I like Arnoux's focus on thermodynamics in general, and you've had other guests who agree. But, he had a hard time explaining the difference between energy and power and its implications to the non-scientist. I'm an ex High School science teacher, so here we go:
Energy is the capacity to do a discrete amount of work whereas Power is how much work you can do per unit time. Example: humans and horses can do the same work (pull a plow) but it will take the human 10X longer. So we say 1 horsepower is about 750 watts and 1 human power is 75 watts. So anytime someone quotes power of a solar panel, a powerplant, or the entire planet receiving energy from the sun, this is a constant nonstop energy supply, ... a certain amount of joules of energy delivered each second (Watts = Joules/sec). Turn on a typical handheld immersion blender and you can feel the amount of power (maybe 100W) it takes to run a human body 24/7, more when "working" less when sleeping. Anyway, that's what your food-nutrition calories are for!
Anytime someone quotes how much Energy was used, that is a finite amount that was used to do a certain discrete amount of work (e.g. charge your electric car, fill your gas tank, lift a rock). In the end, think of Power as constant supply, and Energy as a discrete work packet. That's mostly qualitative.
Let's go quantitative with an example: In the "lower 48 states" of the USA, at the earth's surface, at solar noon, at summer solstice, with no clouds, the sun's power is about 1000W per square meter. So each second the sun delivers 1000 joules of energy spread over every square meter. But this is not the same as the total (discrete) amount of energy delivered over a single day, because daylight has a beginning and an end and power delivery changes with angle. To get total energy delivered you multiply the AVERAGE power times elapsed time. I've looked at irradiance tables so I'll estimate the AVERAGE power is more like 600W over 10 hours (for the other 5 hours of daylight at summer solstice the angle is just too low for the sun to contribute). Multiply 600W of power times 10h of time and you get 6000 watt-hours (W-h) of Energy, on each square meter, per summer day. Of course, no conversion device is 100% efficient. So a solar panel at optimal tilt will only collect about 20% of all this... so 200W per square meter at peak times, and only 1200W-h for the whole day, on each square meter of panel. UPSHOT: Power is continuous supply. Energy is discrete energy packet delivered in a finite timespan. Of course that supply really is constant, it just rotates around the earth so you can only access full power during certain parts of the day, unless you run really fast.
Another example. The typical USA household requires 1250W of electric power, nonstop, 24/7. That is because (if you multiply by 24h) it requires 30,000W-h of Energy per day. Is electricity use really spread evenly across the whole day? Of course not. most folks sleep at night and few appliances are running 24/7. But we say that if you want to power one home, you'll need about 1250W or 1.25KiloW capacity in the generating system (FF power plant, solar array, combinations, etc.)
Finally, when Arnoux, Simon Michaux, and others talk about 19 Terawatts used by the whole planet, this is Power. Yes... nonstop supply, 24/7. Wanna feel that viscerally? Imagine running a 1000W hairdryer 20cm (8in) from your skin. Since Tera means trillion, divide by 19TW by 1000W per hair dryer and you get 19 billion hair dryers. Divide that by 8 billion people. That is 2.4 hairdryers per person. When you average out all power consumption from all sources, then every child, woman, and man on the planet is running 2.4 of these hairdryers nonstop, 24/7. That is our world.
You are welcome. I am working on a curriculum, card game, book to help reduce our energy blindness, viscerally feel its effect, and to spur behavior change and policy revolution. I'm at foodforestmovement.org. :-)
PS Good Gawd, Rachel, thank you for your patience with Louis. You really are a saint. :-)
Thanks, Rachel, for a very different response to your global question. There were some very technical aspects to this interview and it was mammoth task to try and squeeze it into an hour or so. It no doubt is easy to criticise the timescales of Louis Arnoux's assertions but the most important and fundamental message that seems to me incontrovertible is that you cannot beat thermodynamics. Energy is the basis for life and if we squander what we have in pursuit of profit we are clearly putting our lives at risk.
I too struggled with applying the first law of thermodynamics to his assertions about the earth multiplying the sun's energy but there are no doubt complex calculations that might prove this. The only way that I can see this working is if the earth is using the sun's energy to convert the earth's embodied energy but that would in simple terms mean the embodied energy is being used up unless the excess produced is being recycled to keep the process going. This also applies to air source heat pumps. While four times the energy of the electric supply is produced the 300% excess must be drawn from another source. Partly the air temperature, of course, but I'm not clear where the rest comes from. In other words, what energy source is being depleted to achieve this?
The central versus distributed energy discussion was a bit confusing too. I think the general message that keeping the energy source close to the point of use was the nub of it as distribution to further distances caused too much inefficiency. Why this meant tower block living was also inefficient I didn't quite get.
Overall, this was a really thought-provoking interview and has refocussed my thinking around what is fundamental to understanding the meta-crisis.
