Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption

[interstitial]

While the argument is technology versus social change I argue that neither alone will work. We need both and even then it will not be pretty.

[Sigmetnow]

While the argument is technology versus social change I argue that neither alone will work. We need both and even then it will not be pretty.

Exactly what I was about to say.
 
We have survived industrial upheavals before.  We will do so again as we transition to a sustainable energy economy.  That doesn’t mean there won’t be adversity.

“Without a full accounting, the green-energy transition risks repeating the cruel history of previous industrial revolutions.”
 
Quest for coveted EV battery metals yields misery in Guinea - Washington Post
Soaring demand for electric vehicles is fueling dramatic changes in Guinea, home to the world’s largest bauxite reserves
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/ev-battery-bauxite-guinea/

If the above link is paywalled, this one should work for 14 days: https://wapo.st/3No6lER

[Neven]

While the argument is technology versus social change I argue that neither alone will work.

Not at all, the argument is technology without systemic change vs technology with systemic change. Sigmetnow is arguing that the former can happen, while I would argue that the latter will be difficult enough as it is. Without systemic change, the renewable energy transition will not be successful in preventing civilisational collapse.

The system is the problem, not the energy that is used to power it. Social change follows systemic change, not the other way round. Technology is an instrument.

If the system isn't changed, it will continue destroying and sucking up all the time and money needed for a soft(er) landing. Sigmetnow is basically working to perpetuate the myth of Progress.

I would like to quote from that link I posted, but it will lead too far off-topic. Suffice to say that resource constraints is one of several reasons that Teslification of society/civilisation will highly likely fail, and that's the current theme of this thread, I believe.

SeanAU has been making that point (to the chagrin of those who never want to hear Peak Oil-type arguments again), Sigmetnow tried to counter-argue with the Tesla-argument, SeanAU showed that this specific example was a very weak one.

That's where we're at. Anyone else has recent analysis, besides Michaux? I tried to find out if Ugo Bardi has said anything concerning Michaux, but all I could find was this quote in a comment section under a blog post at the start of this year:

In short, it is not a question of "problems" vs. "solutions," but you framed it correctly when you asked about "visualizing the societal changes" that we'll experience in the future. The system is evolving. It has now tools that didn't exist before that can provide cheap electric power, wind and PV. The peculiarity of these tools is that they do not need rare minerals (or can be designed not to), so bypassing most of the objections from Michaux (they have their weight at the systemic level, though).

Emphasis mine. Systemic...

[Sigmetnow]

The system is the problem, not the energy that is used to power it. Social change follows systemic change, not the other way round. Technology is an instrument.

If the system isn't changed, it will continue destroying and sucking up all the time and money needed for a soft(er) landing. Sigmetnow is basically working to perpetuate the myth of Progress.

Sounds like your biggest fear is that the transition might be easy! 
 
Cheap robo-van trips replacing the need for personal vehicles.  Overabundance of renewables reducing electricity costs. More efficient electric appliances reducing electricity needs. Global internet access increasing the knowledge of civilization and helping them to live better, whatever their situation.

But, but, climate change is serious!  We must all suffer and sacrifice or the transition to clean energy means nothing!

Here’s a link to the Tesla Impact Report (2022)
https://www.tesla.com/impact
 
Peruse the highlights for yourself. Study the entire 224 page report.  There are plenty of examples there. 
 
I still haven’t seen a rebuttal of the fact that industry is reducing its need for scarce resources.  “But other things will need it!” ignores the fact that those other needs can be met or reduced with updated technology, too.  So, projecting a scarcity years or decades in the future is simple scare-mongering.  Yes, if one insists “progress is for sissies” and “woe is me, technological progress is hard, I guess everything is hopeless,” then of course one can draw lines and do math and make the future appear terrible. But that’s hardly a universal perspective.
   The best engineering minds in the US are applying to work for Tesla, to help upend the old wasteful industry ways and solve those problems.  Wallow in misery if you like, but it is a mistake to write off Progress as “it will never happen.”

[interstitial]

In my albeit not extensive exposure to those calling for systemic change I do not hear mention of technology except to say it will not solve our problems. Generally I hear calls for most individuals to subsistence farm. While this does not require everyone to be a farmer I think historically it requires about 70% of the population to do so. (the whole household are considered farmers as everyone contributes) Complex technologies require substantially higher proportions of the population to work outside farming. While I do not often hear the word subsistence used most often listening to preferred methods describe subsistence levels of efficiency. Industrial farming requires greater than 50 mile (80 km) reasonably fast transport, large farms, refrigeration, energy(solar), tractors and much more.


In short we need to switch to solar and such during systemic change. Systemic change will be slow and likely generational while technological changes can happen much faster reducing the burden.
I think I mostly agree with your post Neven.

[SeanAU]

Faulty Arguments based upon a narrow minded obsession with everything Tesla / Musk and grass Appeals to Emotion are unsatisfactory.

Try bringing some hard evidence and real data to the table instead of the over-hyped PR commentary, while ceasing the Straw Man fallacies which misrepresent what the genuine scientific research is presenting.

What's a straw man?

Wallow in misery if you like, but it is a mistake to write off Progress as “it will never happen.”

That is a straw man!

The crass accusations against unknown unnamed mysterious actors are not true. It's purely emotive content. It is not Science, and not Data!

[SeanAU]

If an argument is made that the transition to sustainable energy will not occur

Nobody is making that argument. Not Simon Michaux, not SeanAU, nobody. You are projecting because you think there are enemies under your bed.

The argument is that a transition to renewable energy will not succeed, unless there is some form of acceptance that reality entails limits that need to be respected.

This is why I asked you whether you believe that Teslification trumps every possible constraint, and hence humanity can continue following the path to infinity and beyond. Because otherwise your comment didn't make any sense (as SeanAU has conclusively shown).

Most people on this forum seem to agree that there is no technofix and systemic changes will have to be made for civilisation to continue to exist. Which is why I don't understand why some are immediately turned off by Michaux to the point that they want to exclude any mention of him.

I haven't delved into what Michaux is saying enough as of yet, but I already know it's infinitely better than the kind of thinking behind Teslification and other technological idolatry.

Correct. On the money. A fair and reasoned summary of what is.

Straw Man arguments are off the scale. People are criticizing Michaux's work (and it even being shared here) without even knowing what it is or what he says about it, or what HIS own self-imposed sets of Limitations and the Assumptions are.

[SeanAU]

How to ignore everything said and presented only to double down regardless while providing zero facts, no data or scientific evidence and reasoned analysis. 

Nothing said so far has properly rationally addressed nor undermined / debunked any of the info provided in these text.video presentations.

Expert View: Copper - Leigh Goehring - Just the facts.

discusses the problems facing the global copper market. While there is a high demand for copper due to the increasing reliance on renewables, there is a structural deficit developing in the market due to issues with supply. Copper mining companies are being forced to mine lower-quality copper ore, and this is leading to a depletion issue.

For one, Tesla cars are not "Renewables"

Two, if an end user reduces their Copper consumption by 1 unit, but the structural deficit is 100,000 units, then the structural deficit remains at 99,999 units and there is a supply crisis in the 'global market.'

What's required here is for some detailed credible data and analysis to support contrary claims; or some evidence to show the material / data / thinking by Leigh Goehring (and Michaux et al) is somehow flawed. It's possible they are both seriously wrong in their assumptions.

But unsubstantiated claims that reductions have been made, and will be made in the future so there will be no structural deficit of Copper is not a valid counter argument. 

Of course people are entitled to believe whatever they want. They just aren't entitled to their own 'facts.'

[KiwiGriff]

Your average consumer will not accept the change in life style so it must  be forced upon them.
Few are equipped to survive deprived of modern convenience consumer lifestyle .
What the extremist are proposing is Year zero .
We know were that leads.

