FYI - Professor Michaux has authored the definitive "bottom's up" study on how much "minerals, metals and magnets" will be required to completely "phase out" fossil fuels in an all-electric post-oil industrial economy. And the answer is an all-electric post-oil industrial economy is not possible based on windmills, solar panels and batteries. For details, see his 2021 1,000 page report titled "Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels". The report can be found on his website under the GTK reports link.
@@popeye747 yeah, yeah, didn't, say anything about Simon. Aware of his work, isn't nearly everyone now? Just disturbed that he's keeping company with clowns. You high?
Wonderful--thank you! The Long Emergency---reminds me of Jim Kunstler. As for how gold could very reasonably back a currency, Jim Rickards has been describing the math for a while. Awesome stats and thinking from Dr Michaux. Love his deft turn of phrase, too.
14:2014:2314:26 "Were getting it from Arizona, because *_they have two nuclear plants."_* No. Arizona has only *_one_* uranium-fired power plant: "Every six months, Arizona's only nuclear power plant shuts down one of its three reactors for refueling and maintenance. The *_Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station_* southwest of Phoenix recently underwent the process." May 10, 2017
Thanks. Wiki has a page listing all the power plants in Arizon by type - I guess there is a page for every State in the USA. It is fascinating. There are quite a lot of solar and wind farms, and a lot of dams providing hydro - but the three together only provide about 14% of Arizona's electricity. The other 86% comes from gas, nuclear, and coal in that order. The single nuclear plant provides 28%, but it is not problem-free, nuclear never is. Coal provides about 10%, but the bulk is provided by natural gas, at the moment. (Is this finite? - I presume so.)
I used to live in rural San Diego County. I lived through many blackouts lasting 3 to 5 days. For many reasons, I moved out of Commiefornia. I now use more electricity and pay 25% of San Diego's (SDG&E) rates.
Statistics don't lie. There is not enough raw material, time or money to achieve the "Utopia" promised in the GND. Beyond that, any digital currency is vulnerable to failures in the grid, which can easily come from a massive solar flare (CME) or an EMP. Statistically, either or both are unacceptable risks in my view. I live quite modestly in a metal home, on a well and with mountain run off on the property, debt free and three hundred miles from a major city...and...I grow my own food on the property. I follow discussions such as this to gain as much insight and knowledge as I can that may help me understand things as they are...not as how I would prefer them to be. TY
The only years global consumption of fossil fuels did not increase was 2009 and 2020. The rate of increase in the global consumption of fossil fuels is between 1% and 2%. As GDP increases so will the consumption of fossil fuels. It does not matter if that GDP growth is fueled by debt or increased economic activity. From last century economic growth has been increasingly fuelled by debt. Currencies are virtual representions for energy and commodities. Debt is committing energy and commodities from the future at unknown supply or cost. The only economic truth; Supply will meet the demand that has the ability to pay. The global economy is fast approaching not having the ability to pay for both energy and commodities, or debt servicing and repayment.
Two issues not discussed: 1) Demographics: China is in deep trouble on this and it is rapidly getting worse. So is South Korea, Japan, most of Europe. Canada despite its massive immigration it has endured, etc. Whereas France, Sweden, New Zealand , US are doing ok or it's not as bad. Mexico, Malaysia, Vietnam and India will do well. 2) Advances in material science and manufacturing. Carbon nanotubes, buckypaper, etc. could provide material substitution like for copper and rare earths. "Necessity is the Mother of Invention" and all that. A phrase that has been the bane of Malthusians for almost two centuries now.
Few regular members of the public seem to understand how little man-made carbon dioxide impacts on our planet’s atmosphere, much less question the most basic (false) assertion that it somehow does. With such blind acceptance of such a basic error it’s going to cost humanity an awful lot before the penny drops.
