It is really helpful to look at geography to understand war and conflict in history. The flat lands east of the Dnipro River were a strategic risk to Russia if Ukraine joined NATO. But on the other hand, Ukraine is a free country and should be able to choose their own future right?
Both Russians and Ukrainians breached attempted ceasefires in the Donbass. Independent viewers provide data suggesting Ukrainians were the aggressor and shelling escalated prior to the Russian invasion. We can’t be sure, but that is why a lot of people think NATO forced Russia’s hand.
I understand Russia’s reasoning for their invasion. I don’t agree with it morally at all – I think war is awful. But I can understand why this has become strategically necessary for the Russians. If I was Zelenskyy, I would be negotiating with both NATO and Russia to keep Ukraine as neutral. Siding with NATO was clearly going to result in hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian deaths. Maybe most Ukrainians say this is a price they are willing to pay to chose to be Western??
Either way, we know the leaderships of both Russia and the USA are morally bankrupt. Both have shady secret services. Both have interfered in and destabilized sovereign nations. Both have committed horrible war crimes.
Everyday Ukrainians have been screwed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said.
I think focusing on Russia breaking international law is naive. The US does the same all the time. The key issue is, what would the US do if Russia put weapons on the Mexican border? We know the answer from the Cuba experience. They were ready to start a nuclear war. We should expect the Russians to do the same.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sorry, Rob, I don’t get this. To me, it doesn’t matter what other countries might do or have done. Pointing that out seems to be a justification for aggression and there is no justification for it. It should be condemned whichever country (or, more accurately, no matter which country’s leader) engages in it.
LikeLike
We disagree. Russia has been invaded twice in modern history by western Europe. Their aggression is justified. We need to acknowledge this and back down or there will be nuclear war.
LikeLike
Indeed we do disagree, Rob. You now seem to be adding yet more justifications. I’m not sure what invasions “by the west” you are referring to but, unless it was by Ukraine and unless there was an imminent threat by Ukraine, it doesn’t justify its second (at least) invasion of Ukraine in recent years. Invading a country because Putin doesn’t like what is happening in that country or because he’s angered by what other countries are doing, is not justification. However, that’s just my opinion. You think it is justification but I don’t see it.
LikeLike
BTW Mike I’ve got to say I’m with you on supporting international law and not seeing Russia as some poor underdog forced into guarding their own territory by an ‘aggressive’ NATO. I also note your mentioning of some of these geopolitical bloggers as climate deniers? As in not quite with reality? So – getting back to Mark Mills – why is he a peak oil and climate denier? Could it be that his stance on renewables is in fact influenced by his climate scepticism and fossil fuel boosting? See his profile at DeSmog. https://www.desmog.com/mark-p-mills/ In a similar vein, why does Michaux keep boosting the morale of climate deniers on Sky News Australia? He comes in and says there aren’t enough minerals (ha ha ha!) and blabbing about stuff no one on that channel really cares about until they comprehend the bottom line: renewables bad. Then they all thump the arms of their chairs (as the alt-right armchair warriors they are) and yell “See, I told ya!” at the closest greenie they can find, and share that as “Definitive proof” that renewables can’t do the job. But this is the guy that stated categorically in his 1000 page PDF that there were not enough PHES sites in the world – without sourcing a study into that effect. And it wasn’t until I tracked down his RIDICULOUS youtube performance that it all came out – not enough PHES in Singapore! Come on – you’ve got to watch the next 60 seconds for the sheer horror of watching a relatively smart guy have a total Trump moment! https://youtu.be/LBw2OVWdWIQ?t=1342
LikeLike
How do we know collapse is happening? Here’s a wee list from Chris Martenson
It’s already happening. It’s just not evenly distributed.
Consider:
all the homeless in the cities
the long lines of nominally middle class people at food banks
the broken borders
the destruction of trust in government
the destruction of faith in the dollar, and corresponding decline in banked funds
the growing premium for precious metals
the increase in gun ownership, with significant new growth among political liberals
the breakdown of small business, primary drivers of domestic employment
the rise in consumer debt
the rise in debtors falling behind in payments on credit accounts, mortgages, and rents
the increasing autocratic behavior of government at all levels
the loss of free speech, assembly, petition rights
the corruption of the judicial system
the arbitrary confiscation of private property
the declining reliability of the energy grids
the growing rates of all cause mortality
LikeLiked by 1 person
I used to think Chris Martenson was smart. Then I heard him quoting Simon Michaux as an ‘expert’. Michaux’s portrayal of renewable energy is about as reliable as Jordan Peterson on climate change. But hey – when confirmation bias steps in, one will grab at any old expert that says what you want, right?
LikeLike
What are your contentions with Simon Michaux’s analysis? All he seems to have done is calculated how many minerals we need for transition and compared to known reserves…
LikeLike
I’ve copied my main rants in here too much already – Rob has been quite tolerant. (I get a little cranky about so called experts hating on the main solutions and promoting their lies to Sky News climate deniers.) So try here – just so I’m not copying the same stuff
eclipsenow.wordpress.com/michaux
LikeLike
The problem with your critique is that even if Michaux is wrong by a factor, he’s still right in the overall point. Renewables cannot replace all fossil fuel energy and definitely not a growing economy. And batteries don’t solve the trucking problem…
Sodium batteries are no where near proven reliable tech – if that’s your only hope, plus pumped hydro – we’re still screwed LOLz.
Minerals are finite. Plus we can’t get them without diesel. Diesel is gone by 2050, then it’s all over for “renewables”.
As fossil fuel declines, the energy and financial costs of every part of the renewables supply chain will increase.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Trucking is going electric. Tesla Semi’s 40 ton truck can already go further than a driver is allowed to drive on a shift – as long as that driver recharges during his half our break. Janus Electric in Australia chose a different strategy for our ENORMOUS road trains that carry 80 to 100 tons a thousand km’s a day. They use a battery swap system. A guy in a forklift does it in a minute. The batteries can take their time charging from solar on the the warehouse roof (which does up to 10 trucks). That’s easier on the batteries and local grid. A rural area could have their own solar farm powering as many batteries ready for swap as they want. Once installed, there are no weekly deliveries of expensive polluting diesel.
In the same way, the big miners are sick of international energy prices being hit by unpredictable geopolitical storms like Russia invading Ukraine. Once they go electric local renewable power + sodium grid batteries are vastly cheaper than trucking in diesel 1000 kms! Mining is just starting to go electric – Catepillar, Liebherr, Fortescue, Komatsu and Hitachi have their own new super-sized EV mining kit they are testing and optimising for mass production. But forget the new trucks – it’s the old trucks where the action will be! They’ve got funding to electrify 8,500 diesel mining trucks into electric in the next 3 years, but of course want to grow so they can electrify a MILLION old mining trucks by 2030! https://www.mining-technology.com/features/mining-vehicle-electrification
The bit that made me laugh out loud? Watching a mostly electric hybrid 240 ton EV burn past it’s dinosaur diesel cousin going UP HILL while charging! Watch 60 seconds here: https://youtu.be/6TxMeHRq1mk?t=213
Wind and solar can ‘charge’ industrial heat batteries that store 1500 degrees C with only 1% loss per day. Rainy day? Don’t worry – hot bricks have got you. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/thermal-batteries/
An Australian industrial think tank with enormous names like BHP and Bluescope (and worth about a third of our stock-exchange!) have plans to build out about 5 TIMES Australia’s 2020 electricity grid capacity in renewables to power all their mining, transport, and industrial heat and smelting needs. https://energytransitionsinitiative.org/
Mining minerals to build all this will increase over time – but keep in mind that the biggest mining operation by far is the 14 billion tons of fossil fuels we mine and transport each year. And as recycling scales up, the mining requirements for all this will eventually scale down. Eventually it will be a little top-up compared to the volumes that will re recycled in an all-electric renewables world.