[NeilT]

Try bringing some hard evidence and real data to the table instead of the over-hyped PR commentary,

I always knew you were one of those.  Bring hard facts and data to the table "Tesla impact report, 2 years in the creation" and you dismiss it out of hand.

Why?  Because it isn't saying what you want to hear.  Because you are invested in your "political and social" solution.

Generally the political activists do more damage than good in the AGW debate.  Because they have taken a stance and a position and nothing else will fit.

In 20 years time we can calculate how much Gretna reduced emissions and how much Tesla reduced emissions.  If I live that long.

Me?  I'm open to any solution that works but I can tell you that taxation and browbeating to Force people to do something else, whilst providing no real path for them to change, is going to force people to stand against you and take the risk of uncontrolled climate change.

Elon and Tesla have laid out a plan to get the world to clean transport, clean energy, clean heating and clean businesses within 2/3 decades.

A plan which leverages the existing markets we have, which taxes by selling more expensive but more durable and less polluting goods.

A path which gives people a choice to pay to do the right thing and get a benefit and a boost from it.  Selling their stored power back to the grid at critical times for a high value, benefit, owning a vehicle that they may want to keep for 20 years and not pollute whilst driving it.  Benefit.

What are you offering? Sackcloth and ashes and living in a tent?

Where is your real world data that will transition the world to clean energy and rapidly transition the world to shared transport which reduces material stripping of the planet??  Converting your garden to grow 3 weeks of food a year and walking everywhere???

Do you have the slightest idea about the population density of some countries and the utter impossibility of feeding them without intense agriculture methods? Why bother? You can lecture about how people need to change socially without understanding that a city full of high rise blocks needs a large country with intensive farming to support it.

Come on give us your data on exactly how we are going to get out of this mess.

[Sigmetnow]

“Progress” is why Bruce works his field with a tractor instead of a horse.  And why he has a truck to drive his pigs down the road rather than Border Collies.  Hate progress, or think it is a myth?  Ask Bruce to get a horse and an abattoir.
 
No?  So, “progress” up to today is OK, but no more?!  Well, Progress brought us the Industrial Revolution, and fossil fuels. It also brought skyrocketing CO2 levels.  And guess what?  Progress will make fossil fuels obsolete, and make energy use cheaper and more efficient, so we need less of it — all the while using the big fusion reactor in the sky to make it available to people who don’t have it today.  Progress will make information — the internet — available to all, transforming society in ways comparable to the invention of the printing press, and in ways we cannot imagine.

Change happens, every day.  Progress happens, every day.  Love it or hate it, cheer it or fear it, the transition to sustainable energy is already underway.

Dismissing out of hand the accomplishments that sustainable energy companies have already made just proves the weakness of the “this is why it won’t happen” argument.

[The Walrus]

“Progress” is why Bruce works his field with a tractor instead of a horse.  And why he has a truck to drive his pigs down the road rather than Border Collies.  Hate progress, or think it is a myth?  Ask Bruce to get a horse and an abattoir.
 
No?  So, “progress” up to today is OK, but no more?!  Well, Progress brought us the Industrial Revolution, and fossil fuels. It also brought skyrocketing CO2 levels.  And guess what?  Progress will make fossil fuels obsolete, and make energy use cheaper and more efficient, so we need less of it — all the while using the big fusion reactor in the sky to make it available to people who don’t have it today.  Progress will make information — the internet — available to all, transforming society in ways comparable to the invention of the printing press, and in ways we cannot imagine.

Change happens, every day.  Progress happens, every day.  Love it or hate it, cheer it or fear it, the transition to sustainable energy is already underway.

Dismissing out of hand the accomplishments that sustainable energy companies have already made just proves the weakness of the “this is why it won’t happen” argument.

Well said.  Progress has made people healtier and happier.  It has also brought new problems upon us.  Progress has also helped us fix those problems.  Hopefully, we will continue on that path.  There is no going back from here.  We must go forward, wherever that takes us.

[Bruce Steele]

Change is coming ,no doubt, but I think progress implies always something better and easier and I am not convinced.
 I was a fisherman and it was typical for me to pour 80 gallons of fuel into my boat for one days work. I am a farmer now and my truck takes about 80 gallons one day a month to get pigs to market. I would have made far better money to stay fishing but the cognitive dissonance of knowing what effects of all the fuel I was using destroyed any pleasure in it.
  I have trained a horse and actually plowed with it although I never got good at it, I just wanted to learn how to do it. A horse is way more expensive than a tractor these days with $28 dollar a bale alfalfa. I learned to garden with a shovel and a hoe and while I was young I found the work a pleasure. It would be far easier for me to use a diesel tractor than an electric one but I also still have problems with knowing where we are headed if food production doesn’t change. The problem is this issue doesn’t lend itself to easy answers, at least for someone trying to do it.
 I could easily retire to a shovel and a small garden again but some of us need to work on how to transform our food infrastructure. I am a volunteer because I think the project is worthwhile not because it is easy. It doesn’t feel like the progress some of you describe because it ,at least temporarily, is a step back in productivity which is a easier to define than progress.
 We are a long way from regenerative farming using very little fossil fuel infrastructure. Getting the transport switched to electrics will certainly cut back lots of fossil fuel use for food transport so farms can still be reasonably distant from their markets. Solar electric can also power refrigeration so food preservation can be maintained. Those are both large energy uses I think can be transformed but the heavy work of moving compost, soil preparation, and tillage while trying to avoid synthetic fertilizers is going to be way more difficult than people imagine. If we attempt that transition abruptly everything else will fall apart.
 We need working examples and numbers to support conclusions. Simple words like progress, happy and healthy are what we might want to see but from here it still feels like a lot of sacrifice and hard work will need to be done by someone first.

[oren]

According to Michaux, electricity storage batteries (if all were Lithium) would weigh 2,496,845,599 Tonnes. 

Michaux has assumed a 4 week storage ability of total electricity demand is a requirement (and also assumed only lithium NMC chemistry is to be used).
The assumption seems to be intended to discredit renewable energy and point to artifical shortages of minerals, and is way too high for a real life renewable transition.
In real life, storage requitements grow very high only for the last few percent of electricity demand, and when assumptions also include no management of demand according to supply, no managed usage of hydro plants as storage mechanisms, no large scale use of EV batteries to shift demand, no backup with green hydrogen or green methane, and no backup from mothballed fossil fuel plants.
Under reasonable assumptions the requirement falls to several hours at most for a large percentage transition, and to a few days at most for a >90% transition.

[Diaminedave]

Just thought this paper might add to the debate

Probablistic forecasting indicates that there is a lot of room for Renewable Energy development and innovation and high current rates of innovation suggest a lot more to come, apart from the technology is relatively  simple tech with easy deployment
Presumably there will also be innovations in areas where the problems might be  due to resource limitation
Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition Sept 2022
Rupert Way
Matthew C. Ives
Penny Mealy
J. Doyne Farmer



https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X#secsectitle002

[NeilT]

According to Michaux, electricity storage batteries (if all were Lithium) would weigh 2,496,845,599 Tonnes.

Michaux has assumed a 4 week storage ability of total electricity demand is a requirement (and also assumed only lithium NMC chemistry is to be used).
The assumption seems to be intended to discredit renewable energy and point to artifical shortages of minerals, and is way too high for a real life renewable transition.
In real life, storage requitements grow very high only for the last few percent of electricity demand, and when assumptions also include no management of demand according to supply, no managed usage of hydro plants as storage mechanisms, no large scale use of EV batteries to shift demand, no backup with green hydrogen or green methane, and no backup from mothballed fossil fuel plants.
Under reasonable assumptions the requirement falls to several hours at most for a large percentage transition, and to a few days at most for a >90% transition.

In my absolute worst case, no nuclear, summer low hydro, no fossil fuels, I never had a case which required more than 7 days storage.  Even then, it has been well proven that a 10x overbuild of wind covers almost all scenario's where wind is low and it is night time and in winter with low solar.  Even then, comprehensive interconnects help.

