![\"\"](\"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/solar-pv-buildup.png\")
<\/a>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Screen-Shot-2025-02-10-at-7.04.56-AM.png\")
<\/a>CLICK HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\nIf you\u2019re new to my writing, check out <\/b>this overview<\/b><\/a>.<\/b><\/p>\n Recently, a member (JS) of a Facebook Group (Peak Oil) I am a member of posted a graph (see above) of the massive increase in the energy supplied by solar photovoltaic panels and led with the following statement and question:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cChina, for all their faults, has ramped up solar panel production to civilizational scale levels.\u00a0 The entire energy consumption of the U.S is 4.3 Terrawatt (sic) hours, so they’re making a non-trivial impact. As China starts consuming less oil and electrifies everything they’re doing, they’ll take huge pressure off the rest of the world’s energy supplies.\u00a0 I don’t think anyone was predicting that fast of a ramp up.\u00a0 It’s essentially best case scenario.\u00a0 Anyone want to provide a good counterargument that we’re doomed?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The various responses by Peak Oil group members is what follows. I share these as there are considerations that members of this group highlight that most people don\u2019t use to assess narratives regarding \u2018renewables\u2019.\u00a0 [Note: I\u2019ve tried to capture these in order of response except for mine which I close with and seems to have garnered the most secondary responses. I\u2019ve also included all comments up until posting of this Contemplation and grouped them to reflect standalone ones vs. those with secondary responses.]<\/span><\/p>\n I follow up this conversation with an artificial intelligence large language model summary of the comments that captures the essence of the discussion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n DI<\/b>: Just means China will last longer, long run tho we\u2019re still doomed. Also China\u2019s oil demand wont go down either way.<\/span><\/p>\n BS<\/b>: And Spain and Portugal suffered a nationwide blackout due to the imbalance between actual spinning reserves and inverter power when one large inverter based solar system went off-line and shut both countries down in under 30 seconds due to a cascading shut down of inverters across both countries.<\/span><\/p>\n GH<\/b>: Industrial solar (and wind, etc) still require fossil fuels. The net effect of ramping up these sources is just to keep economic growth going for as long as possible in the wake of peak oil. Will alternative industrial energy sources moderate the effects of peak oil for awhile and enable us to more effectively use the remaining fossil fuels (especially coal)? Yes. Will they fundamentally change the fact that industrialization is based on nonrenewable resources? And the exponential growth of consumption of non renewable resources? No.<\/span><\/p>\n Doomed either way. Just with solar we\u2019re doomed at little later and we consume more coal along the way.<\/span><\/p>\n DI<\/b>: <\/span>I think China is hedging every bet. Going big on solar and coal, etc at the same time. They know climate mitigation is a lost cause that may actually hasten the decline. They\u2019re trying to last as long as possible. I think it\u2019s a smart plan. Stock the lifeboat and cover as many bases as possible mindset. Distinctly different than the bau with a bunker mentality in the West.<\/span><\/p>\n OK<\/b>: We need to achieve a 90% recycling rate of energy related minerals for the whole world and for many other critical minerals too, if not – we are doomed.<\/span><\/p>\n PS<\/b>: OK, I wouldn’t say “we’re” doomed. I would say, however, the economy at this size is doomed. That, in turn, will piss many people off to the point they will want some serious revenge. It will not be fun for many many many many many …. recipients of that revenge.<\/span><\/p>\n LS<\/b>: OK, the problem is that isn’t economically feasible nor is it energetically viable for many of these minerals. And we’re solely focused on the minerals without recognising the energy inputs. You can’t recycle usable energy; it’s a one way process<\/span><\/p>\n KC<\/b>: OK, BC<\/b>: <\/span>And for all that PVP solar power to date not one piece of, well anything, has been manufactured by only, sorry, Renewable Energy Converters the likes of PVP\u2019s WT\u2019s; on the other hand that nuclear fusion plant in the sky has produced near everything, including ourselves.