Tower block (more dense) living (ie in cities) is not viable due to huge inefficiencies in supplying food, cycling water and waste back into the soil (outside the city). Regenerative agriculture not using fossil fuel would require alternative soil enrichment than traditional fertilisers (that currently keep our population viable and living in cities. For example in Melbourne Terry Leahy has done a comprehensive mapping of how much land is available to grow food in our city and it comes out as only being able to grow 40% of our food (and that's calculated based on 1/4 acre suburban blocks not including high rise), ripping up streets, using all public parks etc etc. Growing grain (essential for human energy) was out of the question. There's just not enough space. I think this is what Louis may be referring to? You may save energy in some regard but you run into other huge energy inefficiencies and issues.
Transmitting heat is inefficient. Think about the water heater in your home, delivering hot water to your shower. If the pipes are uninsulated, the heat in that water heats the air around the pipe, which subtracts heat from the water itself. If the pipes are insulated, more of the heat is trapped in the water moving through the pipe, but since no insulation is perfect, some is still subtracted from the water and added to the air surrounding the pipe.
Electricity transmission has similar inefficiencies. The transmission cables are insulated, but some of the energy is transferred from the cable to the air around the cable as heat, because no electric insulation is perfect either.
The longer the route of transmission for heat or electricity, the greater the conductor's exposure to the atmosphere, and therefore the greater the opportunity to transfer energy (in the form of heat) from the conductor to the atmosphere. And of course, transfer happens at every opportunity, because the opportunity is in the form of a gradient. Nature doesn't abhor a vacuum so much as it abhors a gradient.
A centralized source of energy requires transmission to all the points of use. The more centralized the source and the more disbursed the points of use, the greater the distance the energy, be it electric or heat, must travel. As we just saw, the further it travels, the more gets transferred to the atmosphere.
Cities appear efficient on the surface because the points of use are clustered closely together, reducing transmission distance, and thereby increasing transmission efficiency. Therefore, economies of scale work for giant centralized heat or power generation. This is the argument given for why cities are "sustainable".
Unfortunately, cities are unsustainable for the other reasons described by Louis Arnoux. The more densely populated a locality, the less local per capita land area. Even if every square inch of street were replaced by agriculture and every square inch of rooftop employed, you cannot grow enough calories to feed the population. I bet the watts of solar power to nourish the plants per the area of the city could be a limiting factor, but haven't done the calculation.
There also isn't enough surface water in a city boundary for drinking, cooking and sanitation. Depending on the size of the city, you can't pump enough from beneath the city's boundaries, and even if you could, think of the energy the pump would require. And then the water would also have to be treated.
Similarly, you can't collect and compost all the human waste within city boundaries.
Therefore, food and water must be imported into a city, and human waste must be exported. The greater the population of the city, the greater the land area required to grow the food, collect the water, and assimilate the waste. Sprawl moves the inner boundary of that land area out even further. How do you transport all the food, water, and waste over that much distance? It requires the combustion of fuel with the energy density of fossil hydrocarbons, that is, gasoline and diesel.
And that doesn't even count all the other energy infrastructure that a city requires. What if power for all the elevators stopped, for example?
De-urbanization will eventually happen. It could be humane if it happened by design, but it probably will happen by force of nature, which will not be kind. A kind de-urbanization would also require massive land reform in order to provide local sustenance to all the former urbanites, as well as training in how to manage their newly acquired land. That is unlikely to happen. We will see a lot of agonizing death by starvation and violence. Or our grandchildren will.
Fascinating. I can't help noticing that his modeling is controversial, to say the least, among his fellow scientists, including people who are very pessimistic about the energy system and our future. I would find an interview with one of his critics equally fascinating. This is not to argue that his conclusions are not interesting.
Steven, I found the interview completely befuddling and without any solid practical solution the the problem Arnoux has uncovered. Am I the only one to be totally confused after listening to the podcast?
I don't know them personally, but a Google search will locate one or two. A more measured treatment of the same issues can be had from Mark Diesendorf, who is a retired (and so now honorary) professor at the University of New South Wales. He has recently published The Path to a Sustainable Civilisation with Rod Taylor. Mark is originally a physicist and a leading expert in the potential for a transition to renewables, albeit combined with an energy descent to a level of energy consumption from a generation ago. An earlier book was Sustainable Climate Solutions for Climate Change. I helped him write this articvle in Energies: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/16/5908 . He can be reached on m.diesendorf@unsw.edu.au .
Rachel, I just started supporting your podcast. May I make a suggestion? Nate Hagens always includes many links in the show notes to support the claims of his guests. The links include the guest's bio and materials written by either the guest or others the guest references. The materials include peer reviewed research papers, articles in respected publications, books, think tank blogs, etc. Would you consider doing the same? A good collection of references would clear up much of the confusion expressed in the comments about Louis Arnoux's interview. It pains me to see attacks on his cognitive health just because a viewer couldn't understand his material, or because he seeks funding despite his position against the modern form of currency. Your followers must also understand that, in addition to condensing decades of learning into an hour long interview, Dr. Arnoux is speaking in a language that is not his primary tongue.
As I said in two comments published on YouTube but later deleted, this guy does not seem to have very good credentials. He is behind a number of companies that spent most of their efforts raising capital from shareholders. His latest venture revolves around "egeni greenboxes", which were presented on Indiegogo, a campaign that reached only 0.63% of the target capital.
