Відео

Very informative!

Toyota can dix this by swapping out their vehicles for a Toyota electric with free charging.

energy HAS to be subserviant to the enviroment !!! !!!!!!!!

Very one sided view of the issue. As the guest says, reality is more complex.

Thank you, A question to consider. Assuming you found the technology to strike it rich tomorrow - what would you do with all this abundant cheap hydrogen? You could build some electricity power stations over the source but hydrogen is not easily transported or stored and pretty useless and impractical for fueling vehicles. Moreover, unless burnt in a fuel cell, its combustion products produce greenhouse gasses like NOx so it's not ideal. Electric vehicles seem to offer far more promise.

There is no energy "transition"

GOOD

When somebody begins by telling you how complex a topic is, you already know they are lying and spinning. Don't waste your time.

What is not yours is not yours .

The top-down greed of those few who are at the tip of the food chain are spear-heading the future of humanity. Far-thinking wisdom has been subsumed by human greed. The evidence surrounds us yet, we as a species, naively and childishly refuse to acknowledge that stark reality. It is good to be an old man. I weep for the future,

There is not time frame to accomplished all the target a phase out of Fossil Fuel means . IF , If the mineral were found .The mining , the smelters , the manufacturing , etc , etc , and the fossil fuels required in the transition Green in so so huge . Transition at the end of the day means the pollution the damage we are committed to do is also so so huge . Perhaps worst than do anything !!! Remember is for only the first electrification into 8 to 20 year the wind and solar plants will be obsolete .-

There is not time frame to accomplished all the target a phase out of Fossil Fuel means . IF , If the mineral were found .The mining , the smelters , the manufacturing , etc , etc , and the fossil fuels required in the transition Green in so so huge . Transition at the end of the day means the pollution the damage we are committed to do is also so so huge . Perhaps worst than do anything !!!

Its copper thats the canary in the coal mine.

where can i participate in this class action lawsuit

Good! The human emissions of CO2 is approximately 1 CO2 molecule per 83000 air molecules. Nature itself is the major emitter. If we could double CO2 concentration from 0.04% today to 0.08% only by human emissions, we actually cannot do it even if we go all in fossile. Let us presume that, somehow, we anyway, double CO2 concentration, the effect on global mean temperature will theoretically be around 0.5-0.7 degrees K or C. Probably less because CO2 can only have a greenhouse effect at infrared light wavelength of 15 microns. Water vapour act as a greenhouse gas all trough the infrared band and hence overlap CO2 at 15 micron. So, worse case scenario, 0.7 degree warming if we magically could double CO2 concentration. We basically cannot even measure that difference. We breathe out 4% CO2. Plants grows best at 30 degrees and around 2000 ppm or 0.2% CO2 concentration. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. CO2 is the gas of life. If you want to know more visit Tom Nelson pod and CO2 coalition. Geologist Tom Gallagher has a great 3 hour lecture on Earth's geological history and causes of why climate has changed historically.

Dear Simon: Another huge problem , is the time frame, our civilization have to accomplished this goals and curb the global climate crisis all we are facing . I think At this level is almost impossible to reverse the course currently is going on . Firstly we required a mainstream change in thinking . And that is really very unpredictable.-

Simon is always 5 steps ahead!

So he’s saying stuff renewables, just go for small modular nukes.Problem solved 👏👏👏

Germany is facing a number of problems not just energy issues. I will disagree on two points. First, it was the case that solar cell efficiencies toped out at twenty present, but the new technology cells are approaching forty present. Second, intermittency is becoming less of a problem. Here in the USA we are approaching a predominantly renewable energy based system. Of course Germany is different. Wind is strong, solar not so. My bet is on enhanced geothermal.

We need to build new nuclear today and constantly with the same build in variants small and standard (large).

Sadly under a renewable energy push, there will be many left behind

Thanks very much for this conversation. Hadn’t heard of Simon before but will follow. Have heard of the Venus Project, there is a doco on it from when Jacques Fresco was alive. Interesting ideas and intrigued to find out more with Simon’s input too. Thanks again.

Finally, it comes down to "we're all gonna starve to death if the UN (Western leaders) enforce net zero objectives... But Tesla and nuclear, bad 🤔

Build it ourselves! Exactly. Molten salt can power a second and much cleaner industrial revolution!

