I suspect governments will return to “war socialism”, that never goes away under the pretense of fighting Russia, China, Iran, Aliens etc. to cover up declining energy production.
"strict regulation is very much needed to avoid methane leakage" lol blowing up Nordstream was a massive act of environmental vandalism, probably by the US. War is also murderous environmental vandalism, a hobby of the US.
Every bomb dropped in history was a huge waste of energy and resources (not to mention lives lost) and destruction of Nature. The fact that they're still falling today says it all about our governments and 'leaders' .
You're right, the only role left for governments should be producing and distributing food. They don't do anything else useful.
I never believed Saddam had WMD, it seemed like a lie even at the time.
Sabotaging Nordstream, on the other hand, seems like exactly the sort of criminal act governments / 'secret servcies' do when they feel like it or deem it to be necessary.
If 20th century history taught us anything is that producing and distributing food is precisely the last area where government should have any kind of involvement.
"This is why Rystad energy sees $55 per barrel realistic in 2030" -- reading that article it seems that Rystad argues that supply increases will keep price capped, not the thesis of declining demand due to lower EROI?
Had we started dismantling these unsustainable "systems" 50 years ago we may have stood a chance, we really don't now😞 And the ruling class will never give up their private jets and other creature comforts.
Another excellent and highly informative piece. For myself, the most telling stat is this: we are 3,000 times more numerous than were our ancestral migratory Hunter-Gatherer ancestors just 4-10kya (depending on area), and they were the last ecologically balanced self-sustaining populations, divided worldwide in clans/bands of less than 150 (Dunbar number). One energy revolution after another has fueled this massive human overpopulation/overconsumption: animal/plant abundance after the last ice-age c.15kya -->water powered industry/wind powered industry/sea borne sail transport --> wood/coal powered steam energy --> oil powered industry --> electricity --> Green revolution--> industrial warfare -->nuclear power -->alternative energy revolution --> fossil fuel depletion --> agriculture depletion --> population loss --> the Seneca curve --> collapse.
One of the Laws of Thermodynamics reads that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed in location or form, thus "global heating" and climate collapse. We can move the deck chairs around on the Titanic but not the inevitable conclusion. Thanks, again, B. Know that you are not alone! Have a blessed day.
All these would do is extend the life span of an unsustainable system. The material inputs for nuclear fusion are finite. Geothermal depends on infrastructure made using fossil fuels. The minerals and metals we dig up from the ground are finite and so is our way of life. We have plataued and are on a downward trend. Any "game changers" would simply slow down the downward trend not prevent it.
ALL industrial processes are contingent upon the consumption of finite reserves of stock dug up from the ground. All that energy would simply allow humans to destroy even more of the planet and consume ever last raw material before finally collapsing in on itself. You're too focused on a single issue. Climate change is an offshoot of the core problem.
You make a good case and I agree with your analysis. Whatever remains of modern technology and 'civilisation' by 2050 will have to work on much lower energy demand than now.
But I really, really doubt your proposed scenario of a managed retreat and planned decline. It won't happen. Every government, every company, every individual will be scrabbling for competitive advantage and try to hoard access to energy resources (including food and food production) right to the very end.
The exemplar is climate change, that could have been cheaply managed since the 1970's, but the fossil interests suppressed and distorted, until today we watch the stage-managed theatre of the hijacked COP demolish any remaining hope for any solutions, or even mitigations.
"Beholden to corporate power and being dead-set against shrinking the economy, no government on Earth would embark on such a journey on its own volition, though."
B agrees with you.
He is just stating what needs to be done, even though he knows it won't be done.
William Reese says the same all the time. He advocates for real solutions knowing that they won't be implemented.
Waste of time and effort. As a friend used to say, "Pedalling with no chain!".
More useful perhaps to come up with survival solutions for individuals, families and voluntary communities, which I think is the only route to meaningful hope going forward.
Yes, you are sadly correct. All civilizations of the world are heading faster towards collapse by doubling down on even more consumption.
Are you aware of Jim Bendall's work?
Eco-villages that must arm themselves for self defense are the way forward. Finding ways of helping people form self sufficient communities outside of the spheres of influence of cities is the best we can hope for now.
Even that may not work when you take all the sheer destruction into account.
Bottom line - the existing fossil fuelled models of community barely work even now, and certainly won't work in a low energy future.