The biggest issues I saw were the geopolitical angle of cross border interconnects and the unwillingness to properly fund the energy sources.

Personally I think that the current direction of progress could make it in the end but I believe we'll have gaps which will derail it if we don't have some kind of carbon neutral baseload power which can close the gaps over the next century.

I haven't seen any studies which actually address the reality of mixed sources and mixed storage and that means most of them are addressing the situation in order to make one point or another.

Most of what I understand in what I have said above comes from here and it has come from the tireless research of people on this forum and assembling it in a sensible order.

[SeanAU]

Just thought this paper might add to the debate

Probablistic forecasting indicates that there is a lot of room for Renewable Energy development and innovation and high current rates of innovation suggest a lot more to come, apart from the technology is relatively  simple tech with easy deployment
Presumably there will also be innovations in areas where the problems might be  due to resource limitation
Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition Sept 2022
Rupert Way
Matthew C. Ives
Penny Mealy
J. Doyne Farmer

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X#secsectitle002

Thanks for the ref - I read all of it. And I do not believe any of it. It's mathematical turtles all the way down. The paper does not deal in the "real world" at all but non-stop assumptions about fantasy fictions based on the past and an undefined future.

As every financial prospectus says:
"Our past performance can be a reliable indicator of future performance."

From the Introduction alone it should be a warning heads up for all readers to be extremely skeptical and wary of the ensuing sophistry and logical fallacies being deployed as the Paper moves on from one topic to the next:


The methods we use are probabilistic, allowing us to view energy pathways through the lens of placing bets on technologies. After all, powering modern economies requires betting on some technologies one way or another, be they clean technologies or more fossil fuels—the best we can do is make good bets. Which technologies should we bet on, and how likely are they to pay off?

What was the Hypothesis where that statement is supposed to have scientific credibility?

I do not like it, because imo the theoretical concept itself is seriously flawed and is not grounded in physical reality. I would not recommend this paper to anyone as being reliable or credible or even useful as an interesting "perspective" to ponder some amazing "possibilities".

But as far as mathematical ingenuity, modelling contortions and statistical forecasting is concerned it would be a curiosity for like minded Post-Grad Nerds at most Universities.

As a tool for making real Energy / Economic decisions about current and future Energy Deployment and Use, of Cost-Effectiveness and Economic Stability it is useless.  Sorry.

People will of course "believe" this "story" while not knowing why because they will not understand it. They will then celebrate it like Good News as if someone has miraculously arisen from the dead. 

There's nothing anyone can do about that, unfortunately. 

[KiwiGriff]

Thanks for the ref - I read all of it. And I do not believe any of it.

Argument from Incredulity
(also known as:  argument from personal astonishment, argument from personal incredulity, personal incredulity)

Description: Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes a claim.

Person 2 cannot believe the claim.

Person 2 concludes, without any reason besides he or she cannot believe or refuses to believe it, that the claim is false or improbable.

[SeanAU]

Oren again doubles down on his default "attitude" to new information/research I have shared here to prove he does not know what he is talking about. He's leaping at shadows and grasping at straws (building straw men)

Allow me to explain why what I am saying is true.

According to Michaux, electricity storage batteries (if all were Lithium) would weigh 2,496,845,599 Tonnes.

Michaux has assumed a 4 week storage ability of total electricity demand is a requirement (and also assumed only lithium NMC chemistry is to be used).

Correct observation. Now the big question for Oren is - Why is that so?

That can be broken down to subsidiary questions such as:
What is the purpose of his research compilation?
Who engaged him and who is funding his work?
What were Michaux's basis for choosing a 4 week storage capacity - and be specific by Quoting exactly what Michaux said that basis is?

<snip, irrelevant; N.>

Michaux might actually have gotten some things wrong - made some mistakes - but refusing to read what he has written and said is not the rational mature way to go about it.

The assumption seems to be intended to discredit renewable energy and point to artifical shortages of minerals, and is way too high for a real life renewable transition.

That comment itself is an unfounded unsupported assumption and it is provably not true - it does not "seem to be" it actually is unfounded.

<snip, irrelevant; N.>

I do not have to 'prove' the above comment is false. Anyone who reads the ref'd works, or listened to any of the many video discussions and official presentations Michaux has made on this work the last 2+ years would know it was false already.

In real life, storage requirements grow very high only for the last few percent of electricity demand, and when assumptions also include no management of demand according to supply, no managed usage of hydro plants as storage mechanisms, no large scale use of EV batteries to shift demand, no backup with green hydrogen or green methane, and no backup from mothballed fossil fuel plants.

Prove that long-winded statement is correct. Show your work and provide credible supporting references that confirm your assertions and assumptions are all correct - and that Michaux's are wrong in the context of his Research/Reports and Papers.

<snip, irrelevant; N.>

Under reasonable assumptions the requirement falls to several hours at most for a large percentage transition, and to a few days at most for a >90% transition.

What is a "reasonable assumption"? Is it to be determined that anything Oren claims is "reasonable" by default? Or is he required to explain and prove the "assumptions" he is relying upon are valid and sound?

Oren, clearly, has no idea what the basis is for Michaux's "assumptions" in using a 4 week storage period in his work. He explains it in great detail. He also explains in great detail why he narrowed the focus down to primarily "using" Lithium based Storage Batteries how that adequately and rationally suits his outlined objectives and goals and purpose of the work.

Oren is oblivious that Michaux has stated repeatedly he actually believes that the minimum requirement would be for 2 months on average globally and not 4 weeks - in a hypothetical world of zero Fossil Fuel Energy supply.

So I have a suggestion to all readers.

If you wish to know what Simon Michaux (and others I have referenced here) are talking about, what they mean, what their "assumptions" are, what their intentions and objectives are, then go READ their work and LISTEN to their interviews and video presentations for yourself.

Do not stupidly cherry pick one sentence (written by myself, not Michaux) and imagine you can tear Michaux whole report apart and look clever or all knowing while ignoring the content of a 1000 page Report and multiple video presentations that explain how Michaux came to the conclusions he did, and what they might "mean" and "do not mean".

<snip, irrelevant; N.>

Lastly a real world anecdote:

AS everyone is aware there was massive spike in electrical energy and fossil fuel prices in Germany and Europe last year as winter approached. Many have defaulted to the overriding MSM news narratives that it must have had something to do with Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent shutting down of the NS-1/2 gas pipelines ex-Russia, and then the USA blowing them up in an act of war.   

While the latter did have some longer term impact of course, the originating trigger point was one thing: The un-seasonal unexpected lowering / cessation of Wind during 2021 into 2022 - in particular for a 5 week duration when the prevailing winds almost stopped completely - which normally would have powered the wind turbines of Denmark and Germany etc.

This lack of Wind triggered a series of dramatic domino effects which occurred at the worst possible time, with the impacts continuing on for months. 
 

December 22, 2021
Analysis: Weak winds worsened Europe's power crunch; utilities need better storage
Wind speeds were milder than usual in Europe this year, so windmills across the bloc generated less electricity which worsened a crunch that sent power prices to record highs as utilities had to buy more coal and scarce, costly, natural gas.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/weak-winds-worsened-europes-power-crunch-utilities-need-better-storage-2021-12-22/


The Wind Turbine Failures Behind Europe's Energy Crisis Are a Warning for America
By Darragh Roche On 10/27/21
The ongoing energy crisis in Europe has shown how nations will experience "growing pains" from a switch to renewable sources of energy including wind power, according to experts who spoke to Newsweek.
The crisis has come amid a 20 percent reduction in output in the wind power sector and rising costs of oil and gas, as reported by Forbes.
https://www.newsweek.com/wind-turbine-failures-europe-energy-crisis-warning-america-fossil-fuels-1643011


and again - Dec. 2, 2022
Lack of Wind Pushes Europe’s Power Prices Higher, Just as Cold Sets In
The continent has stockpiled natural gas, easing worries of shortages and prices, but now they are climbing again

This week, wind speeds in Hamburg fell to around 5 meters a second, or about 11 miles an hour, according to the weather forecasting site windy.com. That is the minimum speed required for electricity generation. Speeds of around 15 meters a second, or 33 mph, are needed to produce maximum power generation.
Such anomalies in wind speed aren’t particularly unusual. But this one is coming at a time when European governments are observing energy use as they navigate their first winter largely without Russian gas.

