Nate, I wish you and you guests would get just a little more technical at times. For instance, tar sands oil from Canada and similar extra-heavy oil from Venezuela depend on a large energy subsidy from natural gas. It takes heat from steam to melt that glop out of source sand and rock, and gas is currently the easiest way to generate that steam. (Some people have proposed using nuclear reactors to do that.) I read that extracting Alberta tar sands requires about as much gas as the US currently extracts from the entire Utica formation. People I explain this to generally have no trouble understanding it and it often makes jaws drop.
Likewise, in one of your interviews with Art Berman, his explanation of why diesel engines are preferred for big, heavy machines really didn't deliver enough information to make the point. Perhaps he hadn't thought of a good way to explain why they're more efficient (higher compression, less power used to pull in air because they breathe easier). They lose less energy turning because they run at slower speeds and their higher efficiency means that they run much cooler under constant heavy loads, both of which help them last far longer than similarly-sized gasoline engines. Also, the higher energy density of diesel allows longer running time on a given size tank of fuel.
"Read Nate's book." Reality Blind Vol. 1: Integrating the Systems Science Underpinning Our Collective Futures.
Yes. I bought 3 copies. One for my personal use and reference and two to loan out. Both of the loaners are out now, so I have to go buy another. The only other book I have treated that way is Life after Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy by Alice J. Friedemann.
You're a busy man, Nate. Are you finding any time to work on Reality Blind Vol. 2?
Any thoughts on this bit on news Nate?
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/michael-bloombergs-1-billion-assault
I'd like to hear Nate's thoughts, too. I can guess, but Dr. Hagens might surprise me.
Nate, I wish you and you guests would get just a little more technical at times. For instance, tar sands oil from Canada and similar extra-heavy oil from Venezuela depend on a large energy subsidy from natural gas. It takes heat from steam to melt that glop out of source sand and rock, and gas is currently the easiest way to generate that steam. (Some people have proposed using nuclear reactors to do that.) I read that extracting Alberta tar sands requires about as much gas as the US currently extracts from the entire Utica formation. People I explain this to generally have no trouble understanding it and it often makes jaws drop.
Likewise, in one of your interviews with Art Berman, his explanation of why diesel engines are preferred for big, heavy machines really didn't deliver enough information to make the point. Perhaps he hadn't thought of a good way to explain why they're more efficient (higher compression, less power used to pull in air because they breathe easier). They lose less energy turning because they run at slower speeds and their higher efficiency means that they run much cooler under constant heavy loads, both of which help them last far longer than similarly-sized gasoline engines. Also, the higher energy density of diesel allows longer running time on a given size tank of fuel.
C'mon, we're adults. We can handle it.
Great listen as I drove wedged in amongst massive trucks for four hours! You got a great push for your book, I'll be buying a copy 😎
"Read Nate's book." Reality Blind Vol. 1: Integrating the Systems Science Underpinning Our Collective Futures.
Yes. I bought 3 copies. One for my personal use and reference and two to loan out. Both of the loaners are out now, so I have to go buy another. The only other book I have treated that way is Life after Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy by Alice J. Friedemann.
You're a busy man, Nate. Are you finding any time to work on Reality Blind Vol. 2?