Sun, water, wind, windmills, sails, draft animals, wheels, agriculture... How have they affected our use of energy? What do they tell us about the future of energy?
You mention heat, but not cooling and ventilation, which is interesting because back in April, you did write about how these technologies allowed geographic expansion into less desirable climates. It would have made a fine footnote to this article. (I'm in the HVAC industry)
Everything is work, really. I just highlighted some of the biggest historic sources of work. Notice that cooling was never really a thing (only very marginal) until AC, and that falls more in modern energy (the premium article late this week). I do think it’s now big enough to deserve its own section, but the moment we move everything to electricity, it becomes a bit less relevant to separate uses of energy. Sources remain relevant though
Since terrestrial plants eat more CO2 than what humans burn out, I believe it comes from current volcanic activity, which in turn is driven by the Sun as it travels in a new zone of the zodiac: Aquarius
The pandered notion that increased CO2 leads to increasing global temperatures is false.
I went thru the links you posted and didn't find any sources.
First link is a video of an opinion.
Second is about Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist who rejects mainstream climate science, and who has spent most of his career working and consulting for natural gas companies. His book is his conclusions which are not supported by scientific sources. This article preview in worth the read - https://canadiancor.com/its-easy-to-be-tricked-by-a-climate-denier/
Third is a joke about volcanos
The 4th link is video of a interview of an opinion.
Great topic, so much quality information and discussions needed in this urgent issue. Can't wait to read your future articles on this. May I suggest to consider discussing for your future articles the potential for "capturing" biological by-products like methane, especially for industrial processes that use bacteria to digest/process the "bad stuff", like water treatment plants, waste management, or plastics management. The potential to leverage the size of the industrial complex to produce solutions at scale that could make an impact is worth considering. Whether that by-product is captured & commercialized or simply released to the atmosphere, it is still going to be generated. I know the idea for a green future is not to "rely" of methane and the like, but this may qualify as a green, biological, recycling source of energy. And finding a green energy solution for industrial heat needs is one of the hardest challenges for the green energy revolution.
OK, I'm looking forward to hearing them - your articles are always so deeply informed that I felt glossing over the major limitations in nuclear power was jarring. I really do not understand much about nuclear power plants, so what I have I got about the need to be interconnected with other power plants is from news articles about the Zaporizhzhia plant: Based on this article https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/09/offsite-power-supply-to-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-destroyed it sounded like this plant relied on nearby conventional plant to provide stability in supply for its safety and operation, although it sounded like the plant can be run on its own electricity in a limited capacity.
Yes this might be possible as old plants have active systems to prevent a core meltdown, and if a secondary generator malfunctions, they might need to be powered externally. I don’t know if that plant specifically is in that situation. Note that new plants have passive safety systems that don’t need this, as when they shut down, the laws of physics stop the meltdown.
My nuclear background comes from my two MSc in engineering, which included nuclear energy. I have since kept abreast of the situation and the technology.
And as you say, I go in depth, and that’s why it takes so long for me to get into nuclear. There are many many fears surrounding it, and taking them all down to show what the true tradeoffs are requires a lot of work
Fusion could be a next multiplier, as well as precision fermentation, AI and quantum computing. These four things will likely have a profound effect on how we use energy in the near future.
As for the other two, these are information mgmt tools, not energy? They would of course help us figure out how to harness fusion and the like, but how would they be energy sources / technologies?
Remilk is planning for the world’s largest precision fermentation plant to be built in Kalundborg, Denmark. The facility — which will be 750,000 feet — will create the equivalent volume of dairy proteins as 50,000 cows produce per year, according to Grist.
As for AI and quantum computing, I see it similarly. Certainly not a source of new energy but a dramatically more efficient use of existing energy which is similar to what a wheel did, greatly reducing friction.
Whenever you mention nuclear, there is no discussion about the energy cost of mining, transporting, and processing the fuel, and storing the spent fuel (plus the necessary security). Plus as the invasion of Ukraine has shown us, nuclear still relies on external grid power to run safely. This seems like a bit of a short-sighted, wishful-thinking analysis, and unfair comparison with other energy sources: Even if storage is a tiny number, infinity times a small number is still infinity.
Agreed. I am using shorthand for nuclear. There are many many hours behind these assertions, but I haven’t published them yet, so until I do and we can debate them, you’ll have to either take my word for it or discount that part of my arguments.
What do you mean by “ nuclear still relies on external grid power to run safely”?
Great article Thomas!
If human energy sources are all derived from the sun.
A first principle analysis is where does the Sun's energy come from...Nuclear fusion.
As Dr Octopus said in Spiderman, "the power of the Sun in the palm of my hand."
Indeed!
And notice this is for ancient sources of energy... This changes somewhat with newer sources!
Ahh true! Looking forward to the rest of the articles in the series.
Have a wonderful day ✨
Always a fun and educational read!
You mention heat, but not cooling and ventilation, which is interesting because back in April, you did write about how these technologies allowed geographic expansion into less desirable climates. It would have made a fine footnote to this article. (I'm in the HVAC industry)
Everything is work, really. I just highlighted some of the biggest historic sources of work. Notice that cooling was never really a thing (only very marginal) until AC, and that falls more in modern energy (the premium article late this week). I do think it’s now big enough to deserve its own section, but the moment we move everything to electricity, it becomes a bit less relevant to separate uses of energy. Sources remain relevant though
Hi Tomas ...
Why do "We need to transition to low-carbon energy, and fast ?
Regards
Great challenge. We don’t!
