EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   The Lounge (https://ecomodder.com/forum/lounge.html)
-   -   Nate Hagens seminar on the future after fossil fuel (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/nate-hagens-seminar-future-after-fossil-fuel-35214.html)

sendler 06-04-2017 12:16 PM

Nate Hagens seminar on the future after fossil fuel
 
Must watch. Think beyond the next political/ investment cycle.
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.

freebeard 06-07-2017 04:35 PM

"Whirlwind talk" — 121 minutes.

There is a summary slide at 1:04:00.

He's not wrong.

gone-ot 06-07-2017 04:44 PM

So, does "Free the Mouse" replace "Save the Trees"?

darcane 06-08-2017 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sendler (Post 541853)
Must watch. Think beyond the next political/ investment cycle.
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.

First impression: Great, another long-haired, Liberal intellectual berating everyone from his pulpit.

Second impression: Er, wait... he's making some damn good, well thought out points and is quite reasonable in his presentation without preaching.


Surprises:
  • He correctly links energy consumption to GDP. I see this in some more conservative based blogs I read and is a significant reason for pushing continued use of fossil fuels. Switching from fossil fuels to wind/solar is likely to cause a significant reduction in GDP. This is commonly known as a "recession". Mr Hagens even specifically points out that making this switch to renewables will reduce GDP.
  • He recognizes the fact that banks issue debt without adding real wealth because there wasn't anything new produced. Debt would not be bad as long as GDP increases more than debt. But it isn't. And for that reason, we are less wealthy in real terms (other than the top 5%) than we were a decade ago even though we show continued GDP growth. Leveraging debt allowed us to get out of the energy crisis of the 70's. Now, cheap fossil fuels are running low and debt overhang is unsustainable.
  • The models that "climate scientists use that show how much climate impact there will be from human forcings are delusionally exaggerated."
  • He recognizes technology will not solve our energy problem. We primarily use technology to replace human labor, which will cause higher percentage of impoverished people. We also use new technologies that consume energy.
  • He recognizes that a carbon tax will reduce GDP.

I don't agree with everything he says, but there is a lot of good stuff in there. I think his vision of the future is missing out on one key detail. A cheap, abundant energy source can be found in nuclear power. When push comes to shove, I think we will tap into this to drive our economy.

freebeard 06-09-2017 01:39 AM

Helium3 because it doesn't emit gamma radiation (per Isaac Arthur).

Quote:

He recognizes technology will not solve our energy problem.
But... a second-order effect of the technology of Internet and blockchains will be to make individuals dumber but the herd wiser. The elevation of consciousness will offer a solution.

sendler 06-10-2017 09:20 AM

It's not just about warming. That is only the first problem. Resource and energy depletion will rear it's head. Energy/ Economy (same thing now) doesn't have to seriously run out to be a problem. It just has to stop increasing at the minimum 2%. And the world economy will crash. And we will at that point have no energy or econmy to build more energy.

NeilBlanchard 06-11-2017 08:09 AM

Quote:

[*]The models that "climate scientists use that show how much climate impact there will be from human forcings are delusionally exaggerated."
No, actually most projections have been too conservative, and climate change is occurring even more rapidly than what we thought just a few years ago.

jamesqf 06-11-2017 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darcane (Post 542272)
]He correctly links energy consumption to GDP.

That's partly an illusion, though. If you heat your house with oil or gas, the money you pay for that is counted as part of the GDP, every year. If you have solar heat, it isn't - but you're just as warm. Likewise, PV panels get counted once, when they're installed, instead of every year like your electric bill. Or if you drive a $25K Prius instead of a $50K SUV, that's half off the GDP, but you still get where you want to go.

freebeard 06-11-2017 02:13 PM

Clothesline paradox

Quote:

If you take down your clothes line and buy an electric clothes dryer the electric consumption of the nation rises slightly. If you go in the other direction and remove the electric clothes dryer and install a clothesline the consumption of electricity drops slightly, but there is no credit given anywhere on the charts and graphs to solar energy which is now drying the clothes.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com