<\/span><\/p>\n But let\u2019s look at some facts:<\/span><\/p>\n Globally only ~20% of energy is supplied in the form of electricity, and only ~2% of that is provided by REbuildables\/Alternative Energy of which nuclear power is a fraction of that, leaving ~80% still reliant on FREE FINITE Flammable Fossils (FFFF), which are diminishing fast. So better get those REbuildables built quick pronto, before FFFF\u2019s become unaffordable in an EROEI sort of way.<\/span><\/p>\n For all the PVP\u2019s China has installed its hardly moved the needle, of course building massive AI data training centres consuming as much as a small city and hooking them up to the dispatchable power of coal and natural gas doesn\u2019t help<\/span><\/p>\n PC<\/b>: BC, <\/span>y are no able to understand basic maths, and you show it. 2 TW equals 2600 TWh\/year. Nuclear is less then 500 GW that equals to perhaps 300 TWh.<\/span><\/p>\n And it is becoming still more negligible, at 500 plus GWp installed each year. The curve is hyperexponential, for now. It will be 1 TWp\/ year and then more.<\/span><\/p>\n This part of paradigm is already decided. Then there are more thing to understand.<\/span><\/p>\n Better concentrate on those issues.<\/span><\/p>\n BC<\/b>: <\/span>There was a time when giving a citation it was necessary to trawl through and mostly fall asleep over reading books the like of you\u2019ve cited, but now all we\u2019ve got likes of Gemini, GROK and ChatGPT, (other AI-LLM\u2019s are available) and if one can\u2019t help you, or you don\u2019t trust it\u2019s answer, then just try another<\/span><\/p>\n PGK<\/b>: BC, If an AI-LLM was really intelligent its answer to “How can we save energy?” would be “Shutting down AIs like me would be a good place to start.<\/span><\/p>\n CR<\/b>: Solar is still bad for the environment, didn’t ya know?<\/span><\/p>\n TA<\/b>: As I understand it the Silicon in the solar panels is not taken from sand but quartz that requires mining or quarrying. The panels have a finite lifespan and are difficult to recycle so over the total life cycle of a solar panel the EROEI is low but positive.<\/span><\/p>\n As others have said it will buy some time but it’s can kicking not a solution.<\/span><\/p>\n Solar panels don’t work well at night or in snow so there’s a lot less utility from them. Gas turbines are generally used as a back up to provide grid energy when “renewable” energy is not available to avoid brownouts. To reliability use renewables an enormous amount of surplus energy must be stored for dark days and nights over winter, if I recall correctly Simon Michaux recommended around a month’s worth of energy as an absolute minimum to rely on renewables alone. This is difficult to achieve with current technology. The mineral requirements become very difficult achieve globally due to finite known reserves if every country turns to renewables<\/span><\/p>\n I would recommend watching planet of the humans as well Simon Michaux’s interviews and presentations. He has done a lot of work on the amount of available mineral resources<\/span><\/p>\n LM<\/b>: <\/span>As China begins to build the biggest gas pipe line in the world from Siberia to China.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s a BS example of exponential growth for solar. Now if that was a fracking graph <\/span><\/p>\n And for all China\u2019s faults <\/span>, FFS my ancestors in the UK demolished half the forests by the time Jesus was born and since then they destroyed 40% more <\/span>, not to mention the British elites colonising great swathes of the earth. Shall we mention all the shit that\u2019s gone on for the last 200 plus years and still goes on from collective western countries?<\/span><\/p>\n JS, sorry man you\u2019re way of the reality. Not saying they\u2019re perfect, but\u2026.China, For all their faults! <\/span>. Come on<\/span><\/p>\n JD<\/b>: I<\/span>t’s not just solar. Wind nuclear you name it China has and is ramping up the electrification. Add Battery technology and their dominance in EV vehicles.<\/span><\/p>\n EV vehicles out of China are now cheaper than IC and BRICS countries are buying them like hot cakes<\/span><\/p>\n PB<\/strong>: <\/span>you’re going down punk IL<\/b>: <\/span>Solar is unstoppable. A free energy source vs. one where you have to fuel it constantly will win every time.<\/span><\/p>\n Me<\/b>: IL, \u2018Free\u2019? I assume you are not referring to the complex industrial panels that are referenced in the graph and introduction.<\/span><\/p>\n IL<\/b>: Steve, sure. I mean what fuels them. Photons that knock electrons onto wires and are useful electricity.<\/span><\/p>\n Me<\/b>: IL, You\u2019re not being clear or I\u2019m not understanding. Are you referring to solar panels providing \u2018free\u2019 energy? And their buildout is thus unstoppable?<\/span><\/p>\n IL<\/b>: Steve, yes. They’re pretty incredible.