The sunflower
It bows down to the Sun
The image of resilience.
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts

Monday, June 26, 2023

Renewables: the Reverse French Revolution

 

The French Revolution came when coal replaced agriculture as the main source of wealth in society. Today, we face a repetition of those events with renewable energy replacing fossil fuels. Several details are returning, including the three estates (nobles, clergy, and commoners) who fought for power at the time of the revolution. The modern nobility is the fossil fuel lobby, the bourgeoisie is the growing renewable-based economy, and the clergy is represented by the "catastrophist" movement. 
(Image of Robespierre and wind towers made with Dezgo.com)


The best way to interpret the French Revolution is by using the lens of Biophysical Economics. All systems, including social ones, are dissipative structures that generate complexity by processing energy and creating entropy. No energy, no complex society. Then, when an energy source runs out, it is collapse. When it is replaced by another source, it is a transition to a different structure which may be larger and more complex. 

This is what happened with the French Revolution, which took place when coal replaced agriculture. Coal was extracted and burned in Europe already during the Middle Ages, but production started becoming important only during the 18th century. Up to then, European society relied on agriculture to provide metabolic energy ("food"). Coal couldn't directly provide metabolic energy, but it could be transformed into food by a process that included smelting steel, using it to make weapons, conquering large swats of land overseas, enslaving the local population, and setting them to work in plantations that provided food for Europeans. 

The transition led the landed nobles and the new mercantile bourgeoisie to be set on a collision course for dominance. The fight went on for about two centuries. In some cases, the transition was smooth, as in England; in others, it involved much bloodshed, as in France in 1789, in the US in 1861, and in Russia in 1917. In all cases, the final result was the same. It is not surprising that the term "King Coal" became commonplace. 

The switch from farming to coal deeply changed the structure of European society. The power was not anymore in the hand of regional nobles, but came to be concentrated in the hands of powerful national elites who could control coal production and, with it, everything else. Lenin understood the reasons for the process when he claimed that the Bolshevik revolution was all about the control of the means of production. He didn't say that there could be no production without coal, but it was implicit in the concept. 

The power of the new elites was immense, but they still needed commoners as soldiers and workers. So, the structure of the new national states was managed in such a way as to give the illusion that "the people" were in charge. In practice, the power was in the hand of entrenched lobbies in Western Europe and bureaucratic structures such as the communist party in the Soviet Union. Moving from coal to oil changed little to the power structure; the main difference was that oil could be more easily transformed into food by chemical processes that produce fertilizers. It led to a further step onward in dominance, with the elites becoming global. 

Today, renewables in the form of photovoltaics and wind have the capability of changing everything. Their low cost makes them able to break the grip of the global elites on production and bring back an economy that looks close to the old agricultural world, where land was the main source of wealth. A true "reverse French Revolution," bringing back the means of production into the hands of regional centers instead of global ones. Don't expect Capitalism to vanish in a puff of smoke as the result of renewable energy, but the capability of global elites to control energy production, yes, that will vanish or, at least, it will be much diminished.  

No wonder, then, that the rapid growth of renewable energy production is generating a strong negative backlash from the sections of society that see themselves threatened. Here, we see parallels with the historical French Revolution. You may remember that before the attack on the Bastille in 1789, King Louis XVI convened the three "États Généraux," the general estates, to manage the response to growing financial and political crises in France in the late 1700s. They were formed of the nobles, the clergy, and the commoners. It was a clash from the very beginning between the two entrenched estates; the nobles and clergy representing agriculture, and the third state; the commoners representing coal. The commoners decided to create their own National Assembly, and then, as they say, it was history. 

Today, we don't have a king convening the three estates of society in an assembly, but the presence of similar entities is detectable. The modern nobles are the oil lobbies that control the functioning of the state by means of their financial power. Their adversary is the "renewable-based bourgeoisie" (*), a new social class that derives its wealth from the growing power of renewables. And who are the modern equivalent of the clergy? At the time of the French Revolution, their role was to provide ideological support for the nobles by scaring the commoners into submission. The method used was the threat of eternal punishment if they dared to try to raise their status to something more than mere survival. 

There is now an equivalent of the old religious clergy in the "catastrophist" movement. They share an apocalyptic vision of divine punishment for human sins, and their current role is to keep the fossil economy alive by convincing the commoners that renewables are a pipe dream, that becoming poor and destitute is a virtue, and that they should be happy with "de-growing." That will allow the fossil lobbies to maintain their grip on fossil energy production while they try to switch to nuclear energy, another centralized source that can be controlled at the global level. In the process, commoners will be left in the cold to fend for themselves the best they can. If they can.  

The new clergy of the catastrophist movement is having some success. Western propaganda is a powerful weapon, and the new, Web-based social networks are being used in full to denigrate renewable energy. But renewables are growing fast, they are creating wealth, and they are racing upward at such speed that it is hard to think they can be stopped. The battle for energy is being fought. There will be no need to behead anyone, but the next few years will decide the destiny of humankind. 



(*) I discovered the concept of "renewable-based bourgeoise" in a recent book by Mauro Romanelli, "The Answer." A good book that explains the basics of renewable energy. Alas, it is available only in Italian.   







Monday, June 19, 2023

The Next One Hundred Years: A Story Told in Three Scenarios

 


Looking back at how the future was seen half a century ago, it is amazing to see how things have changed. When the conquest of space seemed to be the obvious way forward, nobody would have imagined that, today, we would be discussing the probability of survival of humankind, and that many of us would judge it as low. 

Yet, even though the future remains obscure, it still follows the laws of the universe. And one of these laws is that civilizations exist because they have a supply of energy. No energy, no civilization. So, the key element of the future is energy; the idea that it would be cheap and abundant gave rise to the dream of the conquest of space in the 1950s. Today, the idea that it will be neither gives rise to the prospects of doom. 