U.s. military is weak and getting weaker every day. Only half our f35s are in operation at any given time. We have only 11 flat tops, and they are old and half of them are in for repairs at any given time. Our munitions are so low due to Ukraine, that it is said we wouldn't last more than 2 weeks tops in a war with China. Which means we would immediately go to nuclear as the only option
Thanks for your conversation. While I appreciate both guests’ enthusiasm and expertise in energy and materials, when it comes to geopolitics there is definitely a knowledge gap in geopolitical history. I am baffled by the hostility towards the rise of China being the dominant industrial and manufacturing power in the world. Without a deeper understanding the history of China, the Western allies’ aggressions in China- the unequal treaties: The treaty of Nanking 1842 and the Treaty of Tianjin 1857, when China ceded territories and concessions to 11 Western powers including Russia, the active involvement of the U.S. in China’s civil war, to the recent attempts to destabilise China through colour revolutions…. so on and so on. As Simon says the aggressors have been the collective west. Who would blame China for strengthening itself through peaceful means.
China is anything but peaceful, laying claim to the entire South china sea is not peaceful. The subterfuge that they are doing to the u.s. is astronomical, as they are smart enough to take us down from the inside, without ever firing a shot. Because of "elite capture", we have no secrets. If u don't know what that is google it. U.S. military is weak, and getting weaker by the day. Marxism is destroying us from within
The US had its energy independance due to shale tech. I yet have to see peak oil as a driver. Simon links it to inflation but i see more the system collapsing out of itself because of its mechanisms. The US has been greatly made independant because of shale tech. This 'peak oil' is a slippery one as both Doomberg and Simon/Nate seem to have very different views on it..
Appreciate the material analysis, truly fascinating and terrifying - the geopolitical analysis, not so much. China [is] providing generous capital investments to developing countries who will RETAIN resource rights. The model of nationally owned resource instead of renting out land to predatory investors is a good thing. We need an emergency brake on xenophobia and less think tank talking points.
Nate Hagen et al and yr aussie man here are always talking about 'peak oil', stating it's a given. I don't know. I listen to Doomberg and i get the opposite story. How the hell can a regular person judge this?
No confidence in its leader but apart from that i don't know. There is so much politics involved its hard to get trustworthy information. And peak oil has been discussed since the early 70s. Apart from the price linked to conflict i see no clear pathway. Yes, the price has gone up, but i remember the 70s. We are nowhere near that.
Well, i could reverse that and say the same thing about Simon. I have watched several videos of him and Nate Hagen. They make good presentations but again, it is based on the assumption of peak oil. Neither of them seem to know the ins and outs. It's Doomberg's business to know. But, who is to know where the truth lies? In the end it's a matter of trust. I trust Simon and Nate to faithfully look at future prospects but i spot the limitations as i do w the IPCC claims. Bryce is a knowledgable host who knows a thing or two about the energy sector. Im sure he couldve pushed back at Simon's assertions but chose not to. And he's had conversations w Doomberg. I don't like accusations of bad faith actors which you seem to suggest by stating Doomberg might have an 'agenda'. His agenda is an analysis of the energy market, production etc. He is in the business so his analysis counts more than both Simon and Nate's who will suffer no consequences of being wrong.
Ugh so disappointed to see the great presentation of Michaux again mingling with the most stupid takes. In short here for an hour we're explained the west is dumb, eager to start a war, and China/Russia are playing the long game. It is SO EASY to also cherry pick another set of facts and explain the exact opposite. For instance, "the petro dollar is dead because of money printing by the West". Well, look at the other currencies. FIAT currencies are used to store value, and you can't find much in China/Russia rushing to put their assets in the Ruble/RMB. So one could think as long as people have value to store, the default go-to currency isn't about to collapse (which in turn explains the US confidence to continue to print so much). Another example, the War. Dr Michaux is a brilliant system engineer, but a terrible consultant when it comes to the Kremlin siloviki dynamics and motivations. And that's too bad, because it in turn makes me question his other great work. Are there that many blind spots there too?