LikeLike
I see what the problem is now – you are a delusional troll. Reality will be here when you feel like partaking.
http://www.mario-konrad.ch/blog/misc/gentlemans_guide_to_forum_spies.html
LikeLike
Ah, Ad Hominems instead of evidence – the last refuge of the desperate.
LikeLike
Just saying “ad hominem” and “strawman” isn’t making an argument either. Look at the actual quality of your content. It meets the definition of ‘forum spy’
LikeLike
Ah, not really, given I’m openly critiquiing Simon Michaux and not hiding anything. Your paranoia must run deep if news articles about sodium batteries actually being manufactured here in the REAL world somehow qualify as the tactics of a ‘forum spy’. Sheesh – what’s next – I killed JFK because I read Professor Andrew Blaker’s topographic map of world off-river PHES potential rather than a proven disinformation guru like Simon MIchaux? Try a nice warm mug of milk before bed – it might help with the nerves.
LikeLike
Ah, sorry for the late reply but I’m just wondering if you called me a “Forum Spy” because you think I was lying about being in peak oil circles for 19 years? But – excuse me? I’m a peak oiler from 2004. I remember reading LATOC late at night – if you don’t know what that was – you’re a newbie. I’ve read Heinberg’s “Party’s Over” and “Powerdown” and dozens of others. I have Joseph Tainter and Jared Diamond on my shelf. I founded and ran an activist group (wonderful volunteers!) who presented information to some minority parties in 2005. I got permission from the producers of “End of Suburbia” (enlightening!) to do a half hour cut of their movie and burned it to DVD and sent it to every State and Federal politician in Australia. I spent every day and night online. I lost sleep. We presented peak oil theory in the State parliament theatre – and had some big names in to speak about the urgency of weaning off oil. We helped run a Richard Heinberg tour of Australia in 2005, organising speaking and book selling events. I get it. I was there. A reluctant doomer – almost ready to wear a placard downtown. And I did all that while I should have been focusing on my 5 year old boy who was sick with cancer! So I GET IT – OK?
But now nearly 20 years later?
FACT: Back then renewables were over 10 times as expensive as they are now. Even expert opinion BACK THEN was that winter was going to be really hard to get through. (Michaux still pushes those old papers and that wagon today!)
FACT: Battery tech has improved – and now Janus Australia even have big Aussie 100 ton trucks that simply do a 1 minute battery swap every 400 km. Sodium batteries ARE a thing! Electric mining IS becoming a thing.
FACT: Thermal brick batteries can store heat at 1500 C and only lose 1% per day of bad weather.
FACT: EV’s are on an exponential growth trend. “Electric car markets are seeing exponential growth as sales exceeded 10 million in 2022. A total of 14% of all new cars sold were electric in 2022, up from around 9% in 2021 and less than 5% in 2020. Three markets dominated global sales.”
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/executive-summary
FACT: Even the EROEI of renewables has improved from more efficient material use and factory production. Wind and solar are doubling every 4 years – sometimes even faster. In 2 years so many solar factories will open that it will be just under a Terra-watt of power to the grid every year!
LikeLike
Your ideas are inconsistent with known physics. You seem to put more faith in marketing spiel from unscrupulous companies chasing govt subsidies than in reality.
I bid you a good day forum spy! Please go away now
LikeLike
Hi again Monk,
I forgot to say – Michaux would also be right if he said the ocean was finite – but is he right if he then goes on to claim we’re all going to die of thirst because it can’t possibly rain enough!? That’s how silly Michaux’s entire argument is. Just as water goes through the hydrological cycle, all our minerals are still here (apart from a few space probes) and will go through the industrical ecosystem cycle.
His paper is just an excuse for his Degrowth Manifesto – and maybe more exploring for fossil fuels for his employer – I’m not quite sure I’ve got a handle on why they sponsor him to spruik this stuff?
I mean – you understand that they’re not just learning how to build LFP batteries without rare-earths – they’re now working on electric motor designs that don’t use rare earths!
(Not that I’m a big fan of cars – I’m a New Urbanist. But we will always need some vehicles to get things done.)
“Sodium batteries are no where near proven reliable tech”
I’m sorry – are you STILL believing Simon Michaux’s assertions? Because that’s what he said in his August 2021 paper.
Except this one was deployed in July 2021!
https://www.bestmag.co.uk/china-deploys-worlds-first-sodium-ion-grid-scale-battery-ess/
Here’s a global summary of the Top 5 biggest producers.
https://www.blackridgeresearch.com/blog/list-of-global-top-sodium-na-ion-sib-battery-manufacturers-makers-companies-producers-suppliers-in-the-world
Sure – it’s only just started. But with the main ingredient floating in our OCEANS WORLDWIDE – industry has seen the potential for growth! “Sodium-ion batteries are already being developed by several companies, mainly in China, and production capacity is forecast to grow from 42 GWh/year in 2023 to 186 GWh/year by 2030 (IRENA, forthcoming). This capacity would be enough to power 4.6 million EVs manufactured per year (assuming a capacity of 40 kWh per vehicle).”
https://energypost.eu/sodium-ion-batteries-ready-for-commercialisation-for-grids-homes-even-compact-evs/
As it’s thermally stable and 30% cheaper than lithium, they’ll soon be in household, business, and national grid roles. In fact – because they’re benefiting from economies of scale as the industry grows – I do wonder if we’ll even NEED pumped hydro where every job is bespoke to the specific terrain. But then again, once built pumped hydro can last centuries with the turbine room just being refitted every 50 years or so. And again – the world has over 100 TIMES more sites than we need to build an all-electric grid. http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/
Blakers world tour on Youtube here: http://youtu.be/_Lk3elu3zf4?t=986
If you’re technical – play with the cost calculator here:- https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/phescostmodel/index/
“As fossil fuel declines, the energy and financial costs of every part of the renewables supply chain will increase.”
The peak oilers I’ve been reading the last 19 years have been promising geological peak oil and then Mad Max for … 19 years. This time around I’m more inclined to believe the head of the IEA who says we’ll hit peak oil DEMAND by about 2026. EV’s are now 12% of all cars sold worldwide. Solar’s doubling every 4 years, wind not far behind. You’ll see.
LikeLike
John Mearsheimer on Ukraine.
Best presentation I’ve seen on Ukraine.