So, let me try a simple "scenario analysis" of what may happen in the future in the next century or so in terms of choices that will determine the energy infrastructure that could support a complex civilization (if any will survive). We are in a moment of transition, and the choices that will be made in the next few years (not decades) will determine the future of humankind. 

_________________________________________________________________


Scenario #0: collapse. I call this a "non-scenario" in the sense that it assumes that nothing is done or, anyway, too little and too late. In this case, people remain stuck in their old paradigms, the resources that kept society alive are not replaced, and it becomes impossible to maintain a degree of complexity comparable to the current one. Within some decades, humans return to an economy that we might describe as "medieval," if we are lucky. But we might also go back to hunting and gathering or even, simply, go extinct. Personally, I see this scenario as the most likely one, but not an obligate outcome of the current situation. 

Scenario #1: Sticking to Fossil Fuels. Here, we see a repetition of the events that led to stemming the decline of oil production during the first two decades of the 20th century. It was done by pouring large amounts of resources into the "fracking" of tight oil deposits. It produced a temporary resurrection of the oil industry in the US, bringing production to levels never seen before, albeit at enormous economic and environmental costs. The same policy could be continued with renewed efforts, for instance, at exploiting tight oil deposits outside the United States, tar sands, or maybe making synthetic fuels out of coal. That could maintain the production of fossil fuels to levels similar to the current ones. It would make it possible to keep alive the military apparatuses of the main states, and at least some of the current organizations and social structures. But the cost would be enormous, and it would imply beggaring most of the world's population, as well as unimaginable damage to the ecosystem. This strategy could keep a semblance of the current civilization going on for a few decades, hardly more than the end of the century. Then, it will be Scenario #0, but the crash will be even worse than if it had arrived by doing nothing.

Scenario #2: Going Nuclear. Supporting a complex society on nuclear energy may be possible, but it is complicated by several factors. Among these are the limited uranium resources, the need for rare mineral resources for the plants, and the strategic problems involved in disseminating nuclear technologies and uranium processing knowledge all over the world. Because of the limited amounts of mineral uranium, it is well known that the existing technology of light water reactors would not be able to supply the current global energy demand for more than a few decades, at best for a century or so. Then the outcome would be again scenario #0. The fuel supply could be greatly increased by moving to the challenging task of "breeding" new fuels from thorium or non-fissile uranium. If that were possible, a complex civilization could continue to exist for several centuries, or even more. In all cases, a major war that would target the nuclear plants would rapidly send a nuclear civilization to scenario #0.

Scenario #3: The Solar Era. In this case, we see the continuation of the current trend that sees renewable energy technologies, mainly solar photovoltaic and wind, rapidly expanding. If this expansion continues, it can make both fossil fuels and nuclear energy obsolete. Renewable technologies have a good energy return on energy investment (EROI) and little need for rare minerals. Renewables are not a strategic problem, have no direct military interest, and can be used everywhere. The plants can be recycled, and they are expected to be able to support a complex society; even though in a form that, today, we can only barely imagine. A solar-based infrastructure is also naturally forced to reach a certain degree of stability because of the limited flux of solar energy available. So, a solar-based civilization could reach a stable state that could last at least as long as agricultural societies did in the past, thousands of years, or even longer.

Combined Scenarios #1, #2, #3: Feudalization. The three scenarios above are based on the idea that human civilization remains reasonably "global." In this case, the competition between different technologies would play out at a global scale and determine a winner that would take over the whole energy market. But that's not necessarily the case if the world's economic systems separate into independent sections, as it appears to be happening right now. In this case, some regions might adopt different strategies, fossils, nuclear, or renewables, while some would simply be shut off from the energy supply system and go directly to "Scenario #0."  With lower demand, the problems of depletion of nuclear and fossils would be greatly eased, although, of course, only for a limited population. Note also that these near-independent regions can be described as "feudal," but need to be much larger and more structured than anything seen during the historical Middle Ages. Keeping alive complex technologies, nuclear in particular, requires maintaining a functioning industrial society, and that may not be obvious in a time of diminishing returns for everything. 

The next few decades will decide which direction humankind will take. No one has the hands on the wheel that moves the giant thing we call "civilization," and we are seeing efforts to push it in one of the three scenarios above (some people even seem to be actively pushing for scenario #0, a civilization-level expression of what Sigmund Freud called the "death instinct"). 

The problem, here, is that the Western governance system has evolved in such a way that no decision can be taken unless some groups or sectors of society are demonized, and then a narrative is created that implies fighting a common enemy. In other words, no decision can be taken on the basis of data and planning for the common good, but only as the result of the confrontation of the lobbies involved in supporting different options. (*)

We have seen the demonization-based decision mechanism operating during the past few decades. It is a well-honed procedure, and we may expect it to be also applied to the allocation of resources for new energy strategies. We have already seen an energy technology being demonized;  it was the case of nuclear energy in the 1970s, the target of a successful propaganda campaign that presented it as an enemy of humankind. Today, renewables and everything "green" may soon be the victims of a new demonization campaign designed to promote nuclear energy. We are seeing it in its early stages, (see this article by George Monbiot), but it is clearly growing and having a certain degree of success.

Nothing is decided yet, but the writing is on the blades of the wind turbines. Propaganda rules the world, and it will continue ruling it as long as people fall for it. 


(*) Simon Sheridan provides an interesting discussion of the inner decisional mechanisms of modern society, defined as "esoteric" in the sense of being hidden, unlike the "exoteric," e.g. public decisional mechanism, which is only a reflection of the esoteric process. 

