You can tell Art spent a lot of time in the oil industry. He just gets straight to the point and doesnt worry too much about offending anyone. I like working with guys like him.
Yeah, and like industry as a whole he has no answer what to do about china, india and third world when there's a "crisis" that he apparently "believes" in. Just push "renewables" and we'll worry about the rest when we'd deindustrialized ouservels.
@@mattsapero1896 You apparently do not know the definition of ethics. What IS unethical is being easily offended ("quick to anger" as the Bible calls it).
@@wuldntuliktonoptb6861 Not sure why you would ask it like that and expect an answer, bit rude. But you would know this. You can query "The Oil Drum" and the answer comes right up, and there is even a Wikipedia page. And it is not about the serial killer...
Yes. I used to enjoy reading the comments on the posts. Since it closed I've been enjoying Gail's blog over at ourfiniteworld but after 20 years the entire PO thing is getting tiring. Sometimes wish I never fell down this rabbit hole because it has taken a toll on mental health.
@@icqme8586 Came into the oil drum after the 08 crash. Loved it and all the comments / discussion. Big fan of OFW and Gail T. for quite a while up until around covid. Unfortunately for me it has gone a good ways down the rabbit hole to not my personal taste. Hence my personal taste but to each their own.
Agreed, the Oil Drum used to bring out a LOT of good information. It got undercut, as Art says, by the tight oil plays. Looks like the big western oil companies have decided that the next solution is that they get their hands on Russia's reserves. 😢
Art is spot-on....when the Permian Basin peaks (most likely 4Q 2024 to 4Q 2025) the entire economic paradigm will be forced to change. It will be a "sea change" for all of humanity.
And really, if the Permian does not peak first, then it will be the Saudis or the Russians whose production goes into decline. When any of the Big 3 global producers starts falling, the next phase of the oil crisis (from peak conventional circa 2005 to peak liquid fuels from all sources) begins.
I looked up the "we've lost 69% of animal species since 1970" claim since it sounded so outlandish to me. Art misspoke there. The stat is there's been a 69% decline in the population of all population monitored species (which is logically some subset of known species). This is of course still very bad but it's not nearly as bad as what was said.
In that case I think it probable that the non-monitored species will be suffering similar declines, which would make the situation just as bad as Art stated.
@@JohnLawrence-o4n That's a huge unfounded assumption. There's also a big difference between losing some percentage of populations vs losing some percentage of known species. The later means outright extinctions vs population declines.
Art's understanding of the oil industry is exceptional, and his insights are invaluable for navigating its complexities. As someone working in the field, I find his expertise fascinating. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, Art. I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective on certain matters (i.e., the Green Chicken......). Keep up the great work! Thank you Sir!
In New Mexico we were “fracking” way back in the 60s. Nothing new other than horizontal drilling. Nuclear is our only bridge to sustainability. The COR projections are unfolding as computed. System modeling was well know and is intuitive in 1970. ❤❤
Nuclear is efficient, the issue is red tape, and a need for better heat resistant materials. Not an insurmountable problem but not one properly addressed.
@@michaels4255 The 75 trillion tonnes of uranium in the earth's crust is 10B years' worth, at the current global all-fuels burn-rate of 20 TW. Scaling that burn-rate 1,000-fold, to 20,000 TW, leaves 10M years' worth of uranium. Further restricting society to just the easiest-to-obtain 1% of that 75 trillion tonnes leaves 100K years' worth of uranium. The next 100 years will not be a problem, in terms of geologic uranium supply.
@@aliendroneservices6621 1. Most of that tonnage will never be worth extracting, because even uranium is not energy dense enough to make the majority of that resource yield an energy surplus. 2. In addition to the recoverability factor, there is the rate of extraction factor. The extraction of every mineral resource plots a bell curve where the extraction rate peaks and then goes into permanent decline. Even when the energy is still recoverable (ENERGETICALLY recoverable and not just technically), at some point it still can't be recovered fast enough to keep all the power plants operating.
@@JamesFitzgerald YES, I promise you the World Nuclear Association DID INDEED make that 2035 forecast! And it IS a pro nuke organization, and its forecast IS one of the most optimistic forecasts that have been made by geologists (as opposed to scientifically illiterate economists and online enthusiasts). All true and verifiable!
Chris. The quality of the podcast is so high, and remarkably is increasing exponentially. I have listed to Art loads of times but this was by far the best of his interviews thanks to your remarquable abilities as a host. I cannot begin to express how grateful I am for your work and your podcast. I find them so enriching and also I find in them answers to the question I cannot find in the legacy media.
I think Art's a smart guy but I think he's a bit too closed minded. It takes more energy to be good to the planet than it does to be a lazy polluter. It is always a matter of choosing how we use our energy. Do we use it to make billions of tons of throwaway junk or do we use it to recycle our things and cleanup messes? Both require lots of energy. A lack of energy will result in people doing what is necessary to survive and I can promise you that that will not be a clean or pretty process. History has shown that rich happy humans have less kids too so we're less likely to overpopulate if we have enough energy.
I don't think that "closed minded" is the right term - rather just focused on a specific issue, which is what this discussion was about. Nothing wrong with that though. Personally I'd prefer that some of Bjorn Lomborg's points had also been referenced (what other issues are important and can/should be dealt with), rather than only Nate Hagens/SteveKeen/Doomberg, interesting and valid as they are. That is, there was a brief discussion of how some people are focused on trying to find climate solutions (or getting off oil re ecological impacts) because they think it is an existential problem, and hence the ONLY problem that they have mental bandwidth to deal with. The world is more complicated than that, and we need to solve (or at least tread water with, another Red Queen problem) many other financial/political/governance/demographic etc. issues as well, ALL AT THE SAME TIME, in order to ALSO try find a path to a better situation for the climate and ecosystem, all in the face of tremendous unknowns, conflicting information, and uncertainty.
I'm an engineer and going down the comments yours IS THE FIRST to be remotely close to being honest. Chris's giant problem is that he's so biased against renewables. I will grant him any day he like's that MANY of the points he and other raise are valid. The issue with unstable power grids that he discussed with David March in the podcast after this one titled "The Fragilization of the Grid" is true. The energy grids of the Western world (I'm Australian) are unstable *BUT ITS NOT BECAUSE OF RENEWABLES.* Its because of a combination of vested interests making it near impossible for ANYONE to put together a coherent plan. There are 4 groups that are problematic. 1) The fossil Fuel industry ho just wont stop interfering in government decision making. 2) The Greenies who might have noble ambitions but just haven't a damn clue on who to do anything. 3) Economists who just can't stay out of areas they don't understand and they *DO NOT* understand energy. 4) People like Chris who (as Neil DeGrasse Tyson says) *_"Know enough to think they know what they are talking about BUT NOT enough to know when they are WRONG."_* For instance: - Reducing energy DOES NOT mean a LOSS of living standards. For example: We know use a lot less energy in things like refrigerators. How does reducing energy consumption with a more efficient refrigerator reduce anyone's standard of life? Yeah it doesn't. - Not every one can code. I do code as an engineer in industrial control systems and 99.999999999% of the people on this planet CAN NOT DO what I do. Not even the much vaunted IT people can do what I do. In fact they are a serious threat to safety when they try and do what I do. EVERYTIME I have seen someone from the IT industry try and do what I do they have FAILED and often dangerously. I actually have a lot of time for Chris and am pro-nuclear (to an extent). I AM NOT that its the be all and end all of solving anything. Nuclear solves part of the problem, but he's so damn annoying when he blames the Greenies for wanting renewables. YES THEY ARE A PROBLEM. Like others they think they know what they are doing and they DO NOT. *BUT* by far the biggest culprit is the fossil fuel industry who have just stalled and stalled and stalled any sensible discussion for 30+ years and the worst part of it is *THEY NEVER NEEDED TOO.* It was always going to take several decades to move on from fossil fuel and we were always going to need to keep some of it in place because there's just some things where EVERY OTHER solution fails.
Inflation is csused by gov spending that was not obtained via taxation.... ie printed loans by red res bank to govmt to dish out subsidies, grants and refunds.....
No, govt borrowing does not cause inflation. Consumers and smaller businesses borrowing from private banks causes inflation, as does funneling money into private checking accounts while the supply of goods and services goes down. But not selling Treasuries to the primary dealers for cash (not to the Fed for bank reserves, that's not how it works), no, not inflationary.
@@michaels4255Thank you! How could Government borrowing of existing money create it (aside from interest payments)? Fed buying of assets does. But indeed the major money creator is commercial bank loans. My father was a banking officer, after retirement from USN. Told me, 'When I make a loan, I don't transfer anything. I open an account in the recipient's name and make an entry in the amount of the loan. Presto! Money!' Recall Anne Petifors some years ago saying 95% money in US economy from this source.
PC, so you weren't around in the late 70s during the Arab Energy embargo? Inflation was out of control and corresponding mortgage interest rates went to 14%. I know as I bought my first property in 1983 with a 13.5% mortgage.