So if anything is going to survive, it will be a very different model of society, one that is resilient enough to adapt fast as each new crisis hits, one based on genuine and enduring fundamentals. Much more than just defended self sufficiency, not least because they will need a belief system, a reason for their existence, a psychological purpose beyond mere survival.
I am thinking of the medieval monasteries in places like Ireland, or isolated mountain retreats, that protected knowledge archives through the dark ages. Or the Asian societies, hidden in plain sight, that continued through hundreds of years and different rulers.
Maybe the answer is dozens of different models and ideas, dozens of different communities in different places, just in the hope that some succeed. Like the earliest American colonists, with some communities in the history books, others disappeared into legend.
"Maybe the answer is dozens of different models and ideas, dozens of different communities in different places, just in the hope that some succeed."
I think about this all the time. Many of the self sufficient communties that are coming to be and being developed will fail due to the collapse of industrial civilzation taking many communties down around with them.
"Much more than just defended self sufficiency, not least because they will need a belief system, a reason for their existence, a psychological purpose beyond mere survival."
Thank you for that.
I admit that is a failing of mine as I never give the psychological needs much thought, I tend to focus myself oh the Physiological.
And what you described in the last line is exactly what we had for hundreds of thousands of years. That was the only time when we lived truly sustainably.
Since writing the previous comment, I have given it further thought. The medieval 'dark ages' of European history are, perhaps, a good guide to a post-collapse Techno age, particularly after the Black Death in the 1300's that wiped out around half the population, and counterintuitively, left the remainder with full employment, plenty of agricultural land, and relative wealth.
But I keep returning to the monasteries. They were there to mop up the second and third sons that didn't inherit the family land or business, and that didn't want to go off and fight wars (usually as mercenaries). Many monasteries were on islands, or in isolated places, or on mountains with difficult access so hard to attack. In more dangerous places, monks were even warriors, or ex-soldiers back from wars elsewhere.
Monasteries were usually self sufficient in food, with gardens, carp ponds, even fishing boats, and all produce was shared equally. They were also overnight lodges for travellers, and hospitals for the sick. Usually a village grew up alongside with mutually beneficial interactions with craftsmen and traders.
The key feature of almost all monasteries was that they were set up with a grant of land by the local ruler, prince or king, and independent farmers would rent the land, often by paying with a proportion of the crop. The same could be adapted as a business model for a group that could pool resources to buy land (i.e. commercial farm ), and then rent out the bulk of it to smallholders whilst keeping the core.
Then there is the belief system. In the medieval times it was Catholic Christianity across Europe right up to the Reformation Protestantism in 1500's England. But as religion today is so divisive, I'd suggest something more ancient, yet modern too - a version of Gaia, based on a belief in a Gaian Earth (as per Dr James Lovelock), with some daily rituals, and a calendar of feast days and remembrances. Ultimately pagan, an Earth and crop centric belief system that also passed on good sustainability practices.
As for the purpose of these communities? I would say the recognition that all our recent knowledge, all our research, all our history, all records of lives and ownerships and title, are currently stored electronically and are uniquely vulnerable to one decent solar electromagnetic storm, or one nuclear-generated EMP pulse that might wipe out data centres and computers and electronics. In fact, if we are heading into a world of three power blocks (Fortress America, Europe/Russia, and China/Asia) , then EMP becomes an inevitable way to destroy another country's history and military capability, and drive it back to the dark ages. So the mission for these communities might again be to store the knowledge and history, but transferred from electronic and digital media to something more solid and permanent.
I think this is an interesting discussion thread and could be developed into a positive plan to create such communities. The concept has legs, I think.
50 years ago, being of a curious sort, I taught myself how nuclear power worked in electrical generation and marine population. Developed a pretty good understanding of the components of the system and why it was so difficult to build and maintain. At the time, fusion reactors were "just ten years away"...and here we are 50 years later and we can't maintain fission for more than a fraction of a second.
Not sure what "next gen" geothermal is, but geothermal is already a viable and working system that, so far, is very site specific.
What is missing in your question is would these be game changers "built to scale"(i.e. replace existing power systems). That would be the hard part primarily because of the materials needed to build them out.
In the US we generate 780,000 MW(mega-watts) of electricity with fossil fuels. If you look at the new small modular reactors, specifically the 300Mw version(the one that lends itself to mass production), we would need to build and install 2600 of them to replace all the fossil fuel power plants in just the US! That's 52 per state on average. Can you imagine the NIMBY uproar of placing these? And the materials needed is probably beyond our mining capabilities.