(**) For much longer-term scenarios, see my post: "The Next Ten Billion Years

Monday, June 5, 2023

And yet it moves. Why the EROI of renewables may be higher than that of fossils

 


Eppur si move; (yet it moves). Galileo is said to have pronounced these words after having been condemned for supporting the heliocentric model of the solar system. New ideas take time to be accepted, and often the resistance against them is tenacious. This is especially true when the new ideas change an existing paradigm. It was the case for the heliocentric model; it may be the case for renewable energy technologies. So far, they have been considered little more than toys for greens, but now we face a radical change of paradigm: they may be able to do better, -- even much better -- than fossil fuels. That's far from certain, of course, but it is what's emerging from the data and the calculations. And if it will turn out to be true, our future will be completely different from what we thought it would be.   


The idea that renewable energy can provide a better energy return (EROI) than fossils is often met with not just skepticism; as it would be normal for a still unproven hypothesis. It is seen as absurd, impossible, unbelievable, outworldly, and worse. If you mention it in the discussion on social media, you risk being insulted, berated, accused of nefarious intentions, and your mental sanity questioned. It happened to me with the comments on my previous post

It is understandable that radical changes in paradigms upset people, making them worried and even angry. It happened with the heliocentric view of the Solar System at the time of Galileo, and if it turns out that renewable energy is a technology superior to fossil fuels, then it is an even larger change of paradigm. You know how deeply fossil fuels changed the world. Renewables may have similar effects, although in different ways. 

Now, please don't make me say that the higher EROI of renewables is an established truth. It is not. But from the data we have, I suspect that it might be. In any case, it is surely an idea well worth exploring. For a long-term view, you can see a paper of mine. Here, I'll try to discuss some available evidence that favors this possibility. 

The central point of this discussion is a paper by Murphy et al., who re-examined the available data about the EROI of energy sources, making sure that the evaluations were carried out in comparable conditions. That is, ensuring that the yield was compared at the "point of use" (POU) rather than at the "well mouth," which would give an unfair advantage to fossil fuels. Renewables directly produce usable energy, unlike fossil fuels which, after being extracted, need to be processed into fuels and turned into useful energy in inefficient thermal engines. 

The data presented by Murphy et al. indicate that the EROI of photovoltaics may be about five times larger than that of crude oil. Of course, all data and their interpretation are affected by uncertainties. So, let me propose some additional evidence that goes in the same direction. 

One obvious consequence of a high EROI for a technology is that you expect it to grow fast. It is the same mechanism of compound interest that generates exponential growth in the yield of a financial investment. This growth is proportional to the return on investment (ROI), the financial equivalent of EROI. Ultimately, in our economic system, energy is worth money, and a technology that has a good energy yield also has a good ROI, so we expect it to grow fast. (*)

On this point, there is no doubt that renewable energies are growing fast; very fast, especially for photovoltaic energy. Here are the current growth curves for photovoltaic energy (from "Our World in Data")



PV energy production is growing at an approximately exponential rate of about 25% yearly, leading to doubling every three years. Actually, the rate has been closer to 35% during the past few years, with a doubling time as low as two years. PV grows faster than any other modern renewable technology; the whole sector is growing at 16% yearly

But how fast does PV energy need to grow to prove that it has a higher EROI than fossils? At the very least, it should grow faster, and it does. Let's take a look at the data for global oil production:



During the heyday of the age of oil, in the 1950s and 1960s, production was doubling every 8-10 years, corresponding to a growth rate of 7%-8% yearly. Much slower than PV is doing nowadays. 

We can carry out the same evaluation for other energy technologies. In the 1970s, nuclear energy had a doubling time of a little more than 2 years. Meaning a growth of 25% per year. For coal, during the late 19th century, production doubled in no less than 20 years. Finally, biomass for power production never grew at high rates nor produced amounts of energy comparable to those of renewables. 

Overall, these data indicate a qualitative proportionality of the growth rate of a technology with its EROI. The fastest growth rate is observed for PV, in agreement with the proposals by Murphy et al. for an EROI around 20 on the average. Nuclear also fits this interpretation with a high EROI reported by Murphy et al, but for a plant lifetime larger than that of PV. The POU EROI of oil is reported by Murphy as around 5; and that fits with the slower growth rate. Note that the EROI at the well mouth may have been high in the 1960s -- over 30; but the POU EROI may have been similar to the current one. About the slow growth of biomass power production, it fits with the data indicating a low EROI. Regarding coal, the proportionality seems to be lost, since coal may have had a large EROI. But the data for more than a hundred years ago can't be compared with those of our times. 

In the end, I think the main evidence for the high efficiency of renewable energy is this graph that comes from recent Bloomberg data, (Figure by R. Craig)


You see how, for the same investment, renewable energy is growing fast (16% for the average, 35% for PV), whereas fossil fuel production is growing very slowly, if at all. 

These data strongly support the idea that renewables, and PV in particular, have a larger, actually much larger EROI than fossil fuels. That seems to be true for the present situation, but the question is for how long the growth of renewables can maintain this high EROI and continue growing. At some point, the curve will necessarily start flattening out, as it has already happened for oil and nuclear. The limits of the availability of solar energy are far away, but mineral resource bottlenecks are possible and even probable. These bottlenecks would have the effect of increasing the energy costs of new plant, and cause their EROI to plummet. Also, political factors are not to be discounted. Nuclear energy was rapidly growing in the 1960s, and you might have thought that it would soon replace fossil fuels. Indeed, people were speaking about the upcoming "nuclear age." But the technology was killed mainly by political and strategic factors. Today, if governments want to kill renewable energy, they can do that (and may be preparing to do exactly that). 