<\/span><\/p>\n Me<\/b>: IL, Your assertion that they provide \u2018free\u2019 energy is akin to calling an electric vehicle clean relative to internal combustion engines by only looking at tailpipe emissions. It is a significantly narrow perspective that ignores so much.<\/span><\/p>\n And, sure, they\u2019re pretty incredible (for a limited time) if you ignore all the destructive processes that are required to produce, distribute, maintain, and reclaim\/dispose of them. Or dismiss the fact that they are simply adding to our overshoot predicament and its symptom predicaments.<\/span><\/p>\n IL<\/b>: Steve, okay. I think it’s going to be the last source of electricity. A tiny fraction of humanity will be using them to power small applications long after the rest of the world is back to stone tools.<\/span><\/p>\n Me<\/b>: IL, So if most of the world\u2019s people are depending upon stone tools in some future time, you might want to rethink your position that solar panel technology is incredible and their buildout unstoppable since the narrative most \u2018renewables\u2019 advocates support is that a mass production of these industrial technologies will soon replace hydrocarbons in a wondrous energy transition and \u2018save\u2019 our complex societies from catastrophic climate change and other symptom predicaments of ecological overshoot; thereby preventing any widespread \u2018collapse\u2019 scenarios.<\/span><\/p>\n IL<\/strong>: Steve, I don’t know about any wonderful energy transition, but for the time being solar is growing exponentially. It may not continue, but for the time being it’s seen as a solution.<\/p>\n Me<\/strong>: IL, Yes, it is being seen as a ‘solution’; especially by those marketing and selling them.<\/p>\n CG<\/b>: No counter argument here, I thought 2008 or so was peak energy and shale come along. Solar could do the same and I\u2019d be wrong about doom again, at least for now.<\/span><\/p>\n GH<\/b>: CG, 2008 was peak net energy. If you read Tainter\u2019s Collapse of Complex Societies it\u2019s clear what section of his arc graph we\u2019re on at this point in history. But yeah, it\u2019s going to be awhile before things actually collapse to a lower order of social complexity.<\/span><\/p>\n To me it has nothing to do with what I want. What I might want either way is just irrelevant. But I do make it a point to try and embrace reality, haha.<\/span><\/p>\n CG<\/b>: GH, Same, but I\u2019m also fine if it doesn\u2019t versus a lot of folks that want it to happen.<\/span><\/p>\n GH<\/b>: CG, I understand, I\u2019m 55 as well. But honestly I\u2019m reconciled. Fine with watching it unfold if it happens within my lifetime.<\/span><\/p>\n CG<\/b>: GH, Eventually it will get us and in the big picture the date doesn\u2019t matter. I\u2019m 55 though and ten years one way or another makes a huge difference to me.<\/span><\/p>\n SA<\/b>: “As China starts consuming less oil” haha, good one, that made me chuckle.<\/span><\/p>\n The only thing that will reduce China’s oil consumption is collapse or war, both at the same time is possible suppose.<\/span><\/p>\n Me<\/b>: <\/span>There are so many errors in your assertions, it\u2019s hard to know where to begin. Here\u2019s a few areas off the top of my head for you to consider and do some homework on.<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps you want to explore tech trends and the fact that early adoption does not a long-term uptake make.<\/span><\/p>\n Maybe look into what in-tandem reductions in hydrocarbons are occurring (or not) with this buildup of Chinese renewables.<\/span><\/p>\n You could also research the mineral and material limits and bottlenecks that exist to reach this promised land of the hydrocarbon replacement theory.<\/span><\/p>\n There\u2019s also the fact that the vast majority of primary energy use continues to come from hydrocarbon sources despite a supposed mass increase in \u2018renewables\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n Then there\u2019s the dependency on hydrocarbons of many of the major industrial processes that procure and refine the necessary materials and produce, distribute, and maintain all the \u2018renewables\u2019 to consider.<\/span><\/p>\n And then there\u2019s the material and mineral needs (and their limits) of the infrastructure and the energy storage facilities required.<\/span><\/p>\n Maybe explore the economic aspects and how much of China\u2019s \u2018renewables\u2019 sector is heavily subsidised by a State running massive deficits to keep its economic Ponzi from collapsing, and how many of these businesses are on the verge of bankruptcy\/collapse.<\/span><\/p>\n Add the ecological destruction that accompanies all the above and the replacement theory truly is one relying upon massive magical thinking.