Nate thank you! for all you bring to the table. My wife Lani put me on to your Podcasts and I’ve been a fan ever since and have listened to nearly all your content. Finally a person who is talking about the things that need to be talked about.
During the round table discussion, Nate asks how can we get people to care about species loss, and to recognize our genetic relatedness to all life. One of the other guests throws out the number 80%, claiming that this proportion of the population does care. He goes on to say if that if asked to give up anything in order to address the damage we are doing, then this same 80% backs off. I think this is the wrong approach, the wrong question. Whether people care or not, whether they are willing to make some sacrifices, our entire way of life in all its details perpetuates the crisis and at the same time alienates us from the biosphere consequences of that way of life. So that caring or not caring is simply an abstract question of personal preference, while our dependence on modernity and all the “mod cons” is a very concrete question of survival. Until we as a species finds new ways of living in which awareness of our absolute dependence on healthy webs of life is built into the ways in which we transform elements of the non-human world into, so to speak, our embodied selves, this alienation will not go away. I think the only way to do this is to return to pre-modern norms in which much of the population is directly engaged in the production of food, shelter, clothing, etc, then the vital connection to a healthy biosphere will be visceral, a daily question of survival, and flourishing. So, for me, the real question is how do we get there?
This one is tired - and reduces a few percent each year as the Energy Transition increases momentum. Industrial heat can easily be solved. Heat pumps can supply the lower third, normal resistance heaters the middle temperatures, and electric arcs the higher metal smelting ranges. It's just a myth that we need the HEAT from coal. Google "Electrify Everything" or spend a year reading Mike Barnard at Cleantechnica. Question his sources, do the math, check the stats. I expect no less. https://cleantechnica.com/author/mikebarnard/
Ah - but someone who has read Vaclav Smil will argue that we need COKING COAL in the smelting pot to act as a reductant - and he has done the math by showing how impossible it would be to supply with trees. OK. But he's AVOIDED the math by not really looking at hydrogen. Hydrogen can replace coal as the reductant.
What about intermittency? Doesn't that break a smelter? First - the goal with renewables systems is build big or go home. Overbuild across a continent and share the power - and you'll end up using mostly live renewables most of the time. Overbuild reduces storage. That's old news - Scientific American shared this a decade ago! They showed that 15 GW of Texas wind - equivalent to 15 nuclear power plants - would only require 18 MW of storage! https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/renewable-energy-intermittency-explained-challenges-solutions-and-opportunities/
We can store heat far more cheaply than we can store electricity. Rondo heat blocks can soak up all that extra lunchtime solar and store it at 1500 °C. It only loses 1% heat per day.
2. MODERNITY REQUIRES DIESEL TRUCKING & MINING
Think again. Tesla's Semi's already have a further range than the driver is legally allowed to drive in a shift. (As long as the driver of course charges the truck when on the legally required lunch break.) And Janus Australia supplies a battery-swap program to Australia's road trains. Every 400 km just pull over for a 2 minute battery swap.
MINING trucks: Watch this mostly electric 240 tonne mining truck drive up hill TWICE the speed of the diesel truck - while charging from hydropower on catenary lines in Canada. Does this going twice the speed mean mines will need less trucks to move the same amount of ore? Watch 60 seconds here: https://youtu.be/6TxMeHRq1mk?t=213
SO EFFICIENT WE'LL DO EVERYTHING WE DO TODAY ON 40% OF THE ENERGY
When we burn stuff like cavemen - we throw out 60% of the energy as waste heat and noise and light. But when we generate clean electrons that go straight into an electric economy - we don't need to even equal the thermal value in fossil fuels!
Excellent round table. Excellent conversation. I’m looking forward to starting the metastatic modernity/do the math series of videos. What is so great about the great simplification podcasts and roundtables is that a person like me with non-existent science and math backgrounds can understand them. They are pitched to a generalist audience and delivered with a somber sense of humor. Much needed in these times. Geez Louise. Thank you!
Just tapped into Mr. Murphey’s 1st metastatic modernity video, looking forward to leaning more into shifting my intellectual perspective to align with my recent journey of healing and of self discovery. My curiosity on DJ’s toolkit to effectivism is spiked as well so hope to explore further there as well. Thank-you Nate and production teams for your work and efforts ~ truly appreciated!
Nate thank you! for all you bring to the table. My wife Lani put me on to your Podcasts and I’ve been a fan ever since and have listened to nearly all your content. Finally a person who is talking about the things that need to be talked about.
Thanks bud.