Louis Arnoux’s associated website helpfully trumpets , ‘Our Logo Says it All ‘ which is vaguely comforting.., but there are NO details anywhere save a ‘teaser’ suggesting that particulars are accessible solely under provisions of an applicable NDA ( non-disclosure agreement ) etc. !!
I’d say the gulf between Arnoux’s sober presentation: explanation & the ‘4th Transition’’s website ( dead ringer for a new-age, techno-optimist parody ! ) is so vast as to verge on astonishing.
Maybe he & busy tech colleagues contracted out the public relations aspects & haven’t had a chance to check on the finished…er…product ?
Or…maybe we’re meant to sub-consciously fall for the obvious trappings of a ludicrously olde-school ‘economic’ pitch… as if after we were carefully schooled on the energy/entropy gradient, we’d never think to check for a plausibility/ foolishness ratio ?
( I’ m gonna’ listen a couple of more times. Good chance he’s desperate or broke ( penniless) after bellowing into the wind for decades(?) )
In New Zeland alone, Arnoux is associated with 25 companies under the various names "ARNOUX, Louis", "ARNOUX, Louis August Raymond", "ARNOUX, Louis Auguste", "ARNOUX, Louis Auguste Raymond", and "ARNOUX, Louis Auguste Raymonde". His two active companies in NZ are his own investment company and one he shares with his life partner. For those curious, have a look at the patent that he filed when he was at Indranet, whose abstract reads: " An autopoietic network is described. The network system has distributed artificial intelligence and may be used to supply high volume, high speed, multi media, telesthesia, telemetry, telekinesis, telepresence, telemanagement, telecommunications and data processing services. The invention is implemented by means of a non-hierarchical network having a fractal structure. That is, the system is structured as a network of networks that may individually display self-similar characteristics at all levels of aggregation at which they are considered. The system and its constituent networks are structurally coupled with their environment through hermeneutic processes. These processes are not based on, and do not use, a priori representations of their environment or of the networks themselves. The system includes a number of cybernetic devices which are adapted to function as both the infrastructure of the network and the means by which the network services are delivered to network users. " I've been in IT for 45 years and this abstract appears rather disconnected from any reality, at least mine.
His INVESTOR-seeking website does clear ONE thing up…” new ways of accessing and using energy that are safe, secure, affordable, attractive, sustainable, and profitable for all involved .” ( Arnoux mentions tapping into a 5-Trillion euro Market.)
Whoa !! A polite word that comes close to describing that apparent patent app. Is ‘Jabberwocky’… although Arnoux’s prosaic nonsense is entirely humorless !
Chat GPT came up with this explanation of the quoted text:
"This text describes a special type of network called an "autopoietic network." It uses distributed artificial intelligence to provide a wide range of fast and high-capacity services, including things like multimedia communication and data processing.
The network is organized in a non-hierarchical way, meaning there isn’t a strict ranking of parts. Instead, it consists of many interconnected networks that resemble each other in their structure at different levels.
The network interacts with its surroundings in a way that adapts to new information, without relying on preconceived ideas about its environment or itself. It includes various devices that help both build the network and deliver its services to users."
I give up. I have absolutely no idea as to the practical use and function of whatever that is. 🥸
ChatGPT came up with this rewording of the above quote:
"An autopoietic network is outlined, featuring a distributed artificial intelligence system capable of providing high-volume, high-speed multimedia services, including telesthesia, telemetry, telekinesis, telepresence, telemanagement, telecommunications, and data processing. This invention utilizes a non-hierarchical, fractal structure, organizing the system as a network of networks that exhibit self-similar traits across all levels of aggregation. The system and its constituent networks interact with their environment through hermeneutic processes that do not rely on pre-existing representations of either the environment or the networks themselves. Additionally, the system comprises various cybernetic devices that serve as both the network’s infrastructure and the means of delivering services to users."
Frankly, John A. Joslin, I was considering another listen. I found it so hard to understand what he was saying (probably his accent, although, strangely enuff, some of his words were very easy to understand) that I thought I should give it another go. However, I've changed my mind. 🤪
Arnoux is a bit of a mystery. Some of what he said made sense, but he seems more interested in selling something than really helping, and so does not seem different from those who got us in this mess in the first place.
Shame on me but Louis’s point of view was incredibly hard to comprehend and it felt too easy to throw around terms like thermodynamics and (terawatts of) entropy - makes it seem like we know how this incredibly grand system of ours works and that we can solve it if we just sort out our energy problems. Baffle them with science…
I listened very closely to this podcast and the question was never asked, how do you propose to do this? Consequently, it was never answered. I found it impossible to work out what Arnoux was actually saying in terms of a solution the the problems he was outlining. In fact, most of what he was saying was unintelligible to me, a layperson, and worse, offered no understandable actions to deal with the problem. Am I the only one who is more confused after this podcast than before? Arnoux may be a great scientist but he's a hopeless communicator!
We require a more efficient energy source. Current sources are only 12% efficient. He has been studying how nature uses energy and has designed technology that is more efficient then fossil fuels/ current renewables. His design does not require lots of mining (which will destroy the environment completely) for rare Earth metals in order to make this new technology. Unfortunately I can't seem to find any information on this new technology though.