I commented too fast! Now, I see this guy is orders of magnitude beyond any net zero bullshit (whoooeee). Great interview and share to all. The only problem I see is with that "we don't have enough resources" in the description. He's rightfully saying to conserve and somehow recycle all the resources, (that we can't recycle 100%, though) and to even use molten salt reactors, if need be, in order to ACTUALLY transition from the eventually declining fossil fuels.

Oh, was sounding good at first, with EROEI, and all, but then took a turn for the worse... "We've all gotta change" (hence the term "climate change", instead of something a little more"problemy solving sounding" such as "the excess CO2 problem", right 🤔 Then, I read the description. It says "we don't have enough resources, bla, bla, bla" and I now have to ask myself "is this guy just pretending to be a mining expert, just to muster up a little credibility, in order to push that UN net zero crap? To be fair, although Elon says there's enough resources to do solar and battery thing, for like 10x today's population, he does not mention the overall EROEI for both the energy needed to mine, refine, make, and recycle solar... And ditto for the LFP or other best batteries. Now, I've flown in a big ole jetliner and I do realize just how big this largest of rocky planets really is... That's plenty of fucking resources (duh).

New combustion tech will be 75% efficient in combined cycle mode (below 50% of torque), and 55% to 60% with 50% to 100% of torque/peak power. Making fuel with RE/nuclear OFF grid will be 10 to 30 times LESS costs than making grid electricity to charge an EV. 3 to 6 cents/kwh for fuel. 60 to 90 cents/kwh for 100% RE grid. 10 to 30... The CO2 for a 100% RE grid is ~ = gasoline due to 4x overbuild and 3.5x in battery costs. The EV battery is also ~ = gasoline. Total is around 600 gCO2/kwh, and at the wheel it is over 800. New combustion tech with RE fuels is 3 gCO2/kwh in the tank, and 4 at the wheel (3/0.75=4). On gasoline it is 400. That means an EV at 800 and Combustion at 4 is a 200x ratio in CO2. 800/4=200. On gasoline 2x factor. (800/400=2) There is NO point to an EV when we have RE/nuclear fuels. NONE. These three factors make EVs obsolete. Efficiency, fuel costs and CO2. Game over. Also, new combustion tech does NOT have mining issues.

One of the things that I regret in life is that I left Physical Chemistry after years of studying, thus missing a chance to receive lectures by Professor Pašti. I am back in the field of science and I hold my fingers crossed that our paths will cross as well in the future. Amazing interview.

Natural gas to nuclear (and gas)

Haha, I love Simon... 'where's my guilloutine' 😂

Thanks for the breakdown! Just a quick off-topic question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?

Average electric car battery when charging is done correctly last between 500k - 800k miles. When he says electric car lasts between 5 to 7 years! What kind of driver puts that much mileage?

In the first 11 mins Simon has seriously misrepresented the ev situation although it looked like a promising interview. Batteries just don't have to be replaced every 4-5 years and most evs are charged at home so thd infrastructure is already there. As for grid expansion, most charging is done at night when a lot of available generstion capacity is switched off. Just keep more running tpo supply vehicles. Not being an analyst I can't give figures but these are important facts . They can't be ignored. Having said that some was worthwhile watching. The point about voltage current frequency accuracy was nonsense. They change all the time. Electronics runs on dc and you can easily rectify dirty ac into dc

Where one worked is unimportant if they have the wrong things to say. What is being proposed here is how to drag the scientific society of today forward into the future. Of course the energy does not add up since most have already excluded the forests from use because they are protecting thier camping places. Trees could provide much of our energy needs if we would quit watching the energy burn in wildfires like modern man does. Artificial intelligence will come crashing down if they attempt to control the world with it. It is not all that capable. The venus project was already a failed experiment that should not regain the public eye. There is no way the world can be controlled by building a computer sytems to handle things on that scale. Science does not have the solutions to the problems they created to begin with. They keep hopping for one catastrophe as we have seen now for near on 200 years. They created the co2 problem from the origional co problem. What we have is academia that is socialist, marxist wanting to rule the world in totalitarian fashion. They are demanding do things their way. They keep blaming the system when the system is science. This is nothing but society protecting themselves using sceicne to screw the world.