Re dismissing nuclear power as not scalable fast enough to solve the climate/eco problem: I think this is missing a very big point. Art was discussing the modern response to the climate crisis (etc.) as if we were a single monolithic global organization, an entire species/civilization all focused on that goal. I don't think that is the case; we are going to have a very UNEVEN level of civilization/wealth in future, tied to how much energy they have available, and each region/country will become focused on their own energy needs VERY FAST when that resource starts running low. We are going to have more conflicts and breakdowns in social order in many parts of the world as energy becomes more expensive and as supply chains break down, never mind as political tensions (if not wars) and economic crises (huge global debt crises anyone?) break apart current trade arrangements. I can't see any way in which the social problems of a region like Haiti, for example, can be solved by outside powers - they will continue to deteriorate. This already separates the world into "modern/organized" countries, "failed states" home to endemic civil wars and chronic piracy on surrounding areas, and places in between that are trying to hold on to as much as possible of the former while fighting off refugees and armies from the latter. In the failed and failing regions (more of the world will become like Somalia, Venezuela, Haiti, Syria, Sri Lanka, South Africa and so on), Oil imports will decline as their economies tank and they can't afford to import it - so coal use will increase (if a sufficient minimum level of social order can be maintained). The only countries that will continue to experiment with solar and wind power will be those wealthy and sufficiently energy independent as to afford it - and for the most part, they will only stay that way if they invest early in nuclear power to provide a high enough energy ROI to maintain a modern economy. That is, in a world with very UNEVEN access to and control of energy, different options will be available to different countries, and countries/regions with MORE energy will have more choices - as well as more control over their own destiny. Nuclear power will be PART of that energy mix in the high-energy societies (as will ongoing use of fossil fuel), even if Nuclear is not by any means a complete solution to the energy problem.
It sounds dismal but I am somewhat inclined to agree. Many developing countries just aren't going to manage coming changes. That said some countries with first grade renewable energy resources and a way to get them to market, are likely to do well. Morrocco is a case in point. I am quite bullish for its future with a number of large European countries seeking to plug in to it's world class solar voltaics.
Apparently "team human" means you're going to party and drink all your son's beer before he's of age. It's very short sighted. Probably such myopia relates to why people say such dumb things in this arena. Maybe people who can't look ahead aren't as smart as they think
It’s a funny old world. Just 2 yrs ago A.I. was an uncertain flicker in a cloudy crystal ball. And nobody had a burning desire (or need) for it, because only 0.00001% of the population had the faintest inkling of what it might be capable of. Now it’s almost like a Golden Calf that’s going to consume vast energy resources solving new problems and answering a blizzard of spurious questions from everyone with access to the internet. One things first certain - if politicians *really* thought anthropogenic climate change was an existential threat, AI and it’s supporting data centres would have been smashed and outlawed as utterly frivolous and non-essential in a time when we’re facing such an overwhelming threat to humankind. Funny, that.
Buildings can be made of wood, wood can be laminated for extra strength, it can also be used for wind towers. Clovers can be planted with grass to fix the nitrogen naturally and archive a better butterfat content in our milk. Other plants like plantain can also be planted with deeper roots to extract nutrients deeper down. We can exploit the inter relationship of cattle and chickens to reduce flies and improve pasture recovery and yes still feed a growing population.
There were geopolitical factors in '98 that contributed to it being that low, I remember that it was weird how low it was then. Overproduce to keep the price low to squeeze Russia?
OPEC has always manipulated the price of oil up and down for the sole purpose of preventing any US shale industry from gaining a foothold. 1. High prices to lure shale investment. 2. Low prices to bankrupt the investors. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Nuclear can't get there in time? My government (Australia) has the world's 'best' plan to go renewables as laid out by the CSIRO's & AEMO's ISP Reports, and as championed by our honest politicians (Chris Bowen) and honest renewable industry advocates (Simon Holmes a Court). It is hands down the world's best. So long as no one asks about the sunk costs, and so long as no one thinks about the carbon emissions of producing the 99% adoption rate of electric vehicles, among other would-be issues in these reports. But, the world best plan to go renewables, the fastest rate in which we 'can' decarbonise is 'Net Zero 2050' - 26 years away. But didn't Canada build 25 reactors in 27 years using 1960s technology and is decarbonised already to the degree that the IPCC requires the world to avoid ill effects of climate change?
Canada will likely do the rest of their 'decarbonization' using nuclear power. The wind output in Alberta dips below 10 MW on cold nights from 4,410 MW. We can't 'overbuild' out of that problem.
Nuclear is an essential part of the mix to firm up renewables whether you like it or not and if you do not wish to experience a severe drop in living standards which will result if a volatile grid based on 100% unreliables wind and solar repalces existing fossil fuel power
australia has really gone about lowering its carbon footprint starting over 20 year ago the wrong way. you can't just bulldoze everything and cover it with wind and solar. they should of modernised their coal power plants and that would of reduced carbon by 25-30-% as well as cut pollution years ago. the current old ones have made efforts completely invalid. now if they were smart they'd build flex fuel to get rid of soft plastics and other un-recyclable materials then as the coal becomes low and technology improved use the turbines in nuclear base load power and convert the remaining flex fuel to run on natural gas and other waste. snowy 2.0 should be canned. invest in a modified QLD bradfeild project where the water is transferred east to west over the Great Dividing Range to build the worlds biggest hydro battery while sending new water inland for future farming and environmental use. pump from the east and generate down the west side
There is no transition to renewable energy occurring in Australia, despite what energy blind politicians and religious fundamentalists say. Wind and solar currently account for around 4% of Australia's total energy use. Double it in the next 10 years and it will be 8%. Still little more than a rounding error.
@@info88w11 Nuclear is a non-essential part of the mix whether YOU like it or not. SUNSHINE BELT: the seasonal issue is over-hyped as 3/4 of us live in the “Sunshine Belt” (from the equator out to the 35th parallels.) So most of the human race live where winter isn’t really a thing. SUPER-GRIDS to the SUNSHINE BELT: Now that HVDC only loses 1.6% per 1000 km - you could have solar power at the equator hypothetically running a base at the North Pole 10,000 km away and only lose 16% of your power. So regional super-grids are now popular with renewables ISP designers. (Integrated Systems Planners.) OVERBUILD: Because renewables are now 1/4 the cost of nuclear (Unfirmed - Lazard 2023) - the grid designers talk about Overbuilding capacity across a wide area for ‘geographic smoothing’ to maximise how much LIVE renewables we can draw on at any one time. This concept is now quite old, and even entered popular culture when it hit Scientific American in 2015. blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/renewable-energy-intermittency-explained-challenges-solutions-and-opportunities/ Offshore wind is about double the cost of on-shore - yet tends to work late into the evening when solar and even on-shore wind may have stalled. Phd in Wind Power Rosie Barnes explains here (about a minute - March 2024). ua-cam.com/video/MuwNBtKpjhQ/v-deo.html Australia’s lucky in that we’re in the Sunshine Belt - and so only a 170% Overbuild is all our current electricity supplied with minimal storage. Like 5 hours for a firmed national electricity grid! reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/ Professor Blakers (Queen Elizabeth engineering prize recipient) estimates Australia needs 2 days of storage. The first few hours are probably sodium batteries as they’re so cheap and non-flammable. But after the first hour or so - we would move to OFF-RIVER pumped hydro. reneweconomy.com.au/solars-stunning-journey-from-lab-curiosity-to-global-juggernaut-wiping-out-fossil-fuels/ The world has about 100 TIMES the off-river PHES it needs - Australia about 300 times. re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ Blakers costed it as cheaper than coal back in 2017 - imagine today with the way wind and solar have come down in price? (2023 was a blip with wind - it will recover.)
Robert, exactly! And a few of my neighbors may still disbelieve the Pentagon, every scientist on Earth, etc. about global heating. But my home and car insurance companies sure believe in global heating.
Berman is right about the unlimited growth. Allowing all of the large numbers of immigrants into North America where resource consumption is the highest in the world is a huge mistake.
It’s American consumption that destabilized their environment and undermined their right to a functional government without ever investing in correcting the damage US caused them. Where else tf are they supposed to go you blind bat.
Breeding more humans is a huge mistake. The “discovery’’ of THE NEW WORLD by European’’christians’’ , colonization, land grabs by obvious bunk religious and racial claims to rights of conquest was a HUGE mistake. Humans a a BIG MISTAKE.
Gent is correct, background inflation is due to deficit spending and resource inflation is due to supply. This latter effect is subject to price competition from other fuel sources and the availability of appropriate infrastructure for whichever product line you are looking at. As for arguing over the the definition of oil, just say petroleum fluids.
Hi Chris, I enjoy your webcasts very much. It is great to see Canadians supporting nuclear energy. I have listened to Art Berman on many podcasts and generally I agree with most of his opinions related to oil. I have to thoroughly disagree with his comments on nuclear energy. He clearly is uninformed. I was disappointed that you did not take the opportunity to inform him on all the advantages of nuclear energy production, which is the only TRUE RENEWABLE energy source. Maybe you should send him podcasts with Simon Michaud or with the recent podcast on the Fragilization of the Grid. As a Canadian electrical engineer with 40 years experience in energy and financial markets, I would suggest that Art should stick to oil, where he is an expert. Low EROI sources such as unreliable wind and solar will never be the solution to a world with 8 B people, maybe 2B. The problem with all these green advocates, who decides what will happen to the other 6B people. I have never seen a green activist stand forward and volunteer to be one of the 6B. The other problem with unreliables is that they have at most a 20 year life span. According to Simon Michaud, there is not enough critical raw materials to replace the current hydrocarbon energy system with wind and solar. How would it then be possible to replace all the wind and solar plants in 20 years with more critical materials? Recycling would at best permit 40 - 50%. The only solution for our species is high EROI systems as a bridge until technology brings us fusion, otherwise, MAD MAX HERE WE COME. PS; YES NUCLEAR CAN GET US TO NET ZERO IF WE LET THE ENGINEERS DO THEIR JOBS AND KEEP THE POLITICIANS OUT OF IT. PPS; WIND & SOLAR MIGHT WORK IN AUSTRALIA BUT DEFINITELY NOT MOST OF THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE IN THE WINTER.
propane, butane for fueling cars: you should visit Romania, they're almost as important and as used as gasoline and diesel for fueling cars, can fill up at almost all gas stations Renault Dacia is making the LPG option a default in almost all cars produced in Romania. Supposedly you get more power out of LPG at a lower cost.