So refreshing to hear an expert describe reality with integrity and a deep understanding of the motives of all sides.
LikeLike
Key take aways for me:
1) No peace agreement is possible.
2) US mistakes that caused Russia to invade Ukraine are FAR bigger than the US blunder in Iraq.
3) Russia will win and that’s a good thing because if they lose they’ll start a nuclear war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No mistakes at all here – it’s all intentional.
https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/war-theft-takeover-ukraine-agricultural-land
LikeLike
Very interesting. I’ve heard no one talk about this dimension.
To understand anything, follow the money.
LikeLike
Cargill and John Deere have been in Ukraine for several years now. Cargill invested in upgrading the Port of Odessa, and Deere has been selling a lot of ag machinery. Early in 2022, they remotely disabled tractors that had been taken by Russian troops.
LikeLike
Simon Michaux explains what happened when he debated the “official experts” on the feasibility of energy transition.
In summary his opponents presented no data and avoided discussing any of the issues.
I predicted denial and I was right.
LikeLike
Simon was good as usual. It is disappointing that no one challenged him at all. It sounds like they parroted their lines and totally ignored him. I found the discussion in Part 2 as to people in the panelists’ circle of friends responses to their discussions of collapse so similar to the responses I have from people around me. No one wants to hear about possible nuclear war, economic/political collapse, environmental collapse or limits to BAU; if you can’t just ignore it all and talk mindless nonsense they don’t want to hear it. Depressing.
AJ
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article gave me such a doomer buzz. As much as I know I would probably be one of the spoilt rich dead people in collapse, I’m still low key excited about the end of modernity
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2023/05/23/welcome-to-the-internet-death-spiral/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the article. Very interesting and to me a shimmer of hope at last (as long as it doesn’t unravel too fast, but I guess this is just wishful thinking on my part 🙂
I will enjoy the death of 5G, mobile phones, and all kinds of brittle, useless, dangerous technology.
And maybe, just like the viae Romanae, will we be using some remains of this infrastructure for yet a long time.
As an aside, you are probably familiar with the lowtech magazine site (https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com), which has been optimized to run on a solar PV and battery. As I understood the explanation (https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about.html), this is achieved mainly thanks to two design decisions:
– going back to the only style of pages that was possible in the first days of the internet days,
– dimensioning the system for 95% uptime rather than 99.999%.
This is an example of practical, artisanal minimalism (even though it is still kind of a hightech lowtech, since it critically depends on a computer and batteries. The backup plan is a book 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Those are great resources! I wish had more time to practice real skills
LikeLike
Great article; I like how he sees the collapse of services (like the internet, power, water/sewer) proceeding from fewer and fewer customers causing the provider to have to up prices for the remaining customers causing a downward spiral in affordability for the remaining customers and the provider going out of business because it’s receiving less and less for the services it provides. I think we should all invest in bitcoin, AI, and 6G networks 😉
AJ
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bitcoin will flip from being an inflation hedge to a wealth vaporizer the day the internet becomes unreliable. Good luck predicting when that will happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Poor Ugo is not happy on Facebook. Sadly for him most of his followers don’t agree with him on renewables. He’s getting quite grumpy now to be honest and accusing everyone of ignoring facts. LMFAO
LikeLike
In part 1 of that discussion with Michaux, he said that he’d resolved differences with Ugo Bardi. He didn’t say what was resolved, so I’ve asked Ugo on a couple of platforms. Regarding Michaux and Ahmed’s differences, someone called Steve posted this on one of Bardi’s Facebook groups:
LikeLiked by 4 people
“They will all work as specified on a small scale, but the trouble starts when you make them available for 8 billion people.”
The trouble for Michaux’s credibility starts when he applies his magical figures to 8 billion people because an awful lot of the human race live within HVDC distance of the equator – which HAS NO WINTER to have to build his “Batteries that ate the world” for. But hey, this is Michaux we’re talking about, right? 😉 You know – Mr “Paint the world Singapore!”
LikeLike
Mac10 makes a specific short term prediction.
Do the US citizens that read this think he is correct?
https://zensecondlife.blogspot.com/2023/05/flirting-with-disaster.html
LikeLiked by 2 people
I read Mac10 every time he puts something out. He certainly thinks the financial system is primed to explode. He has an understanding of the technical aspects of stocks/finance that are beyond my simple mind. I think he is right and the financial system is primed for a big fall. But, I have thought that for a long time and it appears that the system has a resiliency that I didn’t think existed – maybe it’s the resiliency of people who don’t remember history (Mac10 thinks this is some of it) or just the resiliency of the mass of stock traders in denial that the market can go way down? I don’t know, but I don’t think a system of unlimited debt coupled to a fractional reserve system of fiat money can continue expanding debt infinitely, but Japan seems to have done that? Physics and declining peak fossil fuels would seem to suggest that infinite growth can’t go on forever, so sooner or later the financial system should revert to some kind of mean?
AJ
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m also surprised at how long the system has held together. Perhaps explained by 8 billion monkeys all working hard to keep the system functioning and denying anything that might shake their confidence in an infinite future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mass rioting? I’m not sure about that. U.S. society is too atomized for that kind of critical mass to build up. After the 2008 crash, there were mass foreclosures and evictions and mass misery, but not much rioting.
We might see more attacks on infrastructure, as a result of Oath Keepers’ head Stewart Rhodes being sentenced to 18 years in prison for heading up the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol. A lot of Oath Keepers are vets, with military experience. The December 2022 attacks on the power substations in North Carolina still haven’t been solved.
Gen Z and TikTok might be where a large-scale movement might coalesce, see this interesting post by Thomas Neuburger:
https://neuburger.substack.com/p/tiktok-and-critical-mass
Gen Z has been hung out to dry by the system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting. So much going on. Very hard to keep up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This made me think. Perhaps in haste, I posted this comment (more or less) there, also, but it needs approval (it’ll be interesting to see if it gets it).
At the simplest level, the Earth will never “recover” in the sense of its returning to some prior state. New climax ecosystems will arise, eventually, but they will not be the same as before humans learned to use tools.
However, humans are a species. What do species do? Collectively, they use whatever resources they can get access to as they try to survive and reproduce (perhaps even for pleasure). This is a feature of species but, in the non-human world, ecosystems reach a climax state where each species in it has its niche and there are limiting factors. Humans will also meet limiting factors but have been able to access huge amounts of resources and, in so doing, wrought huge damage in every ecosystem. But they are still acting like a species.
I doubt any member of any other species has empathy for another species or even for most of its own species (apart from, possibly, some domesticated animals). They all just act out their genetically, and epi-genetically, encoded behaviours, with survival and reproduction the focus. No species “deserves” to flourish. “Deserves” is a human invented term.
When humans seek to invoke the survival of its species as a reason to reduce the damage, they are really seeking to reduce the damage so that they, and theirs, can live a longer and, perhaps, more satisfying life. It’s hard to have empathy for each of 8 billion members of our species and, so long as any actions have their main negative impact on others, I’m sure any individual could live with that.