Yes, same here, Kate. This is what concerns me. Until I can see peer reviewed reports of his "inventions", for which he never gave any real evidence, I have deep doubts as to his veracity. 🫤
Louis Arnoux does understand thermodynamics but I don't he semms not to understand the nature of a fiat money system. Money is not a commodity, it is not a scarce resource, it is not a resource at all. It is just a unit off account, like the meter or the kg. Who would argue to get rid of the unit meter in order to save civilization?
Arthur Keller, planetary overshoot - exceeding earth's biocapacity - the myth of decoupling economic activity from the use of energy and matter. https://youtu.be/kLzNPEjHHb8?si=eg58uNhYaLQL9c7A
I'm also skeptical about his 12% energy extraction efficiency. EROI is an easy parameter to comprehend. The moment energy return approaches 1, meaning Eout equal to Ein, then extraction ceases. Oil was 100:1 about 100 years ago. Many energy sources are lingering in the 10:1 range. We science people laugh at American corn-based ethanol because the EROI is 1.5:1. And we know that, as Arnoux implied, that transport and tooling manufacture is subsidized by fossil fuels, because these are the only ones that can practiably supply heat needed for manufacture. In a previous comment months ago, I offered an analysis of US energy ins and outs an concluded that even if human transport and trucking were converted completely electrified, then full half of US Energy usage is in the form of heat, which renewables (with the exception of passive solar gain in buildings) can't provide, at least to any high temperatures at large scale. So Just don't get Arnoux's 12% efficiency datum. Perhaps his greatest contribution to the convo is that Entropy implies that energy is lost every time we convert from one type of energy to another. That thermodynamics you can't cheat. Furthermore, I see myself using the image of Sisyphus and the hill to illustrate the "gradient" he spoke of that is the crux of energy... in order to have a rock at the top of the hill someone/something/somesun has to push it up the hill. And let's thank Rachel for mentioning that the Hydrogen industry seems to ignore this: there is no hydrogen available and thus you have to make it by pushing the rock up the hill with some other energy source. Oy... Thanks Rachel! Even precocious little kids don't get the circularity of their energy schemes. That's how we're acting... like little kids that don't get thermodynamics.
Fascinating and scary! Pity Louis Arnoux took so long of the episode's time and you had no chance to ask him what is being done to convince our esteemed political and corporate leaders to change our doomed ways. Because if we have the solution but cannot convince them, it will be a bitter end indeed.
"convincing" corporate leaders will not be a non-violent process as ending the profit motive as the dominant driver of society is not merely a matter of 'understanding' but of fighting imperial and colonial power.
You and Louis motivate me. Now, let’s see if I can do the same for you. Please consider inquiring with your colleagues and subscribers about the implications of investing the 40 trillion spent on fossil fuels and their external costs (all or in considerable measure). Consider the economics of multiplier effect, leverage by import substitution, which is further increased by tax credits, quality and cost of locally produced hydrogen (multiplier is possibly in the range of 3-8x; in a compounded manner, (see Missing Trillions, University of Sussex) due to the production of more energy from solar sources (concentrated solar with up to 80,000 suns, based on Prof. Rolan Winston's finalized science in Non-Imaging Optics, which can be stored for extended periods in Sand Batteries).
The consequence of the dead state is a dystopian future, but we could achieve a utopian society by 2050. I have sent you slides regarding this concept. I now possess updated illustrative slides (without any predicted outcomes). If you’re interested, please provide the best email address to send the updated slides. I believe this topic could energize the community and inspire action. The illustrative potential could lead to a significant increase in GDP while decreasing extraction.
I like Arnoux's focus on thermodynamics in general, and you've had other guests who agree. But, he had a hard time explaining the difference between energy and power and its implications to the non-scientist. I'm an ex High School science teacher, so here we go:
Energy is the capacity to do a discrete amount of work whereas Power is how much work you can do per unit time. Example: humans and horses can do the same work (pull a plow) but it will take the human 10X longer. So we say 1 horsepower is about 750 watts and 1 human power is 75 watts. So anytime someone quotes power of a solar panel, a powerplant, or the entire planet receiving energy from the sun, this is a constant nonstop energy supply, ... a certain amount of joules of energy delivered each second (Watts = Joules/sec). Turn on a typical handheld immersion blender and you can feel the amount of power (maybe 100W) it takes to run a human body 24/7, more when "working" less when sleeping. Anyway, that's what your food-nutrition calories are for!
Anytime someone quotes how much Energy was used, that is a finite amount that was used to do a certain discrete amount of work (e.g. charge your electric car, fill your gas tank, lift a rock). In the end, think of Power as constant supply, and Energy as a discrete work packet. That's mostly qualitative.