Liquid gas fuels like propane are banned from underground parking structures in Canada, which makes them less practical in cities. And a few propane taxi drivers' houses have exploded.
@@RandyTWesterI have heard about explosions where LNG was involved, not with LPG, except one case where the LPG was pumped with 220 bar pressure while most tanks are designed for 30 bar though in use they get around 2 bar. LPG tanks have been used for cooking or heating for decades. LPG is a mix of gases, mostly butane and propane and liquefies at lower pressure. LNG is methane which is stored at much higher pressure and very low temperature.
Long term cheap oil is never coming back. The low hanging fruit of conventional oil has been mostly extracted in developed countries and those countries that still have a lot of conventional oil are OPEC countries that will always flex their market power because they're budgets are dependent on oil prices not going below moderate prices for too long. They only tolerate low oil prices temporarily if its used to drive out competition. Most of the oil left that's extracted now is heavy and/or sour oil or oil from fracking, which either at the wellhead or in the refinery, requires significant capital and energy investment which adds cost.
Natural gas and natural gas liquids are very valuable and can be used for almost anything Millions of cars around the world run off Nat Gas The main reason our cars are oil powered is that we produced mass oil before mass Nat Gas The oil was transported in barrels using vehicles or animals or trains There wasn't a national nat gas pipeline so nat gas came onto the scheme much later by which time vehciles were already oil powered
Great discussion. Every time new technology reduces energy consumption, human nature translates that into increasing our need. Our entire monetary system is based on growth. I agree with Art. You can either start to decrease your usage now and have time to adjust or fall off the cliff and deal with the consequences.
Watching the US civilization 30 years now, makes me believe that the cliff awaits us. Folks cannot wrap their minds around reality, and they are psychologically unprepared. This will NOT change.
yeah, but wrt Steve Keen it's weird that he can conjugate that with MMT... To me, (correctly) aknowledging that energy IS the true currency of the economy is fundamentally incompatible with arguing that the government can spend as it wishes (yeah, MMT proponents usually talk about physical constraints, but in a very loose manner).
It's basic physical science: "energy is the ability to do work," and work must be done (by either muscles or machines) to produce goods and services (GDP). Less energy=less work done=shrinking GDP (prolonged recession/depression).
@@michaels4255 totally. But then I don't understand how people like Steve Keen can conjugate that with 'money is just this thing that can be created at will by governments'. Sure, technically you can, but unless you unleash some energy/productivity improvement, that's just pure inflation and bubbles. I think Arthur in this regard is more consistent (I heard him criticizing money printing).
I’m somewhat late to the party Chris, sorry, don’t know how I missed this discussion, have a lot of respect for Art Burman, he knows what he’s taking about, as you do to, Art calls a spade a spade, great discussion, just a pity more people don’t understand what’s coming down the tracks to crush humanity, want to understand what that means then check out Sam Mitchel of Collapse Chronicles🤔
Great talk from Art. The primary issue is and always will be overpopulation. Overpopulation is the primary threat to human existence. Where I also respectfully disagree with Art is that the 80% fossil fuels and 20% electricity equation isn’t set in stone. We will be able to significantly increase the percentage that electricity contributes to the economy. But, we won’t be able to provide enough green or dirty energy, food or other resources to even a billion people. Changes are coming.
Globalization is substitution of transportation for labor costs. Transportation takes energy. And in globalization money (how we measure growth) moves upward (why they do it, you sweet summer xhild). So. a de-globalizing economy would use less energy, and labor would see a much higher % of what growth still occurs. Big fan of rebated carbon tax to shift in this direction before nature forces us. Doubt efficiency gains are that low, I've seen applications where they're huge. In 1920s, a lot of local deliveries were handled by electric trucks, handled from railheads. Electric starters were still rare, so electric had a low PITA factor. This from a witness alive at the time, mid 70s auto repair instructor.
@1.02 Art, regarding demand reduction as first step to conservation, please do not forget there was an experiment in this regard between 22nd March 2020 and approximately July 2022. Research has shown that there is little difference in energy consumption. However, a global study has shown negative effects on people’s lives are immense. My fear is that energy experts, by and large, are ill equipped to understand the dynamics of material-cultural-social change. This is not to say non physical science disciplines have the answer. Changes will come whether you like it or not. Also, please remember more than half the world’s population do not reside in the anglophone west.
The effects on mental well being during that time have little to do with energy reduction and more to do with isolation and being disconnected from each other.
I agree that energy is the economy, however; the economy can be distorted by debt, which are monetary system (money) is based on. Which also has a major impact on the energy, goods and services we pay for. So I respectfully disagree that money does not affect the economy
Aggregate Living Standard (or Economic Output basically) = Natural Resources (primarily Energy) x Labor x Technology / Total number of People being supported ( Keep in mind that natural resources come in two basic categories: Finite, non-renewable... and Renewable or regenerative, in which case there are recovery rates, and if you deplete a resource faster than the recovery rate, you are going to be in trouble! Example: Potable water, nutrient rich soils... etc. ). In short, Prosperity is a function of Resources and Labor, divided by the Total number of People who require that Economic Output to survive, and when you start running up against Resource Limits, then Economic Output and Living Standards will decline correspondingly.
Can we use the promise of fusion power to unlock everything we need from all the coal reserves we have and not by burning it but by melting or steaming it into usable feed sock for plastics and fertilizer?
Fusion energy is a fantasy that most likely will not be manefest in our lifetime. While I'm here, did Art say that FFs would be the solution to climate change? It can only extend lifetimes, supplying comfort when push comes to shove, considering that civilization will not give up creature comforts to return to bicycles and public transportation, etc. JMHO.
I observe highly educated people popping out babies in quick succession. Whenever I see young children, I instinctively calculate the year they will become grown, middle-aged adults. This foresight sends chills up and down my spine. There’s a looming concern that they might look back in anger at my generation...
I'm in South Texas and I remember 20 years ago the energy companies coming out to my area and doing a seismic test. I noticed many old wells with new piping and tanks. I believe they came for the oil and natural gas.
Allow continued use of fossil fuels in a free market and I’ll take my chances, on my own behalf and on behalf of my descendants. Take away fossil fuels and we’re screwed, especially if we pick unicorns and fairy dust as the substitute instead of nuclear energy.
using more oil is the planetary and obvious solution?... sounds odd to me.. probably meant the opposite (38:12)....but great talk... it does for me help to listen the same subject by the same person and others to grasp what really is at stake here.... I believe also that besides cutting down on energy use, population will eventually come down to say 1960's levels.. it will take a while, no way to rush it... but if there is to be a decent civilization for the next few hundred years, it will be a must! (...if we get through this century that is).
You should have Art and Doomberg debate on your show. I remember watching the episode with Doomberg on Nate's podcast and it was just moronic comment after moronic comment, and Nate barely pushed back at all. Would love to watch Art put Doomberg in his place.
I'm worried for the host of this video. He appears to be flashing some sort of SOS... similar to some of the Americans who were captured during the Vietnam War. I can't read Morris Code, but if anyone out there can, please respond.
We usually do not talk this way but we do know it very well. Even nuclear is to slow to save us straight. The other ways are even slower of course. We're gonna dim at some point.
When talking about why people are coming up with such foolish ideas, I think it is truly a self-imposed blindness out of a fear of having to actually change their lives. Moreover, the people in charge are the ones who got us into this mess, who are essentially gluttons; they are not used to considering the consequences of their actions.
did I hear using a lot more oil and energy is a good thing?....or did he mean less? 38:05... also according to Antonio Turiel uranium is running out (we have hit peak uranium)... so not much of a alternative either....
Honestly so long as we can make steel we will be *mostly* fine. We’ll have to revert back to a system where the energy inputs of human labor are smaller than the energy outputs of production i.e. steel tools doing agriculture. People really exaggerate how bad agriculture was because they compare wood tools or iron tools to the current times, but with steel tools and draft animals in the grand scheme of things producing food with muscle energy is not terrible. A lot of the high technology system requires stressful jobs to maintain it so the labor savings can even invert from adopting more tech. I think steel ammonia and salt processing are the 3 priority centers where fossil fuels can be justified but so much of this shit with computers and cars is just excessive noise in terms of survival.
Great talk and interview. I think innovation is greater that 1%/year and the 80/20 gas/electric ratio is sure to change as we transition to electric cars. Electrics use brake energy to assist in recharging. Electric airplanes idling on descent will charge the batteries for the next segment takeoff. Solar tech continues to advance. Gravity batteries are innovation and look promising. It's a regular buffet of energy options. We will continue to need petroleum but I think we can get that ratio of 80/20 at least to 50/50 and, in quick order ... maybe.
The change from "Peak Oil" to "Peak Cheap Oil" still strikes me as wordsmithing. The world wants liquid hydrocarbons, even if that means turning a solid into a liquid. The Peak Oil diehards were really on about the _absolute_ production of petroleum, not its price.