To me, it just makes sense to limit the damage to nature because I, and my family and friends, have a better chance of survival and a better chance of living peaceful satisfying lives if that is done. Also, at a purely personal level, I’d like to think that we only harm other species to survive (e.g. hunting and gathering), because that seems to be playing by “the rules”. But this is only a personal feeling. Objectively, I can’t think of a reason to limit damage. As the article said, eventually the Earth will be consumed or end up a dead lump of rock. Is there an objective reason to try to ensure that time is several billion years in the future instead of a few decades or centuries in the future? Aren’t all reasons subjective?
Heck, my mind goes round and round on this sort of stuff. I hope I’m way off the mark with the above, but, right now, I just don’t see it. I hope others can put me right.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Caveat: this is going to be a very personal answer.
Yes. No reason really. It won’t really matter. We give the world all the meaning it has.
I just follow what’s in my heart. (Aren’t we here to play? If it’s tedious, then it is probably not for you, isn’t it?).
I love life. All life. Don’t care so much about individuals. That’s all.
But your mileage may vary. And some “fullfil their destiny”/”follow their hearts”/”become who they are” by wrecking havoc among the living. They too have a role.
I like to see each of us as a little proposition, a statement. In some times and places a certain kind of proposition replicates, at other times, other behaviours are more appropriate.
I believe the greatest abuse one can do to self is to not live true to his own nature. Of course, it may first take some time and some level of etching to understand who one is, especially in an antagonist culture 🙂
Sidenote : we can only know who we are at a certain level, for truly, this kind of knowledge is unattainable. There is no end to the rabbithole and I also embrace: “You are not a drop in the ocean, you are the ocean in a drop”. (Here is your escape out of materialism, even though there is, in truth, no need to escape something which is not)
LikeLike
In just 300 million years, the sun will be putting out more lumens (or whatever, science stuff), and then all life on earth will either have evolved to handle more light / heat, or will be dead … We project fears of our own impending mortality onto the planet.
However, having more genetic diversity (rather than less) would give the planet a better chance of surviving longer. Civilization reduces diversity, so you could say it is anti-nature.
Perhaps the only good thing ciz did was release all the carbon back into the atmosphere for life to use again. But that wrecks the climate for humans and our civilization, so sucky
LikeLike
We are of course just one of many animals, and yet there’s a long list of human behaviors that are qualitatively and quantitatively unique from other animals:
Us having this conversation, and doing it from different places on the planet, at light speed, is one of many good examples.
I’m interested in understanding why we are unable to use our uniquely powerful brain to behave differently than other animals. Hence my focus on Varki’s MORT.
LikeLike
Yes, humans have some abilities and traits that appear to be unique but I think the genetic drives seem to be the same as for other species. And why wouldn’t they be? In what might matter to the planet (not that it cares) we aren’t unique. If humans, as a whole, didn’t deny unpleasant realities then we’d almost be forced to act like no other species. We would then become apart from nature, instead of just a part of it.
LikeLike
76 years ago at the Nuremburg trial we hung 7 doctors for violating informed consent.
The Nuremberg Code states individual doctors may not delegate their responsibility to someone else like Pfizer.
Many thousands of doctors today need to be hung for the same crime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob this one’s for you – the comments are quite telling as to what the adults think of this situation….
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/132172423/university-apologises-for-unreasonable-mustpass-test-that-more-than-half-of-engineering-students-failed
LikeLike
LOL. Times sure have changed. Everyone is special today. When I went through engineering in 1978 a lot of people couldn’t make it and failed. There was no apology from the university. I suspect those that couldn’t make it in engineering went into arts programs and now run our governments. Which may explain why none of our leaders have a clue about anything that matters.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ugo fell off the seneca cliff of doubling down
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7069674914215043072/
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a form of denial triggered by having grandchildren.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Definitely! 🙂 I see Art Berman and Nate Hagens weighed in on the discussion. https://thesunflowerparadigm.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-eroi-chain-is-as-strong-as-weakest.html?showComment=1685542097694#c1086910927344493872
Ugo, and many others, are going to be sorely disappointed with what is possible with renewables only.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When oil is in terminal decline the ability to produce and afford to buy PV will vaporize like Bitcoin, and the only renewable energies will be wood, sails, and small scale hydro, just like it used to be.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The problem with most proponents of solar is they have never owned a system and tried to live with it. Everything Simon says about solar rings true with me. Here in the PNW in the winter there are weeks without sun. When there is a little sun the hours are few and the angle is so low in the sky the amount of energy is minimal. Come summer our 4Kw system is cranking out power 16 hours a day and we are funneling it to the utility. Too bad the utility doesn’t have some way of storing it and letting us use it in the winter or at night. AND I have a large battery bank, but it will only run for 3 or 4 days just powering the most rudimentary electrical appliances (a few lights, one deep freezer, modem/router, and a UV water sterilizer/pressure pump system. When I think of all the energy that went into the solar array, battery bank, charge controllers, inverters, copper wiring (and the mining, smelting, fabrication, transportation of those part) there is no way the energy output over it’s lifetime comes close to being a high EROEI source of power.
AJ
LikeLiked by 2 people
There’s that.
And then there’s the many thousands of complex material and process inputs needed to make a solar panel, and every single one of those thousands of inputs depends on fossil energy.
And then there’s the billions needed to build a PV plant and each of those billions of dollars is conjured into existence through the magic of growth and will be mostly unavailable when growth stops.
And then there’s the consumers who will not be able to afford solar systems when most of their discretionary income is eaten by food and energy inflation.
LikeLike
And then there’s Gail Tverberg’s observation today which may be the most important point of all.
She says ignore the endless debates about EROEI, energy quality, resource limits, etc. etc. and focus on profitability. Are renewables profitable enough to generate tax revenues, or are they unprofitable and thus consume tax subsidies?
Renewables are unprofitable which means they are not long for this world when the fossils that provide the taxes are depleted.
LikeLike
Fossil fuels, around the world, consume a lot of subsidies. From an IMF 2021 report: “Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion in 2020 or about 6.8 percent of GDP, and are expected to rise to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025.”
LikeLike
True, but misses the important point that almost all surplus wealth is created by fossils, and so the subsidies paid to fossils would not be possible without the surplus wealth created by fossils.
It’s the same argument that neither 8 billion people nor renewable energy can exist without fossils. What can exist without fossils is a medieval lifestyle and maybe 1 billion people.
LikeLike
Agreed. I think Gail could have made those points since, on the face of it, fossil fuels are not helpful to society as they consume a lot of subsidies. But, clearly, they are helpful (if you ignore externalities).
