\nKnossos, Crete (1988). Photo by author.<\/p>\n
\nKnossos, Crete (1988). Photo by author.<\/p>\n
‘Renewables’: The Great ‘Solution’ (NOT)<\/strong><\/b><\/p>\n I’ve been very, very slowly reading a paper by archaeologist Joseph Tainter (Problem Solving: Complexity, History, Sustainability<\/span><\/u> Population and Environment<\/em><\/i>, Sep., 2000, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 3-41) that I will comment upon and summarise in a few weeks. In the meantime, I thought I would share a fresh experience.<\/p>\n A recent issue within a Facebook Group (Peak Oil: Twilight of the Oil Age) I am a member of has prompted me to throw together some thoughts, once again, regarding the push by many well-meaning individuals\/groups to increase massively the production and distribution of non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (aka ‘renewables’) and associated industrial products (e.g, electric vehicles, ‘renewables’-powered manufacturing).<\/p>\n The primary reason given this time is perhaps the most common used to rationalise\/justify this push and move quickly towards a ‘clean\/green’ energy transition: reduce significantly our extraction\/use of hydrocarbons, thereby eliminating the greenhouse gases that are released in the process, and put a halt to rising global temperatures.<\/p>\n While all well and good, this calling for trying to reduce our species’ impact upon the planet, I continue to fear we are doing the exact opposite<\/strong><\/b> via a massive expansion of complex industrial products to provide electrical power to our ubiquitous energy-intensive technologies.<\/p>\n These technologies are contributing not only to our increased extraction and burning of hydrocarbons (they are, after all, a highly energy-intensive industrial product requiring massive amounts of hydrocarbons to produce, distribute, maintain, and dispose of\/recycle), but to the overshoot of the various planetary boundaries that have been found to be significant to the stability and resilience of the Earth system (i.e., land system changes, novel entity distribution, climate change, biosphere integrity, freshwater change–see here<\/a>).<\/p>\n Among a handful of arguments by ‘renewables’ advocates are some of the following:<\/p>\n Evidence, however, brings all of these assertions (or ‘hopes’) into question.<\/p>\n I’ve posted quite a number of Contemplations upon ‘renewables’ and attempted to demonstrate that they are not the ‘saviour’ for sustaining our society’s complexities as they are, for the most part, being marketed as.<\/p>\n See some of my more recent Contemplation on ‘renewables’: Rather than repeat some of the arguments I have made previously, I thought it would be instructive to provide the recent thoughts of two others: Chris Smaje and Dr. Tom Murphy.<\/p>\n Below you will find summations of two recent posts by these two.<\/p>\n Basically, they both challenge the common\/mainstream assertions about ‘renewables’ and the associated ‘clean\/green’ energy transition. Two additional voices to consider…<\/p>\n Off-grid: further thoughts on the failing renewables transition<\/strong><\/b><\/u><\/a><\/p>\n Chris Smaje; August 12, 2024<\/p>\n -Chris has argued for some years that he believes “…the future is likely to devolve into low energy-input local societies based around widespread agrarianism…” -Chris admits that “A renewables-based transition to a lower-energy, more equitable, local and agrarian economy could be a wonderful thing.” Energy transition–the current state of play<\/em><\/i> \n \n-in other words, there is no ‘transition’ out of hydrocarbons despite the rapid growth of ‘renewables’; if there were, we’d be using less of them, not more S-curves<\/em><\/i> The real cost of renewables<\/em><\/i> Make Government Great Again?<\/em><\/i> Batteries to the rescue?<\/em><\/i> Minerals<\/em><\/i> Energy cliffs, energy traps and economic slips<\/em><\/i> Geopolitics<\/em><\/i> On-grid<\/em><\/i> Off-grid<\/em><\/i> -Chris concludes his thoughts by stating that “I don’t think renewables transitions are a serious likelihood for most people worldwide, but I don’t expect to be taken seriously by those who think otherwise…the more we can get off-grid, use soft-energy paths and agroecology, and build local communities, the more we can avoid getting wrecked by the siren call of banoffees (business as nearly ordinary feasibly-fast (and) future-proofed energy-transition enthusiasts)…[and] off-grid doesn’t have to mean isolation or survivalism. There’s a world o localism to be won.”<\/p>\n MM#11: Renewable Salvation?