I am all for lowering emissions but frankly EVs don't seem to be that cost effective, and they are very expensive for most people. I'd rather put regulations on combustion engines vehicles weights, drag indexes and engine power. Cars are a lot more powerful and heavy than 40 years ago, it is completely useless. When we have more electric energy available in the future with fusion and whatnot we may go for EVs.

The proposals discussed herein are the rational way forward. Problem is, neither our society nor our government is able to decide and act rationally. We can’t even take the smallest step in the right direction. Our congress is paralized. US democracy is failing. Our pride prevents adoption of Chinese decision making.

Hight tempature nuclear is needed.

the notes had "Building a realistic path forward" that sounds good but there is a difference between realistic and necessary. if you pigeon hold your ideas to keeping as many billion people alive at all cost and a way of life as we know as "modern or civilised". then you get a realistic approach that might be much better than we have now but still fall short of what could be done if we do radical changes abruptly. you save more lives that way, longer we spend going slow the faster and more will die. assuming we have a future we want to live in over the next hundreds years.

Simon Michaux would be correct but for one blindingly obvious fact. Earth is a big ball of molten rock. In 1982, Nasa/Sandia Labs demonstrated the viability of Magma Energy; that is, very high temperature geothermal. Developing this technology worldwide over the next 25 years, does not require unfathomable quantities of rare earth resources, nor imply any wholesale reorganisation of society. For context, current global energy demand is around 600 quads. Status of the Magma Energy Project Dunn, J. C. Abstract The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Today, less than 1% of global energy production is geothermal. By 2050 it could be 100%. And as the technology matured, by 2060 200%. By 2070, 500%, and we'd still barely scratch the surface of the energy available. We could meet all our energy needs carbon free, plus have surplus energy to desalinate, irrigate, recycle and capture carbon. Surely this technology would have been developed were capitalism not masking the operation of quasi governmental fossil fuel cartels, excluding entrants to the market that pose any danger of replacing fossil fuels. Hence, we have wind, solar, EV's - which promote mining stocks, and serve as a sop to environmental conscience, but have no adverse effect on fossil fuel futures.

I agree in having diversified energy souces, for example in cars, in order to have a more resilient system

Great to hear someone talking sense so unambigously.

Great work grounded in data. However, I believe you will be eating your words about a declining America. I recently attended a conference in Texas and that state is rapidly growing modular nuclear startups in a highly receptive regulatory environment to accommodate new AI data centers. Each data center is predicted to require as much power as a city of 1 million people. There will be an acceleration, not a slow down in US techno economic growth; as there will be in China also. Today's Arms Race is a tech race that is moving much faster than Internet economy speed. The power required for the AI revolution will gobble up 1 million times the savings of your visionary cities of the future.

Simon knows there is an efficiency problem and it is extremely difficult to solve. Great discussion. Love hearing from Simon

Frugalize.. word of the day

we need to be more efficiant and less polluting in everything we do! and the only way to do that, in a capitalistic society, is to make the activity/source of energy to be priced at its TRUE cost ! and the cheapest energy is to use no energy other than food.

This guy is so obviously anti-EV it's not funny. Almost all of his assertions are i correct or challengeable!

EV batteries typically last MUCH longer than 4 to 5 years!!! 10 to 15 is more reasonable.

Why do I keep hearing different time frames on how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant depending on the person who is telling the story and their vested interests in certain Technologies? I hear everything from 8, 12, 15, 20, 30 years?

Thank you Simon. Excellent talk again today. I listen to all your interviews/talks and always learn something new. Love that you went back in history to put in context the great transition we have ahead of us. I think your assessment on the current world situation re we have been in a world war since 2003, and why the US is trying damn hard to escalate it, is spot on. Thanks for all your ideas and the work you put into showing how there is a way forward.

Prof Simon Michaux has done great researches related with energy transition and continue to find solutions. It is true that "The green energy transition is in trouble-and Simon Michaux has the data to prove it.". His researches show some hope for "pink energy" as part of solution for soft transition. Metal powder idea like iron or other metals, or green H2 as solution on energy transition, need some attention, but these are not energy sources, these are energy carriers and need even more energy from energy sources. Venus projects or other new concept let be as concept only, it is big challange to change the world completely. Some ideas may be considered futuristic only.