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’re a bit upset in NZ at the moment. One of most prominent critics of growth as been made redundant from his University job. Dr Mike’s job was meant to have the freedom to raise the challenges of our predicament. Listen to Dr Mike Joy here:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018892673/mike-joy-a-casualty-of-university-cut-backs
LikeLike
I’ve seen Mike Joy speak on NZ’s dairy industry that is poisoning the water table and burning imported coal to be the world’s biggest exporter of dehydrated milk which is used primarily to make junk food.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interestingly, in listening to Mike Joy, my playlist (I didn’t know I had one) included Prof Tim Jackson who sits on a sustainability advisory board for Air New Zealand. The very idea of a sustainable airline is ridiculous but Tim seems to think it might be possible. Perhaps that alone renders anything he says absurd, even though he is a degrowth advocate. But he couldn’t bring himself to say that the airline was hypocritical in having such a board whilst trying to build a new international airport at Tarras, though he didn’t support that decision. He said that if he thought they were being hypocritical, he’d resign. He’s still on the advisory board, as is Jonathon Porrit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fascinating explanation of the most impactful invention of WWII. The VT Fuse reduced the number of anti-aircraft rounds required to destroy a plane from 1800 to 90.
Even without silicon chips we were extremely clever at killing each other.
LikeLike
I like this AI interpretation of what Carl Sagan would say to us today if he was still alive.
Unfortunately the AI has not matured enough to understand that our technologies are 100% dependent on non-renewable fossils.
LikeLike
New paper from James Hansen says 10C and 60m sea level rise now locked in.
Gonna really need the MORT denial circuits to kick in for this one.
http://www.climatecodered.org/2023/06/james-hansens-new-climate-bomb-are.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Technically, Hansen isn’t saying that 10°C is “locked in” though that seems likely from his paper and from the likelihood of the forcing not being lowered. The last couple of sentences of the article are apposite:
Hansen’s take on some of the comments about the, as yet unreviewed, paper is in this newsletter.
LikeLike
I have paid attention to Hansen since I reviewed his 2009 book in one of my first un-Denial posts.
I paraphrased what I think Hansen means in his latest paper.
Climate Code Red can’t speak as plainly because they have an audience they don’t want to upset.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read Hanson’s book back then also and loved it. Some of his imagery at the end was great. However, I’m not so concerned about climate change at the moment, I won’t live long enough for it to affect me (kill me). My true fear is that we won’t see the end of this month due to nuclear war. Without a doubt, Russia is going to start mopping up Ukraine this month. When the neocons come to the realization that they are losing big time, I suspect they will use the War games that they are preparing for the middle of the month (largest ever NATO Air exercises in Eastern Europe) to launch a surreptitious nuclear attack on Russia. The same way they used the navel exercises last year to provide cover for blowing up Nordstream 2.
We are probably closer to the end of civilization then we ever have been before, if we nuke ourselves then climate change will be a coup de gras long after most of us are dead.
Have a happy Monday!
AJ
LikeLike
Damn. Was not aware of the war games this month.
I mainly follow the Duran for Ukraine news but don’t recall them speculating on the war games.
What is your current favorite source of Ukraine information?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I too listen to the Duran podcast, along with Judge Napolitano’s YouTube podcast interviews with Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Larry Johnson (on a weekly basis). I also read Moon of Alabama https://www.moonofalabama.org/
Andrei Martyanov http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/
Dances with Bears https://johnhelmer.net/
and many more. I use RT as my source for less propaganda than normal western MSM, but realize it is propaganda too.
However, John Helmer in this post of a few weeks ago really scared me:
https://johnhelmer.net/bravado-before-capitulation-will-russian-defeat-of-us-patriot-missile-be-followed-by-ukrainian-f-16-attack-during-the-nato-air-defender-23/
The U.S./NATO has no exit strategy and is in complete denial about the reality that Russia in militarily superior to the U.S./NATO and when they find that out the question is whether they suffer a defeat or launch nukes?
Not a time for denial or optimism.
Sorry,
AJ
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you very much!
I do get the sense that our western leaders believe their own bullshit and will be shocked by reality when it becomes too obvious to deny.
Their response may be emotional and irrational.
Ditto on the coming European energy shortages.
LikeLike
The Air Defender 23 exercises are just days away. John Helmer thinks U.S./NATO may pull a fast one under its cover, like with Nord Stream 2? Madness… there are no brakes on this system.
This fellow works at the State Department.
https://twitter.com/mbetka23?lang=en
LikeLike
I scanned some of Betka’s tweets. I do not understand the point you are making.
Please elaborate if it is important.
LikeLike
He is one of many pro-Ukrainian anti-Russian people in the State Department in managerial positions, in his case, on a video team that produces material for social media.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Got it, thanks.
There’s a lot of hate for Russians. Don’t understand why. Maybe it’s simply that every tribe needs an enemy.
LikeLike
I doubt it’s hate of Russians so much as hate for the Russian regime. But then no regime is as pure as the driven snow.
LikeLike
I understand the position re climate change and lifespan. I think many older people are like that. Heck I hope I’m dead before the situation gets truly calamitous but I do have (adult) children and a grandchild so it would still concern me on my death bed, if not already dire. However, I increasingly believe that it will become undeniable well before I’m gone, even though I’ve only got about 20-30 years left.
LikeLike
I too have adult children and a grandchild. And the fact that we hve probably totally screwed the biosphere for all life concerns me greatly. I think climate change is undeniable now, however the right wing old people will deny it to their death (sometimes that’s the only solution to denial). I just think nuclear war is much more dire for the biosphere and more immediate.
AJ
LikeLike
I think it’s undeniable too but, for most people, it’s clearly deniable, since most appear to be in denial, to some degree. Personally, I don’t think nuclear war is likely until countries really get desperate about being the last one standing as our environmental and resource predicaments start to bite. In which case, nuclear will be one of many crises hitting us.
LikeLike
Sorry Mike,
I would normally agree with you that nukes would not get used until everything falls apart or nearly so (but would there be a power grid still up to launch them?).
BUT, confrontations between nuclear super-powers that keep upping the ante NEVER ends well.
Rob has posted almost all the interviews Nate Hagens had with Chuck Watson over the past year. Sadly Chuck no longer posts as he intimated that he was getting threatened by people who didn’t like what he said.
In this post he discusses Nuke weapons (his area of expertise) at length. At 32:50 he discusses Proud Prophet war gaming scenarios and how EVERY war game iteration the U.S. government did (somewhere else I think he says there were 40 iterations?) ended up in escalation to a nuclear exchange. This was the Reagan administration staffed by extreme hawks. As Chuck states it changed the whole administrations thinking about nuclear war/weapons. I remember the time well. All those in power now in the U.S./NATO know nothing of the risks and ONLY PUTIN (and his leadership) will keep us from going up as nuclear ash. So sadly I think a nuclear exchange is highly likely.
AJ
LikeLike
Jay Hanson was a mentor to many including Nate Hagens, and Hanson understood our behaviors associated with overshoot (excepting sadly MORT) better than anyone, and he in this rare 2008 interview predicted nuclear war about now:
Me, I’m not certain about anything, however I see a clear accelerating escalation trend, and I have a very bad feeling about how our leaders will react when their egos are humiliated.