How long does the curve need to continue growing? Right now, wind and solar produce about 3500 TWh per year, a little more than 2% of the world's primary energy (about 160,000 TWh/year ). Actually, we don't need to ramp up production to such a level. Taking into account the losses in turning fossil fuels into energy and the various inefficiencies of the current infrastructure, Jacobson estimates that we need no more than half of that to match the current demand. Even with 50,000 TWh, our civilization would survive, although rather battered. Yet, it is a steep climb that we face, from about 5% to 100%. (For a more quantitative estimate, see this paper of mine with Sgouridis and Csala). Can we make it? It is a fighting challenge, but it is not impossible. At the current growth rates, renewables could reach 100% of what we need in one or two decades.  

The future, as usual, is obscure. But we have one of those opportunities that happen once in a lifetime (the lifetime of a civilization!).  


_________________________________

(*) No energy technology can start its growth by pulling its own strings. In the beginning, it needs the support of energy from an already established technology (it is what we called "the sower's paradigm"). Coal grew on wood and human energy, oil grew on coal, and, at present, renewables are growing using the energy produced by oil and gas. The capability of a technology to grow on itself appears only when it has reached a significant fraction of the total production; it depends on the EROI -- and only technologies with a good EROI can reach this stage. Surely, the EROI of renewables is more than sufficient for them to support themselves. 




Saturday, May 20, 2023

The Garden of Forking Paths: Renewables are an Opportunity we Cannot Afford to Miss

  

"El jardín de senderos que se bifurcan" (J.L. Borges)

Recently, Simon Michaux argued that the transition to renewable energy is not possible for the lack of sufficient mineral resources. This conclusion was criticized by Nafeez Ahmed in a recent post. As usual in our polarized world, that led to a heated discussion based on opposing views. My opinion is that both Michaud and Ahmed are right but they see the question from different points of view. If you allow me, Ahmed is more right because he shows that the future is not running on a fixed path. Rather, it is a garden of forking paths. If we choose the right path, the transition is possible and will lead us to a better world. 

Do you remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? It tells you that you shouldn't cry wolf too many times but also that the wolf will eventually come. It illustrates how our destiny as human beings is to always choose extreme viewpoints: either we are too afraid of the wolf, or we believe it doesn't exist. Indeed, Erwin Schlesinger said, "human beings have only two modes of operation: complacency and panic.

This dichotomy is especially visible in the current debate on the "Energy Transition" that recently flared in an exchange between Simon Michaux and Nafeez Ahmed, the first maintaining that the transition is impossible, the second arriving at the opposite conclusion. In my modest opinion, Michaud's work is correct within the limits of the assumptions he made. But these assumptions are not necessarily right. 

Models may be perfectly correct, but still unable to predict the future. 

If you really believe that they can, you are bound to make enormous mistakes -- as we saw in the way the recent pandemic was (mis)managed. 

Models are there to understand the future, not to predict it. 

The future is a garden of forking paths. Where you go depends on the path you choose. But you still need to follow one of the available paths. 

______________________________________

Now, let me try to examine Michaux's work and Ahmed's rebuttal in light of these considerations. I went through Michaux's report, and I can tell you that it is well done, accurate, full of data, and created by competent professionals. That doesn't mean it cannot be wrong, just like the peak oil date was proposed by competent professionals but turned out to be wrong. The problem is evident from the beginning: it is right there, in the title. 

Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels 

You see? Michaux assumes from the start that we need "extra capacity" from "alternative" energy in order to "completely replace" fossil fuels. If the problem is stated in these terms, the answer to the question of the feasibility of the transition can only be negative. 

Alas, we didn't need a report of 985 pages to understand that. It was obvious from the beginning. The limits of mineral resources were already shown in 1972 by the authors of "The Limits to Growth," the report sponsored by the Club of Rome. We know that we have limits; the problem is which paths we can choose within these limits. 

This question is often touched on in Michaux's report when he mentions the need to "think outside the box" and to change the structure of the system. But, eventually, the result is still stated in negative terms. It is clear from the summary, where Michaux says, "The existing renewable energy sectors and the EV technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution." This suggests that we should stick to fossil fuels while waiting for some miracle leading us to the "final" solution, whatever that means. This statement can be used to argue that renewables are useless. Then, it becomes a memetic weapon to keep us stuck to fossil fuels; an attitude which can only lead us to disaster. 

Nafeez Ahmed perfectly understood the problems in his rebuttal. Ahmed notes several critical points in Michaud's report; the principal ones are underestimating the current EROI of renewables and the recent developments of batteries. That leads him to the statement that renewables are not really "renewable" but, at most, "replaceable." Which is simply wrong. The EROI of renewables is now large enough to allow the use of renewable energy to recycle renewable plants. Renewables are exactly that: renewable. 

You could argue that my (and Ahmed's) evaluation of the EROI of renewables is over-optimistic. Maybe, but that's not the main point. Ahmed's criticism is focused on the roots of the problem: we need to take into account how the system can (and always does) adapt to scarcity. It follows different paths among the many available. Ahmed writes: 

...we remain trapped within the prevailing ideological paradigm associated with modern industrial civilisation. This paradigm is a form of reductive-materialism that defines human nature, the natural world, and the relationship between them through the lens of homo economicus – a reduction of human nature to base imperatives oriented around endless consumption and production of materially-defined pursuits; pursuits which are premised on an understanding of nature as little more than a repository of material resources suitable only for human domination and material self-maximisation; in which both human and nature are projected as separate and competing, themselves comprised of separate and competing units.

Yet this ideology is bound up with a system that is hurtling toward self-destruction. As an empirical test of accuracy, it has utterly failed: it is not true because it clearly does not reflect the reality of human nature and the natural world.

It’s understandable, then, that in reacting to this ideology, many environmentalists have zeroed in on certain features of the current system – its predatory growth trajectory – and sought out alternatives that would seem to be diametrically opposed to those regressive features.

One result of this is a proliferation of narratives claiming that the clean energy transformation is little more than an extension of the same industrialised, endless growth ideological paradigm that led us to this global crisis in the first place. Instead of solving that crisis, they claim, it will only worsen it.