<\/strong><\/b><\/u><\/a><\/p>\n Dr. Tom Murphy, August 6, 2024<\/p>\n -Tom presents “various reasons why renewable energy and recycling are not our way out of the predicament modernity has set out for us. It\u2019s just a doubling-down that can\u2019t really work anyway.”<\/p>\n A Past Enthusiast<\/em><\/i> Cost of Climate Change Dominance<\/em><\/i> Materials Demand<\/em><\/i> -‘renewables’ require significantly more materials per unit of electrical energy delivered than that of hydrocarbon combustion; it is not a build-once-and-done game The Genius of Life<\/em><\/i> Recycling Limitations<\/em><\/i> What Do We DO with Energy?<\/em><\/i> Intent Matters<\/em><\/i> Obligatory Titanic Metaphor <\/em><\/i> Cease What, Exactly<\/em><\/i> If you\u2019ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my \u2018fictional\u2019 novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian)<\/strong><\/b>, via my website<\/span><\/u><\/a> or the link below \u2014 the \u2018profits\u2019 of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).<\/p>\n Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).<\/p>\n If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.<\/p>\n Costs (Canadian dollars):Book 1: $2.99Book 2: $3.89Book 3: $3.89Trilogy: $9.99<\/p>\n Feel free to throw in a \u2018tip\u2019 on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents\/dollars helps\u2026\u00a0<\/strong><\/b><\/p>\n https:\/\/paypal.me\/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US\u00a0<\/strong><\/b><\/u><\/a><\/p>\n If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com<\/span><\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton\u2019s Overshoot and Tainter\u2019s Collapse: see here<\/span><\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n It Bears Repeating: Best Of\u2026Volume 1<\/strong><\/b><\/p>\n A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.<\/p>\n With a Foreword and Afterword by Michael Dowd, authors include: Max Wilbert; Tim Watkins; Mike Stasse; Dr. Bill Rees; Dr. Tim Morgan; Rob Mielcarski; Dr. Simon Michaux; Erik Michaels; Just Collapse\u2019s Tristan Sykes & Dr. Kate Booth; Kevin Hester; Alice Friedemann; David Casey; and, Steve Bull.<\/p>\n The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine\u2013and most certainly than what mainstream media\/politics would have us believe.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nToday\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXX-She Blinded Me With Science, and More On The \u2018Clean\u2019 Energy Debate\u2026<\/strong><\/b>. June 2, 2024.\u00a0Blog<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/b>Medium<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/b>Substack<\/strong><\/b><\/a>
\nToday\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXVIII-Magic Permeates Our Thinking About \u2018Solutions\u2019<\/strong><\/b>. February 27, 2024.\u00a0Blog<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Medium<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/b>Substack<\/strong><\/b><\/a>
\nToday\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXVI\u2013Confessions Of A Fossil Fuel Shill<\/strong><\/b>. February 11, 2024.\u00a0Blog<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Medium<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Substack<\/strong><\/b><\/a>
\nToday\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXI\u2013A \u2018Solution\u2019 to Our Predicaments: More Mass-Produced, Industrial Technologies<\/strong><\/b>. December 21, 2023.\u00a0<\/strong><\/b>Blog<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/b>Medium<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/b>Substack<\/strong><\/b><\/a>
\nToday\u2019s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXX\u2013To EV Or Not To EV? One Of Many Questions Regarding Our \u2018Clean\/Green\u2019 Utopian Future, Part 1<\/strong><\/b>. December 18, 2023.\u00a0Blog<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/b>Medium<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/b>Substack<\/strong><\/b><\/a> Part 2.<\/strong><\/b>\u00a0January 14, 2024.\u00a0Blog<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/b>Medium<\/strong><\/b><\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/b>Substack<\/strong><\/b><\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n-the movement to this may occur in an unmanaged form (societal collapse from pursuing a business-as-usual path) or managed one (purposeful degrowth)
\n-critics have raised a third option: maintain current high-energy societies via rollout of ‘renewables’<\/p>\n