And the final nail on the SMR is the fuel. Uranium 235 in normal reactors is of the 3% to 5% range. Whats needed in the SMR is fuel that is 5% to 20%. We are already having problems sourcing fuel for existing reactors let alone bringing all these new reactors online.
I don't really have an answer to your question, these are just some thoughts and observations on my part. I'm afraid our glide path is already programed into the mainframe and the landing will likely be bumpy, so buckle up.
I just wanted to add that even if all these "replacement" energy systems were implemented and built up to scale to provide the energy needed for the whole world economy, the material inputs needed to maintain the system are finite and said system would come to an unavoidable and inevitable end.
Geology and physics dictates that this system built upon consuming finite reserves of stock dug up from the ground will end when we have depleted the stock reserves thus necessitating a transition back to the lifestyle before the discover and consumption of said finite reserves of stock ( fossil fuels, metals, minerals ).
Modern industrial society was and is a one time blip. We are now on the downward part of said blip and will return to lifestyles and population numbers before the blip.
Thank You, B. This is fundamental to understanding what is going on in the world, with finance & crony-capitalism stacked just above, bribing politicians to make WW-3 to create emergency-powers to keep the current oligarchs in "control" when the Ponzi scheme collapses.
I suspect governments will return to “war socialism”, that never goes away under the pretense of fighting Russia, China, Iran, Aliens etc. to cover up declining energy production.
"strict regulation is very much needed to avoid methane leakage" lol blowing up Nordstream was a massive act of environmental vandalism, probably by the US. War is also murderous environmental vandalism, a hobby of the US.
Every bomb dropped in history was a huge waste of energy and resources (not to mention lives lost) and destruction of Nature. The fact that they're still falling today says it all about our governments and 'leaders' .
You're right, the only role left for governments should be producing and distributing food. They don't do anything else useful.
How do you know nordstream actually was damaged?
Oh right - the same way you knew Saddam had WMD ...
I never believed Saddam had WMD, it seemed like a lie even at the time.
Sabotaging Nordstream, on the other hand, seems like exactly the sort of criminal act governments / 'secret servcies' do when they feel like it or deem it to be necessary.
Can you prove it?
Can anyone prove anything?
Yes ... I can prove the Trump shooting was fake... https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/are-you-a-mentally-ill-retarded-moron
If that was fake... and WMD was fake.. and Safe and Effective continues to be fake.... how do you know that everything is not fake?
How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct?
If 20th century history taught us anything is that producing and distributing food is precisely the last area where government should have any kind of involvement.
"This is why Rystad energy sees $55 per barrel realistic in 2030" -- reading that article it seems that Rystad argues that supply increases will keep price capped, not the thesis of declining demand due to lower EROI?
Had we started dismantling these unsustainable "systems" 50 years ago we may have stood a chance, we really don't now😞 And the ruling class will never give up their private jets and other creature comforts.
Best case scenario is to survive through the collapse. Let's hope that the powers of the world don't annihilate the whole world via nuclear exchanges.
Yep. 🫣🤞
That was worth buying you a coffee! Much more, really. All part of overshoot. Energy and climate being huge elements of overshoot. If energy depletion doesn't kill us, climate change will. https://climateandeconomy.com/2024/11/23/23rd-november-2024-todays-round-up-of-climate-news/
No it won;t here's why https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-three-pillars-of-bullshit
Another excellent and highly informative piece. For myself, the most telling stat is this: we are 3,000 times more numerous than were our ancestral migratory Hunter-Gatherer ancestors just 4-10kya (depending on area), and they were the last ecologically balanced self-sustaining populations, divided worldwide in clans/bands of less than 150 (Dunbar number). One energy revolution after another has fueled this massive human overpopulation/overconsumption: animal/plant abundance after the last ice-age c.15kya -->water powered industry/wind powered industry/sea borne sail transport --> wood/coal powered steam energy --> oil powered industry --> electricity --> Green revolution--> industrial warfare -->nuclear power -->alternative energy revolution --> fossil fuel depletion --> agriculture depletion --> population loss --> the Seneca curve --> collapse.
One of the Laws of Thermodynamics reads that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed in location or form, thus "global heating" and climate collapse. We can move the deck chairs around on the Titanic but not the inevitable conclusion. Thanks, again, B. Know that you are not alone! Have a blessed day.