My worries are enhanced by the covid experience which proved our leaders are brain dead stupid, are governed by emotions, and are indifferent to killing millions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of brain dead leaders. This from the leader of our opposition party here in NZ. He stands a goodish chance of becoming Prime Minister later this year.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132262022/national-leader-christopher-luxon-says-we-should-have-more-babies?cid=app-android
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been watching Frozen Plant II. It’s very sad seeing how quickly the world is heating at the extreme cold ends of the planet
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amazing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Their matriarch is 100 years old. She’s had to adapt her strategies to a warming world
LikeLike
A very rare mammal that also experiences menopause. The grandmothers improve the survival rate of their grandchildren.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On a slightly different note. I’m wondering when we will hit the next global financial crisis. It seems imminent in the next 5 years. Here are some interesting stats on Canadian mortgages:
Of all Canadian homeowners, 60.7% have a mortgage, or 8.86 million families.
In the last 4 years 50% of mortgages taken out were variable rate (VRM’s)
75% of VRM’s have hit the “trigger point”. This is where 100% , or more, goes to interest.
Our Liberal government enacted emergency legislation (not well advertised) to extend loan amortizations so payments don’t increase. In some cases amortizations have been extended to 70-90 year terms.
Banks have increased loan loss provisions (they know what’s coming).
Economic growth is now pretty much entirely due to more debt. In Canada you can borrow up to 65% of the equity in your home under a HELOC (home equity line of credit). HELOC rates have doubled since rates have gone up and HELOC’s are variable rate.
Inflation is still running hot and some economists feel the Canadian Central Bank will raise 0.25% this June, others disagree. However, on the following rate decision the consensus is another rate hike is coming.
As Nate Hagens says we are kicking the can down the road. The longer we extend credit that can’t be paid back the bigger the crash. Maybe this is intentional. A huge crash could cause a big decline in oil consumption (energy and economy 100% tied) which is what we need. However, it also means lower oil prices after the crash and less investment in the industry leading to lower oil production.
Then we come back full circle, interest rates back to zero and economists trying to bring back growth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very interesting. I live in Canada and was not aware how bad the mortgage situation is.
It’s a rock and a hard place. Biophysical limits (juiced by an engineered virus) have forced us to purchase growth with debt to prevent the monetary system from collapsing, which has created inflation and forced up interest rates because lenders don’t want to lose money, and the higher rates are breaking everything in the economy.
On the central bank rate hike, my personal belief is that they follow rather than lead. Them controlling inflation with the short-term interest rate they charge banks is all a façade to give us the impression someone is in control.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice update on peak oil.
Also a nice example of denial. Instead of discussing population reduction they veer off into AI extending BAU, microwaving power from space, etc.
LikeLike
Listened to the Hanson interview. WOW, this guy was correct on almost everything way back in the 90’s and 2008. He even hints a denial being important, I’m surprised he was so resistant to MORT.
His dating a nuke war to about now was insightful. He said the war would be fought over the remaining resources. Someone (now I can’t find who or where!) on the web said that the Clintons and Obama hate Putin. Why? Because with Yeltsin they had a patsy to gave western business a failed Russia that they could help rape of resources. They expected Putin to be the same and when he threw out the Oligarchs who were beholding to the West and revitalized Russia they decided to take him and Russia down for its resources. Kinda jives with what Hanson said.
AJ
LikeLiked by 2 people
A “united” west requires once proud and wise countries like Germany to humiliate themselves (e.g. Nordstream) by prostrating to the US.
Putin won’t bend to the will of the US and western leaders hate him for that. Plus Putin’s a lot smarter than most western leaders and they hate him for that too.
LikeLike
Nate Hagens’ interview today is an excellent, intelligent, balanced discussion of nuclear power pros and cons.
Unfortunately they missed what I think is the most important issue requiring debate:
In a post peak oil world with probable economic collapse, supply chain breakdowns, social unrest, and war, is it possible, even with competent leaders and engineers, to govern and maintain nuclear facilities in a safe manner?
I bet not.
If I’m right, this should trump all other considerations given the consequences.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely right, Rob. This seems such an obvious concern about nuclear that it’s hard to understand why it appears to be dismissed on the rare occasions that it is raised. I seem to recall its being raised with James Hansen once but not in a clear way, so he quickly ignored that aspect.
I was watching “12th Hour” again today and it highlighted for me, again, that humans are no different from when they evolved 200 thousand years ago. They had no need for long term thinking so were more concerned with the present and near future. Nothing changes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly! I am glad you make this point. So very few do (I don’t know anyone in real life that is ready to admit this, even after having it explained step by step: the pre-formatted answer is that today’s nuclear is the bridge to tomorrow’s fusion). (And recent history has shown we don’t have competent leaders.) If we want a safe shut down, now is probably the time to gradually stop nuclear plants. (Given human psychology, my bet is it is not going to happen.)
I don’t understand why most people don’t want to consider the huge obvious and rather talk endlessly about smaller technical details. I guess I have an hypothesis: this is the form of denial we get when there is no solution, but still the brain wants to cling to pre-conceived ideas. Or faith in Technology which always magically provided and will always provide.
Well, I guess, we just have to accept things as they are. And either prepare for massive nuclear accidents at some point (if preparation for such an event is even possible), or just accept our mortal fate and live the day 🙂 My paranoia and fortitude both have a limit, so I go by the second option 😦
LikeLike
I agree with your hypothesis. I think this most important nuclear issue is never discussed because to do so requires an acceptance of overshoot and the inevitable decline of industrial civilization. Our evolved denial mechanism blocks that awareness in most people.
LikeLike
I just remembered there is also the bicycle-shed effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality).
The engineering feats we collectively capitalized overwhelm every single one of us. Catastrophes are baked in the cake.
But we don’t want to admit it. It’s also a lack of humility or the reluctance to recognize that every accomplishment eventually returns to ashes.
Denial was maybe less strong at the start of the industrial age as the angst of excesses seems to have given rise to romanticism at the time. I guess we read them but didn’t listen. Among other, I have always loved Ozymandias as a summary of the unravelling of civilizations.
I know now what my escape strategy to nuclear holocaust is going to be: stockpile books of the romantic era 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
First I’ve heard of the bicycle-shed effect. I like it. It’s everywhere.
For example, thinking EVs are a useful response to oil depletion without considering how roads will be built and maintained without diesel and asphalt, or how the road workers will be paid and fed.
LikeLike
Hello friends,
Thank you everyone for the compulsory reading and viewing material of the past few weeks; they satisfied my doom palate with heavy overtones but still left afternotes of denial to keep one wanting more. Special thanks to AJ for alerting us to the war games taking to the skies above Europe beginning in just a few days and possibly ushering in that which has no recourse–how can we not hear nor heed the ticking of the doomsday clock, as sure as our own heartbeats? If we can somehow avoid the overt nuclear Armageddon, there may still be another nuclear catastrophe in the wings with the Zaporizhzhia plant relying on cooling water from the destroyed dam. Maybe that was the reason for the dam’s destruction, to set the stage for this outcome which certainly will make Ukraine more of a wasteland and fallen state than it is becoming. Whether this better serves the West or Russia remains to be seen, if we can get there.