@@RandyTWester No it wasn't. It was dead wrong. Using "Conventional" as a descriptor for a certain technology for extraction is pendantic and not relevant. Fracking is the new "conventional". The peak oil predictions are always wrong and they always have been.
@@philbiker3No, please don't spread misinformation! Fracking is NOT conventional. Conventional has a technical definition: it is the oil that flows or spurts up from the ground under naturally occurring pressure. If you have to pump it (which requires energy), that is unconventional. It's what the word means.
@@robertpaulson6388 No, you misunderstood him. He was talking about natural gas liquids. Tight oil (also called shale oil but don't confuse it with oil shale which is kerogen) is very much crude oil, and Art would be the first to tell you that.
Well Art, you have to come to Belgium! You will revise your opinion on it radically. Doesn't change the validity of your argument though. Be my guest if you want to come over here but beware that my house is modest.
Like I have been saying for a while now we are better off pumping that oil out as fast as we can the faster it's gone the faster we can start using "proper" energy
Fossil Fuels is the economy and basis of modern life and essential for humanity to thrive. Without fossil fuels we all revert to stone age backward lifestyle with widespread poverty and scarcity and massive reduction in population as each day will be a subsistence life style
@@jimgraham6722 very few places on planet with all those natural advantages in sufficient abundance and financial and technological resources to achieve this as well as stable political situation to transition
A NOAA scientist friend of mine tested cans of it with a geiger counter and a lot of it is now contaminated with radiation from Fukishima. Eat it at your own risk and get cancer.
101508. Could energy be stored by a cylindrical or torroidal flywheel braced in place in extensive solid rock by a circumferal superconducting bearing which would allow the flywheel to be spun up to extreme centrifical force within the frictionless support of the surrounding rock thereby storing a lot of angular momentum? l'll broach it first that expendable devices could plausibly be a powerful underground explosive to open fractures for underground projects. Aloha
So my equation: climate change > human suffering > stop climate change > prevent human suffering. But what if, climate change > human suffering> deploy new low carbon tech to underdeveloped countries first > improved standards of living > decrease human suffering ? So, ultimately, less human suffering if industrialized nations transition last. Conclusion: It’s selfish for rich western nations to spend on themselves first.
When Art concludes that oil is more expensive simply based on the dollar value increasing makes no sense to me. Then saying doomberg doesnt understand because he normalizes price to gold. Is 65 dollar oil in 1970 more expensive than 70 dollar oil today? The answer is no but Art argues yes.
We have gone from a productive society to a consumer society and the rest of the World wants to join in. The problem arises when Mother Earth cannot provide the Energy whether it is food oil or gas etc to satisfy the growing number of consumers. It amuses me to see the money spent on things like space exploration when the real issue is here on Earth. We are at a tipping point
art berman has an article on his website titled Doomberg Embarrasses Himself. This is the opener. Doomberg’s recent views about oil on Thoughtful Money were painfully amateurish and often just wrong. I have always respected Doomberg even when I disagreed with him but I was embarrassed for him in this podcast discussion with my friend Adam Taggart
This guy has a huge blind spot when it comes to assessing the effects of increased CO2 and with respect to the functionality of the intermittent energy sources. It’s stunning that someone who knows conventional wisdom on oil and gas is way off base is not more skeptical about the other information our “experts” selected by the media are feeding us.
Dear Chris, a little side note: please try to fix your camera, when you're taking notes it's moving in a slightly sickening manner, induces a bit of sea-sickness. Thanks, have a nice Weekend!
Reality complex carbon is created biologically through process that is not simply “in ground” watching your program and our research into “manufacture” of “oil” via biological process which is more efficient. This includes innovation in multiple areas.
Wow Art....I guess you now include yourself in the "97%" of scientists that "believe" that humans have a larger impact uopn the atmosphere....than the Earth being less than 0.01% in proximity to a Star?....the star we humans have named...the Sun?.....is this conclusion a correct analysis?
I think his context of Quatari oil being one to one does not fly. It is energy and being thus is good for the world if changed to a useable fuel. Not particularly beneficial to mankind but saves on consuming the good stuff.
I leave my apartment windows open most of the winter, every winter, because that's how I mediate the overheating of my particular unit provided by the 1960s heating system. Then they crank the heat up so some of it will get to the cool parts of the building. All very inefficient, & surely my biggest use of energy is simply waste. I suppose it is cheaper for the landlord than retrofitting building heating systems. Big taxes, a big public sector & even bigger debts & deficits turn everything into a non-consensual racket & the average home price into a million-dollar proposition that already exceeds the net worth of most Canadians. Asked some NDP campaigners to loosen homebuilding regulations so a guy could afford to build a little shack on the outskirts of town. They laughed in my face. We have "room to improve". o/
I disagree with Art. Inflation everywhere and always is a monetary phenomenon. The price of oil is manipulated just as much as housing. We bought alot of it during the pandemic, and we are fireselling it on the world market to keep the price low, preventing hoarding or panic buying. I am of the mind of Michael C Ruppert (the late author of 'Collapse') says 2032 is Peak Oil year. That seems right to me, either way, the price paid at the pump will go up steadily in the future. Taking up more and more of our budget.
It s a shame the EU Commission and the EU politicians never took the time to listen such valuable sources of information. They just are energy blind, thinking the world wil turn the way they decide...
I can't believe what I'm hearing. Inflation is caused by monetary policy with respect to material value such as captured in commodities. If you print money inflation goes up unless you create more stuff. If you create more stuff with the same amount of money (no printing) inflation goes down. Inflation is a monetary issue not a commodity one. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Case in point the 98 argument - it's just a fact apparently no more needs to be said.
... as a German Biologist - this is about Domestication Conditioning and Standardization I grew up in Germany in the 1950´s and 60´s we ALL had BAD Coal Stoves... it was Pro Gress to install a 10 000 Liter Oil tank in the Cellar and have central Heating which increased Energy Consumption manifold warm water and all rooms heated - in the 70´s I worked in Chemistry on Thorium as a way for other Nuclear Energy this was killed by Spanish Inquisition Psycho Paths Terrorists condemning any “pro gress” Dr Angely Merkel a so called “Physicist” and Anti Soviet German Reichs Kanzler condemned Nuclear Energy for Ideo “logic” reasons... so we are back in Brown Coal Energy... wonderful world Solar and Wind will never ever do it... we Self Chernobyl
The wisdom and the knowledge of this guy is immense. The fact that we have reached "peak child" a few years ago, that is the number of new births is decreasing as a total, worldwide, brings me a little hope while unfortunately I fear that hundreds of millions of ill and old people will die much prematurely because of partially collapsing welfare systems and wet bulb events. In rich Italy, where I live, the poorest regions have failing Healthcare systems already
When you say "we" - do you mean the Legal People as corporations who are free to cross all "free market" borders? Or do you mean actual natural people with 8 billion on the planet? Because the population growth rate varies greatly depending on what political line some natural person is behind.
You can tell Art spent a lot of time in the oil industry. He just gets straight to the point and doesnt worry too much about offending anyone. I like working with guys like him.
Really, so no ethics? Got it.
Yeah, and like industry as a whole he has no answer what to do about china, india and third world when there's a "crisis" that he apparently "believes" in. Just push "renewables" and we'll worry about the rest when we'd deindustrialized ouservels.
@@mattsapero1896go cry somewhere else
@@UnKnownv5Listen to the interview (or others he has done) before you start babbling like an idiot. Art does not push renewables, far from it.
@@mattsapero1896 You apparently do not know the definition of ethics. What IS unethical is being easily offended ("quick to anger" as the Bible calls it).
Who else misses The Oil Drum?
wtf is that?
@@wuldntuliktonoptb6861 Not sure why you would ask it like that and expect an answer, bit rude. But you would know this. You can query "The Oil Drum" and the answer comes right up, and there is even a Wikipedia page. And it is not about the serial killer...
Yes. I used to enjoy reading the comments on the posts. Since it closed I've been enjoying Gail's blog over at ourfiniteworld but after 20 years the entire PO thing is getting tiring. Sometimes wish I never fell down this rabbit hole because it has taken a toll on mental health.
@@icqme8586 Came into the oil drum after the 08 crash. Loved it and all the comments / discussion.
Big fan of OFW and Gail T. for quite a while up until around covid. Unfortunately for me it has gone a good ways down the rabbit hole to not my personal taste. Hence my personal taste but to each their own.
Agreed, the Oil Drum used to bring out a LOT of good information. It got undercut, as Art says, by the tight oil plays.
Looks like the big western oil companies have decided that the next solution is that they get their hands on Russia's reserves. 😢
Art is spot-on....when the Permian Basin peaks (most likely 4Q 2024 to 4Q 2025) the entire economic paradigm will be forced to change. It will be a "sea change" for all of humanity.
And really, if the Permian does not peak first, then it will be the Saudis or the Russians whose production goes into decline. When any of the Big 3 global producers starts falling, the next phase of the oil crisis (from peak conventional circa 2005 to peak liquid fuels from all sources) begins.
I will undoubtedly not be selling my Oil Company Shares.
I looked up the "we've lost 69% of animal species since 1970" claim since it sounded so outlandish to me. Art misspoke there. The stat is there's been a 69% decline in the population of all population monitored species (which is logically some subset of known species). This is of course still very bad but it's not nearly as bad as what was said.
Appreciate the clarification, thanks. I also thought that claim was incorrect somehow.
In that case I think it probable that the non-monitored species will be suffering similar declines, which would make the situation just as bad as Art stated.
The farther back the baseline used as reference the higher the percentage of loss “1970” is a huge cheat.
