theothertimcook
2 hours ago
Definitely worth checking out his book, how the world really works if you're not that into or across this stuff, really fascinating.
Vaclav Smil on why there will be no energy transition
14 pointsposted 17 hours ago
by measurablefunc15 Comments
hyperman1
3 hours ago
We use 55% more energy than in 1997? Where is all that going? I've seen graphs with plastic production with even higher numbers.
I have no problem going back to my 1997 lifestyle and cant point to much explaining this growth. Is it more people getting access to western luxury or are we just that much more wastefull?
em500
3 hours ago
> We use 55% more energy than in 1997? Where is all that going?
Mainly to rapidly developing countries like China and India. Europe and US have decreased fossil fuel consumption a bit, China and India have increased 3 fold.
> I have no problem going back to my 1997 lifestyle and cant point to much explaining this growth.
Approximately nobody in develping countries feels that way.
luis_cho
an hour ago
> Europe and US have decreased fossil fuel consumption a bit We did not decreased fossil consumption we externalised the fossil consumption to developed countries production.
Developed countries use a lot of fossil fuels but most of that is to promote the lifestyle of developed countries.
Oxfam estimates that 1% of the richest people emit double the carbon emission of the half the poorest of humanity
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...
ZeroGravitas
4 hours ago
> Nuclear electricity generation has been only 33% efficient (and no imminent breakthroughs are expected).
This is a good example of the pointless numerology deployed against renewables by people like Smil, because he's doing it to nuclear here.
What does this number mean in real life? Basically nothing. Why is he bringing it up then?. Because it sounds like a low number.
Most of the numbers he uses are used because they sound like a big number. That's the level of debate he's aiming for.
pjc50
4 hours ago
Indeed. I didn't read the whole thing but presumably that's Carnot efficiency of the nuclear reactor as heat engine? In which case .. who cares? The important factors are "is there going to be sufficient fuel?" (insert argument about breeder reactors), "is it cost (money or resource) effective", and "is the proliferation risk important".
By comparison, the increase in power/area efficiency of solar panels is useful but not very significant either; again, the critical factor is the cost falling by several orders of magnitude in the past decades.
ZeroGravitas
4 hours ago
Smil is the only degrowther that doesn't get totally dunked on by radical centrists types for being a degrowther, which I find interesting.
Apart from that oddity, it reinforces my thoughts that degrowthers are fairly rational people except they've fallen for the fossil fuel propaganda generated by people like Smil and then tried to take it seriously.
I'm not familiar with this blog but it appears the author falls into that group.
subjectivationx
19 minutes ago
Smil to me shows that most people that talk about this subject are completely full of shit. The subject is far too complicated to have any rational discussion on.
_aavaa_
6 hours ago
Here we go gesticulating at “primary energy” again.
binoct
5 hours ago
Primary energy sources are what they are, both your comment and the linked article seem to imply discussing them should lead to a deserved punch in the face. Can you help me understand why?
As far as I can tell, your link argues that if we overcome all the practical challenges (politics, resources, financing, technical innovation) and go all-electric for global energy, we only need ~1/3 as much input energy potential as we use today for the same useful work. That’s useful, but the hard part lies in those practical challenges. And the primary sources of global human energy use are a long way away from that goal.
So should we strive to get there? Sure. Should we be tactical about how? Yes. And the link seems to argue that as well. But is it reasonable to hit our 2050 goals based on the current global fossil fuel usage? Not really. So I’m really missing how this refutes Smil’s article, and why “primary energy” is such a stupid thing.
_aavaa_
43 minutes ago
The problem with it is that it makes it easy to make bad faith arguments for why we can’t or shouldn’t transition (kinda like is being done here).
Take for example paragraphs like:
> Primary electricity (hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and a small contribution by geothermal plants) accounted for no more than about 18% of the world’s primary energy consumption, which means that fossil fuels still provided about 82% of the world’s primary energy supply in 2022.
Are used as justification for why green green energy is a scam, it can’t be done, or it’s too expensive, etc., etc. after all 82% of primary energy is still from fossil fuels.
Except we don’t have to replace 82%, since 2/3rds of that is wasted. Of 100 kWh we’re already done 12 kWh and only need to add 27 (NOT 82) more kWh of electricity to replace all the fossil fuel usage. And that’s before talking about any efficiency gains (e.g heat pumps with COP >4).
DriftRegion
8 hours ago
I found the linked article to be difficult to follow. Vacliv Smil wrote a book called Energy and Civilization (2017) in which he argues that the ability to harness energy is what makes civilizations thrive and enables the production of culture.
Panzerschrek
4 hours ago
Sure, full energy transition before 2050 isn't possible. But it should happen sooner or later, since fossil fuels aren't renewable. Doing this transition early allows to avoid shocks caused by fossil fuels exhaustion.
Also I am afraid that such transition isn't possible with current economic system and with current population. Resources needed for carbon-free economy are scarce (like copper mentioned in the article above), so, overall consumption reduction is necessary, maybe even with population reduction. This means degrowth, which isn't compatible with modern capitalism.
pjc50
4 hours ago
> isn't possible with current economic system and with current population
> This means degrowth, which isn't compatible with modern capitalism.
The reason people don't like discussing this stuff is that the logical conclusion is that the world will transition towards authoritarianism, in the form of fascism and/or something labelled "communism", while along the way a huge number of people will get killed.
Which is yet another reason to try to rush renewables.
Wordsongo
7 hours ago
there is energy transition