It’s quite disheartening that Mr. Bryce, a person I hold in high regard and follow, has been subjected to the utterly unfounded and ludicrous conjectures and forecasts put forth by Mr. Michaux concerning the Russian-Ukrainian war. It’s disturbing that an individual with such perspectives is permitted to educate others. Enduring his discourse can be quite challenging.
Yes I was a bit saddened by Roberts quietude on that too-left me a bit tainted thereafter. I wonder how Simons Finnish friends think about ‘next door’ compared to Simon.
Market logic will always default to a race to bottom of instant gratification, markets cant do longterm, Governments can & should do longterm it's their job. Markets cant function long without Government infrastructure already in place such as rule of law {otherwise unfashionably known as dreaded "regulation" }. Government with informed public democratic oversight, on the back of the chain.. independent {not captured by corporations or state interference } university research, open science {raw data public etc}, informs public & civil service {in parallel} ..report to decision makers , proposals put for public debate, either citizens assemblies, parliament votes, decisions made. I agree simultaneous solutions needed on multiple fronts for the meta crisis, reducing collateral damage in developed countries { via taming the market & WW2 effort } & fresh model development of sustainable communities across geography. But issue of eco imperialism - might become a thing as more n more educated good willed! types set up shop in developing world. Delicate balance factors in an increasingly high stakes time running out situation. But what choice is there, acting in good positively with the most realistic starting point is brave & wise... good luck with Purple Transition & variations Simon. Reading the tealeaves i fear this sequence of events: Denial, inertia, confusion, desperation, unilateral acting out by individual states/ powers, chaotic overspill, cures worse than disease, while simultaneously still suffering the disease too. Resulting in resource grab scramble, water wars, minerals, ff vestige etc {ie re NZ nutters thinking might as well have own oil when Madmax kicks off, cus we all missed boat on climate} Reflexive National service, militarisation, rationing, uber techno authoritarianism. some inevitabilities that could go either way Positive cooperative democratic scientifically best guess practice under the constraints of uncertainty, Simultaneous independent grassroots small scale community experimentation in parallel, Negative knee jerk too late ineffective & genocidal blame n grabs Good national /international service - working on mitigation & adaptation [under represented massively in my view} Good Rationing - reducing demand side, while realistic green/circular/purple transition emerges through regulation of manufacturing DfDs {design for disassembly & BAMB building as materials bank} Nationalisation of common infrastructure & utilities Climate modification - proportional least risky with research chain Bad versions of all of these - history shows us & i'll leave as not new - exception of the last. Climate mod, modern tec leveraged & deliberate is What worries me most in the mix of the above positive & negative versions . Unilateral large scale climate moding gets fashionable in corp boardrooms / lobbying desperate goverments with a few mad scientists to lower temps quick to allow biz as usual. With no unintended consequences due diligence studies even considered.
FYI - Professor Michaux has authored the definitive "bottom's up" study on how much "minerals, metals and magnets" will be required to completely "phase out" fossil fuels in an all-electric post-oil industrial economy. And the answer is an all-electric post-oil industrial economy is not possible based on windmills, solar panels and batteries. For details, see his 2021 1,000 page report titled "Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels". The report can be found on his website under the GTK reports link.
@@popeye747 yeah, yeah, didn't, say anything about Simon. Aware of his work, isn't nearly everyone now? Just disturbed that he's keeping company with clowns. You high?
Incredible discussion blending the technical and geopolitical. Thanks Jim for bringing these speakers to the table.
It's nice to see Robert Bryce again. I miss his Power Hungry podcast! I'm surely not alone!
Yes. I miss the Power Hungry podcast too! 😢
@@JamesFitzgerald Me too .....
Same
Yes….rolls Royce always from Robert
Even Mark Mills a bit lesser with interviews since his new role
Wonderful--thank you!
The Long Emergency---reminds me of Jim Kunstler.
As for how gold could very reasonably back a currency, Jim Rickards has been describing the math for a while.