It also comes at a time of extra sensitivity among consumers and companies to soaring energy bills. Energy traders have been unusually focused on the weather because it can dramatically affect gas supply and demand.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lack-of-wind-pushes-europes-power-prices-higher-just-as-cold-sets-in-11669981726

Therefore the BIG QUESTION is what happens in a 100% RE world where there is no Wind for days/weeks on end, and there is also No Gas, Coal, or Nuclear back up Electricity Supply on tap to plug into the system no matter what the going Price it might be?

Because when there is no Wind in a wind energy capture region which happened in Europe the last 18 months - having the total Wind Turbine Farms X 100 the volume than today in the same region will not deliver another electron to the Grid system. No wind means no wind energy from any of turbines in the same region. 

If that happens at night then there is zero PV solar electricity as well. The only supply left is - THE STORAGE Capacity. Surely this makes logical sense to everyone.   Maybe not.

And the daily/weekly intermittency is not the biggest issue at all. The biggest issue is the massive shortage of RE supply the further north one goes in latitude during Winter. Where the economically viable regional electricity supply could be far below demand for over 6 months at a time. Electricity captured in late summer will need to carry over by being Stored until the end of winter in many locations. 

By all means, do your own due diligence and go check out what happened and why yourself. No need to believe me or the above news reports.

After that, ponder the question of why would it be that Michaux was basing his future scenarios on the minimum requirement to have global average of 4 weeks of Battery/Hydro/Other Storage supply.

And why he believes in a totally non-Fossil Fuel world that it is more likely to be Two Months of Storage will be required.  I do not see that I need to repeat everything Michaux has provided when people can read and listen to him directly if they wanted to.

Few if any seem inclined, so I am not going to waste my time talking to a wall. With the exception of comments like this one which pretty much sum up the situation here very accurately.

[SeanAU]

Thanks for the ref - I read all of it. And I do not believe any of it.

Argument from Incredulity
(also known as:  argument from personal astonishment, argument from personal incredulity, personal incredulity)

Description: Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes a claim.

Person 2 cannot believe the claim.

Person 2 concludes, without any reason besides he or she cannot believe or refuses to believe it, that the claim is false or improbable.

Your lack of sense and stupid straw man accusations are astounding. I gave several reasons. Not all, too many to list, but sufficient for me to share. You falsely claim I made a conclusion without ANY REASONS.

That's just plain dumb.

The Conclusion was I do not believe any of it, based on my reasons after reading it.

What is wrong with you?

(please do not answer, it's a rhetorical question.)

[KiwiGriff]

Never heard of these things called power distribution networks son?
In my shitty little country in the arsehole of the world we transport renewable energy  on a electricity  grid from the far south were it rains... a lot! to the far north were it doesn't. A distance of around 1600km.


<snip, you need to show why Michaux is so terribly wrong, but you can't, because you don't read his work, and then try without the insults; N>

What we need is grid interconnects across greater distance than  than weather patterns. It is simply not going to be cloudy and windless for months over that sort of long distance.
IE Between Istanbul and Berlin 1736 kilometers one has wind the other has solar potential. Together they can negate the intermittency of renewable energy and the need for excessive storage .
China has already built a high voltage network over 3200km for just this issue.

<snip, irrelevant; N>

[SeanAU]

In my shitty little country in the arsehole of the world

Some knob produced a loony report saying

He is a 1st class fuckwit with a barrow to push .

At present the west pay corrupt regimes like russia for fossil fuel  (and the USA?)

That's comment not for you by the way putin bot 

How nice. What a pleasure.

[SeanAU]

Just thought this paper might add to the debate
Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition Sept 2022

It does add to the debate.

The question I'll pose (as an example) is how does any of it apply to or help Nigeria, a nation of 200 million?

Nigeria has Africa's largest population and economy, but Nigerians consume 144 kWh per capita annually, only 3.5% as much as South Africans

Nearly 36.4 thousand gigawatt hours of electricity were generated in Nigeria in 2021

Nigeria has a chronic electricity shortage that has affected the country for many years.

It barely generates half of it's very low capacity. More electricity is generated by private actors using diesel generators at home at factories, businesses, than the national grid produces.

The #1 source of Energy well over 50% of al energy used in Nigeria remains Biomass ... mainly used for burning wood for home cooking.

Meanwhile Nigeria has the largest reserves and production of fossil fuels, predominantly Oil, in all of Africa - which is almost all exported to rich nations. As well as substantial wind and solar energy potential across the nation.

And yet it is an impoverished nation.

How does this new report - Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition Sept 2022 - help a nation that doesn't have a functional fossil fuel energy, transportation or an fit for purpose electricity generating sector to replace?

[KiwiGriff]

<snip, off-topic meta-discussion; N.>

[Diaminedave]

The question I'll pose (as an example) is how does any of it apply to or help Nigeria, a nation of 200 million?

I would say it helps to point the way forward to the way they should invest in their energy infrastructure

[oren]

Oren Oren Oren Oren Oren Oren Oren

It seems my comment has upset you, considering the amount of text in your response and the number of times you have invoked my name.
I have analyzed storage requirements and posted results multiple times in various threads on this forum in the past few years. I do know some of what I am talking about, though do not claim absolute authority on any subject here. I can tell when assumptions are unreasonable and have seen these types of arguments before. I may delve more deeply into Michaux's paper if I have the time and inclination, and if I do I will post more about it, not for you but for the sake of interested readers who actually care about such things and may actually consider the content rather than dismiss it all.
As for the videos, I could care less. Most videos are not a source of scientific information, especially not videos who are made by someone who makes money from their popularity.

[BeeKnees]

Nigerias electricity issues stem from poor infrastructure.  They have plenty of fossil fuels, plenty of money to build fossil fuel power stations, but why would anyone build and maintain cables to locations away from the cities.

In many regards they are where india was over a decade ago.
https://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/story/390/dharnai-story-of-one-solar-village/

The solution today is microgrids using solar, battery and biomass gassification.
https://discovercleantech.com/microgrid-firm-pledges-electricity-for-two-million-people-in-nigeria/
https://grist.org/beacon/nigeria-is-getting-500-new-solar-microgrids/

Through microgrid expansion, Husk expects to eliminate the need for at least 25,000 diesel or gasoline generators. “Diesel is expensive, it’s polluting,” Brent told me. He said he’s seen small businesses in Nigeria save up to 30 percent on their monthly energy bills by switching from diesel to solar power.

https://www.nrel.gov/usaid-partnership/microgrids-energy-africa.html

Solar displacing diesel at a local level and providing people with a cheaper source of electricity is currently the most viable solution to both meeting energy needs and helping rural africans.  Eventually they maybe be connected to a larger grid, in the same way India did.

[KiwiGriff]

I would say it helps to point the way forward to the way they should invest in their energy infrastructure

At the basic level Solar panel, led bulb and a rechargeable  battery gives 24/ 7 light . Cheap solar lights that are less than a US dollar each.
A bigger panel and battery plus a fridge gives food storage. Expand again and you can have energy required for cooking and water heating.
No need for wires,  accounts, and paying for a corporation's profits.
The third world has skipped copper wire based communications  networks and gone straight to cell.
They can also skip our grid based energy distribution networks and go straight to distributed renewable energy generation based on solar power and storage.
For less  cost at the individual level than rolling out massive centralized generation plants and a comprehensive  grid networks across a country.