What if we manage to make nuclear fusion?
What if the next generation geothermal succeeds?
Wouldn't these technologies be game changers?
All these would do is extend the life span of an unsustainable system. The material inputs for nuclear fusion are finite. Geothermal depends on infrastructure made using fossil fuels. The minerals and metals we dig up from the ground are finite and so is our way of life. We have plataued and are on a downward trend. Any "game changers" would simply slow down the downward trend not prevent it.
Suppose we have a virtually infinite amount of cheap electric energy. Couldn't this replace any industrial process nowadays based on fossile fuels?
ALL industrial processes are contingent upon the consumption of finite reserves of stock dug up from the ground. All that energy would simply allow humans to destroy even more of the planet and consume ever last raw material before finally collapsing in on itself. You're too focused on a single issue. Climate change is an offshoot of the core problem.
OVERSHOOT.
Fantastic article B. Loving the SUNDAY publishing schedule. Really great read this with more time on Sundays before the week begins
Extinction is where we are headed. Degrowth = collapse https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/financial-system-supply-chain-cross
As for nuclear... fuel supply is a problem https://ourfiniteworld.com/2024/11/11/nuclear-electricity-generation-has-hidden-problems-dont-expect-advanced-modular-units-to-solve-them/
You make a good case and I agree with your analysis. Whatever remains of modern technology and 'civilisation' by 2050 will have to work on much lower energy demand than now.
But I really, really doubt your proposed scenario of a managed retreat and planned decline. It won't happen. Every government, every company, every individual will be scrabbling for competitive advantage and try to hoard access to energy resources (including food and food production) right to the very end.
The exemplar is climate change, that could have been cheaply managed since the 1970's, but the fossil interests suppressed and distorted, until today we watch the stage-managed theatre of the hijacked COP demolish any remaining hope for any solutions, or even mitigations.
Pedal to the metal, right over the cliff!
"Beholden to corporate power and being dead-set against shrinking the economy, no government on Earth would embark on such a journey on its own volition, though."
B agrees with you.
He is just stating what needs to be done, even though he knows it won't be done.
William Reese says the same all the time. He advocates for real solutions knowing that they won't be implemented.
Waste of time and effort. As a friend used to say, "Pedalling with no chain!".
More useful perhaps to come up with survival solutions for individuals, families and voluntary communities, which I think is the only route to meaningful hope going forward.
Yes, you are sadly correct. All civilizations of the world are heading faster towards collapse by doubling down on even more consumption.
Are you aware of Jim Bendall's work?
Eco-villages that must arm themselves for self defense are the way forward. Finding ways of helping people form self sufficient communities outside of the spheres of influence of cities is the best we can hope for now.
Even that may not work when you take all the sheer destruction into account.
Bottom line - the existing fossil fuelled models of community barely work even now, and certainly won't work in a low energy future.
So if anything is going to survive, it will be a very different model of society, one that is resilient enough to adapt fast as each new crisis hits, one based on genuine and enduring fundamentals. Much more than just defended self sufficiency, not least because they will need a belief system, a reason for their existence, a psychological purpose beyond mere survival.
I am thinking of the medieval monasteries in places like Ireland, or isolated mountain retreats, that protected knowledge archives through the dark ages. Or the Asian societies, hidden in plain sight, that continued through hundreds of years and different rulers.
Maybe the answer is dozens of different models and ideas, dozens of different communities in different places, just in the hope that some succeed. Like the earliest American colonists, with some communities in the history books, others disappeared into legend.
"Maybe the answer is dozens of different models and ideas, dozens of different communities in different places, just in the hope that some succeed."
I think about this all the time. Many of the self sufficient communties that are coming to be and being developed will fail due to the collapse of industrial civilzation taking many communties down around with them.
"Much more than just defended self sufficiency, not least because they will need a belief system, a reason for their existence, a psychological purpose beyond mere survival."
Thank you for that.
I admit that is a failing of mine as I never give the psychological needs much thought, I tend to focus myself oh the Physiological.
And what you described in the last line is exactly what we had for hundreds of thousands of years. That was the only time when we lived truly sustainably.
Since writing the previous comment, I have given it further thought. The medieval 'dark ages' of European history are, perhaps, a good guide to a post-collapse Techno age, particularly after the Black Death in the 1300's that wiped out around half the population, and counterintuitively, left the remainder with full employment, plenty of agricultural land, and relative wealth.