Well, overall, is this operating system increasing habitat, or decreasing it?
@@JohnLawrence-o4n That's a huge unfounded assumption. There's also a big difference between losing some percentage of populations vs losing some percentage of known species. The later means outright extinctions vs population declines.
Art's understanding of the oil industry is exceptional, and his insights are invaluable for navigating its complexities. As someone working in the field, I find his expertise fascinating. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, Art. I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective on certain matters (i.e., the Green Chicken......). Keep up the great work! Thank you Sir!
In New Mexico we were “fracking” way back in the 60s. Nothing new other than horizontal drilling. Nuclear is our only bridge to sustainability. The COR projections are unfolding as computed. System modeling was well know and is intuitive in 1970. ❤❤
...until uranium runs out, which it will.
Nuclear is efficient, the issue is red tape, and a need for better heat resistant materials. Not an insurmountable problem but not one properly addressed.
A bigger issue is the size of the U235 URR. World Nuclear Association has forecast a global supply peak in 2035, and several studies put it earlier.
@@michaels4255 The 75 trillion tonnes of uranium in the earth's crust is 10B years' worth, at the current global all-fuels burn-rate of 20 TW.
Scaling that burn-rate 1,000-fold, to 20,000 TW, leaves 10M years' worth of uranium.
Further restricting society to just the easiest-to-obtain 1% of that 75 trillion tonnes leaves 100K years' worth of uranium.
The next 100 years will not be a problem, in terms of geologic uranium supply.
@@michaels4255 nope
@@aliendroneservices6621 1. Most of that tonnage will never be worth extracting, because even uranium is not energy dense enough to make the majority of that resource yield an energy surplus.
2. In addition to the recoverability factor, there is the rate of extraction factor. The extraction of every mineral resource plots a bell curve where the extraction rate peaks and then goes into permanent decline. Even when the energy is still recoverable (ENERGETICALLY recoverable and not just technically), at some point it still can't be recovered fast enough to keep all the power plants operating.
@@JamesFitzgerald YES, I promise you the World Nuclear Association DID INDEED make that 2035 forecast! And it IS a pro nuke organization, and its forecast IS one of the most optimistic forecasts that have been made by geologists (as opposed to scientifically illiterate economists and online enthusiasts). All true and verifiable!
Art telling it like it is. There is no easy choices going forward.
True
Chris. The quality of the podcast is so high, and remarkably is increasing exponentially. I have listed to Art loads of times but this was by far the best of his interviews thanks to your remarquable abilities as a host. I cannot begin to express how grateful I am for your work and your podcast. I find them so enriching and also I find in them answers to the question I cannot find in the legacy media.
Sucking up?? ART is moron
The Dunkelflaute on the AI joke was a stroke of genius!
I think Art's a smart guy but I think he's a bit too closed minded. It takes more energy to be good to the planet than it does to be a lazy polluter. It is always a matter of choosing how we use our energy. Do we use it to make billions of tons of throwaway junk or do we use it to recycle our things and cleanup messes? Both require lots of energy.
A lack of energy will result in people doing what is necessary to survive and I can promise you that that will not be a clean or pretty process. History has shown that rich happy humans have less kids too so we're less likely to overpopulate if we have enough energy.
I don't think that "closed minded" is the right term - rather just focused on a specific issue, which is what this discussion was about. Nothing wrong with that though.
Personally I'd prefer that some of Bjorn Lomborg's points had also been referenced (what other issues are important and can/should be dealt with), rather than only Nate Hagens/SteveKeen/Doomberg, interesting and valid as they are. That is, there was a brief discussion of how some people are focused on trying to find climate solutions (or getting off oil re ecological impacts) because they think it is an existential problem, and hence the ONLY problem that they have mental bandwidth to deal with. The world is more complicated than that, and we need to solve (or at least tread water with, another Red Queen problem) many other financial/political/governance/demographic etc. issues as well, ALL AT THE SAME TIME, in order to ALSO try find a path to a better situation for the climate and ecosystem, all in the face of tremendous unknowns, conflicting information, and uncertainty.
I'm an engineer and going down the comments yours IS THE FIRST to be remotely close to being honest.
Chris's giant problem is that he's so biased against renewables. I will grant him any day he like's that MANY of the points he and other raise are valid. The issue with unstable power grids that he discussed with David March in the podcast after this one titled "The Fragilization of the Grid" is true. The energy grids of the Western world (I'm Australian) are unstable *BUT ITS NOT BECAUSE OF RENEWABLES.* Its because of a combination of vested interests making it near impossible for ANYONE to put together a coherent plan.
There are 4 groups that are problematic.
1) The fossil Fuel industry ho just wont stop interfering in government decision making.
2) The Greenies who might have noble ambitions but just haven't a damn clue on who to do anything.
3) Economists who just can't stay out of areas they don't understand and they *DO NOT* understand energy.
4) People like Chris who (as Neil DeGrasse Tyson says) *_"Know enough to think they know what they are talking about BUT NOT enough to know when they are WRONG."_*
For instance:
- Reducing energy DOES NOT mean a LOSS of living standards. For example: We know use a lot less energy in things like refrigerators. How does reducing energy consumption with a more efficient refrigerator reduce anyone's standard of life? Yeah it doesn't.
- Not every one can code. I do code as an engineer in industrial control systems and 99.999999999% of the people on this planet CAN NOT DO what I do. Not even the much vaunted IT people can do what I do. In fact they are a serious threat to safety when they try and do what I do. EVERYTIME I have seen someone from the IT industry try and do what I do they have FAILED and often dangerously.
I actually have a lot of time for Chris and am pro-nuclear (to an extent). I AM NOT that its the be all and end all of solving anything. Nuclear solves part of the problem, but he's so damn annoying when he blames the Greenies for wanting renewables. YES THEY ARE A PROBLEM. Like others they think they know what they are doing and they DO NOT.
*BUT* by far the biggest culprit is the fossil fuel industry who have just stalled and stalled and stalled any sensible discussion for 30+ years and the worst part of it is *THEY NEVER NEEDED TOO.* It was always going to take several decades to move on from fossil fuel and we were always going to need to keep some of it in place because there's just some things where EVERY OTHER solution fails.
@@davidbarry6900Yours is the most logical,intelligent statement on this entire thread. Thank you for your wise, sane insight.😁
@@tonywilson4713 You're scaring me...oohhhh.
Inflation is csused by gov spending that was not obtained via taxation.... ie printed loans by red res bank to govmt to dish out subsidies, grants and refunds.....
Dilution of the currency, pretty simple really.
No, govt borrowing does not cause inflation. Consumers and smaller businesses borrowing from private banks causes inflation, as does funneling money into private checking accounts while the supply of goods and services goes down. But not selling Treasuries to the primary dealers for cash (not to the Fed for bank reserves, that's not how it works), no, not inflationary.
@@michaels4255 government printing new money causes inflation. Dilution is inflation.
@@michaels4255Thank you! How could Government borrowing of existing money create it (aside from interest payments)? Fed buying of assets does. But indeed the major money creator is commercial bank loans. My father was a banking officer, after retirement from USN. Told me, 'When I make a loan, I don't transfer anything. I open an account in the recipient's name and make an entry in the amount of the loan. Presto! Money!'
Recall Anne Petifors some years ago saying 95% money in US economy from this source.
PC, so you weren't around in the late 70s during the Arab Energy embargo? Inflation was out of control and corresponding mortgage interest rates went to 14%. I know as I bought my first property in 1983 with a 13.5% mortgage.
Re dismissing nuclear power as not scalable fast enough to solve the climate/eco problem: I think this is missing a very big point. Art was discussing the modern response to the climate crisis (etc.) as if we were a single monolithic global organization, an entire species/civilization all focused on that goal. I don't think that is the case; we are going to have a very UNEVEN level of civilization/wealth in future, tied to how much energy they have available, and each region/country will become focused on their own energy needs VERY FAST when that resource starts running low.
We are going to have more conflicts and breakdowns in social order in many parts of the world as energy becomes more expensive and as supply chains break down, never mind as political tensions (if not wars) and economic crises (huge global debt crises anyone?) break apart current trade arrangements. I can't see any way in which the social problems of a region like Haiti, for example, can be solved by outside powers - they will continue to deteriorate. This already separates the world into "modern/organized" countries, "failed states" home to endemic civil wars and chronic piracy on surrounding areas, and places in between that are trying to hold on to as much as possible of the former while fighting off refugees and armies from the latter.
In the failed and failing regions (more of the world will become like Somalia, Venezuela, Haiti, Syria, Sri Lanka, South Africa and so on), Oil imports will decline as their economies tank and they can't afford to import it - so coal use will increase (if a sufficient minimum level of social order can be maintained). The only countries that will continue to experiment with solar and wind power will be those wealthy and sufficiently energy independent as to afford it - and for the most part, they will only stay that way if they invest early in nuclear power to provide a high enough energy ROI to maintain a modern economy.
That is, in a world with very UNEVEN access to and control of energy, different options will be available to different countries, and countries/regions with MORE energy will have more choices - as well as more control over their own destiny. Nuclear power will be PART of that energy mix in the high-energy societies (as will ongoing use of fossil fuel), even if Nuclear is not by any means a complete solution to the energy problem.
It sounds dismal but I am somewhat inclined to agree. Many developing countries just aren't going to manage coming changes.
That said some countries with first grade renewable energy resources and a way to get them to market, are likely to do well. Morrocco is a case in point. I am quite bullish for its future with a number of large European countries seeking to plug in to it's world class solar voltaics.
