BRILLIANT and of surpassing import: 23:22 "I think we're sleeping on the possibilities of using advanced technology to solve geopolitical problems. We're used to geopolitics being defined by the natural geography of the world but we have achieved a level of technology where we can change the natural geography of the world, and it's viable". Geopolitical AND OTHER problems, namely ecosystem restoration.
I'm intrigued with Samo's suggestions regarding things like water and the availability of daylight to make significant changes in both the natural and cultural environment, and having lived in Alaska, the deserts of the Southwest and even Antarctica I have some insights on some of these assets. It's worth noting that the deserts of the southwest US are in some ways not because of a shortage of water but how the water it gets interacts in the environment. Drive through the Great Basin in summer and you'll find snow at high elevation and monsoons in mid-summer but it never makes it to human infrastructure in significant amounts but there are ways to manage it to hold it onto the land. As for oil off the coast of Antarctica it will be a very expensive proposition to have a platform out in the uniquely tempestuous waters of Antarctica's roaring 40s...but maybe submarine tech will work. As for Alaska and the short days...well those short days are integral to the kind of natural systems and people can just use electric lights on the surface...so I'm doubtful about orbiting reflectors being a good idea...but hey, it's about dreaming and reaching. I'd love to see Samo in conversation with the authors of Superabundance; Marion Tupey and Gale Pooley. Thanks for the terrific food for thought.
WW2, from the German perspective, was about autarky and Lebensraum, the worry was that if the German population was larger, it would be hard to feed and you would be dependant on other (enemy) nations. Now the population is 20M larger than it was then, and food production is a non issue. In part ironically because of jewish scientists like Fritz Haber.
Checked the Ras Al Kair project, and thw 7 billion is true, but that not for 1 million Cubic meter per day only pure water, that included 1200 Km water piplines, 2.3 GWH electricity production..etc etc...but they did some new design that imporved on reverse osmomis and compained with old deslaination systems increased electricty and water production...
You are saying, I take it, that the long water pipelines, and an added high electricity requirement, were not figured in to the quoted cost per cubic meter of desal water? Samo DID quote 2.2 KWh of juice as the energy cost per cubic meter; are you saying there were other energy costs, not included in that? Please explain.
I recommend checking the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT), managed by WHO and USAID, for data on natural hazards and disasters. The data shows that while the frequency of events has remained stable over the last decade, the number of affected people and deaths is slowly decreasing, but total damage in dollars is rising. EM-DAT is the most comprehensive global dataset I know, but its accuracy depends on country reporting. Historical data before the 2000s should be interpreted with caution, and the database doesn’t account for indirect effects like disease spread or conflict exacerbated by disasters.
Does the fact we continue to expand and build out, as well as own more stuff in general, explain part of the reason why total damage in dollars is rising? There's just more stuff to get damaged?
@@chickenfishhybrid44 I share your intuition on this argument, but I can't say so categorically because I'm not aware of any statistical studies or similar research on the matter. If anyone has content about it, please let me know!
Ahahaha, now that's an interesting take! The Antarctic oil claims seem pretty flimsy, though. They're largely based on a single, questionable Russian survey from 2024, which was likely more about politics than science. If energy reserves are your concern, Quaise Energy is doing something far more promising: applying maser drilling to access deep geothermal energy. With this tech, we could tap into thousands of years' worth of clean, sustainable growth, almost anywhere on the planet. And frankly, that might be the better route to take. Unlike the relatively optimistic tone in this video, climate change is likely to be devastating. We're talking more extreme floods, storms, and temperature swings, all of which will demand costly, ongoing infrastructure projects to manage. Ignoring these realities feels like a huge oversight.
You are correct that he is too optimistic about climate change. And he never mentions other planetary boundaries. Nevertheless, he makes good points about tech potentials for remediation of important problems.