\n-his skepticism towards this third pathway, however, is primarily towards the notion that we can quickly transition to from high-carbon to low-carbon energy sources that can sustain our high-energy, growth-oriented global economy
\n-this perspective, labelled ecomodernism, focuses upon technological innovations and products to address environmental issues<\/p>\n
\n-while the transition literature makes it appear that hydrocarbon use is quickly diminishing and ‘renewables’ is taking its place, the data shows this is not occurring
\n-the percentage of primary energy used has dipped slightly, but the quantity of hydrocarbon use has continued to increase without much if any of a pause
\n-looking at electricity generation, ‘renewable’ production has increased significantly from a very low point; but hydrocarbons still account for generating about 60% and in absolute terms has increased more than any other source<\/p>\n
\n2024 Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy<\/p>\n
\n{NOTE: keep in mind, also, that the vast majority of ‘renewables’ are manufactured in China, where the primary energy source is coal and which has reached record extraction\/use rates]
\n-despite these data, many continue to argue (based upon questionable assumptions, see next point) that hydrocarbon use will peak soon and then begin its inevitable decline, being replaced by ‘renewables’
\n-the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggests in a recent report (New Zero By 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector) that not only must electricity generation increase significantly, but that to reach Net Zero, hundreds of gas\/coal plants (particularly in emerging and developing countries) need to be equipped with unproven technologies (carbon capture and storage), and electrical networks everywhere need to be expanded greatly<\/p>\n
\n-data, naturally, reflects the past and ‘renewables’ advocates often proffer their arguments with dependence upon impending exponential growth and technological breakthroughs
\n-appealling to future innovations creates a situation that can neither be proven nor unproven
\n-and Smaje admits ‘renewables’ are environmentally preferable [NOTE: I do not agree here mostly because there exist many aspects of ‘renewables’ production\/distribution\/maintenance\/disposal\/reclamation that are discounted in such a perspective; particularly the hydrocarbon inputs and ecological systems destructiveness of mining for needed components, both the ‘renewables’ and necessary storage products]<\/p>\n
\n-the electricity supply chain consists of several unbundled aspects (generation, transportation, buy\/sell wholesalers, and consumers) and price decreases in one do not generally filter down to consumers
\n-while much has been made of the falling price of the material components of ‘renewables’, other costs have risen (e.g., land, integration of ‘renewables’-produced electricity, price of capital); the ‘levelised cost of energy’ (LCOE) metric often cited as proof of ‘renewables’ inexpensiveness, often excludes these other costs
\n-the intermittency of ‘renewables’ impacts the price received for electricity (since it varies depending upon supply and demand) making the LCOE low in theory but high in reality
\n-the IEA report cited above notes that to achieve Net Zero, electrical grids need to more than double in size and scope given the bottleneck it currently is for ‘renewable’-generated power; Chris notes that this will require massive fossil fuel-powered extraction
\n-adding the grid costs and additional facilities increases the actual cost of ‘renewables’ past that of hydrocarbons
\n-the financial institutions that provide the capital for ‘renewables’ projects have little interest given the low profitability and debt-servicing issues common in the sector
\n-while there is some efficiency in ‘renewables’ over hydrocarbons given the amount of energy lost to heat in the latter, hydrocarbons have a distinct advantage in also providing chemical feedstocks important in various other sectors
\n-in addition, electricity only supplies a fraction of industrial energy use (about 10-20%), with industries that cannot easily (or not at all) electrify
\n-as it stands, the globe is nowhere close to achieving Net Zero
\n-even if one accepts the argument that recycling and\/or a circular economy can help to address these issues, there exist limits and our current trajectory is taking us nowhere near the ideal<\/p>\n
\n-could the economic impediments be overcome if governments nationalised their electricity sectors?
