6 ms·

Wood didn't give way to coal that gave way to oil. This is a terrible fallacy (albeit very commmon, even Vaclav Smil fell into it in his "Oil" book). The world

by wazoox 6y ago

Wood didn't give way to coal that gave way to oil. This is a terrible fallacy (albeit very commmon, even Vaclav Smil fell into it in his "Oil" book). The world currently consumes more coal than it ever did. Wood consumption is also record high. We simply stacked up energy sources. Check this page: https://ourworldindata.org/energy https://ourworldindata.org/energy So far, fossil fuels still represent about 85% of our energy consumption, and about 99% for transportation. We had a world 100% on renewable, back in the 18th century, but we were 600 millions and lived 35 years. OTOH we have no credible way to replace 85% of our energy by renewables in the next 10 years (if we want to keep climate change at reasonable levels).

3pt14159 6y ago
I agree on renewables and they are certainly part of the solution, but we can meet our energy without fossil fuels if we really leaned into nuclear the way the French did. It's simply a matter of political will. Musk looked at the regulatory tape around nuclear and said "I guess it has to be solar then" and I think that was a mistake. If we'd applied his economics of scale, and first principles thinking to nuclear we'd be far, far more along than we are right now and we'd probably have more medical isotopes to boot.
- rat9988 6y ago
  The french did this and ended up with nuclear costing more than current renewable. That said, it has served them well for the last decades and will probably still serve well for a decade or two.
- wazoox 6y ago
  We can relatively easily solve the problem of electricity production using nuclear, renewables and therefore make carbon-free electricity. But electricity is only 30% of our energy consumption.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Cars, Heating, and cooking can be replaced with electricity just fine even if their not currently part of that 30%. Also, solar power overwhelmingly our largest energy source. It’s generally ignored in these calculations but farms for example are very dependent on sunlight.
    - TuringTest 6y ago
      Heating and cooling, OK. Cars require batteries, and there's not enough lithium to support as many electric cars as there exist combustion engine cars now. A breaktrhough will be needed, either in battery tech or shared transportation (either public transport, car-sharing, or generalized telecommuting).
      - Retric 6y ago
        There is plenty of lithium for EV’s. Existing mines are enough for ~1 billion cars, however raw lithium is currently well under 1% of the cost of a new Tesla so vastly more expensive mining options don’t really effect the economics much. The minimal amount of recycling would change dramatically as lithium prices increase. PS: “battery grade” lithium is more expensive, but what changes isn’t the amount of lithium but removal of minor impurities.
djmips 6y ago
>back in the 18th century, but we were 600 millions and lived 35 years. I'm not sure if this changes your point but many people lived to their 70s and 80s in the 18th century as they have for recorded history.
- psychoslave 6y ago
  What do you mean with many people? A large part of aristocracy/bourgeoisie or most mundane people? What are good sources on that topic?
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    It's about all the mundane people who didn't die as babies. In earlier centuries, the life expectancy at birth (which is the metric that's about 35 years for that period) is dominated by the relatively high childhood mortality, all the many babies dying within the first days or weeks, and is very different from the expected lifespan of adults. For example, here's a dataset on USA historical life expectancy https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expectancy-age-1850-2011 https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expecta... - if we look at the 1850 data, then the average life expectancy at birth is 38 years but that does not mean that people live until 38, as a the life expectancy for a random 20 year old man is 40 more years, so people (who didn't die in early childhood) lived (on average) to the age of 60, not 38. There's data from Roman Empire where life expectancy was 25 years at birth, but life expectancy is average 53 years upon reaching age 25 - so the intuitive metric "how long do adults live" is twice as large as the technical life expectancy at birth. Here's an archived resource that goes into more detail https://web.archive.org/web/20070713083310/http://www.plimoth.org/discover/myth/dead-at-40.php https://web.archive.org/web/20070713083310/http://www.plimot...
CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
> We had a world 100% on renewable, back in the 18th century There's nothing renewable about using wood if you're not replanting the forest.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  With 600 million people it was likely filling in naturally as people shuffle about.
  - CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
    Maybe in other places, but certainly not in 18th century Europe.
marcosdumay 6y ago
Have you used any whale oil candles recently? Energy sources do get replaced. Just not every time.
Retric 6y ago
Coal use was common throughout all of recorded history. In Europe it picked up significantly in the 13th century. As to abandoning energy sources, total amount of wood burned is actually down significantly as agriculture has dominated land usage age. In the Middle Ages for example large tracts of land where devoted to having little forests as a replenishing source of wood, various useful plant species, and wild game. Less well known energy sources like whale oil and animal dung are also down in absolute terms.