The maintenance on geothermal puts it far below the necessary EROEI. The energy supply constraints will take place in transport fuels and diesel needed to run machinery. There is no alternative to diesel that I am aware of
@@puppetperception7861 1 EROEI is a metric that seems to be past its sell-by date. LCOE is the comer. Geothermal has quite favorable LCOE -- better than nuclear, coal, and gas peakers. See below. 2 Electrification of heavy equipment and vehicles is coming along nicely. It is of course a process, and will still take a couple decades for full transition. But it is inevitable, and already well underway. Do some searches to brief yourself on this transition in process. 3 What special maintenance you are talking about? I know nothing about geothermal system maintenance. However, according to google AI, "Geothermal systems require little maintenance and repairs compared to conventional HVAC systems." GEOTHERMAL LCOE: AI Overview The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of geothermal power varies depending on the source, but is generally less expensive than other energy sources: Geothermal power plant The LCOE of a geothermal power plant can range from $0.04-$0.14 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Global average The global average LCOE of geothermal energy from 2010-2023 is around $0.07 per kWh. 2022 The LCOE of geothermal power fell by 22% to $0.056 per kWh in 2022. Compared to other energy sources Geothermal is cheaper than nuclear, coal, and gas peaking: Nuclear: The LCOE of nuclear power is $141-$221 per MWh. Coal: The LCOE of coal is $68-$166 per MWh. Gas peaking: The LCOE of gas peaking is $115-$221 per MWh. LCOE is a key metric for evaluating the economic viability of energy projects. It's a standardized method for comparing different technologies across different lifespans, sizes, and locations. LCOE calculations consider: total lifecycle costs, energy production factors, financing aspects, and the time value of money. Geothermal energy has several advantages, including: Low cost Ability to operate year-round at high capacity factors Provides firm, dispatchable electricity
This does not make sense: 5:59 "there has been research into making desalination more energy efficient, but the costs are relatively low already and it doesn't quite make sense to power desalination with solar energy. The reason is because the capital expenditure of building a desalination plant is the biggest cost. They don't actually need that much energy." Is he saying that only if the energy costs/requirements were much higher, THEN solar would be practical? Makes no sense at all. If anything, the opposite of what he is saying is true. Because of the low power requirement, cheap and flexible solar (need more power? just put in a few more panels; compare to gas, coal, nuclear... no comparison!) is the only way to go. If the energy costs/requirements were much higher, then it would make sense to invest a ton of money into a gas-burning plant or what have you. Otherwise very interesting vid.
Took me 5 minutes to sniff him out. He is a nuclear industry shill. His association with Long Now was the first clue; added to that was the gratuitous and even somewhat stupid dismissal of solar (post above). Below is his article on the bismarckanalysis website. Key line: "Nuclear power is by far the best way to achieve abundant energy in practice". Any well-informed and conflict of interest-free person knows that this is false. But it becomes "true" when your paycheck depends on it. lol .................................................................. The State of the U.S. Nuclear Industry Nuclear power in the U.S. has stagnated along with overall energy demand. Prospects for growth are instead in exports of new small modular reactors. Samo Burja Apr 19, 2023 Nuclear power provides millions of times more energy per unit of mass than any other viable energy source. Only fusion power, which currently remains speculative, can produce more energy than nuclear fission. The promise of any kind of major technological revolution or material economic growth in the medium term future ultimately requires concomitant industrial growth, which itself ultimately requires cheap and abundant energy. Nuclear power is by far the best way to achieve abundant energy in practice.
The nuclear industry has fielded dozens of these pundit types in recent years, hoping to rekindle (and claiming, feebly and unconvincingly, to have rekindled) their failing industry -- an industry clearly left behind by tech and production advances in renewables. Nuclear is dead in the water, worldwide, with no hope of a turnaround. Too expensive, too sluggish (years or even decades to get to operation), and far better and cheaper alternatives are readily available. No one gives a shit about nuclear anymore, apart from keeping existing projects slowly rolling forward -- just barely enough to stay in place relative to attrition (treading water). Game, set, match. It's over.
Other than all that, though, I love this guy Samo and he makes many great points. ONWARD to a much better (water-abundant, etc., etc.) future... powered with renewables!