Let's go quantitative with an example: In the "lower 48 states" of the USA, at the earth's surface, at solar noon, at summer solstice, with no clouds, the sun's power is about 1000W per square meter. So each second the sun delivers 1000 joules of energy spread over every square meter. But this is not the same as the total (discrete) amount of energy delivered over a single day, because daylight has a beginning and an end and power delivery changes with angle. To get total energy delivered you multiply the AVERAGE power times elapsed time. I've looked at irradiance tables so I'll estimate the AVERAGE power is more like 600W over 10 hours (for the other 5 hours of daylight at summer solstice the angle is just too low for the sun to contribute). Multiply 600W of power times 10h of time and you get 6000 watt-hours (W-h) of Energy, on each square meter, per summer day. Of course, no conversion device is 100% efficient. So a solar panel at optimal tilt will only collect about 20% of all this... so 200W per square meter at peak times, and only 1200W-h for the whole day, on each square meter of panel. UPSHOT: Power is continuous supply. Energy is discrete energy packet delivered in a finite timespan. Of course that supply really is constant, it just rotates around the earth so you can only access full power during certain parts of the day, unless you run really fast.
Another example. The typical USA household requires 1250W of electric power, nonstop, 24/7. That is because (if you multiply by 24h) it requires 30,000W-h of Energy per day. Is electricity use really spread evenly across the whole day? Of course not. most folks sleep at night and few appliances are running 24/7. But we say that if you want to power one home, you'll need about 1250W or 1.25KiloW capacity in the generating system (FF power plant, solar array, combinations, etc.)
Finally, when Arnoux, Simon Michaux, and others talk about 19 Terawatts used by the whole planet, this is Power. Yes... nonstop supply, 24/7. Wanna feel that viscerally? Imagine running a 1000W hairdryer 20cm (8in) from your skin. Since Tera means trillion, divide by 19TW by 1000W per hair dryer and you get 19 billion hair dryers. Divide that by 8 billion people. That is 2.4 hairdryers per person. When you average out all power consumption from all sources, then every child, woman, and man on the planet is running 2.4 of these hairdryers nonstop, 24/7. That is our world.
You are welcome. I am working on a curriculum, card game, book to help reduce our energy blindness, viscerally feel its effect, and to spur behavior change and policy revolution. I'm at foodforestmovement.org. :-)
PS Good Gawd, Rachel, thank you for your patience with Louis. You really are a saint. :-)
Nice breakdown, however I think I am confused by the calculations.
If 1 Watt = 1 Joule per second
and solar power is about 600W/meter^2 (600 Joules per second per sqare meter)
Then why not :
600 Watts * 60 seconds * 60 minutes = 2,160,000 Watts per hour = 2,160KW/h
So for 10 hours => 10 * 2,160KW/h = 20,160KWh (always per m^2)
There's a related Quora answer here that uses data from NASA and for a random April's day states that the value is about 6.11KWh/m^2
https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-in-kilowatt-hours-per-square-meter-per-day-reaches-earth-from-the-sun
19TW is roughly 1/5 the power of a thermonuclear bomb (92TW according to Google's AI).
In 1885, Prof. Rudolf Clausis gave a remarkable speech where he essentially called for a global moratorium on the use of fossil fuels. Prof. Clausius did not just understand thermodynamics – he invented a lot of it. It is amazing what a bit of thinking can accomplish. The text of the speech (in German) can be found here: https://nordborg.ch/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Rudolf-Clausius-Ueber-die-Energievorraethe-der-Natur-und-ihre-Werthung-zum-Nutzen-der-Menschheit.pdf
Thanks, Rachel, for a very different response to your global question. There were some very technical aspects to this interview and it was mammoth task to try and squeeze it into an hour or so. It no doubt is easy to criticise the timescales of Louis Arnoux's assertions but the most important and fundamental message that seems to me incontrovertible is that you cannot beat thermodynamics. Energy is the basis for life and if we squander what we have in pursuit of profit we are clearly putting our lives at risk.
I too struggled with applying the first law of thermodynamics to his assertions about the earth multiplying the sun's energy but there are no doubt complex calculations that might prove this. The only way that I can see this working is if the earth is using the sun's energy to convert the earth's embodied energy but that would in simple terms mean the embodied energy is being used up unless the excess produced is being recycled to keep the process going. This also applies to air source heat pumps. While four times the energy of the electric supply is produced the 300% excess must be drawn from another source. Partly the air temperature, of course, but I'm not clear where the rest comes from. In other words, what energy source is being depleted to achieve this?
The central versus distributed energy discussion was a bit confusing too. I think the general message that keeping the energy source close to the point of use was the nub of it as distribution to further distances caused too much inefficiency. Why this meant tower block living was also inefficient I didn't quite get.
Overall, this was a really thought-provoking interview and has refocussed my thinking around what is fundamental to understanding the meta-crisis.
Tower block (more dense) living (ie in cities) is not viable due to huge inefficiencies in supplying food, cycling water and waste back into the soil (outside the city). Regenerative agriculture not using fossil fuel would require alternative soil enrichment than traditional fertilisers (that currently keep our population viable and living in cities. For example in Melbourne Terry Leahy has done a comprehensive mapping of how much land is available to grow food in our city and it comes out as only being able to grow 40% of our food (and that's calculated based on 1/4 acre suburban blocks not including high rise), ripping up streets, using all public parks etc etc. Growing grain (essential for human energy) was out of the question. There's just not enough space. I think this is what Louis may be referring to? You may save energy in some regard but you run into other huge energy inefficiencies and issues.