 

[Neven]

As usual, I'm too busy to keep up with the discussion, but I do want to note that I find it striking that as soon as someone says that the renewable energy transition will not prevent civilisational collapse, unless it is accompanied by systemic changes, the technotopian types come out of the woodwork and start screaming 'Luddite'. Nobody asks what is meant by 'systemic change', or explains how everything is going to be great, if only Tesla, AI and robots get as much laissez-faire freedom as possible, or understands how there is a difference between progress and the Myth of Progress (just a story we tell ourselves to make sense of the world).

Of course, it's clear that without a renewable energy transition, there will definitely be a civilisational collapse. Maybe this is where the misunderstanding stems from, besides most people no longer able to read or think properly. Maybe people immediately assume that if you say that the renewable energy transition cannot prevent civilisational collapse without systemic change, you mean that the renewable energy transition will lead to civilisational collapse. That's not what I'm saying. I generally don't have much against renewable energy (except perhaps for wind), my problem is with the system. The system needs to change, if only for the simple fact that the system is causing all the problems in the first place.

In the next 2-3 weeks, I may have a little bit of extra time on my hands (depending on garden and construction work), and I'll be using it to read that Tesla Bible, and criticise it where necessary. Who knows, it may convince me that the renewable energy transition can prevent civilisational collapse without systemic change.

[SeanAU]

The question I'll pose (as an example) is how does any of it apply to or help Nigeria, a nation of 200 million?

I would say it helps to point the way forward to the way they should invest in their energy infrastructure

OK, but they have been getting told those things for over 20 years already. Nothing has changed. Today is no better than a decade ago either. I'm only saying I saw nothing in the paper which is different or would change anything. Does Nigeria even have anything to "invest" ?

As the paper says; Which technologies should we bet on, and how likely are they to pay off? We focus on solar, wind, batteries, and electrolyzers, which we call here “key green technologies”, because they could play crucial roles in decarbonization and have strong progress trends that are well documented in publicly available datasets.

That is not new. Those green technologies have always been the focus.

Claiming a switch will be "cheaper" or achieve great "savings" is not new either.

And yet still Nigeria and most other nations are making no 'real' progress at all. Every COP the global south screams loudly about the lack of progress and the lack of investments.

[SeanAU]

It seems my comment has upset you ..... snip

Not at all.

[BeeKnees]

Nothing has changed.

Apart from a new 3GW hydro dam currently under construction and 100s of microgrids. 

[SeanAU]

Nothing has changed.

Apart from a new 3GW hydro dam currently under construction and 100s of microgrids.

Nigeria Energy/RE status in 2012
" The logical solution is increased penetration of renewables into the energy supply mix."
Nigeria suffers from an inadequate supply of usable energy due to the rapidly increasing demand, which is typical of a developing economy.
The household sector accounts for the largest share of energy usage in the country - about 65%. This is largely due to the low level of development in all the other sectors.
Cooking accounts for a staggering 91% of household energy consumption. The majority of the people rely on kerosene stoves for domestic cooking.
About 86% of rural households in Nigeria depend on fuel wood as their source of energy
https://energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2192-0567-2-15
 
2015
- Biomass (fuelwood, animal dung and charcoal) accounts for ~50% of Energy Consumption
- The Residential sector accounts for 50% of final energy consumption.

Compare in 2023 (or check your own sources)
https://mc-cd8320d4-36a1-40ac-83cc-3389-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2023/Jan/IRENA_REMap_Nigeria_2023.pdf

It's good they have finally started construction of the Mambilla Hydropower Plant Project, it has been planned for over 40 years.
In November 2017, there were attempts to start construction of this power station but failed.
The total cost of the project is budgeted at US$5.8 billion. The Exim Bank of China has agreed to lend 85 percent (US$4.93 billion) towards the construction.
In February 2020, following the resolution of the lawsuit, there were fresh attempts to resume construction. Construction is expected to take at least seven years from start to finish, due to the technical complexity of the project. A more realistic completion date is 2030.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mambilla_Hydroelectric_Power_Station

Funded, designed and being constructed by China enterprises and Banks.  Nothing really changes until 2030 or after.

The recent move by the Federal government to engage the services of a Chinese firm to handle the project though late, is proper, if pursued to its logical conclusion. ... With or without the Chinese involvement however, government needs to step up considerably, the process of hydro ad meteorological data collection at the dam sites which had stopped since early 80s when feasibility studies were carried out for the preliminary designs. Indeed, the regimes of the rivers have now changed thus, necessitating a change in the design parameters.
http://www.pseccsolarfarms.com/hydro-electric---3gw--nigeria.html

The Chinese Export-Import Bank is funding 85% of the US$4.8 billion cost, and when completed, the dam will be Nigeria’s largest power plant at 3,050MW.
https://www.energyforgrowth.org/memo/what-could-the-mambilla-dam-do-for-nigeria/

Hydropower installed capacity 2,110 MW (2019) No change in 2023
Nigeria’s 2015 National Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Policy set out the government’s priority to “fully harness the hydropower potential in the country, promoting private sector and indigenous participation in hydropower development” .
Nigeria has envisioned growing its economy at a rate of 11 to 13 per cent in order to be among the 20 largest economies in the world by 2020. To meet this ambitious growth target, the government has hydropower development targets of 6,156 MW for 2020 (failed)
https://www.hydropower.org/country-profiles/nigeria

- GDP Ranking 2022, ranking 27th (failed)
- 2021 GDP $440 Billion.
- Avg annual GDP Growth ~3.5% (failed)

Regards

[NeilT]

December 22, 2021
Analysis: Weak winds worsened Europe's power crunch; utilities need better storage
Wind speeds were milder than usual in Europe this year, so windmills across the bloc generated less electricity which worsened a crunch that sent power prices to record highs as utilities had to buy more coal and scarce, costly, natural gas.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/weak-winds-worsened-europes-power-crunch-utilities-need-better-storage-2021-12-22/

At this point you can pretty much ignore anything else said with this Reuters article.

In case you are not aware using the word "windmill" to describe a very high tech massive wind turbine is subliminal messaging for "This is a crock". Any media or press person who uses this term is deliberately trying to set the impression that some small sail driven Dutch "windmill" could never power the needs of a modern world.

Worse, you hold these articles up as a reason for Michaux's need for  28 days of storage yet you have not, apparently, actually read the content.

Europe's largest wind producers Britain, Germany and Denmark harnessed just 14% of installed capacity, in the third quarter, when gas prices hit record highs, compared with an average of 20-26% seen in previous years

So the lowest wind speeds recorded for 60 years caused a (worst case), 47% drop in power generated by offshore wind.

So, in fact, simply by doubling the capacity, the impact of wind drought could be mitigated.  If you dig further into this situation, you actually find out that wind speeds increased in Italy, Greece, Turkey and other southern European states.  Meaning that with reasonable overbuild in all areas and good interconnects, even a 60 year wind lull can be overcome fairly easily.

This, coming from me, is a big change.

So where does Michaux get his 28 days from?  Well, actually he does say that in an interview.

Simon: Is 28 days enough? Exactly. So the answer to this, instead of flogging ourselves to try and find more power storage, is to redesign our electronic technology that can cope with variable power and power spikes and all that. And we have a society that actually can periodically go into a period of dormancy, like over winter, the way we used to do it. We became more in tune with the seasons.

https://accidentalgods.life/transforming-industry-to-create-a-genuine-green-revolution/

So there we have it.  "I'm a mining engineer and I can't think of a way to do it so I'm going to convince you to socially change so MY view of how to fix it works".  "I will throw out a figure like 28 days, prove it is impossible then Force you to do what I think is right".