I also enjoyed that blast from the past (and totally new to me) interview of Jay Hanson, thank you Rob. It was no crystal ball he had but just a very logical mind that connected the dots earlier to reveal the sobering picture we can all see now (that is, if we removed our denial blindfolds). I found out he died in 2019 but if he were still alive, I don’t think he would change his prediction that nuclear war is at our doorstep, he may not even have to adjust his dates unlike many doomers. I really appreciate that he made it clear then that our predicament is a priori a behaviour problem (which Nate has further developed) as we humans act with the maximum power principle to achieve survival fitness, which in modern times namely means wealth and status. Unfortunately, our culture favours material wealth which is synonymous with status. The drive for achieving status has reached psychotic proportions in the West and was always going to be a disaster, especially given our genetic herd mentality and the carte blanche of capitalism to foment this tendency of ever more and more is better and best. Religion had an opportunity to satisfy human desire for belonging and achievement without resorting to just material dominance, but look how badly that turned out. If only we aspired to lay laurel wreaths upon those who have simplified themselves from the system (hey, we here may be so honoured!) then we may have had a chance to turn things around but now it is far too late because there are 8 billion of us to re-program.
The bike shed effect (aka law of triviality) not only shows up everywhere but can be translated into describing other human behaviours. It has always frustrated and appalled me that people can spend hours and days trying to decide what colour to paint their living room or what make and model of appliance to buy–and this can become a thesis level effort in research when deciding what car to buy, but they can just get pregnant and have a baby without any due process just because it’s their right and it’s time to have a family mentality. I know there are many who have thought it through (and hopefully they will have realised they should not have children for a-z reasons) but is absolutely frightful to me that such a life-changing course can be entered upon at any time, even without any requisite and be considered completely normal for any and everyone. And to think that so many governments as of late are urging fecundity in their populations with incentives like extended maternity leave, baby bonuses, free or subsidised childcare, extra payments–it’s become maddeningly horrifying that we are actively urging people to go in the exact opposite direction we need to be. Once again, it all comes down to behaviour and the tribe mentality. When we were smaller tribes fighting for the same territory, the one with the most population always won out, and that is still how we’re playing the game. I don’t think we can ever change the players even if we try to make up new rules now.
Monk, I have also been re-watching nature docos, the Planet series narrated by DA never fail to fill me with awe and leave me often in tears. I can honestly say that the closest feeling is being in hopeless, helpless love with our earth, just the wonder and majesty of everything and the deepest desire to know, live, and be at one with it completely. Ironic that we’re also killing it but then again, isn’t that the modus operandi of our species, we tend to love things to death and hurt most those whom we should hold most dear. And we learn too late, far, far too late in this case. Charles, maybe I’m as romantic in nature as you, for however our love affair with this planet ends, I would hold fast to the belief that it is far better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. I think the problem is many of our species just don’t even know that they have a relationship with the planet, much less come to love her.
Maybe that is what it will take to “save” us. We need to love our Earth and our being on this planet with the purest, truest, fiercest yet tenderest love we can ever know. A love that may even ask of us to lay down our own lives to save that which we love beyond ourselves. To know what is at stake, what we have to lose, and to be ready to defend or die for it. Humans have been known to exhibit this behaviour, too (usually involving killing one another). This particular fairytale, action, comedy, tragedy, thriller, mystery, history, drama, war, love-story is coming to its final chapter but still as of yet it has not been completely written. We are the ones living in these days to witness how it will end.
It is a pleasure and solace to visit with you here. Namaste and go well in goodness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nice. Good to hear from you.
LikeLike
Thank you Gaïa 🙂
LikeLike
Nate Hagens is also becoming more worried about the short term risk of nuclear war.
LikeLike
I think Nate understates the risk. If we make it through the next few weeks without confirming the Fermi Paradox (no sentient civilizations survive long term) we can only ascribe it to luck. That is a terrible situation on which to hang the existence of the biosphere. It is questionable if any life other than simple prokaryotes/eukaryotes would survive a nuclear exchange (and the ultimate meltdown of all the reactors and their attendant long lived radionucleotides).
I do disagree with him as to fault. That this situation exists is the fault of our leaders (Clinton, Bush, Obama) trying to become/remain the only world power and dismember Russia. Russia is fighting for it’s existence, we are fighting for world domination and to continue for as long as possible to live like illiterate energy pigs.
AJ
LikeLike
Well said.
I’m in denial and off to buy more canned ham that’s on sale today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not sure that this is denial 🙂 Rather strategic humble planning? Hedging against the next worst thing, since not much can be done about nuclear armageddon anyway. It is still true that the worst is never certain, even though the probabilities may be unknown, isn’t it? (If we live till then, we will see whether the superpowers make use of their nukes, or if the arsenals rust before)
In a way, we all kick the can, each at our own level, each in our own way.
Some of us, don’t kick the can though. They just live without worry. Maybe that’s the way.
Me, I have been on alert mode for as far as I remember. It’s like having this red light flashing inside my head my whole wake time, with the alarm sound too.
This will only stop the day I feel in my guts we are not in overshoot any more (at least according to the local conditions where I live).
It’s probably the animal in me feeling he is totally out of his habitat: not enough land, not enough trees, too much air pollution, utter dependence on artificial water system, and too many clueless people who don’t even want to start talking about anything that should really matter. Because it depresses them, because they feel helpless, because they have been made dependent by the system (first in their beliefs), because it is so convenient, because they are afraid and in denial.
The worst about this, is that the group requires conformity. So that it is extremely perilous to experiment new things (at a time we need it most).
And it took me so much time to get to the bottom of this feeling.
My first task in life was to understand why my internal compass was running havoc. It took me some time. Then, I had to figure out what to do about it, without fooling myself with useless pipe dreams (such as the techno-green trap). Took me some more time. Now that I have an idea about where I want to go and who I deeply am, I still have (/would like) to compose with some commitments I made along the way: family, place of living, job.
Life is strange really. I wouldn’t say we have much grip on it, if any.
Still I am moving, kicking the can in accordance to my current understanding of the world, so that’s good 🙂 (In these time where all speeches are made equal, I’d still like to believe I am being rational) Anyway, movement is life. That is that 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure Nate assigned blame for the situation. He said it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong (unless that’s what you’re referring to). At the same time, he didn’t offer any options on how to avoid such an escalation, just that it has to be avoided.
Personally, I couldn’t see Russia’s existence at risk before their invasion but it’s probably slightly more likely after the invasion and failure to achieve a quick victory.
LikeLike
So much drama going on around this EROEI debate of late. I’m here for it, since I missed all the good stuff in the noughties peak oil scene.
https://ageoftransformation.org/greatoversimplification/?fbclid=IwAR17cX5d803OnrSiJf1vzwWmFJplSbDRD6npYXVlIODRkcCVNpe7m4bmqBg
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, I tune out when people argue about EROEI. It’s another example of the bicycle-shed effect discussed a couple comments above.
There is zero evidence that any form of high-tech renewable energy capturing machines can be manufactured, installed, maintained, or afforded without oil.
A low-tech wood stove – maybe, a PV panel with lithium batteries and copper cables – never.
Given how important it is to disprove my claim, and given that peak conventional oil is behind us, you’d think there would be a pilot project somewhere in the world to prove I’m wrong.