Awesome stats and thinking from Dr Michaux. Love his deft turn of phrase, too.
Productive agricultural land and self sufficiency in energy.
Great show!
14:20 14:23 14:26 "Were getting it from Arizona, because *_they have two nuclear plants."_*
No. Arizona has only *_one_* uranium-fired power plant:
"Every six months, Arizona's only nuclear power plant shuts down one of its three reactors for refueling and maintenance. The *_Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station_* southwest of Phoenix recently underwent the process." May 10, 2017
Thanks. Wiki has a page listing all the power plants in Arizon by type - I guess there is a page for every State in the USA. It is fascinating. There are quite a lot of solar and wind farms, and a lot of dams providing hydro - but the three together only provide about 14% of Arizona's electricity. The other 86% comes from gas, nuclear, and coal in that order. The single nuclear plant provides 28%, but it is not problem-free, nuclear never is. Coal provides about 10%, but the bulk is provided by natural gas, at the moment. (Is this finite? - I presume so.)
@@edithcrowther9604the problems with nuclear energy are vastly exaggerated.
Where are the smelters going to get the electricity?
You're not supposed to notice such problems!
I used to live in rural San Diego County. I lived through many blackouts lasting 3 to 5 days. For many reasons, I moved out of Commiefornia. I now use more electricity and pay 25% of San Diego's (SDG&E) rates.
This is a great podcast, thanks. Also, save seeds, we can't eat gold nor drink oil.
Thanks! lots to chew on. Great podcast!
Simon, you and I are very much like minded. I hope someday to meet you. Great program again.
Statistics don't lie. There is not enough raw material, time or money to achieve the "Utopia" promised in the GND. Beyond that, any digital currency is vulnerable to failures in the grid, which can easily come from a massive solar flare (CME) or an EMP. Statistically, either or both are unacceptable risks in my view. I live quite modestly in a metal home, on a well and with mountain run off on the property, debt free and three hundred miles from a major city...and...I grow my own food on the property.
I follow discussions such as this to gain as much insight and knowledge as I can that may help me understand things as they are...not as how I would prefer them to be. TY
very good, thanks
They don't get it Michaux.
With gratitude for this novel, fact based macro economic analysis.
Recycled copper includes what is being stolen by midnight operators.
They are building mini nuclear reactors for a.i.
And i think tesla is too
Our Western civilisation is so young and ignorant from learning from older civilisations
Awesome podcast guys Have shared on Facebook Public 🕊🌏😇🌞
The only years global consumption of fossil fuels did not increase was 2009 and 2020. The rate of increase in the global consumption of fossil fuels is between 1% and 2%. As GDP increases so will the consumption of fossil fuels. It does not matter if that GDP growth is fueled by debt or increased economic activity. From last century economic growth has been increasingly fuelled by debt. Currencies are virtual representions for energy and commodities. Debt is committing energy and commodities from the future at unknown supply or cost. The only economic truth; Supply will meet the demand that has the ability to pay. The global economy is fast approaching not having the ability to pay for both energy and commodities, or debt servicing and repayment.
Commodities based USA citizens sold down river...where are my ships?
Two issues not discussed:
1) Demographics: China is in deep trouble on this and it is rapidly getting worse. So is South Korea, Japan, most of Europe. Canada despite its massive immigration it has endured, etc. Whereas France, Sweden, New Zealand , US are doing ok or it's not as bad. Mexico, Malaysia, Vietnam and India will do well.
2) Advances in material science and manufacturing. Carbon nanotubes, buckypaper, etc. could provide material substitution like for copper and rare earths. "Necessity is the Mother of Invention" and all that. A phrase that has been the bane of Malthusians for almost two centuries now.
They want 1 world government. You can't imagine they have a plan like this.
Few regular members of the public seem to understand how little man-made carbon dioxide impacts on our planet’s atmosphere, much less question the most basic (false) assertion that it somehow does. With such blind acceptance of such a basic error it’s going to cost humanity an awful lot before the penny drops.