Michaux doesn't even take the power balance figures and work them through.  Because this is not, politically, what he wants.

Solar at 38%.  OK, so you build for your 38% during the day and overbuild by 100%.  You build the wind for morning, evening and any other time there may be stronger wind and you overbuild by 100%.

Then you take 1-2 days of storage and use it to keep the solar panels warm (stopping the snow getting on them), for times overnight when wind is low and during the day when low light and calm.

Then you use interconnects.  Not North-North and South-South but North South East and West.  When it's winter in Scotland the sun in north Africa is not so much less.  With North-South interconnects this can be mitigated.

Michaux also goes on about the minerals and where we are going to get them from.  OK so he's a miner.  But does he actually do the math?  Building out our renewable infrastructure is a one time budget so long as recycling is high enough.  Wind turbines?  The critical materials (neodymium etc), are highly recyclable.  Neodymium for one.

https://www.stenarecycling.com/news-insights/insights-inspiration/guides-articles/research-shows-promising-ways-to-recycle-neodymium/

Michaux is one of those who demands social change so that his view of the world will prevail so we can fix AGW.

I, like a few billion of my fellow humans, don't actually believe that.  I believe what the Tesla impact report is telling us.  The resources are there.  The requirement for the energy we produce will fall if we electrify even as the amount of electricity we require increases 5 fold.

Michaux is correct that we need a stable grid. The thing is his way is not the only way and, to my mind, not even the best.

The more you try and force change the more the general people resist it.  Social change tends to happen despite being forced, not because of it.  If anyone actually believes that the world prior to the Internet was the same as the world we inhabit today, then that person was either born since the Internet evovled or is kidding themselves.

My preference is enough of hearing about Michaux.  He is one man on a mission to see his view of the world prevail.  He is not totally correct nor totally wrong, but how he is trying to use the issues of renewable energy are, in my view, wrong.

[Neven]

He is one man on a mission to see his view of the world prevail.

Could the same be said of you?

[BeeKnees]

In February 2020, following the resolution of the lawsuit, there were fresh attempts to resume construction. Construction is expected to take at least seven years from start to finish, due to the technical complexity of the project. A more realistic completion date is 2030.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mambilla_Hydroelectric_Power_Station

Wait until they hear about Flamanville.

Hydropower installed capacity 2,110 MW (2019) No change in 2023

Although you are treading a fine line with your choice of dates
https://punchng.com/1-3bn-zungeru-hydropower-to-begin-operations-q2-2023/

[NeilT]

He is one man on a mission to see his view of the world prevail.

Could the same be said of you?

Perhaps Neven.  But when I'm presented with information which tells me my assumptions are incorrect I do go back and look at whether I'm being unreasonable or that I base my assumptions on an invalid premise.

This is all changing so fast that any fixed position is going to be overrun pretty quickly.  My wife constantly hassles me because I said that UK onshore Wind turbines (at the time), were not going to be the solution.  They were, on average, 11% efficient.  I stand by what I said, for those turbines at that time.  Now if I ever mention 46% offshore wind turbines I am lambasted with "you said wind turbines were useless".

Let us assume that one of the many technologies in the battery storage space hits the big time and raises usable energy density to 500wh/kg with a high number of cycles at current cost.  That will turn everything on its head.  Continuing to present a picture based on current storage technology is going to age, fast.

[kassy]

As usual, I'm too busy to keep up with the discussion, but I do want to note that I find it striking that as soon as someone says that the renewable energy transition will not prevent civilisational collapse, unless it is accompanied by systemic changes, the technotopian types come out of the woodwork and start screaming 'Luddite'. Nobody asks what is meant by 'systemic change', or explains how everything is going to be great, if only Tesla, AI and robots get as much laissez-faire freedom as possible, or understands how there is a difference between progress and the Myth of Progress (just a story we tell ourselves to make sense of the world).

Indeed.

If we go back to the start you get questions such as would transitioning a society that uses about 3 years worth of resources in a single year to renewable energy help.

The answer is yes, but not enough to plug the hole. We obviously also need to change other things like our food system but also the amounts of waste we buy and then hardly ever use.
We do this because we get pushed to do this by a culture that promotes a lot of throwaway things. Things are made not to last etc. All that is waste.

Then this whole discussion ignores the wider issues.
Not decreasing our carbon reduction quickly is making the problem for our children a lot bigger.
The there is this enormous difference in the amount of energy people use all over the globe.

If a single refrigerator in the U.S. uses more energy in a year than the average individual does in a developing country, then maybe that should be the real focus of climate talks. 

This is from the article Alex555 posted in Coal today.

If you go theory crafting from there it is only fair that the rich countries whom also are the big historical emitters should lead in reductions. This did not happen of course. Everyone wants to keep what they have even if it is based on a whole stack of unsustainable practices.

 

[gerontocrat]

The transition will be a bumpy ride.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/trade/exports/insights/copper-mine-flashes-warning-of-huge-crisis-for-world-supply/articleshow/99949570.cms
Copper mine flashes warning of ‘Huge Crisis’ for world supply

BloombergNEF estimates appetite for refined copper will grow by 53% by 2040, but mine supply will climb only 16%.

Oyu Tolgoi, in southern Mongolia just north of the Chinese border, is key to Rio’s efforts to move beyond its dependence on iron ore and expand in copper, the metal that underpins the clean energy transition. It’s also a vast deposit whose corporate, political and technical vicissitudes offer a glimpse of the red metal’s troubled future.

As demand for copper surges, supply is increasingly likely to come from mines like this one on the arid steppe: expensive, technically complex.....

Analysts at Wood Mackenzie estimate a greener world will be short about six million tons of copper by next decade, meaning 12 new Oyu Tolgois need to come online within that period.

[SteveMDFP]

2) Even if Kg Cu per vehicles is reduced by a 48v change, the future increases in total copper demand is still almost the same.

 
The economic advantages of changing to a 48V architecture will be proven by the automotive industry switching to it — globally — followed quickly by truck manufacturers, and other manufacturers.   And if copper prices increase, for whatever reason, that will be another driver for manufacturers of all kinds to use less copper, to save money.  Battery chemistries have changed. Cobalt and rare earths are being eliminated. Metal usage has changed.  Copper is no different.

Copper doesn't have good alternatives.  Aluminum is a fair-to-poor alternative.  Gold is a good conductor, but not affordable.

I share your skepticism about mineral X being a rate-limiting step.  But copper is another beast entirely.

[/quote]

[interstitial]

This is kind of a bit off topic but there was a huge jump in refrigerator efficiency around 20? years ago now. So much so that if you had an old fridge a new one would pay for itself in less than two years assuming you bought a cheaper model. I do not know but the fridge reference seems like it was probably made based on an older fridge? 

[SeanAU]

Sigh.

At this point you can pretty much ignore anything else said with this Reuters article.
 

Then ignore it.

 

In case you are not aware using the word "windmill" to describe a very high tech massive wind turbine is subliminal messaging for "This is a crock".
 

I don't care, I'm not stupid.

 

Worse, you hold these articles up as a reason for Michaux's need for  28 days of storage yet you have not, apparently, actually read the content.
 

You're wrong. Don't put words into my mouth. You cannot know my intention.
 
 

So where does Michaux get his 28 days from? 

Read his 1000 page report and other papers. It's very clear. Well to me it seems clear, I can't speak for others.

And I certainly do not speak on behalf of Michaux. I am not going to tell other people what to think of his work and commentary.


 

So there we have it.  "I'm a mining engineer and I can't think of a way to do it so I'm going to convince you to socially change so MY view of how to fix it works".  "I will throw out a figure like 28 days, prove it is impossible then Force you to do what I think is right".
 

That's you putting words, beliefs, ideologies and intentions into Michaux his mouth not said.