Bleak but not unrealistic!
Transmitting heat is inefficient. Think about the water heater in your home, delivering hot water to your shower. If the pipes are uninsulated, the heat in that water heats the air around the pipe, which subtracts heat from the water itself. If the pipes are insulated, more of the heat is trapped in the water moving through the pipe, but since no insulation is perfect, some is still subtracted from the water and added to the air surrounding the pipe.
Electricity transmission has similar inefficiencies. The transmission cables are insulated, but some of the energy is transferred from the cable to the air around the cable as heat, because no electric insulation is perfect either.
The longer the route of transmission for heat or electricity, the greater the conductor's exposure to the atmosphere, and therefore the greater the opportunity to transfer energy (in the form of heat) from the conductor to the atmosphere. And of course, transfer happens at every opportunity, because the opportunity is in the form of a gradient. Nature doesn't abhor a vacuum so much as it abhors a gradient.
A centralized source of energy requires transmission to all the points of use. The more centralized the source and the more disbursed the points of use, the greater the distance the energy, be it electric or heat, must travel. As we just saw, the further it travels, the more gets transferred to the atmosphere.
Cities appear efficient on the surface because the points of use are clustered closely together, reducing transmission distance, and thereby increasing transmission efficiency. Therefore, economies of scale work for giant centralized heat or power generation. This is the argument given for why cities are "sustainable".
Unfortunately, cities are unsustainable for the other reasons described by Louis Arnoux. The more densely populated a locality, the less local per capita land area. Even if every square inch of street were replaced by agriculture and every square inch of rooftop employed, you cannot grow enough calories to feed the population. I bet the watts of solar power to nourish the plants per the area of the city could be a limiting factor, but haven't done the calculation.
There also isn't enough surface water in a city boundary for drinking, cooking and sanitation. Depending on the size of the city, you can't pump enough from beneath the city's boundaries, and even if you could, think of the energy the pump would require. And then the water would also have to be treated.
Similarly, you can't collect and compost all the human waste within city boundaries.
Therefore, food and water must be imported into a city, and human waste must be exported. The greater the population of the city, the greater the land area required to grow the food, collect the water, and assimilate the waste. Sprawl moves the inner boundary of that land area out even further. How do you transport all the food, water, and waste over that much distance? It requires the combustion of fuel with the energy density of fossil hydrocarbons, that is, gasoline and diesel.
And that doesn't even count all the other energy infrastructure that a city requires. What if power for all the elevators stopped, for example?
De-urbanization will eventually happen. It could be humane if it happened by design, but it probably will happen by force of nature, which will not be kind. A kind de-urbanization would also require massive land reform in order to provide local sustenance to all the former urbanites, as well as training in how to manage their newly acquired land. That is unlikely to happen. We will see a lot of agonizing death by starvation and violence. Or our grandchildren will.
Your last paragraph is so sad but true. In a nutshell, it is a truth that I ponder 24/7, and I'm sure so many many others do also.
Thanks - that’s helpful
Fascinating. I can't help noticing that his modeling is controversial, to say the least, among his fellow scientists, including people who are very pessimistic about the energy system and our future. I would find an interview with one of his critics equally fascinating. This is not to argue that his conclusions are not interesting.
Can you recommend one of his critics?
I have replied above.
Steven, I found the interview completely befuddling and without any solid practical solution the the problem Arnoux has uncovered. Am I the only one to be totally confused after listening to the podcast?
I had to listen a few times to get it. I also have a fair amount of other listening to experts that helped. Keep trying, it's dense stuff!
I don't know them personally, but a Google search will locate one or two. A more measured treatment of the same issues can be had from Mark Diesendorf, who is a retired (and so now honorary) professor at the University of New South Wales. He has recently published The Path to a Sustainable Civilisation with Rod Taylor. Mark is originally a physicist and a leading expert in the potential for a transition to renewables, albeit combined with an energy descent to a level of energy consumption from a generation ago. An earlier book was Sustainable Climate Solutions for Climate Change. I helped him write this articvle in Energies: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/16/5908 . He can be reached on m.diesendorf@unsw.edu.au .
Rachel, I just started supporting your podcast. May I make a suggestion? Nate Hagens always includes many links in the show notes to support the claims of his guests. The links include the guest's bio and materials written by either the guest or others the guest references. The materials include peer reviewed research papers, articles in respected publications, books, think tank blogs, etc. Would you consider doing the same? A good collection of references would clear up much of the confusion expressed in the comments about Louis Arnoux's interview. It pains me to see attacks on his cognitive health just because a viewer couldn't understand his material, or because he seeks funding despite his position against the modern form of currency. Your followers must also understand that, in addition to condensing decades of learning into an hour long interview, Dr. Arnoux is speaking in a language that is not his primary tongue.
Thank you for your attention.
Very good points Robin.
As I said in two comments published on YouTube but later deleted, this guy does not seem to have very good credentials. He is behind a number of companies that spent most of their efforts raising capital from shareholders. His latest venture revolves around "egeni greenboxes", which were presented on Indiegogo, a campaign that reached only 0.63% of the target capital.
