Thanks for the answer, sorry I didnāt reply earlier. I started working on another project for EA France, aiming to identify impactful charities working in France, so I had much less time to spend on the topic of energy depletion. I didnāt want to do a rushed answer, but didnāt find the time to dig into the topic once againā¦ you know how it goes.
So instead, Iāll just publish an update on my thinking on the topic (while keeping in minf that I have found several important articles that I have to read).
So far, Iāve updated more positively on renewablesātheir improvement is indeed faster than just about anyone had anticipated (which makes papers obsolete as soon as theyāre a few years old, and therefore makes it very difficult to get properly informed on the subject).
Several articles Iāve read have indeed made me update on them. There were several elements where I had underestimated adaptability. The EROI of renewables is indeed correct. I have a higher probability of an energy transition āfrom the topā, where we maintain energy growth (which isnāt necessarily good news, given that the more energy we have, the greater our capacity to destroy our environment and generate existential risks). Your link about the Twitter thread exposing the limits to the GTK report was indeed interesting. I also found an article here that showed several other limits.
Iām talking less and less about a 2050 timeframe (which is what most of the litterature talks about). However, Iām more worried about what short-term disruptions could imply.
Indeed, my worries are more about the fact that limits on fossil fuels are probably short-term : and that time constraints could prove significant. Going from a system where almost all trucks, or cement making, or steel making, or fertilizers, or hydrogen, or plastics (etc.) are dependent on fossil fuels, to a system where >50% of these are not fossilā¦ this is going to take time, and Iām worried about what would happen during this time.
Same goes for storage : batteries are improvingā¦ but it seems that weāre a long way from the deployment speed required for seasonal storage in order to have a stabilized grid.
As a French Energy expert stated (prominent member of EDF) :
āThe RTE report clearly shows that energy mixes with a high proportion of renewable energies can only be achieved with a very significant drop in consumption [...]. I admit that this reduction must be significant enough to involve much more than a simple technical improvement in process efficiency. Even so, why deprive ourselves of what at least makes it possible to reduce the pain, or even avoid widespread chaos?ā
Itās the āchaosā scenario that worries me.
I feel like the majority of people I know donāt really have personal finance growth as their primary objective in life, and I donāt see how our society does eitherāitās almost an accident of economics at this point.
It seems pretty clear to me that growth is the main goal of our societyāand that it stopping would have far reaching consequences. As I said, a society where everyoneās share of the pie is growing is very different than one where everybody is competing to secure access to declining resourcesāthe degree of trust is not the same. Especially when some wealthy people in society have the ability to agregate more and more resources, as is currently happening.
The importance of financial growth is exemplified by the fact that ādegrowthersā have besically no traction on a political level, despite clear evidence on their side of a strong correlation between environmental impact and growth.
The more I look at it, the more the global economy appears to be working like a Ponzi schemeārequring an ever growing amount of capital and energy and resources to keep everyoneās trust in the fact that everyoneās investments will be paid out later. At some point, it has to stop. The question is : how do you end a Ponzi scheme in a smooth way?
Still, the future is full of weird stuff, so weāll see. Iāve had less time to keep an eye on these subjects recentlyāIāve got several interesting papers to look at (and Iāll check your point on minerals and debt). Iāll update then.
Hi !
Thanks for the answer, sorry I didnāt reply earlier. I started working on another project for EA France, aiming to identify impactful charities working in France, so I had much less time to spend on the topic of energy depletion. I didnāt want to do a rushed answer, but didnāt find the time to dig into the topic once againā¦ you know how it goes.
So instead, Iāll just publish an update on my thinking on the topic (while keeping in minf that I have found several important articles that I have to read).
So far, Iāve updated more positively on renewablesātheir improvement is indeed faster than just about anyone had anticipated (which makes papers obsolete as soon as theyāre a few years old, and therefore makes it very difficult to get properly informed on the subject).
Several articles Iāve read have indeed made me update on them. There were several elements where I had underestimated adaptability. The EROI of renewables is indeed correct.
I have a higher probability of an energy transition āfrom the topā, where we maintain energy growth (which isnāt necessarily good news, given that the more energy we have, the greater our capacity to destroy our environment and generate existential risks).
Your link about the Twitter thread exposing the limits to the GTK report was indeed interesting. I also found an article here that showed several other limits.
Iām talking less and less about a 2050 timeframe (which is what most of the litterature talks about). However, Iām more worried about what short-term disruptions could imply.
Indeed, my worries are more about the fact that limits on fossil fuels are probably short-term : and that time constraints could prove significant. Going from a system where almost all trucks, or cement making, or steel making, or fertilizers, or hydrogen, or plastics (etc.) are dependent on fossil fuels, to a system where >50% of these are not fossilā¦ this is going to take time, and Iām worried about what would happen during this time.
Same goes for storage : batteries are improvingā¦ but it seems that weāre a long way from the deployment speed required for seasonal storage in order to have a stabilized grid.
As a French Energy expert stated (prominent member of EDF) :
Itās the āchaosā scenario that worries me.
It seems pretty clear to me that growth is the main goal of our societyāand that it stopping would have far reaching consequences. As I said, a society where everyoneās share of the pie is growing is very different than one where everybody is competing to secure access to declining resourcesāthe degree of trust is not the same. Especially when some wealthy people in society have the ability to agregate more and more resources, as is currently happening.
The importance of financial growth is exemplified by the fact that ādegrowthersā have besically no traction on a political level, despite clear evidence on their side of a strong correlation between environmental impact and growth.
The more I look at it, the more the global economy appears to be working like a Ponzi schemeārequring an ever growing amount of capital and energy and resources to keep everyoneās trust in the fact that everyoneās investments will be paid out later. At some point, it has to stop. The question is : how do you end a Ponzi scheme in a smooth way?
Still, the future is full of weird stuff, so weāll see. Iāve had less time to keep an eye on these subjects recentlyāIāve got several interesting papers to look at (and Iāll check your point on minerals and debt). Iāll update then.