Solar doesn't work well for desalination because the biggest cost is infrustructure, thus to get the water cheap you need to run the infrustructure at peak (or close to peak) 24/7. Solar simply can't do this, nor can wind. You need a power source capable of base loading.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I did not mention the huge potential co-benefits of solar, especially for desert areas. Solar integrated with agriculture and pasture (for animals) "transforms the desert into a thriving ecosystem", see vid below. Watch first five minutes. Coal and gas simply can't do this, nor can nuclear. You need a power source capable of integration into natural ecosystems. Coal, gas and nuclear plants have no environmental/ecological (or other) co-benefits. They only have co-liabilities, and lots of them. Interesting here how solar panels can complement Samo's vision of re-greening desert or desertified areas: combining their own unique ecosystem benefits WITH the huge new water resources unleashed by desalination -- itself powered by the panels! A big holistic win-win-win! Are you listening, Samo? Please get off that sinking nuclear WWII battleship and jump aboard the sleek ultra-modern renewables mega-liner! You'll be glad you did, and your spouse, kids and friends will respect you much more (i.e. your true friends, not ecomodern pro-nuke office buddies). For more info on solar panel integration with agri/horticulture, the keywords for search are: agrovoltaic and agrivoltaic. There's lots of stuff on this astonishing new complementarity -- which no one predicted, but there it is, in empirical practice. vid on youtube: How China’s Desert Solar Plant Became a Pasture? China’s Bold Solar Plant Transformation Inspires! PROJECT NEXUS Jan 3, 2025 In the heart of the Tarlatan Desert in Qinghai, China, a groundbreaking solar project has turned barren sands into a vibrant ecosystem. The photovoltaic power plant, launched in 2012, was initially designed to harness the desert's abundant sunlight to generate clean energy. Over a decade later, it has achieved far more than anticipated-transforming the arid landscape into lush pastures, creating jobs, and fostering ecological renewal. This video explores the incredible journey of Tarlatan’s solar plant and how it harmonizes cutting-edge technology with environmental restoration. The challenges of constructing such a large-scale solar plant in a harsh desert environment were immense. Frequent sandstorms and lack of vegetation posed significant threats. To counter this, the team planted drought-resistant grass, stabilizing the sand and reducing storm risks. Surprisingly, this greenery thrived under the shade of the solar panels, creating a symbiotic relationship between energy generation and ecological balance. This dual-purpose innovation inspired a sustainable model: herders graze sheep to manage grass height while also maintaining the facility. Today, Tarlatan spans over 600 square kilometers and generates up to 14.4 billion kilowatt-hours annually, supporting both regional and national energy needs. Beyond clean energy, the project has revitalized the local economy and set a global benchmark for sustainable development. Its success reflects China’s leadership in renewable energy and commitment to addressing climate challenges through innovative, community-focused solutions. This video dives deep into Tarlatan’s impact on renewable energy, agriculture, and global sustainability. Discover how this pioneering project has reshaped the future of desert ecosystems and inspired similar initiatives worldwide.
![Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eU-AkeOyiOQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Samo is one of the most profound thinkers of today.
I never get tired of hearing what Samo has to say.
BRILLIANT and of surpassing import:
23:22 "I think we're sleeping on the possibilities of using advanced technology to solve geopolitical problems. We're used to geopolitics being defined by the natural geography of the world but we have achieved a level of technology where we can change the natural geography of the world, and it's viable".
Geopolitical AND OTHER problems, namely ecosystem restoration.
I'm intrigued with Samo's suggestions regarding things like water and the availability of daylight to make significant changes in both the natural and cultural environment, and having lived in Alaska, the deserts of the Southwest and even Antarctica I have some insights on some of these assets. It's worth noting that the deserts of the southwest US are in some ways not because of a shortage of water but how the water it gets interacts in the environment. Drive through the Great Basin in summer and you'll find snow at high elevation and monsoons in mid-summer but it never makes it to human infrastructure in significant amounts but there are ways to manage it to hold it onto the land. As for oil off the coast of Antarctica it will be a very expensive proposition to have a platform out in the uniquely tempestuous waters of Antarctica's roaring 40s...but maybe submarine tech will work. As for Alaska and the short days...well those short days are integral to the kind of natural systems and people can just use electric lights on the surface...so I'm doubtful about orbiting reflectors being a good idea...but hey, it's about dreaming and reaching. I'd love to see Samo in conversation with the authors of Superabundance; Marion Tupey and Gale Pooley. Thanks for the terrific food for thought.
WW2, from the German perspective, was about autarky and Lebensraum, the worry was that if the German population was larger, it would be hard to feed and you would be dependant on other (enemy) nations.
Now the population is 20M larger than it was then, and food production is a non issue.
In part ironically because of jewish scientists like Fritz Haber.
Im so ready
Checked the Ras Al Kair project, and thw 7 billion is true, but that not for 1 million Cubic meter per day only pure water, that included 1200 Km water piplines, 2.3 GWH electricity production..etc etc...but they did some new design that imporved on reverse osmomis and compained with old deslaination systems increased electricty and water production...
You are saying, I take it, that the long water pipelines, and an added high electricity requirement, were not figured in to the quoted cost per cubic meter of desal water? Samo DID quote 2.2 KWh of juice as the energy cost per cubic meter; are you saying there were other energy costs, not included in that? Please explain.
It's entirely possible the Falklands choose to join Argentina if given local language rights if Argentina is ecconomicaly freer than the UK
Let’s go!
I hope so
florida west lets go
What about the ‘energy’ to pump and distribute the sea water to desalination to market? Without fossil fuels? ua-cam.com/video/kZA9Hnp3aV4/v-deo.html
I recommend checking the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT), managed by WHO and USAID, for data on natural hazards and disasters.