\n-while China, in their quick adoption and rollout of ‘renewables’ suggests this may be possible, there remain difficult if not impossible realities to overcome [NOTE: it’s true that China has adopted a lot of ‘renewables’, and produces the vast majority; but China also is seeing record amounts of coal use in their power generation and use]
\n-regardless of who is in charge, there remains: industries that are difficult\/impossible to electrify; intermittency of generation; high material costs; difficulty matching supply and demand
\n-nationalisation is no ‘easy’ feat and requires political, bureaucratic, and technical aspects; to say little about the lack of interest in such a move by many in government, industry, and the public–neoliberalism dominates almost everywhere
\n-instead, governments tend to offer incentives\/subsidies; this approach, however, often results in boom\/bust situations
\n-“..neoliberal globalization needs to end–but that’s not going to bring the Keynesian happy place back. There’s too much debt, and too little real growth.”<\/p>\n
\n-hydrocarbons are advantageous in that they can be turned on\/off as needed; ‘renewables, however, require energy storage systems
\n-while there are constant cheers for potentially inexpensive and efficient systems to do this, none exist at the moment [current systems require hydrocarbon-based industrial and ecologically-destructive processes to produce] and the costs of decommissioning\/reclaiming\/disposing current systems must be considered–to say little about scaling such systems up<\/p>\n
\n-the mineral requirements for this ‘transition’ are critical and a number of analysts\/researchers doubt the ability of our planet to provide what is being called for
\n-there exist limits\/bottlenecks\/diminishing returns for finite minerals\/other resources (especially hydrocarbons), and concerns over the ecological impacts of the massive mining required
\n-here, many ‘renewables’ advocates point to the ecological destructiveness of hydrocarbons but “..if you set the bar as low as ‘not as bad as fossil fuels’ then a lot of things can jump over it.”<\/p>\n
\n-while the concept of energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI; also known as net energy) is important to the global economic systems geared to growth, its real-life application to this issue is controversial
\n-despite the EROEI falling for hydrocarbons, it tends to remain higher than that for ‘renewables’
\n-energy cliff refers to the idea that as the EROEI of an energy source declines, the energy available to an economy declines more quickly; this is especially a problem for ‘renewables’ given their energy investment mostly occurs upfront creating less economic incentive to switch and resulting in a negative feedback (or energy trap)
\n-a transition may be more feasible for an economy not dependent upon growth, but we do not live in that world [and given the Ponzi-like structure of our economic systems it’s unlikely we could shift to such a system]<\/p>\n
\n-it appears that many countries (especially those not self-sufficient in hydrocarbons) are building out ‘renewables’ for energy security purposes, not for ‘decarbonisation’, given that world politics has become more volatile as the US’s hegemony wanes
\n-there is no fossil fuel-replacement occurring, however; what we are witnessing is an energy diversification and “…the pursuit of economic growth, energy security and geostrategic power is likely to drive increases–or at least retrenchment–in all forms of energy, including fossil fuels.”
\n-in fact, we may witness an increase in hydrocarbon use (especially coal), including the intensive-energy military sector–and particularly from the US is unlikely to “…give up its fossil-fuelled control of its oceanic trade empire without a fight…”
\n-domestically, governments opt for hydrocarbons over renewables to ensure grid stability during peak demand times and due to them being a less expensive option; this, however, can lead to grid failures when fuel shortages occur
\n-with global temperatures increasing, we can imagine a positive feedback loop where higher demand (air conditioning) leads to more hydrocarbon use, resulting in higher global temperatures and so on
\n-it’s also possible grids will be overwhelmed by demand and\/or richer nations pushing up prices beyond the reach of poorer ones and impacting supply chains so that ‘renewables’ production is impacted negatively
\n-many\/most poorer nations depend upon relatively cheaper hydrocarbons (especially coal); Africa, for example, produces 74% of its electricity from hydrocarbons and only 11% from ‘renewables’
\n-for any kind of global ‘transition’ to occur, it’s going to require a massive transfer of wealth from richer nations to poorer ones<\/p>\n
\n-‘renewables’ skeptics are often criticised as playing into the pursuits of Big Oil, but Chris counters that it is those who advocate for the transition that have interests that are more in line with Big Oil\/Capital
\n-these interests are dominated by profit-making and many Big Oil companies have invested heavily in ‘renewables’ (deinvesting when profits are waning) [I would add that part of their support for ‘renewables’ is likely because the industrial processes required to produce\/distribute\/maintain\/reclaim them are heavily dependent upon hydrocarbons]<\/p>\n
\n-while techno-fix narratives sound serious, whether they actually offer ‘solutions’ to our meta-crisis times is questionable
\n-one often used approach is to market ‘renewables’ as beneficial to the ‘poor’ and ’emerging’ economies but what mostly occurs is a loss of autonomy, increased assimilation, disruption of traditional living, etc.