One thing folks seem to not realize is that the US will leverage its military might, including blockade of the straits of Malacca.
U.s. military is weak and getting weaker every day. Only half our f35s are in operation at any given time.
We have only 11 flat tops, and they are old and half of them are in for repairs at any given time.
Our munitions are so low due to Ukraine, that it is said we wouldn't last more than 2 weeks tops in a war with China. Which means we would immediately go to nuclear as the only option
When China demands that we sink our ships, brandon will say yes master.
Thanks for your conversation. While I appreciate both guests’ enthusiasm and expertise in energy and materials, when it comes to geopolitics there is definitely a knowledge gap in geopolitical history. I am baffled by the hostility towards the rise of China being the dominant industrial and manufacturing power in the world. Without a deeper understanding the history of China, the Western allies’ aggressions in China- the unequal treaties: The treaty of Nanking 1842 and the Treaty of Tianjin 1857, when China ceded territories and concessions to 11 Western powers including Russia, the active involvement of the U.S. in China’s civil war, to the recent attempts to destabilise China through colour revolutions…. so on and so on. As Simon says the aggressors have been the collective west. Who would blame China for strengthening itself through peaceful means.
The ruling class in the collective west prefers to destroy instead of compete.
China is anything but peaceful, laying claim to the entire South china sea is not peaceful.
The subterfuge that they are doing to the u.s. is astronomical, as they are smart enough to take us down from the inside, without ever firing a shot.
Because of "elite capture", we have no secrets. If u don't know what that is google it.
U.S. military is weak, and getting weaker by the day. Marxism is destroying us from within
If I recall correctly (this may be a paraphrase) Sun Tzu said, if you can convince your enemy to destroy himself, battle is not necessary.
The US had its energy independance due to shale tech. I yet have to see peak oil as a driver. Simon links it to inflation but i see more the system collapsing out of itself because of its mechanisms. The US has been greatly made independant because of shale tech. This 'peak oil' is a slippery one as both Doomberg and Simon/Nate seem to have very different views on it..
Inflation is due to the government turning the printing presses up to warp 15!
Appreciate the material analysis, truly fascinating and terrifying - the geopolitical analysis, not so much. China [is] providing generous capital investments to developing countries who will RETAIN resource rights. The model of nationally owned resource instead of renting out land to predatory investors is a good thing. We need an emergency brake on xenophobia and less think tank talking points.
Be careful conflating western expansionism with China's self-actualization.
Nate Hagen et al and yr aussie man here are always talking about 'peak oil', stating it's a given. I don't know. I listen to Doomberg and i get the opposite story. How the hell can a regular person judge this?
And peak GAS is a wild guess.
How much confidence do you have in The International Energy Agency is a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organisation forecasts?
No confidence in its leader but apart from that i don't know. There is so much politics involved its hard to get trustworthy information. And peak oil has been discussed since the early 70s. Apart from the price linked to conflict i see no clear pathway. Yes, the price has gone up, but i remember the 70s. We are nowhere near that.
Well, i could reverse that and say the same thing about Simon. I have watched several videos of him and Nate Hagen. They make good presentations but again, it is based on the assumption of peak oil. Neither of them seem to know the ins and outs. It's Doomberg's business to know. But, who is to know where the truth lies? In the end it's a matter of trust. I trust Simon and Nate to faithfully look at future prospects but i spot the limitations as i do w the IPCC claims. Bryce is a knowledgable host who knows a thing or two about the energy sector. Im sure he couldve pushed back at Simon's assertions but chose not to. And he's had conversations w Doomberg. I don't like accusations of bad faith actors which you seem to suggest by stating Doomberg might have an 'agenda'. His agenda is an analysis of the energy market, production etc. He is in the business so his analysis counts more than both Simon and Nate's who will suffer no consequences of being wrong.