The data shows that while the frequency of events has remained stable over the last decade, the number of affected people and deaths is slowly decreasing, but total damage in dollars is rising.
EM-DAT is the most comprehensive global dataset I know, but its accuracy depends on country reporting. Historical data before the 2000s should be interpreted with caution, and the database doesn’t account for indirect effects like disease spread or conflict exacerbated by disasters.
Does the fact we continue to expand and build out, as well as own more stuff in general, explain part of the reason why total damage in dollars is rising? There's just more stuff to get damaged?
@@chickenfishhybrid44 I share your intuition on this argument, but I can't say so categorically because I'm not aware of any statistical studies or similar research on the matter.
If anyone has content about it, please let me know!
Ahahaha, now that's an interesting take!
The Antarctic oil claims seem pretty flimsy, though. They're largely based on a single, questionable Russian survey from 2024, which was likely more about politics than science.
If energy reserves are your concern, Quaise Energy is doing something far more promising: applying maser drilling to access deep geothermal energy. With this tech, we could tap into thousands of years' worth of clean, sustainable growth, almost anywhere on the planet.
And frankly, that might be the better route to take. Unlike the relatively optimistic tone in this video, climate change is likely to be devastating. We're talking more extreme floods, storms, and temperature swings, all of which will demand costly, ongoing infrastructure projects to manage. Ignoring these realities feels like a huge oversight.
You are correct that he is too optimistic about climate change. And he never mentions other planetary boundaries. Nevertheless, he makes good points about tech potentials for remediation of important problems.
The maintenance on geothermal puts it far below the necessary EROEI. The energy supply constraints will take place in transport fuels and diesel needed to run machinery. There is no alternative to diesel that I am aware of
@@puppetperception7861
1 EROEI is a metric that seems to be past its sell-by date. LCOE is the comer. Geothermal has quite favorable LCOE -- better than nuclear, coal, and gas peakers. See below.
2 Electrification of heavy equipment and vehicles is coming along nicely. It is of course a process, and will still take a couple decades for full transition. But it is inevitable, and already well underway. Do some searches to brief yourself on this transition in process.
3 What special maintenance you are talking about? I know nothing about geothermal system maintenance. However, according to google AI, "Geothermal systems require little maintenance and repairs compared to conventional HVAC systems."
GEOTHERMAL LCOE:
AI Overview
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of geothermal power varies depending on the source, but is generally less expensive than other energy sources:
Geothermal power plant
The LCOE of a geothermal power plant can range from $0.04-$0.14 per kilowatt-hour (kWh).
Global average
The global average LCOE of geothermal energy from 2010-2023 is around $0.07 per kWh.
2022
The LCOE of geothermal power fell by 22% to $0.056 per kWh in 2022.
Compared to other energy sources
Geothermal is cheaper than nuclear, coal, and gas peaking:
Nuclear: The LCOE of nuclear power is $141-$221 per MWh.
Coal: The LCOE of coal is $68-$166 per MWh.
Gas peaking: The LCOE of gas peaking is $115-$221 per MWh.
LCOE is a key metric for evaluating the economic viability of energy projects. It's a standardized method for comparing different technologies across different lifespans, sizes, and locations. LCOE calculations consider: total lifecycle costs, energy production factors, financing aspects, and the time value of money.
Geothermal energy has several advantages, including:
Low cost
Ability to operate year-round at high capacity factors
Provides firm, dispatchable electricity
W
This does not make sense:
5:59 "there has been research into making desalination more energy efficient, but the costs are relatively low already and it doesn't quite make sense to power desalination with solar energy. The reason is because the capital expenditure of building a desalination plant is the biggest cost. They don't actually need that much energy."
Is he saying that only if the energy costs/requirements were much higher, THEN solar would be practical? Makes no sense at all. If anything, the opposite of what he is saying is true. Because of the low power requirement, cheap and flexible solar (need more power? just put in a few more panels; compare to gas, coal, nuclear... no comparison!) is the only way to go.
If the energy costs/requirements were much higher, then it would make sense to invest a ton of money into a gas-burning plant or what have you.
Otherwise very interesting vid.
Took me 5 minutes to sniff him out. He is a nuclear industry shill. His association with Long Now was the first clue; added to that was the gratuitous and even somewhat stupid dismissal of solar (post above).
Below is his article on the bismarckanalysis website. Key line: "Nuclear power is by far the best way to achieve abundant energy in practice". Any well-informed and conflict of interest-free person knows that this is false. But it becomes "true" when your paycheck depends on it. lol
..................................................................
