Listen now | Professor Simon Michaux on how to navigate the climate crisis without triggering a global economic crash. Simon drops more than a few bombshells concerning energy use and politics, but also reveals a new energy paradigm he’s working on that could provide genuine zero emission energy.
you have invited Simon Michaux to Planet Critical where he argued that a transformation towards renewables needs way too much energy and materials than its (socially/ecologically) feasible.
Just came out Nafeez Ahmed’s paper* which challenges Michaux’s arguments, for example:
„the idea that renewables have a lower EROI than fossil fuels is a persistent misconception that has plagued numerous other studies that fail to make a full account of these technologies. These mistakes can be found in many places, not least in the famous feature documentary by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans. More recently, the Geological Survey of Finland published [by Michaux] a paper repeating such errors, as did the journal Energies. ... Models that predict raw materials scarcity based on a one-for-one substitution of petrol vehicles with EVs are wrong.”
It could be interesting to untangle these issues either through a debate or just invite them separately...
Overall this was a good and useful conversation, and the reality of how currently popular alternative energy sources (mainly wind and solarPV) cannot be scaled to the extent assumed is important. (A fair amount of "reality-checking" in general, in fact, is evident here, which the masses need.) There are other sources that are less discussed and harder to come across that may not suffer the same problems, so there is reason to believe that this may not be the end of that story even without going into the types of "new paradigm" tech Simon mentioned. But I found his comment at 51:20 that "the human species won't die" as global warming crashes down on us to be quite ignorant. Simon needs his own reality checked on this point. That kind of attitude is common among those who are less well informed, but I had assumed Simon was not among those people. Apparently he is. His comments suggest that collectively we will fail to react before the climate delivers some major blows to us (much more severe than those we already experience) that will force us to finally do what is needed to carry humanity onward. He seems not to grasp that at a not-too-distant point in the future, time to "finally" react will be over. And then there will be no future for us, period. Global warming will not just give us "a lesson in manners." Our habitat will be destroyed. No food, no human life, no life at all beyond microscopic life. And by the way, at the time of the talk there were in fact recyclable wind turbine blades in production but only a small scale, which will change. That doesn't deny that wind cannot be the answer, but just a bit of fact checking.
Thank you for this podcast, which was interesting and shocking. While cruising the net to try find the reports Simon refers to, I cam across this statement from the gtk.fi website as a quote from Simon's report A Bottom-Up Insight Reveals.......etc: “We are observing a large increase of investments that would be sufficient to transform our industrial ecosystem fossil free in 2-3 decades. Moreover, this transition should also cope with the future energy and material needs emerging from overall population growth”, says Simon Michaux.". This seems to be the opposite of the info in the podcast.
Dear Prof Simon & Rachel, thank you for this insightful podcast that seem to make tireless sisyphus look like childplay. What solution is there in sight do you see from your vantage point.
Hi Rachel,
you have invited Simon Michaux to Planet Critical where he argued that a transformation towards renewables needs way too much energy and materials than its (socially/ecologically) feasible.
Just came out Nafeez Ahmed’s paper* which challenges Michaux’s arguments, for example:
„the idea that renewables have a lower EROI than fossil fuels is a persistent misconception that has plagued numerous other studies that fail to make a full account of these technologies. These mistakes can be found in many places, not least in the famous feature documentary by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans. More recently, the Geological Survey of Finland published [by Michaux] a paper repeating such errors, as did the journal Energies. ... Models that predict raw materials scarcity based on a one-for-one substitution of petrol vehicles with EVs are wrong.”
It could be interesting to untangle these issues either through a debate or just invite them separately...
Best,
Tamas
* https://clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Ahmed.pdf
Overall this was a good and useful conversation, and the reality of how currently popular alternative energy sources (mainly wind and solarPV) cannot be scaled to the extent assumed is important. (A fair amount of "reality-checking" in general, in fact, is evident here, which the masses need.) There are other sources that are less discussed and harder to come across that may not suffer the same problems, so there is reason to believe that this may not be the end of that story even without going into the types of "new paradigm" tech Simon mentioned. But I found his comment at 51:20 that "the human species won't die" as global warming crashes down on us to be quite ignorant. Simon needs his own reality checked on this point. That kind of attitude is common among those who are less well informed, but I had assumed Simon was not among those people. Apparently he is. His comments suggest that collectively we will fail to react before the climate delivers some major blows to us (much more severe than those we already experience) that will force us to finally do what is needed to carry humanity onward. He seems not to grasp that at a not-too-distant point in the future, time to "finally" react will be over. And then there will be no future for us, period. Global warming will not just give us "a lesson in manners." Our habitat will be destroyed. No food, no human life, no life at all beyond microscopic life. And by the way, at the time of the talk there were in fact recyclable wind turbine blades in production but only a small scale, which will change. That doesn't deny that wind cannot be the answer, but just a bit of fact checking.
Podcast suggestion re. the Great Reset: Alison McDowell at https://wrenchinthegears.com/
Thank you for this podcast, which was interesting and shocking. While cruising the net to try find the reports Simon refers to, I cam across this statement from the gtk.fi website as a quote from Simon's report A Bottom-Up Insight Reveals.......etc: “We are observing a large increase of investments that would be sufficient to transform our industrial ecosystem fossil free in 2-3 decades. Moreover, this transition should also cope with the future energy and material needs emerging from overall population growth”, says Simon Michaux.". This seems to be the opposite of the info in the podcast.
Anyone who's listened to the full podcast can try to read this and figure out the holes... https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/solving-the-net-zero-equation-nine-requirements-for-a-more-orderly-transition
"Sustainability... It's kind of an aesthetic..." This is an extremely insightful way of putting it.
Dear Prof Simon & Rachel, thank you for this insightful podcast that seem to make tireless sisyphus look like childplay. What solution is there in sight do you see from your vantage point.