\n-ecomodern, techno-fix narratives brush aside these concerns<\/p>\n
\n
\n-having lived an off-grid lifestyle and experimented with a number of off-grid configurations, Tom has an intimate relationship with the concept and products
\n-he originally believed ‘renewables’ were part of the answer to our issues of climate change and peak oil but has reached the conclusion that such narrow solutions tend to work only for narrowly-defined problems<\/p>\n
\n-a narrow view of our ecological predicament where CO2 emissions can be eliminated via ‘renewables’ and all is well is attractive but overlooks the complexities
\n-the belief that climate change is the main issue and this can be corrected with technology denies the larger picture\/complexities
\n-‘renewables’ fail to get us out of the mess we’ve created<\/p>\n
\n-‘renewable’ technologies require massive amounts of finite resources<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/ccsenet.org\/journal\/index.php\/jms\/article\/view\/0\/47241.<\/a><\/p>\n
\n-‘renewables’ are thus not actually ‘renewable’ as they depend upon finite materials in perpetuity<\/p>\n
\n-Nature is remarkable in that it has figured out how to accomplish all it does with the small set of elements found upon our planet (e.g., 96% of human mass is composed of oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%)–all derived from air and water)
\n-natural recycling is essentially 100% efficient and can continue indefinitely
\n-modern human inventions, however, rely upon the wrong things (e.g., rare earth minerals), don’t last (some not even a human generation and rarely a lifetime), and leave often harmful waste streams (e.g., radioactive waste)<\/p>\n
\n-the common rebuttal to the significant material needs of ‘renewables’ is the idea of recycling or circular economy
\n-first, the massive initial build-out should not be discounted and you cannot recycle what’s not present
\n-and it’s worth considering that even the substantial speed of ‘renewables’ production over the past couple of decades has not been able to meet human energy needs with hydrocarbon-use increases being necessary
\n-the massive outlay required to even meet growing needs would result in significant ecological systems destructive
\n-second, even the most efficient recycling is imperfect with fantasy-level 90% recovery resulting in a 50% loss of material after just 7 cycles and 90% loss after 22–it is not indefinite
\n-wind turbines and solar panels last a couple of decades prior to requiring replacement, so at best recycling can push ‘renewables’ out for a handful of centuries (that’s if everything goes ‘just right’)<\/p>\n
\n-at the heart of our predicament is what we do with energy
\n-much is used to cause ecological systems damage (e.g., clear forests, industrial agriculture, mine, manufacture products, etc.)
\n-regardless of the energy source or technology, we are destroying planet health<\/p>\n
\n-with technology in hand, we appear intent on harming Nature
\n-it matters not if the technology is hydrocarbon-based or \u2018renewable-based\u2019
\n-Tom suspects, however, that it won\u2019t be long before \u201c\u2026the deteriorating web of life will create cascading failures that end up making humans victims, too, and pulling the power cord to the destructive machine.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n-powering modernity with different technology does not change the outcome, just as lithium batteries instead of a coal-fired engine would not have altered the Titanic\u2019s tragedy<\/p>\n
\n-none of our destructive activities are likely to cease if we alter our energy source
\n-eliminating CO2 might be great but it doesn\u2019t change our ecological predicament in the least if everything else remains the same
\n-\u201c\u2026doing so keeps our boot on the throat of the community of life so it can\u2019t breathe. Doing so keeps the sixth mass extinction basically on track, uninterrupted\u2014though perhaps not as quickly or warmly.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n
\n