During the round table discussion, Nate asks how can we get people to care about species loss, and to recognize our genetic relatedness to all life. One of the other guests throws out the number 80%, claiming that this proportion of the population does care. He goes on to say if that if asked to give up anything in order to address the damage we are doing, then this same 80% backs off. I think this is the wrong approach, the wrong question. Whether people care or not, whether they are willing to make some sacrifices, our entire way of life in all its details perpetuates the crisis and at the same time alienates us from the biosphere consequences of that way of life. So that caring or not caring is simply an abstract question of personal preference, while our dependence on modernity and all the “mod cons” is a very concrete question of survival. Until we as a species finds new ways of living in which awareness of our absolute dependence on healthy webs of life is built into the ways in which we transform elements of the non-human world into, so to speak, our embodied selves, this alienation will not go away. I think the only way to do this is to return to pre-modern norms in which much of the population is directly engaged in the production of food, shelter, clothing, etc, then the vital connection to a healthy biosphere will be visceral, a daily question of survival, and flourishing. So, for me, the real question is how do we get there?
MYTH 1: RENEWABLES NEED FIRE FROM COAL and OIL
This one is tired - and reduces a few percent each year as the Energy Transition increases momentum. Industrial heat can easily be solved. Heat pumps can supply the lower third, normal resistance heaters the middle temperatures, and electric arcs the higher metal smelting ranges. It's just a myth that we need the HEAT from coal. Google "Electrify Everything" or spend a year reading Mike Barnard at Cleantechnica. Question his sources, do the math, check the stats. I expect no less. https://cleantechnica.com/author/mikebarnard/
Ah - but someone who has read Vaclav Smil will argue that we need COKING COAL in the smelting pot to act as a reductant - and he has done the math by showing how impossible it would be to supply with trees. OK. But he's AVOIDED the math by not really looking at hydrogen. Hydrogen can replace coal as the reductant.
(Nice aside - a new Australian catalyst process may actually save 20% of the energy in splitting water for hydrogen! https://reneweconomy.com.au/australian-electrolyser-start-up-gets-huge-global-backing-in-countrys-biggest-ever-clean-tech-fund-raising/ )
Better than that? Electrowinning. It already makes copper, nickel and zinc. It can be used to purify iron ore without needing 1,600 C - try under 60 C! It purifies the iron ore which is 90% of the energy before the last phase of turning it into steel. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-industry/electrowinning-could-help-win-the-race-to-clean-up-dirty-steel
What about intermittency? Doesn't that break a smelter? First - the goal with renewables systems is build big or go home. Overbuild across a continent and share the power - and you'll end up using mostly live renewables most of the time. Overbuild reduces storage. That's old news - Scientific American shared this a decade ago! They showed that 15 GW of Texas wind - equivalent to 15 nuclear power plants - would only require 18 MW of storage! https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/renewable-energy-intermittency-explained-challenges-solutions-and-opportunities/
We can store heat far more cheaply than we can store electricity. Rondo heat blocks can soak up all that extra lunchtime solar and store it at 1500 °C. It only loses 1% heat per day.
2. MODERNITY REQUIRES DIESEL TRUCKING & MINING
Think again. Tesla's Semi's already have a further range than the driver is legally allowed to drive in a shift. (As long as the driver of course charges the truck when on the legally required lunch break.) And Janus Australia supplies a battery-swap program to Australia's road trains. Every 400 km just pull over for a 2 minute battery swap.
MINING trucks: Watch this mostly electric 240 tonne mining truck drive up hill TWICE the speed of the diesel truck - while charging from hydropower on catenary lines in Canada. Does this going twice the speed mean mines will need less trucks to move the same amount of ore? Watch 60 seconds here: https://youtu.be/6TxMeHRq1mk?t=213
This next truck gets its electricity from regenerative breaking the whole way downhill. Where the mine is up a big hill - gravity recharges the truck! https://www.emobility-engineering.com/electric-truck-mines-own-energy/
SO EFFICIENT WE'LL DO EVERYTHING WE DO TODAY ON 40% OF THE ENERGY
When we burn stuff like cavemen - we throw out 60% of the energy as waste heat and noise and light. But when we generate clean electrons that go straight into an electric economy - we don't need to even equal the thermal value in fossil fuels!
Data Scientist Hannah Ritchie. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electrification-energy-efficiency
Rocky Mountain Institute https://rmi.org/the-incredible-inefficiency-of-the-fossil-energy-system/
There is so much more to say - so little time.
Excellent round table. Excellent conversation. I’m looking forward to starting the metastatic modernity/do the math series of videos. What is so great about the great simplification podcasts and roundtables is that a person like me with non-existent science and math backgrounds can understand them. They are pitched to a generalist audience and delivered with a somber sense of humor. Much needed in these times. Geez Louise. Thank you!
Just tapped into Mr. Murphey’s 1st metastatic modernity video, looking forward to leaning more into shifting my intellectual perspective to align with my recent journey of healing and of self discovery. My curiosity on DJ’s toolkit to effectivism is spiked as well so hope to explore further there as well. Thank-you Nate and production teams for your work and efforts ~ truly appreciated!
It’s endless. The OG industry is going to new extremes: https://heated.world/p/why-chevron-is-sponsoring-hurricane