People are better off by reading and thinking about his  actual work, and see what he says and thinks in the correct context, rather than relying on anyone else's imaginative "interpretation" and/or "disinformation" or "personal opinion" however one might chose to describe it.   

 

Michaux doesn't even take the power balance figures and work them through.  Because this is not, politically, what he wants.
 

How would you know? Unless you read is actual scientific research and reports, or a commentary where he lays that out clearly? I'm not sure what he wants myself. He covers a lot of ground. Much of it open-ended imo. My take away is that he isn't sure himself which way to go yet. To many unknowns still. 

Maybe you know better, but I can not see how you could.

 

Michaux also goes on about the minerals and where we are going to get them from.  OK so he's a miner.  But does he actually do the math? 
 

What do you think? If in doubt read his work and review his sources, to see if there is any math in it at all. I have seen the results of loads of math, especially in his wide ranging and well known data sources he uses. 

 

Building out our renewable infrastructure is a one time budget so long as recycling is high enough. 
 

Go read what Michaux actually provides on such matters. He addresses that, as do many others.

 

Michaux is one of those who demands social change so that his view of the world will prevail so we can fix AGW.
 

Michaux demands nothing of anyone that I have ever heard.

 

I, like a few billion of my fellow humans, don't actually believe that.  I believe what the Tesla impact report is telling us.  The resources are there.  The requirement for the energy we produce will fall if we electrify even as the amount of electricity we require increases 5 fold.
 

You are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. Has nothing to do with me or Michaux, or anyone else. Frankly, I don't care what you believe Neil and I have no interest nor intention to change any of them.

 

Michaux is correct that we need a stable grid. The thing is his way is not the only way and, to my mind, not even the best.
 

It might be better to first know what Michaux's way is and is not. But you do you.

 

My preference is enough of hearing about Michaux.  He is one man on a mission to see his view of the world prevail.  He is not totally correct nor totally wrong, but how he is trying to use the issues of renewable energy are, in my view, wrong.

Your opinions are your own no matter how much they might misrepresent what others actually  think, say and believe. Thanks for sharing anyway. I'm sure Michaux doesn't care anymore than I would about your criticisms. It comes with the territory of speaking ones mind and publishing their work. 

But the important thing is that you care, and you have the same right to express your ideas as everyone else does. You might even be more right than everyone else. Time will tell for all of us eventually.

Slava Teslai 

(slightly edited)

[SeanAU]

When in Rome ................ do as the Romans do?

Michaux Michaux Michaux Michaux Michaux Michaux Michaux

It seems Michaux has upset you, considering the amount of text in your response and the number of times you have invoked his name.

 

[KiwiGriff]

This is kind of a bit off topic but there was a huge jump in refrigerator efficiency around 20? years ago

Inverter based pump control fridges.
Makes going of grid a lot easier you don't need high wattage to start the motor .

[Sciguy]

Michaux’s analysis assumed that energy demand will increase as all cars will become electric, electric heat pumps replace fossil fuel furnaces and all existing fossil fuel infrastructure will need to be replaced.  He doesn’t take into account recent changes in demand for personal vehicles (increased telecommuting, increased use of alternative transportation such as transit and bikes, and the younger generation relying more on transportation services instead of learning to drive) that are decreasing demand for personal vehicles.  He also fails to account for decreased energy needs due to not needing to dig up, pump up and transport fossil fuels all over the place.  He fails to account for the fact that more than half of the primary energy generated by fossil fuels doesn’t need to be replaced, it just goes up a smokestack as waste heat.

Most importantly, Michaud failed to account for energy efficiency.  As economies develop with renewables driven by Government mandates (social development goals or SDGs), they become more energy efficient.  The following study shows how the developing Asian countries are poised for big advances in energy efficiency.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544221026141

Abdulrasheed Zakari, Irfan Khan, Duojiao Tan, Rafael Alvarado, Vishal Dagar,
Energy efficiency and sustainable development goals (SDGs),
Energy, Volume 239, Part E, 2022,

Abstract: This study attempts to connect Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with energy efficiency for 20 Asian and Pacific (AP) countries using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) from 2000 to 2018. The Panel Correction Standard Error (PCSE) estimates found that sustainable economic development and energy efficiency are positively related, suggesting that sustainable economic development is associated with increased energy efficiency. Similarly, we found that sustainable financial development is also positive, indicating that sustainable financial development increases energy efficiency. In further analyses, we confirmed a positive impact of green innovation on energy efficiency. The S-GMM estimator confirmed similar findings, showing robust to alternative econometric model. Based on these findings, we recommend policies that tend to promote sustainable economic and financial development.
Keywords: Data envelope analysis; Energy efficiency; PCSE; S-GMM; Sustainable development

[BeeKnees]

Copper doesn't have good alternatives.  Aluminum is a fair-to-poor alternative.  Gold is a good conductor, but not affordable.

I share your skepticism about mineral X being a rate-limiting step.  But copper is another beast entirely.

Auke Hoekstra has done an interesting thread on Copper
https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1653003163652202498?s=20

Lets just say is not impressed by Michaux's argument.

[gerontocrat]

Copper doesn't have good alternatives.  Aluminum is a fair-to-poor alternative.  Gold is a good conductor, but not affordable.

I share your skepticism about mineral X being a rate-limiting step.  But copper is another beast entirely.

Auke Hoekstra has done an interesting thread on Copper
https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1653003163652202498?s=20

Lets just say is not impressed by Michaux's argument.

The problems identified in my post Reply #488 above are not about the total copper reserves. They are far more about:-
- the quality and location of reserves. Specifically, declining copper percentage in accessible copper ore (see link below) and the depth at which it is found. AukeHoekstra in his tweet says proven reserves is  "stuff we already know we can mine economically". That may be only partly true.
- the length of time and costs of establishing a new copper mine in remote locations. It took 4 decades from proposal to completion of the new mine in Mongolia.

You need deep pockets to finance the working capital locked up for many years before the revenue stream starts and confidence the demand will be there to pay the higher costs of copper mining and refining. Shareholders in the big mining companies will have to be convinced.

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/5/4/36
Decreasing Ore Grades in Global Metallic Mining: A Theoretical Issue or a Global Reality?

6. Conclusions
This paper examined the energy intensity in world copper, gold and lead-zinc mines as well as the changes in the energy consumption as a function of the ore grade in the last decade. Several papers have already discussed this issue in specific regions or during the 20th century, and this approach represents an update in a period of time where there has been an explosive growth in demand, especially driven by the demand of developing countries in Asia. The results show that ore grade is gradually decreasing for the selected mines, while production and energy consumption is increasing. This tendency has been proven for the case of copper, as more accurate information was available regarding energy use and ore grade. Therefore, decreasing ore grades is no longer a theoretical issue but a global reality in the case of mines in operation, caused by the increasing demand of raw materials.

Yet it is important to point out that information regarding ore grade in mines that are still not in operation or not even discovered is lacking. Indeed, as high ore grade mines get gradually exhausted other mines are put into operation to cover increasing material demands. The exploration of new deposits is very influenced by commodity prices, which have suffered continuous changes over time, and have even begun to decrease in some cases. Even if new mines with higher ore grades could open in the short term to replace the ones that are exhausted, new factors come into play. Such is the case of environmental restrictions of different countries where deposits are known to exist, which makes extraction non-profitable under those restrictive conditions. Other factors could be related to the availability of energy sources and water limitations. Additionally, development of new technologies and processes could also influence the amount of energy and resources that are needed to produce the commodities.

That said, it is a fact that the current pattern of extraction and its increasing energy consumption puts great pressure on the environment, generating larger amounts of waste rock, greenhouse gas emissions, water demands and social costs. Continuing this trend implies two broad options. One is to open new mines with likely lower ore grades but higher environmental impacts and/or stronger regulatory restrictions. The second one is continuing the exploitation of older mines for which permits are already acquired, but with escalating energy and environmental costs.