The State of the U.S. Nuclear Industry
Nuclear power in the U.S. has stagnated along with overall energy demand. Prospects for growth are instead in exports of new small modular reactors.
Samo Burja
Apr 19, 2023
Nuclear power provides millions of times more energy per unit of mass than any other viable energy source. Only fusion power, which currently remains speculative, can produce more energy than nuclear fission. The promise of any kind of major technological revolution or material economic growth in the medium term future ultimately requires concomitant industrial growth, which itself ultimately requires cheap and abundant energy. Nuclear power is by far the best way to achieve abundant energy in practice.
The nuclear industry has fielded dozens of these pundit types in recent years, hoping to rekindle (and claiming, feebly and unconvincingly, to have rekindled) their failing industry -- an industry clearly left behind by tech and production advances in renewables. Nuclear is dead in the water, worldwide, with no hope of a turnaround. Too expensive, too sluggish (years or even decades to get to operation), and far better and cheaper alternatives are readily available. No one gives a shit about nuclear anymore, apart from keeping existing projects slowly rolling forward -- just barely enough to stay in place relative to attrition (treading water).
Game, set, match.
It's over.
Other than all that, though, I love this guy Samo and he makes many great points. ONWARD to a much better (water-abundant, etc., etc.) future... powered with renewables!
Solar doesn't work well for desalination because the biggest cost is infrustructure, thus to get the water cheap you need to run the infrustructure at peak (or close to peak) 24/7. Solar simply can't do this, nor can wind. You need a power source capable of base loading.
@@matthiuskoenig3378
I did not mention the huge potential co-benefits of solar, especially for desert areas. Solar integrated with agriculture and pasture (for animals) "transforms the desert into a thriving ecosystem", see vid below. Watch first five minutes. Coal and gas simply can't do this, nor can nuclear. You need a power source capable of integration into natural ecosystems.
Coal, gas and nuclear plants have no environmental/ecological (or other) co-benefits. They only have co-liabilities, and lots of them.
Interesting here how solar panels can complement Samo's vision of re-greening desert or desertified areas: combining their own unique ecosystem benefits WITH the huge new water resources unleashed by desalination -- itself powered by the panels! A big holistic win-win-win! Are you listening, Samo? Please get off that sinking nuclear WWII battleship and jump aboard the sleek ultra-modern renewables mega-liner! You'll be glad you did, and your spouse, kids and friends will respect you much more (i.e. your true friends, not ecomodern pro-nuke office buddies).
For more info on solar panel integration with agri/horticulture, the keywords for search are: agrovoltaic and agrivoltaic. There's lots of stuff on this astonishing new complementarity -- which no one predicted, but there it is, in empirical practice.
vid on youtube:
How China’s Desert Solar Plant Became a Pasture? China’s Bold Solar Plant Transformation Inspires!
PROJECT NEXUS
Jan 3, 2025
In the heart of the Tarlatan Desert in Qinghai, China, a groundbreaking solar project has turned barren sands into a vibrant ecosystem. The photovoltaic power plant, launched in 2012, was initially designed to harness the desert's abundant sunlight to generate clean energy. Over a decade later, it has achieved far more than anticipated-transforming the arid landscape into lush pastures, creating jobs, and fostering ecological renewal. This video explores the incredible journey of Tarlatan’s solar plant and how it harmonizes cutting-edge technology with environmental restoration.
The challenges of constructing such a large-scale solar plant in a harsh desert environment were immense. Frequent sandstorms and lack of vegetation posed significant threats. To counter this, the team planted drought-resistant grass, stabilizing the sand and reducing storm risks. Surprisingly, this greenery thrived under the shade of the solar panels, creating a symbiotic relationship between energy generation and ecological balance. This dual-purpose innovation inspired a sustainable model: herders graze sheep to manage grass height while also maintaining the facility.
Today, Tarlatan spans over 600 square kilometers and generates up to 14.4 billion kilowatt-hours annually, supporting both regional and national energy needs. Beyond clean energy, the project has revitalized the local economy and set a global benchmark for sustainable development. Its success reflects China’s leadership in renewable energy and commitment to addressing climate challenges through innovative, community-focused solutions.
This video dives deep into Tarlatan’s impact on renewable energy, agriculture, and global sustainability. Discover how this pioneering project has reshaped the future of desert ecosystems and inspired similar initiatives worldwide.
Lost all my faith in tech enthusiasm. Ted was right
Ted... Kaczynski?! lol
Excellent !