Kind of like: “To those that have it shall be given; to those that have not it shall be taken away.”
Apparently "team human" means you're going to party and drink all your son's beer before he's of age. It's very short sighted. Probably such myopia relates to why people say such dumb things in this arena. Maybe people who can't look ahead aren't as smart as they think
53:27 53:34 53:38 "We're going to need an energy revolution in order to power all these server farms to run A.I."
Forgot Bitcoin mining.
@@robertthweatt1900 No relevance. See: *_Mark Mills._*
It’s a funny old world. Just 2 yrs ago A.I. was an uncertain flicker in a cloudy crystal ball. And nobody had a burning desire (or need) for it, because only 0.00001% of the population had the faintest inkling of what it might be capable of.
Now it’s almost like a Golden Calf that’s going to consume vast energy resources solving new problems and answering a blizzard of spurious questions from everyone with access to the internet.
One things first certain - if politicians *really* thought anthropogenic climate change was an existential threat, AI and it’s supporting data centres would have been smashed and outlawed as utterly frivolous and non-essential in a time when we’re facing such an overwhelming threat to humankind. Funny, that.
Art is always a great guest. I enjoy his " love" for Doomberg. lol Thanks for the interview.
Buildings can be made of wood, wood can be laminated for extra strength, it can also be used for wind towers. Clovers can be planted with grass to fix the nitrogen naturally and archive a better butterfat content in our milk. Other plants like plantain can also be planted with deeper roots to extract nutrients deeper down. We can exploit the inter relationship of cattle and chickens to reduce flies and improve pasture recovery and yes still feed a growing population.
There were geopolitical factors in '98 that contributed to it being that low, I remember that it was weird how low it was then. Overproduce to keep the price low to squeeze Russia?
OPEC has always manipulated the price of oil up and down for the sole purpose of preventing any US shale industry from gaining a foothold.
1. High prices to lure shale investment.
2. Low prices to bankrupt the investors.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Art is right about human expansion being the bigg problem
Around 38:00 I think Art meant to say 'less' not 'more'?
38:04 38:06
Nuclear can't get there in time? My government (Australia) has the world's 'best' plan to go renewables as laid out by the CSIRO's & AEMO's ISP Reports, and as championed by our honest politicians (Chris Bowen) and honest renewable industry advocates (Simon Holmes a Court). It is hands down the world's best. So long as no one asks about the sunk costs, and so long as no one thinks about the carbon emissions of producing the 99% adoption rate of electric vehicles, among other would-be issues in these reports. But, the world best plan to go renewables, the fastest rate in which we 'can' decarbonise is 'Net Zero 2050' - 26 years away. But didn't Canada build 25 reactors in 27 years using 1960s technology and is decarbonised already to the degree that the IPCC requires the world to avoid ill effects of climate change?
Canada will likely do the rest of their 'decarbonization' using nuclear power. The wind output in Alberta dips below 10 MW on cold nights from 4,410 MW. We can't 'overbuild' out of that problem.
Nuclear is an essential part of the mix to firm up renewables whether you like it or not and if you do not wish to experience a severe drop in living standards which will result if a volatile grid based on 100% unreliables wind and solar repalces existing fossil fuel power
australia has really gone about lowering its carbon footprint starting over 20 year ago the wrong way.
you can't just bulldoze everything and cover it with wind and solar.
they should of modernised their coal power plants and that would of reduced carbon by 25-30-% as well as cut pollution years ago. the current old ones have made efforts completely invalid.
now if they were smart they'd build flex fuel to get rid of soft plastics and other un-recyclable materials then as the coal becomes low and technology improved use the turbines in nuclear base load power and convert the remaining flex fuel to run on natural gas and other waste.
snowy 2.0 should be canned.
invest in a modified QLD bradfeild project where the water is transferred east to west over the Great Dividing Range to build the worlds biggest hydro battery while sending new water inland for future farming and environmental use.
pump from the east and generate down the west side
There is no transition to renewable energy occurring in Australia, despite what energy blind politicians and religious fundamentalists say. Wind and solar currently account for around 4% of Australia's total energy use. Double it in the next 10 years and it will be 8%. Still little more than a rounding error.
@@info88w11 Nuclear is a non-essential part of the mix whether YOU like it or not. SUNSHINE BELT: the seasonal issue is over-hyped as 3/4 of us live in the “Sunshine Belt” (from the equator out to the 35th parallels.) So most of the human race live where winter isn’t really a thing.
SUPER-GRIDS to the SUNSHINE BELT: Now that HVDC only loses 1.6% per 1000 km - you could have solar power at the equator hypothetically running a base at the North Pole 10,000 km away and only lose 16% of your power. So regional super-grids are now popular with renewables ISP designers. (Integrated Systems Planners.)
OVERBUILD: Because renewables are now 1/4 the cost of nuclear (Unfirmed - Lazard 2023) - the grid designers talk about Overbuilding capacity across a wide area for ‘geographic smoothing’ to maximise how much LIVE renewables we can draw on at any one time. This concept is now quite old, and even entered popular culture when it hit Scientific American in 2015. blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/renewable-energy-intermittency-explained-challenges-solutions-and-opportunities/
Offshore wind is about double the cost of on-shore - yet tends to work late into the evening when solar and even on-shore wind may have stalled. Phd in Wind Power Rosie Barnes explains here (about a minute - March 2024). ua-cam.com/video/MuwNBtKpjhQ/v-deo.html
Australia’s lucky in that we’re in the Sunshine Belt - and so only a 170% Overbuild is all our current electricity supplied with minimal storage. Like 5 hours for a firmed national electricity grid! reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/
Professor Blakers (Queen Elizabeth engineering prize recipient) estimates Australia needs 2 days of storage. The first few hours are probably sodium batteries as they’re so cheap and non-flammable. But after the first hour or so - we would move to OFF-RIVER pumped hydro.
reneweconomy.com.au/solars-stunning-journey-from-lab-curiosity-to-global-juggernaut-wiping-out-fossil-fuels/
The world has about 100 TIMES the off-river PHES it needs - Australia about 300 times. re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/
Blakers costed it as cheaper than coal back in 2017 - imagine today with the way wind and solar have come down in price? (2023 was a blip with wind - it will recover.)
I remember joking in 2007-8 "You may not believe in peak oil, but Goldman Sachs sure does."
Robert, exactly! And a few of my neighbors may still disbelieve the Pentagon, every scientist on Earth, etc. about global heating. But my home and car insurance companies sure believe in global heating.
💯
Berman is right about the unlimited growth. Allowing all of the large numbers of immigrants into North America where resource consumption is the highest in the world is a huge mistake.
It’s American consumption that destabilized their environment and undermined their right to a functional government without ever investing in correcting the damage US caused them. Where else tf are they supposed to go you blind bat.
Remarkable that this silly conclusion is what you got out of that
Except the plan is to use those immigrants to crash America into a lower standard of living
Breeding more humans is a huge mistake. The “discovery’’ of THE NEW WORLD by European’’christians’’ , colonization, land grabs by obvious bunk religious and racial claims to rights of conquest was a HUGE mistake. Humans a a BIG MISTAKE.
@@oooouuuuuyyy Why is it silly? More than one thing can be true at once.
Gent is correct, background inflation is due to deficit spending and resource inflation is due to supply.
This latter effect is subject to price competition from other fuel sources and the availability of appropriate infrastructure for whichever product line you are looking at.
As for arguing over the the definition of oil, just say petroleum fluids.
Anthropogenic Jet-Lag 😊
Hi Chris, I enjoy your webcasts very much. It is great to see Canadians supporting nuclear energy. I have listened to Art Berman on many podcasts and generally I agree with most of his opinions related to oil. I have to thoroughly disagree with his comments on nuclear energy. He clearly is uninformed. I was disappointed that you did not take the opportunity to inform him on all the advantages of nuclear energy production, which is the only TRUE RENEWABLE energy source. Maybe you should send him podcasts with Simon Michaud or with the recent podcast on the Fragilization of the Grid. As a Canadian electrical engineer with 40 years experience in energy and financial markets, I would suggest that Art should stick to oil, where he is an expert. Low EROI sources such as unreliable wind and solar will never be the solution to a world with 8 B people, maybe 2B. The problem with all these green advocates, who decides what will happen to the other 6B people. I have never seen a green activist stand forward and volunteer to be one of the 6B. The other problem with unreliables is that they have at most a 20 year life span. According to Simon Michaud, there is not enough critical raw materials to replace the current hydrocarbon energy system with wind and solar. How would it then be possible to replace all the wind and solar plants in 20 years with more critical materials? Recycling would at best permit 40 - 50%.
The only solution for our species is high EROI systems as a bridge until technology brings us fusion, otherwise, MAD MAX HERE WE COME.
PS; YES NUCLEAR CAN GET US TO NET ZERO IF WE LET THE ENGINEERS DO THEIR JOBS AND KEEP THE POLITICIANS OUT OF IT.
PPS; WIND & SOLAR MIGHT WORK IN AUSTRALIA BUT DEFINITELY NOT MOST OF THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE IN THE WINTER.
propane, butane for fueling cars: you should visit Romania, they're almost as important and as used as gasoline and diesel for fueling cars, can fill up at almost all gas stations
Renault Dacia is making the LPG option a default in almost all cars produced in Romania. Supposedly you get more power out of LPG at a lower cost.