Within this worldview, replacing the existing fossil fuel energy infrastructure with a new one based on renewable energy technologies is a fantasy, and therefore the world is heading for an unavoidable contraction that will result in the demise of modern civilisation.  ... Far from being a sober, scientific perspective, this view is itself an ideological reaction that represents a ‘fight or flight’ response to the current crisis convergence. In fact, the proponents of this view are often as dogmatically committed to their views as those they criticise. ....

Recognising the flaws in Michaux’s approach does not vindicate the idea that the current structures and value-systems of the global economy should simply stay the same. On the contrary, accelerating the energy and transport disruptions entails fundamental changes not only within these sectors, but in the way they are organised and managed in relation to wider society.

My critique of Michaux doesn’t justify complacency about metals and minerals requirements for the clean energy transformation. Resource bottlenecks can happen for a range of reasons as geopolitical crises like Russia's war in Ukraine make obvious. But there are no good reasons to believe that potential materials bottlenecks entail the total infeasibility of the transition.

... we face the unprecedented opportunity and ecological necessity to move into a new system. This system includes the possibilities of abundant clean energy and transport with diminishing material throughput, requiring new circular economy approaches rooted in respect for life and the earth; and where the key technologies are so networked and decentralised that they work best with participatory models of distribution and sharing. This entails the emergence of a new economy with value measured in innovative ways, because traditional GDP metrics focusing on ever-increasing material throughput will become functionally useless.

If you can, please, try to examine these statements by Ahmed with an open mind because he perfectly frames the problem. And never forget one thing: the future is not a single path toward catastrophe. It is a garden of forking paths. We are bound to follow one of these paths: we don't know which one yet, but not all of them lead to the Seneca Cliff. In the transition to a renewable energy system, we can adapt, reduce demand, improve efficiency, deploy new technologies, and simply be happy with a more limited supply of energy at some moments. It is only the rigidity of our mental models that make us think that there are no alternatives to fossil fuels. 


Thursday, May 18, 2023

Renewables are not a cleaner cockroach, they are a new butterfly. A discussion with Dennis Meadows

  

Dennis Meadows (left in the image) and Ugo Bardi in Berlin, 2016


A few days ago, I received a message from Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the 1972 study "The Limits to Growth," about a previous post of mine on "The Seneca Effect." I am publishing it here with his kind permission, together with my comments, and his comments on my comments. I am happy to report that after this exchange we are "99% in agreement."


Ugo, 

I read with interest you review of the Michaux/Ahmed debate. Normally I greatly benefit from your writing. But in this case it seemed to me that your text totally avoided addressing the central point - replacing fossil fuels as an energy source with renewables will require enormous amounts of metals and other resources which we have no reasonable basis for assuming will be available. It is not true that peak oil was presented principally as a prediction. Rather critics of Hubert's original analysis misrepresented it as an effort to predict in order to ridicule it -  just as Bailey did for the Limits to Growth natural resource data from World3. I was struck that your critique of Michaux did not contain a single piece of empirical data - the strong point of his research. Rather you engaged in what I term "proof by assertion."

I am personally convinced that there is absolutely no possibility for renewables to be expanded sufficiently that they will support current levels of material consumption. I attach the text of a memo I recently wrote to other members of the Belcher group stating this belief (*). 

Best regards Dennis Meadows

_____________________

Dear Dennis, 

first of all, it is always a pleasure to receive comments from you. It is not a problem to be in disagreement on some subjects -- the world would be boring if we all were! Besides, I think our disagreement is not so large once we understand certain assumptions. 

Let me start by saying that I fully agree with your statement that "there is absolutely no possibility for renewables to be expanded sufficiently that they will support current levels of material consumption." Not only is it impossible, but even if it were, we would not want that!

So, what do we disagree about? It is about the direction to take.  The fork in the path leads in two different directions depending on the efficiency of renewable technologies: Path 1): renewables are useless, and Path 2): renewables are just what we need

I strongly argue for Path 2) in the sense that we definitely do NOT need to "support current levels of material consumption" to create a sustainable and reasonably prosperous society. But let me explain what I mean by that.  

First, in my opinion, the problem with Michaux's report is that it underestimates the efficiency of renewable technologies. He says that renewables are not really renewable, just "replaceable." He, like others who use this term, means that the plants that we are now building will not be replaceable once fossil fuels are gone. In this case, creating a renewable infrastructure will be a waste of resources and energy (Path 1). 

This view may have been correct until a few years ago, but it is now obsolete. The recent scientific literature on the subject indicates that the efficiency of renewable technologies (expressed in terms of EROI, energy return on energy invested) is now significantly better than that of fossil fuels. Furthermore, it is large enough that the materials used can be recycled using renewable energy. There is a vast literature on this subject. On the specific question of the EROI, I suggest to you this paper by Murphy et al. You can also find an extensive bibliography of the field in our recent paper,  "On the history and future of 100% renewable research." 

Of course, not everything is easy to recycle, and a future renewable infrastructure will have to avoid the use of rare metals (such as platinum for fuel cells) or metals that are not rare, but not abundant enough for the task (such as copper, that will have to be largely replaced by aluminum). That is possible: the current generation of wind and PV plants is mostly based on abundant and recyclable materials. Doing even better is part of the natural evolution of technology. What we can't recycle, we won't use. 