Doomberg owns a large share of an investment advisory company. So ... in answer to your question ... another question? WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I wonder how much Simons view of Vlad is held by his fellow now Finnish friends
Pretty poor analysis if you ask me.
Ugh so disappointed to see the great presentation of Michaux again mingling with the most stupid takes.
In short here for an hour we're explained the west is dumb, eager to start a war, and China/Russia are playing the long game.
It is SO EASY to also cherry pick another set of facts and explain the exact opposite.
For instance, "the petro dollar is dead because of money printing by the West". Well, look at the other currencies. FIAT currencies are used to store value, and you can't find much in China/Russia rushing to put their assets in the Ruble/RMB. So one could think as long as people have value to store, the default go-to currency isn't about to collapse (which in turn explains the US confidence to continue to print so much).
Another example, the War. Dr Michaux is a brilliant system engineer, but a terrible consultant when it comes to the Kremlin siloviki dynamics and motivations. And that's too bad, because it in turn makes me question his other great work. Are there that many blind spots there too?
It’s quite disheartening that Mr. Bryce, a person I hold in high regard and follow, has been subjected to the utterly unfounded and ludicrous conjectures and forecasts put forth by Mr. Michaux concerning the Russian-Ukrainian war. It’s disturbing that an individual with such perspectives is permitted to educate others. Enduring his discourse can be quite challenging.
Yes I was a bit saddened by Roberts quietude on that too-left me a bit tainted thereafter.
I wonder how Simons Finnish friends think about ‘next door’ compared to Simon.
What simon said is backed by evidence, not ideology or propaganda
Market logic will always default to a race to bottom of instant gratification, markets cant do longterm, Governments can & should do longterm it's their job. Markets cant function long without Government infrastructure already in place such as rule of law {otherwise unfashionably known as dreaded "regulation" }. Government with informed public democratic oversight, on the back of the chain.. independent {not captured by corporations or state interference } university research, open science {raw data public etc}, informs public & civil service {in parallel} ..report to decision makers , proposals put for public debate, either citizens assemblies, parliament votes, decisions made.
I agree simultaneous solutions needed on multiple fronts for the meta crisis, reducing collateral damage in developed countries { via taming the market & WW2 effort } & fresh model development of sustainable communities across geography. But issue of eco imperialism - might become a thing as more n more educated good willed! types set up shop in developing world. Delicate balance factors in an increasingly high stakes time running out situation. But what choice is there, acting in good positively with the most realistic starting point is brave & wise... good luck with Purple Transition & variations Simon.
Reading the tealeaves i fear this sequence of events:
Denial, inertia, confusion, desperation, unilateral acting out by individual states/ powers, chaotic overspill, cures worse than disease, while simultaneously still suffering the disease too.
Resulting in resource grab scramble, water wars, minerals, ff vestige etc {ie re NZ nutters thinking might as well have own oil when Madmax kicks off, cus we all missed boat on climate}
Reflexive National service, militarisation, rationing, uber techno authoritarianism.
some inevitabilities that could go either way
Positive cooperative democratic scientifically best guess practice under the constraints of uncertainty,
Simultaneous independent grassroots small scale community experimentation in parallel,
Negative knee jerk too late ineffective & genocidal blame n grabs
Good national /international service - working on mitigation & adaptation [under represented massively in my view}
Good Rationing - reducing demand side, while realistic green/circular/purple transition emerges through regulation of manufacturing DfDs {design for disassembly & BAMB building as materials bank}
Nationalisation of common infrastructure & utilities
Climate modification - proportional least risky with research chain
Bad versions of all of these - history shows us & i'll leave as not new - exception of the last.
Climate mod, modern tec leveraged & deliberate is What worries me most in the mix of the above positive & negative versions . Unilateral large scale climate moding gets fashionable in corp boardrooms / lobbying desperate goverments with a few mad scientists to lower temps quick to allow biz as usual. With no unintended consequences due diligence studies even considered.