But if we don’t, we’ll have to:
- figure out and deploy ways to extract carbon from the atmosphere really fast
- or accept and mitigate a world 2-2.5° warmer
- continue being dependent on countries that tend to be not nice
- spend a lot of money for something vital
There is a technology, invented by God on this Earth, called "Terrestrial Planet Life".
Said, Life, just terrestrial trees, extract from the atmosphere twice the emissions of man in a year.
Let alone phytoplankton and coral reefs extracting power ...
Actually, right now, Earth is cooling .... and civilization will need to adapt to survive the cold ...
"Life, just terrestrial trees, extract from the atmosphere twice the emissions of man in a year."
Interesting. If that is accurate why is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing year over year? Any links to sources etc? Thanks!
Hi Josh ....
Since terrestrial plants eat more CO2 than what humans burn out, I believe it comes from current volcanic activity, which in turn is driven by the Sun as it travels in a new zone of the zodiac: Aquarius
The pandered notion that increased CO2 leads to increasing global temperatures is false.
Best Regards
https://twitter.com/mislavkolakusic/status/1535176638555627521
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/13/linkedin-bans-geologist-for-posting-the-u-s-governments-own-co2-graphs-saying-they-are-false-and-not-allowed/
https://twitter.com/clif_high/status/1651318673406328832
https://twitter.com/Fishermanx44/status/1613281540263366666
Hi Carlos, still looking for sources on how much CO2 plants absorb per year, vs what humans output.
Human output is 34 billion tons of CO2 from fossil fuels per year. Here are the sources for that - https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#
Current Earth plant life absorbs a lot of CO2 but it also releases a lot thru respiration and decay so the net amount of CO2 plants are absorbing each year is estimated to be 8.5 billion tons. Source here - https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/plants-release-more-carbon-dioxide-into-atmosphere-than-expected
I could be wrong so looking for more sources!
I went thru the links you posted and didn't find any sources.
First link is a video of an opinion.
Second is about Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist who rejects mainstream climate science, and who has spent most of his career working and consulting for natural gas companies. His book is his conclusions which are not supported by scientific sources. This article preview in worth the read - https://canadiancor.com/its-easy-to-be-tricked-by-a-climate-denier/
Third is a joke about volcanos
The 4th link is video of a interview of an opinion.
thanks!
Great topic, so much quality information and discussions needed in this urgent issue. Can't wait to read your future articles on this. May I suggest to consider discussing for your future articles the potential for "capturing" biological by-products like methane, especially for industrial processes that use bacteria to digest/process the "bad stuff", like water treatment plants, waste management, or plastics management. The potential to leverage the size of the industrial complex to produce solutions at scale that could make an impact is worth considering. Whether that by-product is captured & commercialized or simply released to the atmosphere, it is still going to be generated. I know the idea for a green future is not to "rely" of methane and the like, but this may qualify as a green, biological, recycling source of energy. And finding a green energy solution for industrial heat needs is one of the hardest challenges for the green energy revolution.
Thank you for the suggestion! Noted.
I already have in the works something close to that, but not that. So I’ll keep it in mind!
OK, I'm looking forward to hearing them - your articles are always so deeply informed that I felt glossing over the major limitations in nuclear power was jarring. I really do not understand much about nuclear power plants, so what I have I got about the need to be interconnected with other power plants is from news articles about the Zaporizhzhia plant: Based on this article https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/09/offsite-power-supply-to-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-destroyed it sounded like this plant relied on nearby conventional plant to provide stability in supply for its safety and operation, although it sounded like the plant can be run on its own electricity in a limited capacity.
Got it
Yes this might be possible as old plants have active systems to prevent a core meltdown, and if a secondary generator malfunctions, they might need to be powered externally. I don’t know if that plant specifically is in that situation. Note that new plants have passive safety systems that don’t need this, as when they shut down, the laws of physics stop the meltdown.
My nuclear background comes from my two MSc in engineering, which included nuclear energy. I have since kept abreast of the situation and the technology.
And as you say, I go in depth, and that’s why it takes so long for me to get into nuclear. There are many many fears surrounding it, and taking them all down to show what the true tradeoffs are requires a lot of work
Fusion could be a next multiplier, as well as precision fermentation, AI and quantum computing. These four things will likely have a profound effect on how we use energy in the near future.
Precision fermentation?
As for the other two, these are information mgmt tools, not energy? They would of course help us figure out how to harness fusion and the like, but how would they be energy sources / technologies?
This is a dramatic reimagining of energy usage.
Remilk is planning for the world’s largest precision fermentation plant to be built in Kalundborg, Denmark. The facility — which will be 750,000 feet — will create the equivalent volume of dairy proteins as 50,000 cows produce per year, according to Grist.
https://www.ecowatch.com/precise-fermentation-dairy.html#:~:text=Remilk%20is%20planning%20for%20the,per%20year%2C%20according%20to%20Grist.
As for AI and quantum computing, I see it similarly. Certainly not a source of new energy but a dramatically more efficient use of existing energy which is similar to what a wheel did, greatly reducing friction.
Very interesting. I didn’t know about the fermentation. Thanks!
Whenever you mention nuclear, there is no discussion about the energy cost of mining, transporting, and processing the fuel, and storing the spent fuel (plus the necessary security). Plus as the invasion of Ukraine has shown us, nuclear still relies on external grid power to run safely. This seems like a bit of a short-sighted, wishful-thinking analysis, and unfair comparison with other energy sources: Even if storage is a tiny number, infinity times a small number is still infinity.
Agreed. I am using shorthand for nuclear. There are many many hours behind these assertions, but I haven’t published them yet, so until I do and we can debate them, you’ll have to either take my word for it or discount that part of my arguments.
What do you mean by “ nuclear still relies on external grid power to run safely”?