I’ve made a case in my writings that, to oversimplify, the future is likely to devolve into low energy-input local societies based around widespread agrarianism in one of two main ways:
One thing that people who compare fossil fuels mined to other metals and minerals mined for so-called renewables (actually rebuildables) do to obfuscate the devastating impacts of moving from a fossil fuel-intensive energy system to a materials-intensive energy system is to compare the end product of metals and minerals and not the total amount of ore moved or the areas devastated by tailings.
While steel can indeed be recycled, for a full build out of rebuildables to fully replace fossil fuel used for electricity generation, it would require massive amounts of new steel (since most steel remains in use for a long time), which requires a Carbon atom from somewhere, usually coal. Plus of course tremendous heat.
Same with silicon, and solar panels are MUCH harder to recycle. Silica to silicon requires not just high heat, multiple times at various steps in the process, but also a Carbon atom, usually supplied by wood and coal.
And of course the machines that mine the materials that go into wind turbines, solar panels, grid lines, substations; the machines to build these things, install them, and maintain them; the factories; the tailings dams; the biodiversity loss and carbon loss from overburden destruction, etc. rarely get acknowledged much less factored into the impacts of these industrial technologies.
Batteries are a toxic destructive nightmare from start to finish.
I like your "banoffees" but I think "bright greens" is the best descriptor I've seen so far (from the book Bright Green Lies). No matter what we call them, the bright green utopia promised by these people is just a fantasy.
And as Bill Rees (Ecological Overshoot guy) says: "The only thing worse than the failure of the energy transition would be the success of the energy transition ... Business as usual is destroying the planet. Business as usual by alternative means is still destroying the planet."
Low energy and local are the future. We are unlikely to get there easily as you point out here; the geopolitical impediments are just too great, as is human addiction to high-energy lifestyles. I'd prefer the entirety of humanity to recognize the value in nature and the right of non-humans and ecosystems to exist for their own sake and not just FOR US, and follow a plan for 2. I am 99.99999% sure that won't happen, and thus we'll get 1. Probably sooner than later.
That was a fascinating article. I am curious though, why you seem to overlook nuclear power as an option? Fission has a higher energy return on investment than anything else practical. Thorium, fuel recycling, and breeder reactors are all ways to greatly extend fuel supplies, and do so for a fraction of the economic and environmental costs of renewables such as solar and wind. There is a rather intensive push in technocratic circles to reform and deregulate fission to allow for smaller and cheaper reactors. I think if we're in your first scenario of catastrophic climate crisis, or in some kind of peak oil scenario where EROI is declining massively, the political push for nuclear power will accelerate dramatically. I think the main issue with this approach is that it is fantastic for electricity and shipping, but unlikely to be able to decarbonize the particularly resistant sectors unless battery technology improves well above projected levels. I would expect virtually any country given the choice of "lose geostrategic power" or "accept the political and environmental risks of nuclear power" to go with swallowing the nuclear pill much more quickly than they would try to end fossil fuel use. I really have trouble imagining say, four American election cycles of declining energy based living standards without a very serious effort at a nuclear build out even if the costs were net negative due to environmental concerns and security issues.
I would also note that if practical power devolved locally, as you seem to think is likely without major technological changes, this actually increases the chance of nuclear power build out dramatically. Without American power projection to stop shipment of nuclear materials against their will, national or international regulations for safety on the issue, this would greatly increase the variance of governing structures and policy. Even assuming the improvements in nuclear power since the 1970s are overblown, which is possible given the marketing incentives and national pride issues with the current advances projects, by far the biggest costs to nuclear power are based on regulation and activism, which would both become much weaker factors in your projection.
Thanks for those comments Elisabeth & Bob. I took the liberty of pasting them into the comments section of my home website, and replying to them briefly there: https://chrissmaje.com/2024/08/off-grid-further-thoughts-on-the-failing-renewables-transition/#comment-263971
One thing that people who compare fossil fuels mined to other metals and minerals mined for so-called renewables (actually rebuildables) do to obfuscate the devastating impacts of moving from a fossil fuel-intensive energy system to a materials-intensive energy system is to compare the end product of metals and minerals and not the total amount of ore moved or the areas devastated by tailings.
While steel can indeed be recycled, for a full build out of rebuildables to fully replace fossil fuel used for electricity generation, it would require massive amounts of new steel (since most steel remains in use for a long time), which requires a Carbon atom from somewhere, usually coal. Plus of course tremendous heat.
Same with silicon, and solar panels are MUCH harder to recycle. Silica to silicon requires not just high heat, multiple times at various steps in the process, but also a Carbon atom, usually supplied by wood and coal.
And of course the machines that mine the materials that go into wind turbines, solar panels, grid lines, substations; the machines to build these things, install them, and maintain them; the factories; the tailings dams; the biodiversity loss and carbon loss from overburden destruction, etc. rarely get acknowledged much less factored into the impacts of these industrial technologies.
Batteries are a toxic destructive nightmare from start to finish.
I like your "banoffees" but I think "bright greens" is the best descriptor I've seen so far (from the book Bright Green Lies). No matter what we call them, the bright green utopia promised by these people is just a fantasy.
And as Bill Rees (Ecological Overshoot guy) says: "The only thing worse than the failure of the energy transition would be the success of the energy transition ... Business as usual is destroying the planet. Business as usual by alternative means is still destroying the planet."
Low energy and local are the future. We are unlikely to get there easily as you point out here; the geopolitical impediments are just too great, as is human addiction to high-energy lifestyles. I'd prefer the entirety of humanity to recognize the value in nature and the right of non-humans and ecosystems to exist for their own sake and not just FOR US, and follow a plan for 2. I am 99.99999% sure that won't happen, and thus we'll get 1. Probably sooner than later.
That was a fascinating article. I am curious though, why you seem to overlook nuclear power as an option? Fission has a higher energy return on investment than anything else practical. Thorium, fuel recycling, and breeder reactors are all ways to greatly extend fuel supplies, and do so for a fraction of the economic and environmental costs of renewables such as solar and wind. There is a rather intensive push in technocratic circles to reform and deregulate fission to allow for smaller and cheaper reactors. I think if we're in your first scenario of catastrophic climate crisis, or in some kind of peak oil scenario where EROI is declining massively, the political push for nuclear power will accelerate dramatically. I think the main issue with this approach is that it is fantastic for electricity and shipping, but unlikely to be able to decarbonize the particularly resistant sectors unless battery technology improves well above projected levels. I would expect virtually any country given the choice of "lose geostrategic power" or "accept the political and environmental risks of nuclear power" to go with swallowing the nuclear pill much more quickly than they would try to end fossil fuel use. I really have trouble imagining say, four American election cycles of declining energy based living standards without a very serious effort at a nuclear build out even if the costs were net negative due to environmental concerns and security issues.
I would also note that if practical power devolved locally, as you seem to think is likely without major technological changes, this actually increases the chance of nuclear power build out dramatically. Without American power projection to stop shipment of nuclear materials against their will, national or international regulations for safety on the issue, this would greatly increase the variance of governing structures and policy. Even assuming the improvements in nuclear power since the 1970s are overblown, which is possible given the marketing incentives and national pride issues with the current advances projects, by far the biggest costs to nuclear power are based on regulation and activism, which would both become much weaker factors in your projection.