Louis Arnoux’s associated website helpfully trumpets , ‘Our Logo Says it All ‘ which is vaguely comforting.., but there are NO details anywhere save a ‘teaser’ suggesting that particulars are accessible solely under provisions of an applicable NDA ( non-disclosure agreement ) etc. !!
I’d say the gulf between Arnoux’s sober presentation: explanation & the ‘4th Transition’’s website ( dead ringer for a new-age, techno-optimist parody ! ) is so vast as to verge on astonishing.
Maybe he & busy tech colleagues contracted out the public relations aspects & haven’t had a chance to check on the finished…er…product ?
Or…maybe we’re meant to sub-consciously fall for the obvious trappings of a ludicrously olde-school ‘economic’ pitch… as if after we were carefully schooled on the energy/entropy gradient, we’d never think to check for a plausibility/ foolishness ratio ?
( I’ m gonna’ listen a couple of more times. Good chance he’s desperate or broke ( penniless) after bellowing into the wind for decades(?) )
-suerté, JJ ( electrician @ Detroit near Canada )
In New Zeland alone, Arnoux is associated with 25 companies under the various names "ARNOUX, Louis", "ARNOUX, Louis August Raymond", "ARNOUX, Louis Auguste", "ARNOUX, Louis Auguste Raymond", and "ARNOUX, Louis Auguste Raymonde". His two active companies in NZ are his own investment company and one he shares with his life partner. For those curious, have a look at the patent that he filed when he was at Indranet, whose abstract reads: " An autopoietic network is described. The network system has distributed artificial intelligence and may be used to supply high volume, high speed, multi media, telesthesia, telemetry, telekinesis, telepresence, telemanagement, telecommunications and data processing services. The invention is implemented by means of a non-hierarchical network having a fractal structure. That is, the system is structured as a network of networks that may individually display self-similar characteristics at all levels of aggregation at which they are considered. The system and its constituent networks are structurally coupled with their environment through hermeneutic processes. These processes are not based on, and do not use, a priori representations of their environment or of the networks themselves. The system includes a number of cybernetic devices which are adapted to function as both the infrastructure of the network and the means by which the network services are delivered to network users. " I've been in IT for 45 years and this abstract appears rather disconnected from any reality, at least mine.
Totally unintelligible! 🫨🤪🥳
His INVESTOR-seeking website does clear ONE thing up…” new ways of accessing and using energy that are safe, secure, affordable, attractive, sustainable, and profitable for all involved .” ( Arnoux mentions tapping into a 5-Trillion euro Market.)
Whoa !! A polite word that comes close to describing that apparent patent app. Is ‘Jabberwocky’… although Arnoux’s prosaic nonsense is entirely humorless !
Chat GPT came up with this explanation of the quoted text:
"This text describes a special type of network called an "autopoietic network." It uses distributed artificial intelligence to provide a wide range of fast and high-capacity services, including things like multimedia communication and data processing.
The network is organized in a non-hierarchical way, meaning there isn’t a strict ranking of parts. Instead, it consists of many interconnected networks that resemble each other in their structure at different levels.
The network interacts with its surroundings in a way that adapts to new information, without relying on preconceived ideas about its environment or itself. It includes various devices that help both build the network and deliver its services to users."
I give up. I have absolutely no idea as to the practical use and function of whatever that is. 🥸
ChatGPT came up with this rewording of the above quote:
"An autopoietic network is outlined, featuring a distributed artificial intelligence system capable of providing high-volume, high-speed multimedia services, including telesthesia, telemetry, telekinesis, telepresence, telemanagement, telecommunications, and data processing. This invention utilizes a non-hierarchical, fractal structure, organizing the system as a network of networks that exhibit self-similar traits across all levels of aggregation. The system and its constituent networks interact with their environment through hermeneutic processes that do not rely on pre-existing representations of either the environment or the networks themselves. Additionally, the system comprises various cybernetic devices that serve as both the network’s infrastructure and the means of delivering services to users."
I hope that makes everything clearer! 🤗
Not sure that he's desperate or broke, as he was apparently worth 46 million NZ dollars in 2001, according to the New Zealand Herald newspaper (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/indranet-vision-about-anything-but-money/47YKIMWTA6GWTPQVT5JAWFE37U/)
Nice work, Jacques !
I’d say the guy is a smart used-car salesman who has alertly re -branded himself to ‘work’ the polycrisis opportunity.
More accurately , I think we could even I.D. him as just another one of the many symptoms of the accelerating eco-civilizational avalanche .
A character, for sure ! -JJ
Frankly, John A. Joslin, I was considering another listen. I found it so hard to understand what he was saying (probably his accent, although, strangely enuff, some of his words were very easy to understand) that I thought I should give it another go. However, I've changed my mind. 🤪
Arnoux is a bit of a mystery. Some of what he said made sense, but he seems more interested in selling something than really helping, and so does not seem different from those who got us in this mess in the first place.