As mining is still going to be one of the main ways to meet the world’s resource requirements, along with recycling, more comprehensive studies should be carried out considering the scarcity of raw materials in the accounting system to improve resource management and to promote the sustainable use of natural resources.

[Neven]

Auke Hoekstra has done an interesting thread on Copper
https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1653003163652202498?s=20

Lets just say is not impressed by Michaux's argument.

Very classy meme:



Auke Hoekstra should give his viewers more options and put a picture of himself next to it as well. This comparison almost suggests that if Simon Michaux is cancelled/eliminated, (intensive) meat farming can happily continue. Infinite growth is possible.

But the thread below it is interesting, and it too shows the core of the most important disagreement: Can the renewable energy transition prevent civilisational collapse without systemic changes?

As one commenter writes (a nuclear supporter, to complicate matters):

So you are advocating strip mining the planet, using immense quantities of diesel and coal to do so and flooding the atmosphere with CO2, to create batteries that won't last more than a few years, to save the planet from fossil fuel use.

[SeanAU]

Most importantly, Michaud (sic) failed to account for energy efficiency.  As economies develop with renewables driven by Government mandates (social development goals or SDGs), they become more energy efficient. 

I'm not 100% certain what you are getting at, or why, but are you sure about that - Michaux doesn't address either energy efficiency or sustainable development goals?

In his 2021 report, https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf just quickly, I found the following items mentioned:

2.1 By enabling electrification of transport and the use of renewables as a reliable source of energy, the use of battery technology has the enormous potential to reduce global emissions by roughly 30% (World Economic Forum 2019) by 2030 in addition to contributing to numerous UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The word "Sustainable" is mentioned 68 times and "energy efficiency" 31 times.

2. The Transforming Energy Scenario (TES). The TES is an ambitious but achievable, energy
transformation pathway based largely on renewable energy sources and steadily improved energy efficiency (though not limited exclusively to these technologies).

and
In the Transforming Energy Scenario, electricity would become the central energy carrier by 2050, growing from a 20% share of final consumption to an almost 50% share; as a result, gross electricity consumption would more than double. Renewable energy and energy efficiency together could offer over 90% of the mitigation measures needed to reduce energy-related emissions in the Transforming Energy Scenario (TES).

and
If this train was a fully electric EV system, it would have an approximately 73% energy efficiency (IEA 2019b).

and on and on he goes like that. There are also his refs scientific papers:
333. Landsberg, Dennis R.; Ronald Stewart (1980): Improving Energy Efficiency in Buildings: A Management Guide. SUNY Press. p. 456. ISBN 1438409990
and
650. World Economic Forum (2019): A Vision for a Sustainable Battery Value Chain in 2030 Unlocking the Full Potential to Power Sustainable Development and Climate Change Mitigation, World Economic Forum and Global Battery Alliance

plus dozens more. I don't have time to check further. I'll leave you with it if you'd like to look into what he actually writes about.

And I see nothing in the article you referenced " Energy efficiency and sustainable development goals (SDGs), " that is any way contrary to what Michaux deals with and says. While they address different aspects of RE transition overall neither one presents an image or philosophy against the other - they are totally complementary in my view. 

and rather than this "Michaux’s analysis assumed that energy demand will increase " I believe the correct way to state what he assumed is:
"Michaux’s analysis assumed that ELECTRICITY energy demand will increase " and by a lot!

I do not know anyone who does not know and say that. And he didn't merely assume that he calculated what that might be in total in such a world.

and finally, fwiw you say:

"He fails to account for the fact that more than half of the primary energy generated by fossil fuels doesn’t need to be replaced, it just goes up a smokestack as waste heat."

I think that is obvious why he doesn't. He cannot record an energy generation that does not exist. He focuses on his work - a world where renewable energy is the primary energy and everything flows from that. He says that at the very beginning.

So whatever the current starting point before transition of FF or 'primary' energy generation is, it is totally irrelevant to his work. It does not come into it at all.

Here's a useful 20 pg graphical summary by Michaux in Feb 2023 some people may find useful
Challenges and Bottlenecks for the Green Transition
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/1.%20Simon%20Michaus-Challenges%20and%20Bottlenecks%20for%20the%20Green%20Transition.pdf 

Here's an earlier paper by 4 including Michaux:
Assessment of the scope of tasks to completely phase out fossil fuels in Finland (in full free)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360235288_Assessment_of_the_scope_of_tasks_to_completely_phase_out_fossil_fuels_in_Finland

and for fun Wikipedia references a paper by Michaux here
As the EROEI drops to one, or equivalently the net energy gain falls to zero, the oil production is no longer a net energy source.[43] This happens long before the resource is physically exhausted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability_measurement

[NeilT]

Most importantly, Michaud (sic) failed to account for energy efficiency.  As economies develop with renewables driven by Government mandates (social development goals or SDGs), they become more energy efficient. 

I'm not 100% certain what you are getting at, or why, but are you sure about that - Michaux doesn't address either energy efficiency or sustainable development goals?

Regardless of whether Michaux gets the fact that 1.4bn EV's will consume 73% less primary energy than FF vehicles or not, his paper has some glaring flaws.  Of which one is.

The focus of this report therefore was to model the viability of the new global
ecosystem using calculations made specifically for the three significant global players: the United States (US)
economy; the European (EU-28) economy; and the Chinese economy.
Where possible, all data reported here were sourced for the year 2018

This transition and the technology for this transition are moving so fast that anything dated from 2018, unless used in the broadest possible terms, is unlikely to bear any relation to the current situation today.

It contains statements like

To make just one battery for each vehicle in the
global transport fleet (excluding Class 8 HCV trucks), it would require 48.2% of 2018 global nickel reserves, and 43.8%
of global lithium reserves. There is also not enough cobalt in current reserves to meet this demand and more will need
to be discovered.

Now do a search on LFP batteries.

LFP contain neither nickel[30] nor cobalt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery

The paper, though submitted in 2021, is based on research that is so old that it is now so dated that as to be virtually irrelevant to the future of EV vehicles, stationary storage or the transition to sustainable energy as a whole.

This is a big problem when it comes to fast moving technologies which are at the heart of a transition.  But the paper does itself no favours with the way it slants information. 

There is absolutely Zero risk of running out of available resources of Lithium.  The article conflates current supply with resources.

Lithium extraction from seawater

In the near future, to meet the needs of the world community in lithium, the ocean is considered the most important and promising resource for lithiu. It is reported that the total amount of lithium reserves in the oceans is approximately 2.6 × 10^11 tons.

https://www.lenntech.com/processes/lithium-recovery.htm#:~:text=It%20is%20reported%20that%20the,seawater%2C%20brine%20and%20geothermal%20water.

There is, however, a risk that demand will overwhelm the ability to supply the required resource at one of many stages of production.  Currently the bottleneck is refined lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate for battery production; once that is resolved there may be a supply constraint with raw lithium as mining (or brine evaporation), operations need to be ramped up to meet demand.

This paper by Michaux makes out that Lithium is scarce and we'll strip the resources and make it self constraining.

There is an art to spinning the message so that it makes the task seem more difficult than it really is.

Why spin the message?

Because when, not if, it succeeds, the political changes the author would like simply won't happen.  However if you can use your nice shiny credentials to slow down development of these solutions and gain control of the narrative, then you can also put forward your agenda of constraining people from using energy.

The main issue here is that right now the consumer market is our very best weapon in transitioning to EV because that very consumer engine drives 80m new vehicles per year.

Michaux would like to stop and hold back that consumer engine.  Just imagine the damage that 1.3bn FF vehicles can do to the atmospheric CO2 balance if it takes us another 50 years to get them off the road and replace them with EV.

Already this paper by Michaux has been proven to be shortsighted and lacking in understanding of the very market he wants to change.

I shall feel free to ignore anything else he publishes until his papers align themselves with reality.