<\/span><\/p>\n SH<\/b>: Steve, <\/span>But… Moore’s Law ! <\/span><\/p>\n Me<\/b>: SH, I\u2019ll see your Moore\u2019s Law with Jevon\u2019s Paradox.<\/span><\/p>\n SH<\/b>: Steve, I’ll raise with Rebound Effect, Backfire Effect, Cognitive Biases, and Embodied Energy and Emissions… I’m all in!<\/span><\/p>\n Me<\/b>: SH, Entropy\u2026I win!<\/span><\/p>\n SH<\/b>: Steve, I resign.<\/span><\/p>\n SH<\/b>: Before one can really appreciate the predicament that humanity is in, they must adopt a very broad perspective. Anyway, for some reality based refinements, try reading through some of what Simon Michaux has written on mineral resources, what Alice Frideman has explored in relation to various alternative energy and storage schemes, and more important, a big dose of reality by way of a seminal text on biophysical economics… Like Charles A. S. Hall and Kent Klitgaard’s “Energy and the Wealth of Nations”. If you can even just skim through that book and have at least an atom of the prerequisite knowledge required to understand it, you may come away with a very different perspective. Of course it would also be of benefit to understand the broader context of Overshoot… So you might check out William Catton Jr. as well\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n BC<\/b>: SH, There was a time when to provide a citation with reference to a book it was necessary to have trawled through those books, and most probably falling asleep along the way. But now with the likes of Gemini, GROK, ChatGPT, (other AI-LLM\u2019s are available) you can obtain the information near instantly, and if you want to cross check it, or you don\u2019t like it, or don\u2019t trust it, just ask another AI-LLM<\/span><\/p>\n SH<\/b>: BC, You can also have A.I. summarize pretty much anything… premise, salient points, conclusions and all that… You can even do that with long video interviews and lectures… or entire books! You can have A.I. compare many sides of an issue from many sources to help you make a more complete and fair evaluation… It’s really up to your imagination… but that’s the problem. You’d think that aggregated summary and conclusions would be digestible… but most people I know seem to prefer popular tropes, or just plain ignorance.<\/span><\/p>\n SH<\/b>: <\/span>https:\/\/www.thegreatsimplification.com\/episode\/19-simon-michaux; <\/span><\/a>Energy and the Wealth of Nations <\/span>https:\/\/educons.edu.rs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/2018-Energy-And-The-Wealth-Of-Nations.pdf<\/span><\/a> ; Overshoot <\/span>https:\/\/monoskop.org\/images\/9\/92\/Catton_Jr_William_R_Overshoot_The_Ecological_Basis_of_Revolutionary_Change.pdf<\/span><\/a> LS<\/b>: Steve, you summed it up nicely. I’m sure if China had an ample supply of oil they wouldn’t be so committed to electrification. This is an energy security issue, which is a sovereign security risk, first and foremost. What China does have a substantial domestic supply of is coal and minerals. If supply lines were to be cut off or restricted due to external forces solar has become a crucial factor in shoring up their energy independence. The downside is coal supplies have a limited timeframe of mere decades at current consumption rates. That implies no more solar construction. No different to US and impending shale cliff<\/span> PS<\/b>: <\/span>HI Steve – To your point… here’s a 25 year proportional comparison between fossil fuels consumption and non-fossil fuel consumption. Less than 1% shift toward non-fossil fuels while increasing overall consumption by 52%.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Were-doomed.png\")
<\/a>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Screen-Shot-2025-09-10-at-6.09.11-PM.png\")
<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>CR<\/b>: SH, AKA, overpopulation\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>Something you didn’t mention was the different (or rather additional) constraints associated with a society that has reached a critical scale of electrification. There are various videos showing electric car owners pushing their vehicles because they have been unable to recharge due to supply\/access restrictions. Whilst this is reminiscent of the impacts from oil shocks there are additional vulnerabilities. Any disruption to electricity grids now impacts a far greater proportion of the social infrastructure and makes the system acutely vulnerable due to concentration of choke points for energy supply. This is felt particularly in high demand periods like summer extreme heat and day time peaks. Now transportation is competing with the provision of other services like cooling, heating, cooking, lighting etc<\/span><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Screen-Shot-2025-09-10-at-6.17.44-PM.png\")
<\/a><\/span>