{"id":66940,"date":"2024-03-10T08:24:04","date_gmt":"2024-03-10T13:24:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/?p=66940"},"modified":"2024-03-10T08:24:04","modified_gmt":"2024-03-10T13:24:04","slug":"todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-lxxii-differing-opinions-on-renewables","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/?p=66940","title":{"rendered":"Today\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh\u00a0LXXII–Differing Opinions on \u2018Renewables\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Today\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh\u00a0LXXII<\/h3>\n

October 19, 2022 (original posting date)<\/p>\n

Chitchen Itza, Mexico (1986). Photo by\u00a0author.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Differing Opinions on \u2018Renewables\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

While I work on a longer (perhaps several part) contemplation regarding the myth of infinite growth on a finite planet that infiltrates and dominates many mainstream narratives\u200a\u2014\u200aespecially economic in nature\u200a\u2014\u200aI thought I would share a back-and-forth conversation I\u2019ve had with professor Ugo Bardi and another person on the Facebook group Dr. Bardi administers called The Seneca Effect regarding \u2018renewables\u2019.<\/p>\n

It is a good example of the differing opinions regarding complex energy-harvesting technologies and their potential to offset the energy descent we seem to be experiencing.<\/p>\n

First, I\u2019d like to share an introductory statement from a relatively recent \u2018essay\u2019 by Megan Siebert and William Rees: \u201cWe begin with a reminder that humans are storytellers by nature. We socially construct complex sets of facts, beliefs, and values that guide how we operate in the world. Indeed, humans act out of their socially constructed narratives as if they were real. All political ideologies, religious doctrines, economic paradigms, cultural narratives\u200a\u2014\u200aeven scientific theories\u200a\u2014\u200aare socially constructed \u201cstories\u201d that may or may not accurately reflect any aspect of reality they purport to represent. Once a particular construct has taken hold, its adherents are likely to treat it more seriously than opposing evidence from an alternate conceptual framework.\u201d[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

I am well aware that, for the most part, people believe what they want to believe. We defend our beliefs in various ways such as ignoring\/denying opposing information, attacking the presenter of contrarian evidence, or confirming beliefs via selective interpretation of data\/\u2019facts\u2019. And I am as guilty of such psychological mechanisms impacting my belief systems as the next person. We all fight hard to reduce the anxiety\/stress created from the presence of cognitive dissonance and can be easily manipulated into believing certain narratives.<\/p>\n

I have shared in previous contemplations my thoughts about non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies and my increasing belief that they are not the panacea they are being made out to be. You can read some of these here:
\nhttps:\/\/stevebull-4168.medium.com\/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-lxxi-51db9bef29c9<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/stevebull-4168.medium.com\/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-lxii-70865743f203<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/stevebull-4168.medium.com\/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-lviii-721a00a87c2f<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/stevebull-4168.medium.com\/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-xlix-60dc2287a2b9<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/stevebull-4168.medium.com\/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-xlii-dee9d5cc5351<\/a><\/p>\n

And my thoughts on how our beliefs are impacted by various psychological mechanisms:
\nhttps:\/\/stevebull-4168.medium.com\/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-l-fcb81eb216be<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

The post in which the conversation took place shared a media publication[2]<\/a> regarding a fusion reactor and its potential for providing unlimited, clean energy.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/youtu.be\/4GJtGpvE1sQ<\/a><\/p>\n

The presentation begins: \u201cImagine a world where energy was so clean and abundant that it was no longer a limiting factor in the growth of civilization.\u201d<\/p>\n

Infinite growth without a need to worry about what is \u2018fuelling\u2019 it or our ecological systems. What\u2019s not to love?<\/p>\n

Well\u2026<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

My original comment on the link:<\/p>\n

Steve Bull
\nUnlimited, \u2018clean\u2019 energy (an oxymoron) may address one \u2018problem\u2019 humanity faces (actually, a roadblock to continuation of our chasing of the perpetual growth chalice)\u00a0, but it would exacerbate the various predicaments we have created\u200a\u2014\u200aespecially ecological overshoot.<\/p>\n

Comment by another that kicked off the back-and-forth:<\/p>\n

Breton Crellin
\n<\/strong>Yeah maybe for like a fraction of a second before they run out of fuel.
\nThat\u2019s the biggest hurdle at the moment.
\nEven if we can figure out how to keep it cool and controlled it still uses up an incredibly rare fuel incredibly fast.
\nMaybe one day.
\nBut until then it\u2019s a good thing we\u2019ve got renewables.<\/p>\n

Steve Bull
\nBreton Crellin<\/strong> Despite narratives to the contrary, \u2018renewables\u2019 are a can-kicking endeavour. They rely upon finite resources in perpetuity, while that reliance draws those resources down more quickly and exacerbates our fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot.<\/p>\n