There is a much more fundamental point in this discussion. It is the very concept that we need renewables to be able to "replace fossil fuels," in the sense of matching in quantitative terms the energy produced today (in some views, even exceeding it in order to "keep the economy growing"). This is impossible, as we all agree. The point is that renewables will greatly reduce the need for energy and materials to keep a complex civilization working. If you think, for instance, of how inefficient and wasteful our fossil-based transportation system is, you see that by switching to electric transportation and shared vehicles, we can have the same services for a much smaller consumption of resources. This concept has been expressed by Tony Seba in a form that I interpret as, "Renewables are not a cleaner caterpillar-- they are a new butterfly"

That doesn't mean that the geological limits of the transition aren't to be taken into account; the butterfly cannot fly higher than a certain height. Then, it may well be that we won't be able to move to renewables fast enough to avoid a societal, or even ecosystemic, crash. On this point, please take a look at a paper that I co-authored, where we used the term "the sower's strategy" to indicate that the transition is possible, but it will need hard work, as the peasants of old knew. But staying with fossil fuels is leading us to disaster (as you correctly say in the document for the Balaton group) while moving to nuclear fission simply means exchanging a fossil fuel (hydrocarbons) for another fossil fuel (uranium). Going renewables is a fighting chance, but I believe it is the only chance we have.   

There is an even more fundamental point that goes beyond a certain technology being more efficient than another. Going renewables, as Nafeez Ahmed correctly points out, is a switch from a predatory economy to a bioeconomy.  Our industrial sphere should imitate the biosphere that has been using minerals from the Earth's crust on land for the past 350 million years (at least) and never ran out of anything. As I said elsewhere, we need to do what the biosphere does, that is:

1. Use only minerals that are abundant.
2. Use them sparingly and efficiently.
3. Recycle ferociously. 

If we can do that, we have a unique opportunity in the history of humankind. It means we can build a society that does not destroy everything in order to satisfy human greed. Can we do it? As always, reality will be the ultimate judge. 

Ugo


__________________________________________________________________
The answer from Dennis Meadows

Ugo, 

Thank you for sending me your article. I agree that the main difference of opinion lies in the direction to take. I am reminded of the defining characteristic of professors - two people who agree on 99% and spend all their time focusing on and debating the other one percent. Because I largely agree with you, my only relevant comment on what you say is that you have overly limited our options: 

So, what do we disagree about? It is about the direction to take.  The fork in the path leads in two different directions depending on the efficiency of renewable technologies: Path 1): renewables are useless, and Path 2): renewables are just what we need

I would not choose either path; rather I believe it is time to quit focusing on fossil energy scarcity as a source of our problems and start concentrating on fragility. The debate -renewables versus fossil - is a distraction from considering the important options for increasing the resilience of society.

Dennis Meadows




___________________________________________

A minor point. You say, "It is not true that peak oil was presented principally as a prediction." I beg to differ. I have been a member of ASPO (the Association for the Study of Peak Oil) almost from inception and part of its scientific committee as long as the association existed. And I can say that one of the problems of the approach of peak oilers was a certain obsession with the date of the peak. That doesn't disqualify a group of people whom I still think included some of the best minds on this planet during that period. The problem was that few of them were experts in modeling, and models are like weapons: you need to know the rules before you try to use them. By the way, you and your colleagues didn't make this mistake in your "Limits to Growth" in 1972; correctly, you were always careful of presenting a fan of scenarios, not a prediction. Later on, Bailey and his ilk accused you of having done what you didn't do: "wrong predictions." But that was politics, another story. 

_____________________________________________________

(*) Statements about being realistic about technology, alternative energy, and sustainability
Dennis Meadows

April 11, 2023 message to the Balaton Group

Dear Colleagues,

I have often described politics as the art of choosing which of several impossible outcomes you most prefer. It is important to envision good outcomes. It may be useful to strive for them. But it is important to be realistic. The recent discussion about technology, alternative energy, and sustainability are based on several implicit assumptions, which I believe are unrealistic. At the risk of being an old grump, and recognizing my own limited vision, I list here some statements that I believe from the study of science, history, and human nature to be realistic.

#1: There is no possibility that the so-called renewable energy sources will permit the elimination of fossil fuels and sustain current levels of economic activity and material well- being. The scramble for access to declining energy sources is likely to produce violence. 

#2: The planet will not sustain anywhere close to 9 billion people at living standards close to their aspirations (or our views about what is fair).


#3: Sustainable development is about how you travel, not where you are going.

#4: The privileged will not willingly sacrifice their own advantages to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor (witness the US.) They will lose their advantages, but unwillingly.

#5: The rapidly approaching climate chaos will erode society's capacity for constructive action before it prompts it.


#6: Expansion and efficiency are taken as unquestioned goals for society. They need to be replaced by sufficiency and resilience.

#7: History does not unfold in a smooth, linear, gradual process. Big, drastic discontinuities lie ahead - soon. 

#8: When a group of people believe they must choose between options that offer more order or those affording greater liberty, they will always opt for order. 

Unfortunately so, since it will have grave implications for the evolution of society’s governance systems. Dictators will always promise less chaos than Democrats.

Friday, September 9, 2022

A debate on renewable energy with Max Kummerow, Christian Breyer, and Ugo Bardi



We had an interesting debate on renewable energy in the forum 100%renewables, so I thought I could reproduce it here. Those who intervened were Max Kummerow, Christian Breyer, and Ugo Bardi. (their picture, above, are in the same order as the names are written. If you are interested in joining the forum, write to ugo.bardi(thing-a-ling)unifi.it 

 
On 04/09/2022 20:00, Max Kummerow wrote:


I am not clear why nuclear can't be part of the mix for base load, making the transition require less investment? Maybe that question answers itself--it might cost more to build nuclear plants than to oversize RE and build a more sophisticated grid and demand management approach. Anyway, Bill Gates is onto the cheaper, safer nuclear idea. Wish him luck.

A second quibble is that there are many processes, notably the manufacture of NH3 fertilizer by the Haber-Bosch process using CH4, cement manufacture, and cattle raising that generate greenhouse gasses, Also hundreds of other industrial processes, ag practices (soil abuse), forest clearing, etc. that cause emissions. Most of these can be addressed by improved technologies, I believe, but they are important. Half the world's food supply (grain yields, most used to feed livestock) goes away without N fertilizers. P and K are also essential plant nutrients with supply problems looming. So 100% RE is complicated.

