You have hit it out of the ball park this time. What a lovely, clear setting out of the situation. How I wish Dr. Nafeez Ahmed who writes the 'newsletter offering systems thinking for the global phase-shift' called "Age of Transformation" would read this. He bases his analyses on Holling and Grunderson's 'complex adaptive system' in which we are now in the 'release phase' Here is a link to one of the newsletters that is not behind a pay wall. I would be grateful if you would be inspired to break down the weaknesses in his predictions. https://ageoftransformation.org/american-fossil-capitalism-doubles-down-on-its-own-doom-planetary-signal-brief-26-june-to-3-july-2025-2/
Excellent piece, Sorcerer! The Law of Diminishing Returns applies to everything and everywhere, and it's a b*tch...But if anything, you have understated the case...None of these alternative energy producing sources, except nuclear, even meets the simple test of lifetime energy produced exceeding the energy expended to create the source...We have solar for one reason...Electric rates are going up and up, and solar locks in a ceiling for that..But we don't kid ourselves that we're helping to combat global warming or whatever....
When all factors are included, I doubt that nuclear provides more energy than it costs to build.
Eg, all the mining, quarrying, refining, manufacturing etc to produce the physical structure, all the energy required by the machines to build it (plus the energy to build those machines etc), all the energy required by the humans working on it (and in it, throughout its life), all the energy required to maintain universities and feed professors etc to teach students nuclear physics (a miniscule % of whom will go on to work on NPPs), all the mining and refining of uranium ore into suitable fuel... Then, after ~50 years, it has to be decomissioned (yet more energy) and built all over again.
Just to provide electricity - something humans lived ok without for hundreds of millennia.
I gave the links for other readers of these comments! And the EROI of nuclear is comfortably above 10:1 according to most of the whole system analysis I've seen, at least as long as uranium supplies are available!
Tackling the climate crisis is a “noble goal?” Unless climate scientists around the world are all seriously deluded, the world as we know it will simply not survive if we don't wean ourselves off fossil fuels and reduce energy use.
It's already too late to save the world as we know it. Equilibrium climate temperatures are going to be much higher than they are now, but they will be survivable in many places for small farmers and foragers, the remnant population of humans coming out of the dieoff bottleneck.
A side note: Its important to keep in mind that for any level of atmospheric CO2 increase, one third of the warming happens in ten years, one third in a hundred years and one third in a thousand years. We are very early in the climate warming process. Major sea level rise and climate disruption are already baked in.
What would probably lead to an extinction-level event, for humans and most other species, would be a global nuclear winter in the aftermath of a major nuclear war. This would be relatively easy to prevent compared with climate change, but the odds of a nuclear war are still going up.
We can only hope that modernity collapses completely before a nuclear war happens, because once modernity goes away, nuclear weapons will no longer be useable.
As resource shortages put a crimp in the "growth forever" illusion, you would think that sane people would look at conservation (NOT new "green" energy projects) and start concentrating on essentials (real food, shelter, medicine) instead of making and buying more useless garbage to put into polluting landfills. Now, the EU instead of putting effort into energy and a declining standard of living for the bottom 3/4, has decided to go all-in with more military spending. What a waste of resources and what a useless contribution to climate issues.
I think you're overly optimistic if you think warming will take us before overpopulation and resource shortages, driven by predatory economics cause a collapse. As B says, we're unlikely to be able to recover due to lack of easily accessible resources.
Thanks I just read at the abstract of your link. Newer research has shown that hardly any more absorption of thermal radiation would occur due to saturation if current levels of atmospheric CO2 levels were doubled.
Well said. Yes, renewables are the last gasp of a modern energy system that must end. But for those trying to prepare for that end they can help with the transition to a much lower energy world, a world in which almost all energy comes from muscles and firewood.
As you note, renewable energy devices don't last forever, but they do last for several decades. I have an electric gate opener that is powered by a round-cell solar module that was first installed at Carrizo Plain in California in the early 1980s. 43 years later, it still works just fine.
Other components of an off-grid system don't last that long, but with appropriate spares on hand, it should be possible to keep a solar electric system going for 25-30 years. This is probably longer than the collapse of modernity will take. Small off-grid, micro-grid and hydro-electric powered grids will probably be the last electricity available at the end of collapse. Once those are gone, electricity will be gone forever.
But during the transition from modernity to small farming and foraging, these remnant renewable systems will ease the burden of those trying to make the transition. Electricity is an incredibly useful source of energy and can run critical systems, like water pumps, washing machines and power tools. Those systems will be very helpful to people who will have their hands full trying to make a living and build a community in the post-modern world.