Shame on me but Louis’s point of view was incredibly hard to comprehend and it felt too easy to throw around terms like thermodynamics and (terawatts of) entropy - makes it seem like we know how this incredibly grand system of ours works and that we can solve it if we just sort out our energy problems. Baffle them with science…
Yes I agree, he did make it seem like the world is comprehensible
It made no sense to me either, Darma S. Not good enuff for someone who purports to have the solution to prevent the collapse of everything by 2030! 🫨
There seems to be more info about the tech Louis proposes here: https://www.fourthtransitionwealth.com/powering-the-future/
Disappointing to see them take the cryptocurrency angle, it's a waste of precious time, they should provide full and open access to their research
I listened very closely to this podcast and the question was never asked, how do you propose to do this? Consequently, it was never answered. I found it impossible to work out what Arnoux was actually saying in terms of a solution the the problems he was outlining. In fact, most of what he was saying was unintelligible to me, a layperson, and worse, offered no understandable actions to deal with the problem. Am I the only one who is more confused after this podcast than before? Arnoux may be a great scientist but he's a hopeless communicator!
We require a more efficient energy source. Current sources are only 12% efficient. He has been studying how nature uses energy and has designed technology that is more efficient then fossil fuels/ current renewables. His design does not require lots of mining (which will destroy the environment completely) for rare Earth metals in order to make this new technology. Unfortunately I can't seem to find any information on this new technology though.
Yes, same here, Kate. This is what concerns me. Until I can see peer reviewed reports of his "inventions", for which he never gave any real evidence, I have deep doubts as to his veracity. 🫤
There seems to be more info here: https://www.fourthtransitionwealth.com/powering-the-future/
Disappointing to see them take the cryptocurrency angle, I wish they'd just provide open access to their research
Louis Arnoux does understand thermodynamics but I don't he semms not to understand the nature of a fiat money system. Money is not a commodity, it is not a scarce resource, it is not a resource at all. It is just a unit off account, like the meter or the kg. Who would argue to get rid of the unit meter in order to save civilization?
It’s more who gets to create those units that we can then account with, and under what conditions.
@Alexander See https://fourth-transition.medium.com/the-economics-scandal-ebd792780f87 regarding the price-less nature of energy
Arthur Keller, planetary overshoot - exceeding earth's biocapacity - the myth of decoupling economic activity from the use of energy and matter. https://youtu.be/kLzNPEjHHb8?si=eg58uNhYaLQL9c7A
I'm also skeptical about his 12% energy extraction efficiency. EROI is an easy parameter to comprehend. The moment energy return approaches 1, meaning Eout equal to Ein, then extraction ceases. Oil was 100:1 about 100 years ago. Many energy sources are lingering in the 10:1 range. We science people laugh at American corn-based ethanol because the EROI is 1.5:1. And we know that, as Arnoux implied, that transport and tooling manufacture is subsidized by fossil fuels, because these are the only ones that can practiably supply heat needed for manufacture. In a previous comment months ago, I offered an analysis of US energy ins and outs an concluded that even if human transport and trucking were converted completely electrified, then full half of US Energy usage is in the form of heat, which renewables (with the exception of passive solar gain in buildings) can't provide, at least to any high temperatures at large scale. So Just don't get Arnoux's 12% efficiency datum. Perhaps his greatest contribution to the convo is that Entropy implies that energy is lost every time we convert from one type of energy to another. That thermodynamics you can't cheat. Furthermore, I see myself using the image of Sisyphus and the hill to illustrate the "gradient" he spoke of that is the crux of energy... in order to have a rock at the top of the hill someone/something/somesun has to push it up the hill. And let's thank Rachel for mentioning that the Hydrogen industry seems to ignore this: there is no hydrogen available and thus you have to make it by pushing the rock up the hill with some other energy source. Oy... Thanks Rachel! Even precocious little kids don't get the circularity of their energy schemes. That's how we're acting... like little kids that don't get thermodynamics.
Fascinating and scary! Pity Louis Arnoux took so long of the episode's time and you had no chance to ask him what is being done to convince our esteemed political and corporate leaders to change our doomed ways. Because if we have the solution but cannot convince them, it will be a bitter end indeed.
"convincing" corporate leaders will not be a non-violent process as ending the profit motive as the dominant driver of society is not merely a matter of 'understanding' but of fighting imperial and colonial power.
You and Louis motivate me. Now, let’s see if I can do the same for you. Please consider inquiring with your colleagues and subscribers about the implications of investing the 40 trillion spent on fossil fuels and their external costs (all or in considerable measure). Consider the economics of multiplier effect, leverage by import substitution, which is further increased by tax credits, quality and cost of locally produced hydrogen (multiplier is possibly in the range of 3-8x; in a compounded manner, (see Missing Trillions, University of Sussex) due to the production of more energy from solar sources (concentrated solar with up to 80,000 suns, based on Prof. Rolan Winston's finalized science in Non-Imaging Optics, which can be stored for extended periods in Sand Batteries).
The consequence of the dead state is a dystopian future, but we could achieve a utopian society by 2050. I have sent you slides regarding this concept. I now possess updated illustrative slides (without any predicted outcomes). If you’re interested, please provide the best email address to send the updated slides. I believe this topic could energize the community and inspire action. The illustrative potential could lead to a significant increase in GDP while decreasing extraction.