Liquid gas fuels like propane are banned from underground parking structures in Canada, which makes them less practical in cities. And a few propane taxi drivers' houses have exploded.
@@RandyTWesterI have heard about explosions where LNG was involved, not with LPG, except one case where the LPG was pumped with 220 bar pressure while most tanks are designed for 30 bar though in use they get around 2 bar. LPG tanks have been used for cooking or heating for decades. LPG is a mix of gases, mostly butane and propane and liquefies at lower pressure. LNG is methane which is stored at much higher pressure and very low temperature.
@@RandyTWesterjust like many authorities are now reacting to EVs…
Long term cheap oil is never coming back. The low hanging fruit of conventional oil has been mostly extracted in developed countries and those countries that still have a lot of conventional oil are OPEC countries that will always flex their market power because they're budgets are dependent on oil prices not going below moderate prices for too long. They only tolerate low oil prices temporarily if its used to drive out competition. Most of the oil left that's extracted now is heavy and/or sour oil or oil from fracking, which either at the wellhead or in the refinery, requires significant capital and energy investment which adds cost.
Natural gas and natural gas liquids are very valuable and can be used for almost anything
Millions of cars around the world run off Nat Gas
The main reason our cars are oil powered is that we produced mass oil before mass Nat Gas
The oil was transported in barrels using vehicles or animals or trains
There wasn't a national nat gas pipeline so nat gas came onto the scheme much later by which time vehciles were already oil powered
Great discussion. Every time new technology reduces energy consumption, human nature translates that into increasing our need. Our entire monetary system is based on growth. I agree with Art. You can either start to decrease your usage now and have time to adjust or fall off the cliff and deal with the consequences.
Watching the US civilization 30 years now, makes me believe that the cliff awaits us. Folks cannot wrap their minds around reality, and they are psychologically unprepared. This will NOT change.
Seems Art would agree w Steve Keen quite a bit on energy being the production function to the economy.
yeah, but wrt Steve Keen it's weird that he can conjugate that with MMT... To me, (correctly) aknowledging that energy IS the true currency of the economy is fundamentally incompatible with arguing that the government can spend as it wishes (yeah, MMT proponents usually talk about physical constraints, but in a very loose manner).
It's basic physical science: "energy is the ability to do work," and work must be done (by either muscles or machines) to produce goods and services (GDP). Less energy=less work done=shrinking GDP (prolonged recession/depression).
@@michaels4255 totally. But then I don't understand how people like Steve Keen can conjugate that with 'money is just this thing that can be created at will by governments'. Sure, technically you can, but unless you unleash some energy/productivity improvement, that's just pure inflation and bubbles. I think Arthur in this regard is more consistent (I heard him criticizing money printing).
patent no:11,815,070us=free enrgy
Another awesome one
I’m somewhat late to the party Chris, sorry, don’t know how I missed this discussion, have a lot of respect for Art Burman, he knows what he’s taking about, as you do to, Art calls a spade a spade, great discussion, just a pity more people don’t understand what’s coming down the tracks to crush humanity, want to understand what that means then check out Sam Mitchel of Collapse Chronicles🤔
Great talk from Art. The primary issue is and always will be overpopulation. Overpopulation is the primary threat to human existence. Where I also respectfully disagree with Art is that the 80% fossil fuels and 20% electricity equation isn’t set in stone. We will be able to significantly increase the percentage that electricity contributes to the economy. But, we won’t be able to provide enough green or dirty energy, food or other resources to even a billion people. Changes are coming.
"Overpopulation is the primary that to human existence."
No. Energy-conservation is.
Globalization is substitution of transportation for labor costs. Transportation takes energy. And in globalization money (how we measure growth) moves upward (why they do it, you sweet summer xhild). So. a de-globalizing economy would use less energy, and labor would see a much higher % of what growth still occurs.
Big fan of rebated carbon tax to shift in this direction before nature forces us.
Doubt efficiency gains are that low, I've seen applications where they're huge.
In 1920s, a lot of local deliveries were handled by electric trucks, handled from railheads. Electric starters were still rare, so electric had a low PITA factor. This from a witness alive at the time, mid 70s auto repair instructor.
@1.02 Art, regarding demand reduction as first step to conservation, please do not forget there was an experiment in this regard between 22nd March 2020 and approximately July 2022. Research has shown that there is little difference in energy consumption. However, a global study has shown negative effects on people’s lives are immense. My fear is that energy experts, by and large, are ill equipped to understand the dynamics of material-cultural-social change. This is not to say non physical science disciplines have the answer. Changes will come whether you like it or not. Also, please remember more than half the world’s population do not reside in the anglophone west.
The effects on mental well being during that time have little to do with energy reduction and more to do with isolation and being disconnected from each other.
I agree that energy is the economy, however; the economy can be distorted by debt, which are monetary system (money) is based on. Which also has a major impact on the energy, goods and services we pay for. So I respectfully disagree that money does not affect the economy
38:06. I'm pretty sure Art misspoke, and he meant less oil, but anyhow, great discussion.
Great vid
Aggregate Living Standard (or Economic Output basically) = Natural Resources (primarily Energy) x Labor x Technology / Total number of People being supported ( Keep in mind that natural resources come in two basic categories: Finite, non-renewable... and Renewable or regenerative, in which case there are recovery rates, and if you deplete a resource faster than the recovery rate, you are going to be in trouble! Example: Potable water, nutrient rich soils... etc. ). In short, Prosperity is a function of Resources and Labor, divided by the Total number of People who require that Economic Output to survive, and when you start running up against Resource Limits, then Economic Output and Living Standards will decline correspondingly.
Fantastic interview!!! I’m not surprised by the conclusion. But, a movie is fun to watch even though you know the ending
Can we use the promise of fusion power to unlock everything we need from all the coal reserves we have and not by burning it but by melting or steaming it into usable feed sock for plastics and fertilizer?
Fusion energy is a fantasy that most likely will not be manefest in our lifetime.
While I'm here, did Art say that FFs would be the solution to climate change?
It can only extend lifetimes, supplying comfort when push comes to shove, considering that civilization will not give up creature comforts to return to bicycles and public transportation, etc. JMHO.
I observe highly educated people popping out babies in quick succession.
Whenever I see young children, I instinctively calculate the year they will become grown, middle-aged adults.
This foresight sends chills up and down my spine.
There’s a looming concern that they might look back in anger at my generation...
10:07 it’s not global, it’s based upon individual currency markets.
I'm in South Texas and I remember 20 years ago the energy companies coming out to my area and doing a seismic test. I noticed many old wells with new piping and tanks. I believe they came for the oil and natural gas.
Allow continued use of fossil fuels in a free market and I’ll take my chances, on my own behalf and on behalf of my descendants. Take away fossil fuels and we’re screwed, especially if we pick unicorns and fairy dust as the substitute instead of nuclear energy.
using more oil is the planetary and obvious solution?... sounds odd to me.. probably meant the opposite (38:12)....but great talk... it does for me help to listen the same subject by the same person and others to grasp what really is at stake here.... I believe also that besides cutting down on energy use, population will eventually come down to say 1960's levels.. it will take a while, no way to rush it... but if there is to be a decent civilization for the next few hundred years, it will be a must! (...if we get through this century that is).
Lol. He first discovered sex. That line cracked me up
You should have Art and Doomberg debate on your show. I remember watching the episode with Doomberg on Nate's podcast and it was just moronic comment after moronic comment, and Nate barely pushed back at all. Would love to watch Art put Doomberg in his place.
I'm worried for the host of this video. He appears to be flashing some sort of SOS... similar to some of the Americans who were captured during the Vietnam War. I can't read Morris Code, but if anyone out there can, please respond.
Off topic, but Chris reminds me of actor Robert Redford when young. What do you think folks? .
We usually do not talk this way but we do know it very well. Even nuclear is to slow to save us straight. The other ways are even slower of course. We're gonna dim at some point.
When talking about why people are coming up with such foolish ideas, I think it is truly a self-imposed blindness out of a fear of having to actually change their lives. Moreover, the people in charge are the ones who got us into this mess, who are essentially gluttons; they are not used to considering the consequences of their actions.
But solving the electric part while increasing its share of the pie with electric heating , cooking and driving is it not the most we can do?
8:40 or could be all the money printing? There is a reason to normalize the cost of goods based a specific weight of gold.
did I hear using a lot more oil and energy is a good thing?....or did he mean less? 38:05... also according to Antonio Turiel uranium is running out (we have hit peak uranium)... so not much of a alternative either....
I didn't know Chris was a doctor, I thought he was an engineer this whole time.
Honestly so long as we can make steel we will be *mostly* fine. We’ll have to revert back to a system where the energy inputs of human labor are smaller than the energy outputs of production i.e. steel tools doing agriculture. People really exaggerate how bad agriculture was because they compare wood tools or iron tools to the current times, but with steel tools and draft animals in the grand scheme of things producing food with muscle energy is not terrible. A lot of the high technology system requires stressful jobs to maintain it so the labor savings can even invert from adopting more tech. I think steel ammonia and salt processing are the 3 priority centers where fossil fuels can be justified but so much of this shit with computers and cars is just excessive noise in terms of survival.
Great talk and interview. I think innovation is greater that 1%/year and the 80/20 gas/electric ratio is sure to change as we transition to electric cars. Electrics use brake energy to assist in recharging. Electric airplanes idling on descent will charge the batteries for the next segment takeoff. Solar tech continues to advance. Gravity batteries are innovation and look promising. It's a regular buffet of energy options. We will continue to need petroleum but I think we can get that ratio of 80/20 at least to 50/50 and, in quick order ... maybe.