Nature is exacting its revenge against the savanna chimp's foolhardy chase of fire power. Momentary and diminishing avenues of avoiding colossal calamity occur, but the stupidity and uncontrollable devastation permeating fossil fuel power structures is now a featured part of social reality until the first big shocks of collapse. Sometimes in life, there's just no way out.
We just do what's natural for us--live at the moment--just like any other animal. To change our genetic makeup so we aren't that "stupid" is beyond us.
Good information as usual. Have you thought about de-growth or has global deficit spending based on the myth that we can "grow our way out of debt" made that economically impossible, leaving only catastrophic collapse?
Hideaway has a good post on un-denial.com regarding EROEI. He calculates one solar farm as having an EROEI of 1.22:1, not enough to power our civilisation. EROEI calculations are difficult but I think the "renewables" advocates are hugely optimistic here. Our civilisation needs and EROEI of at least 10:1, probably much higher.
I prefer articles like this to the empty conspiracy theories about "deep states," "rotting Europe," and "clown" Trump. It seems that we are all heading towards a crisis, regardless of the number of "world poles." There will be no winners.
B, Great Article! I feel this is the argument missing from most FF vs renewables discussions. I love William Rees's quote on this
"The only thing worse than the green energy transition failing, is if it succeeded."
What's ironic is anyone pushing for economic growth above all else, should be pushing for renewables, yet they are often times against them. And everyone pushing for saving the environment, needs to think really hard about pushing for more renewables.
I would love to find a deep dive into the entropy argument for or against renewables. I want to better understand if they can lower entropy enough through electricity production over their lifetimes to offset the lowered entropy required to build them. I think this is a slightly different argument than their EROEI. Do you have any recommended reading in this area? thank you!
The stagnation in coal production is mostly the result of coal mine closures in China and collapse of coal mining in USA and EU because of declining demand. Indeed, global coal production is increasing recently breaking new records. I think it's probable that the next global energy crisis will be the end of coal in China by reducing demand permanently. Although peak coal production as a result of depletion is conceptually valid, we will not see it because of oil-related energy crisis causing structural decline in energy consumption.
Dear B,
You have hit it out of the ball park this time. What a lovely, clear setting out of the situation. How I wish Dr. Nafeez Ahmed who writes the 'newsletter offering systems thinking for the global phase-shift' called "Age of Transformation" would read this. He bases his analyses on Holling and Grunderson's 'complex adaptive system' in which we are now in the 'release phase' Here is a link to one of the newsletters that is not behind a pay wall. I would be grateful if you would be inspired to break down the weaknesses in his predictions. https://ageoftransformation.org/american-fossil-capitalism-doubles-down-on-its-own-doom-planetary-signal-brief-26-june-to-3-july-2025-2/
Excellent piece, Sorcerer! The Law of Diminishing Returns applies to everything and everywhere, and it's a b*tch...But if anything, you have understated the case...None of these alternative energy producing sources, except nuclear, even meets the simple test of lifetime energy produced exceeding the energy expended to create the source...We have solar for one reason...Electric rates are going up and up, and solar locks in a ceiling for that..But we don't kid ourselves that we're helping to combat global warming or whatever....
When all factors are included, I doubt that nuclear provides more energy than it costs to build.
Eg, all the mining, quarrying, refining, manufacturing etc to produce the physical structure, all the energy required by the machines to build it (plus the energy to build those machines etc), all the energy required by the humans working on it (and in it, throughout its life), all the energy required to maintain universities and feed professors etc to teach students nuclear physics (a miniscule % of whom will go on to work on NPPs), all the mining and refining of uranium ore into suitable fuel... Then, after ~50 years, it has to be decomissioned (yet more energy) and built all over again.
Just to provide electricity - something humans lived ok without for hundreds of millennia.
The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy gathering system is a measure of that system’s efficiency.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/
I know.
I gave the links for other readers of these comments! And the EROI of nuclear is comfortably above 10:1 according to most of the whole system analysis I've seen, at least as long as uranium supplies are available!
Tackling the climate crisis is a “noble goal?” Unless climate scientists around the world are all seriously deluded, the world as we know it will simply not survive if we don't wean ourselves off fossil fuels and reduce energy use.
It's already too late to save the world as we know it. Equilibrium climate temperatures are going to be much higher than they are now, but they will be survivable in many places for small farmers and foragers, the remnant population of humans coming out of the dieoff bottleneck.
A side note: Its important to keep in mind that for any level of atmospheric CO2 increase, one third of the warming happens in ten years, one third in a hundred years and one third in a thousand years. We are very early in the climate warming process. Major sea level rise and climate disruption are already baked in.
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889
What would probably lead to an extinction-level event, for humans and most other species, would be a global nuclear winter in the aftermath of a major nuclear war. This would be relatively easy to prevent compared with climate change, but the odds of a nuclear war are still going up.