But elephant in the room is growth. At present, world population is growing at 1%, and per capita incomes (equal to economic output/population) averages near 2% despite the economic cycle and pandemic variations. That adds up to approximately 3% growth in the human economy, doubling time 24 years. Say efficiency gains in use of energy and materials shave 1% off that, demand still doubles in 36 years. About 3 times per century. And then, of course, you have to double it all again in the first third of the next century. At some point about 1973, I think, this stopped working. Climate change can be looked at as a consequence of a supply constraint due to the limited size of the planet's atmosphere. Exponential growth goes from "abundant" to "all gone" in the last few doublings: Two from 25% to 100%. So hitting the wall is sudden and unexpected.

So why isn't everybody talking about reversing growth as the fundamental long-run solution for a prosperous, habitable, beautiful planet with abundance rather than scarcity? Reversing growth makes RE so much easier and a permanent solution.

I think the answer is that ending growth requires a shift in mindset, culture, practice, ideology, religion, worldview even more fundamental than the shift from the geocentric cosmology to the heliocentric solar system. Which took at least 150 years. Copernicus 1543 (sold by his editor as "another model, just a hypothesis"), Brahe data/Kepler theory, a better model, 1600, Giordano Bruno, 1600 "our sun and planets just one of many," Bruno tortured and burned as a heretic), Galileo (look through the telescope, moons of Jupiter, etc., threatened with torture and shut up), Newton, 1687 (Principia, calculus, law of gravity, laws of motion). And, by the way, 1992, Catholic Church admits it was wrong about Galileo, the earth does revolve around the sun. My point is that a major change in perspective takes a long time and has enormous consequences. We lost the divine right of kings as well as the Church as the monopolist divine authority. Science doubled life expectancy and increased incomes ten-fold, while population increased 16 times, so far (500 million in 1700, 8 billion in 2022, doubled in just 48 years from 4 billion in 1974.

The end of the growth forever meme began, maybe in Greek times (Ugo will know), but kicked off in modern times with Franklin who in 1751 wrote that doubling of population every 25 years in the colonies couldn't continue forever. Then Malthus proposed exponential growth encountering limits, 1798. J.S. Mill advocated on quality of life grounds for "the stationary state" in 1848. In the rush to invent technologies, mine coal, and steal whole continents from native peoples, Mill was Ignored, despite Jevons worries about British coal running out (it did, Maggie giving it the coup de grace)). Boosterism accelerated with 3 trillion a year (an old number, it's more now) paying for messages that mostly say "buy something, consume more, get richer." Economics and politics obsessed with economic development and growth. Then the ecologists with their depressing density dependent mortality, niche's, carrying capacity, limits to growth. The biophysical economists. But again, pro-growth didn't burn the MIT modellers at the stake after the Limits to Growth projected collapse in the 21st century, but they certainly did get dismissed and ridiculed and rebutted. I'm leaving out various scientists' warnings to humanity and other "growth has to stop" messages from scientists.

But the decroissance position is right. .There is no substitute for water. The planet is no bigger with 8 billion people than it was with 500 million 300 years ago. Growth has to stop. Relevant to the 100% renewables debate, so far, emissions have kept rising, more than doubled since 1990. So far RE has accommodated part of the rising demand. If demand were falling, the % of RE would be higher, dirtiest coal fired plants retired and a feasible target for 100% RE in sight. With growth continuing, 3x in a century, then 6x, 12x, 24x in the next century, I think we really do run out of lithium and cobalt. Or something else. The key insight of the 1972 LTG study was that a system dynamics modeling approach that linked various issues showed that if one thing doesn't get you, another will. Did anybody tell us about the ongoing extinction event? I'm a hobby farmer in Illinois on some of the best dirt in the world. I can tell you we are using it up. Unless we can lighten pressure on the earth, humanity is headed for collapse.

It took a couple of centuries, the Reformation, a few civil wars and several revolutions to move the earth out of the center of the universe. The Catholic Church, by the way, is playing a similar science denial role in the present transition to the no-growth version of humanity on a small home planet. The Church's irrational opposition to contraceptives and abortion leaves the world still growing at 80 million/year and poverty, violence and shorter lives the path to ending population growth. It is nice that they don't burn people like Aldo Leopold, Charlie Hall, or Ugo Bardi at the stake anymore.

Attached is a draft chapter from a book I'm working on that argues for completing the half-completed global fertility transition. About half of the world's countries (and population) have fertility rates less than replacement. Most of those are still growing due to 50 years of "population momentum" before young populations age after fertility falls. The other half still have more than 2.1 kids. Getting birthrates down in failed states where the medical system is dominated by the Catholic Church will be a challenge. So Africa's solution may be migration and higher mortality rather than birth control. Europeans would be wise to support global family planning initiatives. Africa is projected to double population from 1.3 to 2.6 billion by mid-century. I don't think Europe is prepared to accept the overflow.

The numbers in my Kaya projection table may be wrong or need updating. Help with that would be appreciated. Future growth rates are, of course, inherently uncertain in principle (see Popper on historicism). Opinions will differ and then reality will do something else. But I think the conclusion that ending growth will be necessary for the transition to RE to occur in time is becoming more likely as the world dallies.

_______________________________________________________

Comment by Christian Breyer

Dear Max,

renewables have NOT to be oversized. We regularly find a curtailment of about 3-5% of a well-balanced sector coupled with 100% renewable energy systems. That’s no oversizing, the self-consumption of thermal power plants is higher …

New nuclear power is simple extremely expensive, it costs 2-3 times what 100% renewables cost (including storage, grids, and curtailment). Why huge resources shall be wasted? Why not use such ‘extra’ resources for better education and health services?