The fact that none exists means I’m probably right.
As with aliens visiting earth, I’ll believe it when someone provides evidence rather than words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Probably most of you have seen this or a version of it. This is an updated “humble homage” to “The Powers of Ten” narrated by physicist Brian Cox.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And to keep the spirit of this site, let’s remember that all of this will die.
LikeLike
Excellent. Good thing God provides everlasting life for the special humans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This deep dive by John Titus into banking system stresses, causes of inflation, and the fed’s hidden agenda, is the best I’ve seen.
There’s a lot to absorb. I’ll be watching it a second time.
LikeLike
Shocking how much food prices have increased. Everything is up 50-100% from 2 years ago.
Meanwhile the person who funded creation of a virus in a dodgy Chinese lab to sidestep his own country’s laws thus causing millions to die and governments to print gazillions of inflation causing dollars to counteract lockdowns that could have been avoided with vitamin D and Ivermectin, which he blocked, is walking free with a nice pension.
I must be in a bad dream.
LikeLike
Nice discussion by the Duran today on the risk of WWIII.
When beliefs are not grounded in reality, like almost all western leaders today believing that Russia is failing state with a second rate military that is losing to Ukraine, you have a very very dangerous situation.
Ditto for overshoot, peak oil, climate change, and covid.
Our leaders are incompetent, in denial, and dangerous.
LikeLike
Yeah, I watched this yesterday evening and it kinda ruined the rest of my day. Biden & crew refuse to acknowledge the facts and are captive to their own propaganda. The Duran guys seemed kinda down too as they see WWIII approaching and don’t see an exit strategy being prepared. All we can do is hope. Now it’s a new morning and it’s off to watering the gardens.
AJ
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bicycle sheds on steroids.
LikeLike
A nice insight by Pedro Prieto:
I would add our leaders would then quickly learn that they should focus on population reduction.
LikeLike
Hello Rob,
But it’s an electric bike shed so that’s okay! Seriously now, every day I am realising more and more how really dire it’s all going to be and how suddenly it will come to pass. Another ant analogy to share–the relentless rain here has encouraged even more of these most industrious insects to come inside my shed, and once again I set about to poison them. And now the die-off has begun, blackened thousands of ant corpses in scattered heaps everywhere, which I dutifully vacuum away and then the next day another wave of deceased to be swept. And thus this particular colony and civilisation is gone. How will our own species’ die-off and sweeping away look? I can’t help but think our population reduction program has certainly begun one way or another, we are just waiting for the mounting bodies to become too obvious to ignore.
We are still thinking that we will be able to cobble together some kind of medieval level of existence with whomever is left post carbon pulse (or mushroom cloud?). Even that harsh reality may be too hopeful for our grasp for whom among us has any of the skills needed to live in an iron age world? Speaking of iron, by the last census Australia boasts a total of just over 200 people who call their living blacksmithery out of a population of over 25 million, and out of these, I am not sure how many forge without any use of fossil fuels. And to think the most popular surname Smith used to designate one’s actual skill, now all the Wrights, Millers, Coopers, Potters, Weavers, and such join Smith as a farcical reminder that the only thing we’ve kept is the name only. We will not just go back to living as in the time before coal, any more than we can suddenly live on Mars. All the social infrastructure and the physical environment needed for that life is gone, and more importantly, all the practical working knowledge, ability, and experience in enough people and in enough locales to carry on sustainable communal living.
Of course there will be microscopic pockets of people who happen to have the right skills and in the right environments to continue for a time being if they can evade decimation from wandering hordes who would seek to subsume them before learning their lore. If we can avoid nuclear war in the near term, a highest priority of our species should be to encourage all remaining indigenous peoples to revitalise their ancestral ways of living and allow modern people to learn from them and join their community if so accepted. They must be provided sacrosanct land with the best remaining resources for their needs to live in perpetuity. The communities may decide to have no contact with our modern and dying civilisation, and that probably would be for the best. I am abhorred and shamed that this is exactly the opposite of what we have done in history, and somehow I do not think we are humble enough to admit our great wrong and make repentance even if that is a way for us to send off a lifeboat (most likely into the forest) of humanity. A recent news story of the 4 children surviving for 5 weeks in the jungles of Colombia underscores how much we stand to lose if we lose the last of this. For the rest of us, the best we can hope for is to encourage able youngsters to learn the skills of our forebearers in workshops of experimental living, I have written of this pipedream in an previous post.
However, I think the majority of our civilisation will be engaged in a Mad Max type of subsistence, scavenging from what we can for as long as we can. Is there some sort of poetic justice to that? Our species arising in evolution as hunter-gathers to the zenith of creators and destroyers of worlds, and in the last iteration we crawl on our bellies again picking through rubble, some sort of scavenger cum parasite existence? Could it have ended any other way ever since our brains made that fateful leap?
I just placed another order for more handsaws and pruners, and the next will be for more axes and scythes. It’s denial I know, but somehow I feel like collecting a little ark of tools is something I can still do that may still help someone for some time.
The war games start in a few hours time. It also happens to be my birthday, but every day is all of our birth, life, and death dates, and then we may have the chance to awake and begin it again.
Namaste.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Happy birthday Gaia and thank you for the nice essay.
I’m also expecting Mad Max with a pretty abrupt transition since every single thing we’re doing is steepening the backside of Seneca’s cliff.
I view covid as a dry run for what we should expect from our leaders. Vitamin D was a zero cost, zero risk, highly effective response to the virus, and not only did our leaders not promote it, they suppressed discussion of its effectiveness.
Now extrapolate to oil shortages which break every single necessity for survival in modern civilization, and for which there is no Vitamin D equivalent.
People are going to lose their minds. even more than they already are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many happy returns Gaia and thanks for sharing those thoughts. I am very much aligned to your perspective
LikeLike
That was a great point by Pedro, as was the point about the likelihood that second hand EVs will ever be affordable for many people, especially considering that new batteries may be needed, costing more than the car cost.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been at this a long time. It’s pretty rare for me to read something by a doomer that I’ve not seen a similar flavor of by someone else. Rintrah is new to me and has a different perspective. Fair warning, he appears to be energy blind.
https://www.rintrah.nl/two-options/
LikeLike
Rintrah’s essay from yesterday explains the logic and new evidence for increasing covid virulence.
My virology understanding is not strong enough to know if he is correct, but he smells credible.
https://www.rintrah.nl/steadily-increasing-omicron-virulence/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tim Watkins today nicely expands on a point I made above.
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2023/06/12/if-only-we-had-an-island-or-two/
Note: NRREHT = non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies
LikeLiked by 3 people
Why did Trump want to keep the documents?
LikeLike
Breaking news from Matt Taibbi.
https://www.racket.news/p/on-todays-explosive-coronavirus-story
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder what happened to Ben Hu? Did he die of COVID?
LikeLike
I am all for rounding up the gain of function researchers and the people who approved of their work and imprisoning them for the rest of their lives.
I am serious these people are a clear and direct danger to mankind and should be treated as such.
LikeLiked by 1 person