We can only hope that modernity collapses completely before a nuclear war happens, because once modernity goes away, nuclear weapons will no longer be useable.
As resource shortages put a crimp in the "growth forever" illusion, you would think that sane people would look at conservation (NOT new "green" energy projects) and start concentrating on essentials (real food, shelter, medicine) instead of making and buying more useless garbage to put into polluting landfills. Now, the EU instead of putting effort into energy and a declining standard of living for the bottom 3/4, has decided to go all-in with more military spending. What a waste of resources and what a useless contribution to climate issues.
I think you're overly optimistic if you think warming will take us before overpopulation and resource shortages, driven by predatory economics cause a collapse. As B says, we're unlikely to be able to recover due to lack of easily accessible resources.
Thanks I just read at the abstract of your link. Newer research has shown that hardly any more absorption of thermal radiation would occur due to saturation if current levels of atmospheric CO2 levels were doubled.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/24/new-scientific-evidence-that-co2-emissions-cant-warm-atmosphere-because-it-is-saturated-published-in-peer-reviewed-journal/
https://notrickszone.com/2024/04/23/3-physicists-use-experimental-evidence-to-show-co2s-capacity-to-absorb-radiation-has-saturated/
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/25227/what-is-technically-wrong-with-wijngaarden-happers-paper-claiming-to-show-tha
Well said. Yes, renewables are the last gasp of a modern energy system that must end. But for those trying to prepare for that end they can help with the transition to a much lower energy world, a world in which almost all energy comes from muscles and firewood.
As you note, renewable energy devices don't last forever, but they do last for several decades. I have an electric gate opener that is powered by a round-cell solar module that was first installed at Carrizo Plain in California in the early 1980s. 43 years later, it still works just fine.
Other components of an off-grid system don't last that long, but with appropriate spares on hand, it should be possible to keep a solar electric system going for 25-30 years. This is probably longer than the collapse of modernity will take. Small off-grid, micro-grid and hydro-electric powered grids will probably be the last electricity available at the end of collapse. Once those are gone, electricity will be gone forever.
But during the transition from modernity to small farming and foraging, these remnant renewable systems will ease the burden of those trying to make the transition. Electricity is an incredibly useful source of energy and can run critical systems, like water pumps, washing machines and power tools. Those systems will be very helpful to people who will have their hands full trying to make a living and build a community in the post-modern world.
I wonder what's going to happen to the thousands of radioactive spent fuel pools once electricity is not available to cool them...
Nature is exacting its revenge against the savanna chimp's foolhardy chase of fire power. Momentary and diminishing avenues of avoiding colossal calamity occur, but the stupidity and uncontrollable devastation permeating fossil fuel power structures is now a featured part of social reality until the first big shocks of collapse. Sometimes in life, there's just no way out.
We just do what's natural for us--live at the moment--just like any other animal. To change our genetic makeup so we aren't that "stupid" is beyond us.
Good information as usual. Have you thought about de-growth or has global deficit spending based on the myth that we can "grow our way out of debt" made that economically impossible, leaving only catastrophic collapse?
When I click on "buy me a coffee" it opens an image, not a link to send money.
Thank you for letting me know. Problem solved.
Hideaway has a good post on un-denial.com regarding EROEI. He calculates one solar farm as having an EROEI of 1.22:1, not enough to power our civilisation. EROEI calculations are difficult but I think the "renewables" advocates are hugely optimistic here. Our civilisation needs and EROEI of at least 10:1, probably much higher.
https://un-denial.com/2025/07/12/by-hideaway-eroei/
I prefer articles like this to the empty conspiracy theories about "deep states," "rotting Europe," and "clown" Trump. It seems that we are all heading towards a crisis, regardless of the number of "world poles." There will be no winners.
B, Great Article! I feel this is the argument missing from most FF vs renewables discussions. I love William Rees's quote on this
"The only thing worse than the green energy transition failing, is if it succeeded."
What's ironic is anyone pushing for economic growth above all else, should be pushing for renewables, yet they are often times against them. And everyone pushing for saving the environment, needs to think really hard about pushing for more renewables.
I would love to find a deep dive into the entropy argument for or against renewables. I want to better understand if they can lower entropy enough through electricity production over their lifetimes to offset the lowered entropy required to build them. I think this is a slightly different argument than their EROEI. Do you have any recommended reading in this area? thank you!
The stagnation in coal production is mostly the result of coal mine closures in China and collapse of coal mining in USA and EU because of declining demand. Indeed, global coal production is increasing recently breaking new records. I think it's probable that the next global energy crisis will be the end of coal in China by reducing demand permanently. Although peak coal production as a result of depletion is conceptually valid, we will not see it because of oil-related energy crisis causing structural decline in energy consumption.