Why 100% renewables should be complicated with respect to fertilizers? That can be done with renewable electricity, water, and air. That’s nowadays the least-cost solution and also the reason why green e-ammonia projects mushroom right now. More details can be found here (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261920315750). Bioenergy can be used for 100% renewables, but optionally – it is not necessarily needed.

Let’s not quarrel on growth, since we agree that we disagree.

The Kaya identity is one of the most important equations of all. This is the fundament of my research. What we learn there: the poor in the world have to become rich as soon as possible since rich societies have typically 1.5-1.8 kids per woman, that leads automatically first to population stabilization, then population decline. Integral international policy has to be to get the poor as fast as possible rich, and of course that on sustainable energy basis, and as soon as possible on a full circular economy.

The beauty of the Kaya identity is that we ‘only’ have to use CO2-free energy, then the (energy-industry related) CO2 emissions are zero. That’s the by far simplest way to get climate stabilization, all other parts of the equation are by orders more complicated to bring in the right direction.

We get by a factor 500-1000 more energy from the sun as a civilization ever needs, year by year. Based on that the energy-industry energy needs and emissions can be fixed, and finally we can switch to net negative emissions to get the mess tidied up again. That’s also not that energetically expensive, as the latest research reveals.

Some more details here:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910


___________________________________________

Comment by Ugo Bardi


Max, your reflections are similar to many things which have been said and promoted during the past 50 years or so. Already in 1972, "The Limits to Growth" had identified growth as the source of all problems and proposed to reduce it.

It didn't work -- not just that: it may have backfired when it generated a vicious backlash from many people who felt threatened. Imagine having to do with an addict and threatening him to cut his supply of cocaine. His reaction may well be to create a stock of it as large as possible.

We are slowly learning how to manage complex systems, but it is something that will take a long time to complete, and perhaps it will never be. The main point is, I believe, that we have limited power to manage such enormous systems as the ecosphere and the human economic power. The only hope we have is to identify trends and encourage them or discourage them. There is just no way to force the system into what we want it to be. It is what Jay Forrester had named "pulling the levers in the wrong direction." The more you push, the more the system drags its enormous (planetary scale) feet. Try it with your dog, and you'll see how it works, even though the dog has much smaller feet.

So, I think there are two major trends that we can encourage -- and even if we don't, they will encourage themselves well enough.

One is the demographic transition. It is a small miracle that it exists: it was never planned and a lot of people opposed it as much as they could. And they still do. But to no avail. Birthrates are dropping like stones: right now we are at 2.4 children per woman, the trend is very clear, even in African countries, although they are arriving later than in the other continents. The population is going to stabilize and then, hopefully, will slowly decline. Every time I think of this, I am amazed. Think of what the world would be if every woman, everywhere, wanted to have 10 children as their grandmother did! I don't know if there is an inner wisdom in the human species that's being tapped right now, or if it is a gift that Mother Gaia gave to us, who knows? But it is like that. We don't need to do anything about that, just wait for the trend to unfold.

The other trend is renewable energy. Another miracle. Think if it didn't exist, if it was still true that renewables would cost 50 times more than fossil fuels, as was the case 50 years ago (more or less). What would we do now? Would we have to go for a plutonium-based economy as it was fashionable at that time? Think of what's happening near the nuclear plant in that unnameable place in Ukraine. Then multiply that by a factor of 1000, and add that the plants would be fueled with plutonium. Unimaginable, or perhaps even too imaginable. Instead, we have an energy source that not only is cheap and efficient, but -- and this is the true miracle -- it is self-limiting! You can't go in overshoot with renewable energy, You have limits to the area you can cover with panels. So, you can have a large amount of energy, and you can also afford to leave in peace a very large fraction of the ecosystem to stabilize itself and provide us with those (horrible name) "ecosystem services" that nobody cares about, but will when they are not available anymore.

So, what do we have to do, in practice? Regarding population, there is little that we can do, but I think we have to explain that, even though there is such a thing as "overpopulation," there is no such thing as "population overgrowth." We have already seen in a not-so-remote past how easy it is to get into "extermination mode" when people were convinced (maybe even in good faith) that there existed such a problem as the lack of "vital space" (call it "lebensraum" or "posto al sole" as you like). If the meme of lebensraum starts diffusing again, then it is not impossible that someone will concoct again some kind of "final solution" and try to put it into practice. Hopefully, that won't happen, but it might.

Then, mostly, we can and we ought to push for renewable energy. We can do that, and I see that people understand what I am telling them when I speak about renewable energy (not all of them, but the smart ones. And they are not a minority). And after that I have explained to them the idea, they ask me what they can do to install PV panels on their roof, or invest in renewable energy. Compare this with what happens with climate change. People may (sometimes) understand what you are telling them. Then they will go home with their SUV and turn the TV on. And they won't do anything against climate change, because there is really nothing that they can do, except cosmetic actions of no importance on the overall effect. But every PV panel installed, is a small, but effective, step to limit global warming. And the natural stabilization of the growth of PV panels will also limit and eventually stop, economic growth, at least intended as the growth of material consumption.

Is all that enough? No, but in this way, it is realistically possible to have an impact. Once people have renewable energy, that will generate a market for a more efficient distribution system, for storage facilities, and all that. Then, the market for fossil fuels will gradually vanish We can use electric power to make fertilizers, in a stabilized economy, that will also reach a stable level, reducing the damage created by eutrophication. And stabilization will also make water available not such a pressing problem as it is now. No more wars? Probably not: humans are warlike creatures. But for sure, most recent wars have been for fossil energy.

Overall, I think that during the past two decades or so we have seen the opening of possibilities undreamed before. We have a chance. A fighting chance. We have to fight for it. And we can even win the battle!

________________________________________________