But I keep returning to the monasteries. They were there to mop up the second and third sons that didn't inherit the family land or business, and that didn't want to go off and fight wars (usually as mercenaries). Many monasteries were on islands, or in isolated places, or on mountains with difficult access so hard to attack. In more dangerous places, monks were even warriors, or ex-soldiers back from wars elsewhere.
Monasteries were usually self sufficient in food, with gardens, carp ponds, even fishing boats, and all produce was shared equally. They were also overnight lodges for travellers, and hospitals for the sick. Usually a village grew up alongside with mutually beneficial interactions with craftsmen and traders.
The key feature of almost all monasteries was that they were set up with a grant of land by the local ruler, prince or king, and independent farmers would rent the land, often by paying with a proportion of the crop. The same could be adapted as a business model for a group that could pool resources to buy land (i.e. commercial farm ), and then rent out the bulk of it to smallholders whilst keeping the core.
Then there is the belief system. In the medieval times it was Catholic Christianity across Europe right up to the Reformation Protestantism in 1500's England. But as religion today is so divisive, I'd suggest something more ancient, yet modern too - a version of Gaia, based on a belief in a Gaian Earth (as per Dr James Lovelock), with some daily rituals, and a calendar of feast days and remembrances. Ultimately pagan, an Earth and crop centric belief system that also passed on good sustainability practices.
As for the purpose of these communities? I would say the recognition that all our recent knowledge, all our research, all our history, all records of lives and ownerships and title, are currently stored electronically and are uniquely vulnerable to one decent solar electromagnetic storm, or one nuclear-generated EMP pulse that might wipe out data centres and computers and electronics. In fact, if we are heading into a world of three power blocks (Fortress America, Europe/Russia, and China/Asia) , then EMP becomes an inevitable way to destroy another country's history and military capability, and drive it back to the dark ages. So the mission for these communities might again be to store the knowledge and history, but transferred from electronic and digital media to something more solid and permanent.
I think this is an interesting discussion thread and could be developed into a positive plan to create such communities. The concept has legs, I think.
Reply to Marco's post...
No.
50 years ago, being of a curious sort, I taught myself how nuclear power worked in electrical generation and marine population. Developed a pretty good understanding of the components of the system and why it was so difficult to build and maintain. At the time, fusion reactors were "just ten years away"...and here we are 50 years later and we can't maintain fission for more than a fraction of a second.
Not sure what "next gen" geothermal is, but geothermal is already a viable and working system that, so far, is very site specific.
What is missing in your question is would these be game changers "built to scale"(i.e. replace existing power systems). That would be the hard part primarily because of the materials needed to build them out.
In the US we generate 780,000 MW(mega-watts) of electricity with fossil fuels. If you look at the new small modular reactors, specifically the 300Mw version(the one that lends itself to mass production), we would need to build and install 2600 of them to replace all the fossil fuel power plants in just the US! That's 52 per state on average. Can you imagine the NIMBY uproar of placing these? And the materials needed is probably beyond our mining capabilities.
And the final nail on the SMR is the fuel. Uranium 235 in normal reactors is of the 3% to 5% range. Whats needed in the SMR is fuel that is 5% to 20%. We are already having problems sourcing fuel for existing reactors let alone bringing all these new reactors online.
I don't really have an answer to your question, these are just some thoughts and observations on my part. I'm afraid our glide path is already programed into the mainframe and the landing will likely be bumpy, so buckle up.
Thank you for the detailed post.
I just wanted to add that even if all these "replacement" energy systems were implemented and built up to scale to provide the energy needed for the whole world economy, the material inputs needed to maintain the system are finite and said system would come to an unavoidable and inevitable end.
Geology and physics dictates that this system built upon consuming finite reserves of stock dug up from the ground will end when we have depleted the stock reserves thus necessitating a transition back to the lifestyle before the discover and consumption of said finite reserves of stock ( fossil fuels, metals, minerals ).
Modern industrial society was and is a one time blip. We are now on the downward part of said blip and will return to lifestyles and population numbers before the blip.
Thank You, B. This is fundamental to understanding what is going on in the world, with finance & crony-capitalism stacked just above, bribing politicians to make WW-3 to create emergency-powers to keep the current oligarchs in "control" when the Ponzi scheme collapses.