Breton Crellin
\nSteve Bull<\/strong> and how would you recommend we generate electricity without producing greenhouse gases?
\nBecause \u2018we can\u2019t have clean energy since one day in the future we could run out of the resources we used to make it\u2019 is a very poor argument that assumes we will use the same materials with no innovation until we run out and it ignores the damage burning fossil fuels is doing right now.
\nIf we don\u2019t stop burning also fuels we won\u2019t be alive to see the end of any resources used to generate renewable electricity.<\/p>\n

Steve Bull
\nBreton Crellin<\/strong> The laws of physics and biology care not one iota if our species survives. However, humanity survived for millennia without electricity. And, you can\u2019t have non-renewable, renewable-energy harvesting technologies without fossil fuels\u200a\u2014\u200aand A LOT of it to even come close to replacing what fossil fuels provide\u2026to say little of their import to modern industrial agriculture that supplies our food. This is a predicament without a solution.<\/p>\n

Breton Crellin
\nSteve Bull<\/strong> Your solution is a non-solution.
\nI asked you how You would recommend producing clean electricity and your answers to not produce electricity?
\nYou can\u2019t have renewable energy without fossil fuels?
\nThat talking point is straight out of the climate change denial handbook.
\nYes I\u2019m well aware that concrete and steel have a carbon footprint and engineers take a gas burning car to work.
\nBut those emissions are only made once and after that it\u2019s decades of clean electricity.
\nBesides using petroleum products is not the problem. It\u2019s burning them for heat electricity and transportation that is accelerating I possible extinction level event.
\nA predicament without a solution hey?
\nSounds more like a predicament you have where your logic has pushed you in a corner you can\u2019t find your way out of.
\nSorry I shouldn\u2019t make this about you.
\nSeriously though if climate change is a predicament without a solution then what is the harm in using renewable energy if we won\u2019t survive on this planet long enough to use up the materials?<\/p>\n

Ugo Bardi<\/strong>
\nBreton Crellin<\/strong> There is nothing to do, Breton, for some people, denigrating renewable energy is a crusade.<\/p>\n

Steve Bull
\nUgo Bardi<\/strong> You and I will have to agree to disagree regarding\u2018 renewables\u2019. And as I have written before in responding to you: \u201c\u2026 it is not that I \u2018hate\u2019 renewables or am a shill for the fossil fuel industry (the two typical accusations lobbed at me); I simply recognise their limitations, negative impacts, and that they are no panacea.\u201d<\/p>\n

Steve Bull
\nBreton Crellin<\/strong> You need to recognize the difference between problems with solutions and predicaments without them. Not only is there increasing data\/evidence to point out that there exists nowhere near the mineral\/material resources to achieve the \u2018transition\u2019 many desire (see this: https:\/\/www.thegreatsimplification.com\/…\/19-simon-michaux<\/a>), but that the ecological system and environmental fallout from pursuing such a shift would be catastrophic (see this: https:\/\/dothemath.ucsd.edu\/2022\/09\/a-climate-love-story\/<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Steve Bull
\nUgo Bardi<\/strong> Breton Crellin<\/strong> As physics professor Tom Murphy concludes in the piece I link: \u201cLet\u2019s not engineer a nightmare for ourselves in the misguided attempt to realize a poorly considered dream. It starts by recognizing that the vision many hold as \u201cthe dream\u201d is itself utterly unsustainable and thus may even accelerate failure, rather than avert it. The predicament has wide boundaries that reach deep foundations of our civilization\u2019s structure. We only succeed by altering our mental models of how we live on this planet\u200a\u2014\u200anot by finding \u201csuperior\u201d substitutes for the very things that have put us in this precarious position\u200a\u2014\u200aand thus will only dig our hole faster, better, and cheaper.\u201d<\/p>\n

Breton Crellin
\nSteve Bull<\/strong> strongly disagree that using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels is a poorly realized dream.
\nAnd again to repeat myself those material estimations assume innovations or alternative materials between now and when we run out.
\nWhat are the timelines until we are expected to run out anyway?
\nCenturies?
\nOr do we have less than that?<\/p>\n

