I work as an electrical engineer in my country's energy transition. Around 2040 we will colonize the sea, raising metal structures weighing hundreds of thousands of tons to generate, convert and transport energy to land. They are engineering marvels operating cutting edge technology near their absolute limits. Because of the hostile marine environment, every 40 years we will have to replace all of the hundreds of thousands of tons entirely. None of this is going to happen, but it's kind of awesome to see what the requirements are for making just the aspect of carbon emissions related to electrical energy "sustainable" and how much of material reality you need to ignore for the plan to make sense at all.
I don't expect that it'll change our general trajectory, but at least if there are individuals out there who (like me over the past 2 years) are seeking to better understand what is happening and likely will happen, it's all synthesized here for their convenience. If I can help a few more people make sense of our predicament, I'm satisfied :)
good catch! I'm not sure. I just replaced that graphic with one based on Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers data that is prettier... and has a totally different number (?)
I’ll quibble with the original sources’ phrases and emphases just for fun - did historians call the 1929 Wall Street crash the “Great Simplification”? Of course not - a
crash is a crash, not a “ simpilificatkon.”
More importantly, the nature of who holds existing social and political power must always be introduced as Realtiy No. 1 in these considerations of “post-doom.” And it’s not scientists, or bloggers, or IPCC honchos, or authors, or substackers who hold this global power - it’s fossil fuel companies, from military to social media to the local big-box, and they have bottom-lines to protect, not the future of humanity.
Wow! Thanks so much :) The process of recording everything I've learned and weaving it into something coherent was helpful for my own grasp of it, and enjoyable. Despite my (alleged) competence, it's hard to feel confident, because this info is so contrary to the dominant message, so I’m thankful for the encouragement.
On Simplification- true. It's Hagens' term. The difference between the 1929 crash and now is that the previous dip was an exception to an otherwise-upward trend. Whereas now we're talking about tipping into a downward slope (that will have it's exceptional periods of recovery, although never to the previous level).
About power- Right, although I'd add that there's a difference between power and control. Those entities have the power to steer civilization's course, but they don't have much control over where they steer us. They're beholden to a growth/maximization imperative. (which I write more about in post 4.2)
I work as an electrical engineer in my country's energy transition. Around 2040 we will colonize the sea, raising metal structures weighing hundreds of thousands of tons to generate, convert and transport energy to land. They are engineering marvels operating cutting edge technology near their absolute limits. Because of the hostile marine environment, every 40 years we will have to replace all of the hundreds of thousands of tons entirely. None of this is going to happen, but it's kind of awesome to see what the requirements are for making just the aspect of carbon emissions related to electrical energy "sustainable" and how much of material reality you need to ignore for the plan to make sense at all.
those structures are monstrous! although, given that energy descent should set in before 2030, I wonder whether they'll be feasible...
It's nice to see more folks getting this message out there.
I don't expect that it'll change our general trajectory, but at least if there are individuals out there who (like me over the past 2 years) are seeking to better understand what is happening and likely will happen, it's all synthesized here for their convenience. If I can help a few more people make sense of our predicament, I'm satisfied :)
In the graphic 'PETROLEUM PRODUCTS MADE FROM A BARREL OF CRUDE OIL', Kerosene appears twice, at 0.2 gallon and 4.1 gallons.
4.3 gallons then?
good catch! I'm not sure. I just replaced that graphic with one based on Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers data that is prettier... and has a totally different number (?)
Having been steeped in this stuff for decades now, it’s great to read your work - brilliant, commanding, abs
Absolutely clear and thoroughly researched.
I’ll quibble with the original sources’ phrases and emphases just for fun - did historians call the 1929 Wall Street crash the “Great Simplification”? Of course not - a
crash is a crash, not a “ simpilificatkon.”
More importantly, the nature of who holds existing social and political power must always be introduced as Realtiy No. 1 in these considerations of “post-doom.” And it’s not scientists, or bloggers, or IPCC honchos, or authors, or substackers who hold this global power - it’s fossil fuel companies, from military to social media to the local big-box, and they have bottom-lines to protect, not the future of humanity.
Wow! Thanks so much :) The process of recording everything I've learned and weaving it into something coherent was helpful for my own grasp of it, and enjoyable. Despite my (alleged) competence, it's hard to feel confident, because this info is so contrary to the dominant message, so I’m thankful for the encouragement.
On Simplification- true. It's Hagens' term. The difference between the 1929 crash and now is that the previous dip was an exception to an otherwise-upward trend. Whereas now we're talking about tipping into a downward slope (that will have it's exceptional periods of recovery, although never to the previous level).
About power- Right, although I'd add that there's a difference between power and control. Those entities have the power to steer civilization's course, but they don't have much control over where they steer us. They're beholden to a growth/maximization imperative. (which I write more about in post 4.2)