The change from "Peak Oil" to "Peak Cheap Oil" still strikes me as wordsmithing. The world wants liquid hydrocarbons, even if that means turning a solid into a liquid. The Peak Oil diehards were really on about the _absolute_ production of petroleum, not its price.
The peak oil prediction for conventional crude oil in North America was dead on.
@@RandyTWester No it wasn't. It was dead wrong. Using "Conventional" as a descriptor for a certain technology for extraction is pendantic and not relevant. Fracking is the new "conventional". The peak oil predictions are always wrong and they always have been.
@@philbiker3I beg to differ. See 13:12 where Art goes into detail of what oil is and isn't.
Shale is not crude oil which has and is in decline.
@@philbiker3No, please don't spread misinformation! Fracking is NOT conventional. Conventional has a technical definition: it is the oil that flows or spurts up from the ground under naturally occurring pressure. If you have to pump it (which requires energy), that is unconventional. It's what the word means.
@@robertpaulson6388 No, you misunderstood him. He was talking about natural gas liquids. Tight oil (also called shale oil but don't confuse it with oil shale which is kerogen) is very much crude oil, and Art would be the first to tell you that.
Well Art, you have to come to Belgium! You will revise your opinion on it radically.
Doesn't change the validity of your argument though.
Be my guest if you want to come over here but beware that my house is modest.
Like I have been saying for a while now we are better off pumping that oil out as fast as we can the faster it's gone the faster we can start using "proper" energy
Fossil Fuels is the economy and basis of modern life and essential for humanity to thrive. Without fossil fuels we all revert to stone age backward lifestyle with widespread poverty and scarcity and massive reduction in population as each day will be a subsistence life style
In some places you are correct, but in many places not so much.
Subsistence lifestyle in small communities would be more meaningful than the current rat race.
places with nuclear power
Yes, also lots of hydro, smoothed wind and solar also.
@@jimgraham6722 very few places on planet with all those natural advantages in sufficient abundance and financial and technological resources to achieve this as well as stable political situation to transition
Googles the Clown wuz censoring here 😮
The canned tunefish (always Bumbler Bea - the rest are cat food) has been pretty stable over the past 30 years...
A NOAA scientist friend of mine tested cans of it with a geiger counter and a lot of it is now contaminated with radiation from Fukishima. Eat it at your own risk and get cancer.
101508. Could energy be stored by a cylindrical or torroidal flywheel braced in place in extensive solid rock by a circumferal superconducting bearing which would allow the flywheel to be spun up to extreme centrifical force within the frictionless support of the surrounding rock thereby storing a lot of angular momentum?
l'll broach it first that expendable devices could plausibly be a powerful underground explosive to open fractures for underground projects.
Aloha
9:48 inflation isn’t an abstract concept. It’s very real and can be measured in most good.
What did he mean at 38:20 about using more is the answer to the crisis??
38:04 38:06 He meant *_less_* (although *_more_* would have been the correct answer).
So my equation: climate change > human suffering > stop climate change > prevent human suffering. But what if, climate change > human suffering> deploy new low carbon tech to underdeveloped countries first > improved standards of living > decrease human suffering ? So, ultimately, less human suffering if industrialized nations transition last. Conclusion: It’s selfish for rich western nations to spend on themselves first.
When Art concludes that oil is more expensive simply based on the dollar value increasing makes no sense to me. Then saying doomberg doesnt understand because he normalizes price to gold. Is 65 dollar oil in 1970 more expensive than 70 dollar oil today? The answer is no but Art argues yes.
We have gone from a productive society to a consumer society and the rest of the World wants to join in.
The problem arises when Mother Earth cannot provide the Energy whether it is food oil or gas etc to satisfy the growing number of consumers. It amuses me to see the money spent on things like space exploration when the real issue is here on Earth.
We are at a tipping point
Why dis Doomberg? Several times even. What's up with that?
art berman has an article on his website titled Doomberg Embarrasses Himself. This is the opener. Doomberg’s recent views about oil on Thoughtful Money were painfully amateurish and often just wrong. I have always respected Doomberg even when I disagreed with him but I was embarrassed for him in this podcast discussion with my friend Adam Taggart
it is personal with these peak oil kooks. They have always been wrong. they are wrong now.
IDK. But Berman and Doomberg are both in denial about renewables.
@@philbiker3You better hope they're wrong like your life depends on it.
Art doesn't grasp this one but acts as though nobody else grasps it and provides no logical counter points. Lack of professionalism by Art
10:22 keeps going back to 2020. The same time period when the price of crude went negative. Why not use 2017 as a reference point?
10:16
This guy has a huge blind spot when it comes to assessing the effects of increased CO2 and with respect to the functionality of the intermittent energy sources. It’s stunning that someone who knows conventional wisdom on oil and gas is way off base is not more skeptical about the other information our “experts” selected by the media are feeding us.
Dear Chris, a little side note: please try to fix your camera, when you're taking notes it's moving in a slightly sickening manner, induces a bit of sea-sickness. Thanks, have a nice Weekend!
Art has a great perspective. Love the data he brings and understands.
Reality complex carbon is created biologically through process that is not simply “in ground” watching your program and our research into “manufacture” of “oil” via biological process which is more efficient. This includes innovation in multiple areas.
Nuclear accidents are black swan that do happen....roll the stupid-dice....
"Nuclear accidents are black swan..."
Which do not have great negative effects.
Great to see Art Berman here. Great channel.
Wow Art....I guess you now include yourself in the "97%" of scientists that "believe" that humans have a larger impact uopn the atmosphere....than the Earth being less than 0.01% in proximity to a Star?....the star we humans have named...the Sun?.....is this conclusion a correct analysis?
If you like this then watch the movie 🎥 A Crude Awakening. Very good knowledge
One of your best episodes.
I think his context of Quatari oil being one to one does not fly. It is energy and being thus is good for the world if changed to a useable fuel. Not particularly beneficial to mankind but saves on consuming the good stuff.
"Peak cheap oil"? It's "peak oil," it's the point where price no longer has anything to do with it.
I leave my apartment windows open most of the winter, every winter, because that's how I mediate the overheating of my particular unit provided by the 1960s heating system. Then they crank the heat up so some of it will get to the cool parts of the building. All very inefficient, & surely my biggest use of energy is simply waste. I suppose it is cheaper for the landlord than retrofitting building heating systems.
Big taxes, a big public sector & even bigger debts & deficits turn everything into a non-consensual racket & the average home price into a million-dollar proposition that already exceeds the net worth of most Canadians. Asked some NDP campaigners to loosen homebuilding regulations so a guy could afford to build a little shack on the outskirts of town. They laughed in my face.
We have "room to improve". o/
Love Art!
I disagree with Art. Inflation everywhere and always is a monetary phenomenon. The price of oil is manipulated just as much as housing.
We bought alot of it during the pandemic, and we are fireselling it on the world market to keep the price low, preventing hoarding or panic buying.
I am of the mind of Michael C Ruppert (the late author of 'Collapse') says 2032 is Peak Oil year. That seems right to me, either way, the price paid at the pump will go up steadily in the future. Taking up more and more of our budget.
It s a shame the EU Commission and the EU politicians never took the time to listen such valuable sources of information. They just are energy blind, thinking the world wil turn the way they decide...
We are running out 😭😭😭😭 plane is nothing
I love hearing people dunk on Doomberg!
....Art knows 😊
What a mess Henry Ford made. ❤❤. Inflation, no debt will kill us all.
“Nasty brutish and short” yeah but they didn’t cause the 6th mass extinction. To me that’s a fair deal.
I can't believe what I'm hearing. Inflation is caused by monetary policy with respect to material value such as captured in commodities. If you print money inflation goes up unless you create more stuff. If you create more stuff with the same amount of money (no printing) inflation goes down. Inflation is a monetary issue not a commodity one. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Case in point the 98 argument - it's just a fact apparently no more needs to be said.
... as a German Biologist -
this is about Domestication
Conditioning
and Standardization
I grew up in Germany
in the 1950´s and 60´s
we ALL had BAD Coal Stoves...
it was Pro Gress to install a 10 000 Liter Oil tank
in the Cellar and have central Heating
which increased Energy Consumption manifold
warm water and all rooms heated
- in the 70´s
I worked in Chemistry on Thorium
as a way for other Nuclear Energy
this was killed by Spanish Inquisition Psycho Paths Terrorists
condemning any “pro gress”
Dr Angely Merkel
a so called “Physicist”
and Anti Soviet
German Reichs Kanzler
condemned Nuclear Energy
for Ideo “logic” reasons...
so we are back in Brown Coal Energy...
wonderful world
Solar and Wind will never ever do it...
we Self Chernobyl
You obviously goodhearted guys shouldn't keep going until you YT search Patrick Moore. So do that. Yes now.
civilivation
that tells you all you need to know lol
The wisdom and the knowledge of this guy is immense. The fact that we have reached "peak child" a few years ago, that is the number of new births is decreasing as a total, worldwide, brings me a little hope while unfortunately I fear that hundreds of millions of ill and old people will die much prematurely because of partially collapsing welfare systems and wet bulb events. In rich Italy, where I live, the poorest regions have failing Healthcare systems already
When you say "we" - do you mean the Legal People as corporations who are free to cross all "free market" borders? Or do you mean actual natural people with 8 billion on the planet? Because the population growth rate varies greatly depending on what political line some natural person is behind.