by wazoox 6y ago

3pt14159 6y ago

I agree on renewables and they are certainly part of the solution, but we can meet our energy without fossil fuels if we really leaned into nuclear the way the French did. It's simply a matter of political will. Musk looked at the regulatory tape around nuclear and said "I guess it has to be solar then" and I think that was a mistake. If we'd applied his economics of scale, and first principles thinking to nuclear we'd be far, far more along than we are right now and we'd probably have more medical isotopes to boot.

rat9988 6y ago
The french did this and ended up with nuclear costing more than current renewable. That said, it has served them well for the last decades and will probably still serve well for a decade or two.
wazoox 6y ago
We can relatively easily solve the problem of electricity production using nuclear, renewables and therefore make carbon-free electricity. But electricity is only 30% of our energy consumption.
- Retric 6y ago
  Cars, Heating, and cooking can be replaced with electricity just fine even if their not currently part of that 30%. Also, solar power overwhelmingly our largest energy source. It’s generally ignored in these calculations but farms for example are very dependent on sunlight.
  - TuringTest 6y ago
    Heating and cooling, OK. Cars require batteries, and there's not enough lithium to support as many electric cars as there exist combustion engine cars now. A breaktrhough will be needed, either in battery tech or shared transportation (either public transport, car-sharing, or generalized telecommuting).
    - Retric 6y ago
      There is plenty of lithium for EV’s. Existing mines are enough for ~1 billion cars, however raw lithium is currently well under 1% of the cost of a new Tesla so vastly more expensive mining options don’t really effect the economics much. The minimal amount of recycling would change dramatically as lithium prices increase. PS: “battery grade” lithium is more expensive, but what changes isn’t the amount of lithium but removal of minor impurities.

djmips 6y ago

>back in the 18th century, but we were 600 millions and lived 35 years. I'm not sure if this changes your point but many people lived to their 70s and 80s in the 18th century as they have for recorded history.

psychoslave 6y ago
What do you mean with many people? A large part of aristocracy/bourgeoisie or most mundane people? What are good sources on that topic?
- PeterisP 6y ago
  It's about all the mundane people who didn't die as babies. In earlier centuries, the life expectancy at birth (which is the metric that's about 35 years for that period) is dominated by the relatively high childhood mortality, all the many babies dying within the first days or weeks, and is very different from the expected lifespan of adults. For example, here's a dataset on USA historical life expectancy https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expectancy-age-1850-2011 https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expecta... - if we look at the 1850 data, then the average life expectancy at birth is 38 years but that does not mean that people live until 38, as a the life expectancy for a random 20 year old man is 40 more years, so people (who didn't die in early childhood) lived (on average) to the age of 60, not 38. There's data from Roman Empire where life expectancy was 25 years at birth, but life expectancy is average 53 years upon reaching age 25 - so the intuitive metric "how long do adults live" is twice as large as the technical life expectancy at birth. Here's an archived resource that goes into more detail https://web.archive.org/web/20070713083310/http://www.plimoth.org/discover/myth/dead-at-40.php https://web.archive.org/web/20070713083310/http://www.plimot...

CorrectHorseBat 6y ago

> We had a world 100% on renewable, back in the 18th century There's nothing renewable about using wood if you're not replanting the forest.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
With 600 million people it was likely filling in naturally as people shuffle about.
- CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
  Maybe in other places, but certainly not in 18th century Europe.

marcosdumay 6y ago

Have you used any whale oil candles recently? Energy sources do get replaced. Just not every time.

Retric 6y ago

Coal use was common throughout all of recorded history. In Europe it picked up significantly in the 13th century. As to abandoning energy sources, total amount of wood burned is actually down significantly as agriculture has dominated land usage age. In the Middle Ages for example large tracts of land where devoted to having little forests as a replenishing source of wood, various useful plant species, and wild game. Less well known energy sources like whale oil and animal dung are also down in absolute terms.