Steve Bull
\nBreton Crellin<\/strong> First, you cannot have \u2018renewables\u2019 without fossil fuels\u200a\u2014\u200afrom the mineral extraction and processing industries to their maintenance and reclamation\/disposal, fossil fuels have no replacements for these industries at scale; plus you require fossil fuels to back up renewable systems because of their intermittency. Note that humanity\u2019s energy demand (including that of fossil fuels) has only increased over the past several decades despite the introduction of \u2018renewables\u2019. Renewables are best seen as an extension of fossil fuels, not a replacement. As for the mineral limitation issue, I will defer to Simon Michaux<\/strong><\/a> as the geologist who has studied the issue extensively. We need to be powering down significantly (plus reducing our population dramatically), not attempting to replace what fuels our energy-intensive civilisation with complex technologies that require significant drawdown of finite minerals that have for some time been encountering problematic diminishing returns (to say little of the ecological damage such a pursuit entails). Our fundamental predicament is ecological overshoot and chasing replacements for fossil fuels does zero to address it; in fact, it makes it worse leading to an even more difficult reversion to the mean for humanity.<\/p>\n

Ugo Bardi<\/strong>
\nYou see? It is a crusade.<\/p>\n

Steve Bull<\/strong>
\nUgo Bardi<\/strong> I view my attempting to point out the deficiencies and issues with renewables no more a \u2018crusade\u2019 than yours to push these technologies (and their environmentally-destructive production) as a \u2018solution\u2019 to our inevitable energy descent. The repercussions for our planet (and all life) of our continued pursuit of complex technologies are not inconsequential.<\/p>\n

Ugo Bardi<\/strong>
\nYours is a faith, mine is a scientific investigation based on data<\/p>\n

Steve Bull<\/strong>
\nUgo Bardi<\/strong> Many would argue that the idea that \u2018renewables\u2019 are a \u2018solution\u2019 to our energy descent as \u2018faith-based\u2019. I guess you missed (purposely ignored?) the links I shared of physics professor Tom Murphy and geologist Simon Michaux<\/strong><\/a>? We must agree to disagree over this\u2026<\/p>\n

Ugo Bardi<\/strong>
\nSteve, how many papers on renewable energy did you publish in peer-reviewed journals? I published at least three (actually more) during the past few years. For this reason I say that my opinion on renewables is based on data and facts.<\/p>\n

Steve Bull
\nUgo Bardi<\/strong> Yes, you are arguing based upon an appeal to \u2018data\u2019 and \u2018facts\u2019, as am I when I refer to the work of fellow academics and \u2018experts\u2019 in their fields. Simon Michaux<\/strong><\/a>, for example, is a geologist with the Geological Survey of Finland and has performed extensive work on the mineral requirement aspects for a transition to \u2018renewables\u2019. Tom Murphy is a practising physicist who looks deeply into the numbers and data. And then there are the countless ecologists who are witnessing horrific biodiversity loss and ecological system collapse from the continuing, and expanding, industrial processes required to pursue complex technologies. I am not basing my perspective on \u2018faith\u2019 as you have suggested. I am attempting to balance the ecological concerns (that are almost always ignored or rationalised away) with the human need for energy to sustain our current way of existence. The two seem quite incompatible.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

I conclude with the notion that we all believe what we wish to believe; \u2018facts\u2019 make little to no difference to that human proclivity. And this is particularly so when one is \u2018invested\u2019 significantly in the belief. Dr. Bardi seems well invested in the concept of renewables being capable of replacing fossil fuels. Me\u2026not so much.<\/p>\n

Might my concerns for the environment and ecological systems because of our industrial processes and pursuit of increasingly complex technologies be overblown or misplaced? Perhaps. But if they\u2019re not and we continue to chase them in our quest for some holy grail to sustain our current living arrangements, the reversion to the mean for humanity will not be very welcome. Not at all.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/a> https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/1996-1073\/14\/15\/4508<\/a><\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> The media publisher is \u2018Electric Future\u2019 that offers the following information about itself on its YouTube channel: \u201cElectric Future\u00ae is an independent media publisher that presents optimistic but realistic coverage of cutting edge sustainable technology\u2026 The operators of Electric Future may have material connection to organizations mentioned in video content.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh\u00a0LXXII October 19, 2022 (original posting date) Chitchen Itza, Mexico (1986). Photo by\u00a0author. Differing Opinions on \u2018Renewables\u2019 While I work on a longer (perhaps several part) contemplation regarding the myth of infinite growth on a finite planet that infiltrates and dominates many mainstream narratives\u200a\u2014\u200aespecially economic in nature\u200a\u2014\u200aI thought I would share a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,3,4,5,6,7],"tags":[2327,1647,674,15442,5833,30370,33947],"class_list":["post-66940","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","category-energy-2","category-environment","category-geopolitics","category-liberty","category-survival-2","tag-finite-planet","tag-finite-resources","tag-renewable-energy","tag-renewables","tag-steve-bull","tag-todays-contemplation","tag-todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66940","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=66940"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66940\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":66941,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66940\/revisions\/66941"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=66940"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=66940"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=66940"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}