6 ms·

Vaclav Smil on why there will be no energy transition

DriftRegion 1y ago
I found the linked article to be difficult to follow. Vacliv Smil wrote a book called Energy and Civilization (2017) in which he argues that the ability to harness energy is what makes civilizations thrive and enables the production of culture.
Wordsongo 1y ago
there is energy transition
_aavaa_ 1y ago
Here we go gesticulating at “primary energy” again. https://spitfireresearch.com/the-primary-energy-fallacy/ https://spitfireresearch.com/the-primary-energy-fallacy/
- binoct 1y ago
  Primary energy sources are what they are, both your comment and the linked article seem to imply discussing them should lead to a deserved punch in the face. Can you help me understand why? As far as I can tell, your link argues that if we overcome all the practical challenges (politics, resources, financing, technical innovation) and go all-electric for global energy, we only need ~1/3 as much input energy potential as we use today for the same useful work. That’s useful, but the hard part lies in those practical challenges. And the primary sources of global human energy use are a long way away from that goal. So should we strive to get there? Sure. Should we be tactical about how? Yes. And the link seems to argue that as well. But is it reasonable to hit our 2050 goals based on the current global fossil fuel usage? Not really. So I’m really missing how this refutes Smil’s article, and why “primary energy” is such a stupid thing.
  - _aavaa_ 1y ago
    The problem with it is that it makes it easy to make bad faith arguments for why we can’t or shouldn’t transition (kinda like is being done here). Take for example paragraphs like: > Primary electricity (hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and a small contribution by geothermal plants) accounted for no more than about 18% of the world’s primary energy consumption, which means that fossil fuels still provided about 82% of the world’s primary energy supply in 2022. Are used as justification for why green green energy is a scam, it can’t be done, or it’s too expensive, etc., etc. after all 82% of primary energy is still from fossil fuels. Except we don’t have to replace 82%, since 2/3rds of that is wasted. Of 100 kWh we’re already done 12 kWh and only need to add 27 (NOT 82) more kWh of electricity to replace all the fossil fuel usage. And that’s before talking about any efficiency gains (e.g heat pumps with COP >4).
    - binoct 1y ago
      Ah, seems like I was missing some context where the fossil fuel and anti-renewable folks have been using the term in arguments against trying to change. I’m not sure of Smil’s politics but to be fair, there’s nothing in that quote that is inherently misleading. I can see through how others could spin it, and I’ll be more careful knowing the term has some politics behind it now. To me his argument in the article is that it’s not practical to expect a transition in a 25-year timescale, not that it’s impossible or not worth working on. Heat pumps are a good example where the practice has been a lot harder than we might hope. Sure COP > 4 for heating is great, but the units are very expensive today, and in most of the US and Europe with sub-zero winter temps operate with much worse efficiencies, making them significantly more expensive to operate. I’m sure with effort those issues will improve, and major policy shifts can help mitigate some of the costs. But especially without a strong will today those changes are practically too far off for the 2050 target.
      - _aavaa_ 1y ago
        > there’s nothing in that quote that is inherently misleading The discussion of the issue in terms of primary energy is the very thing that's inherently misleading. To move away from fossil fuels we do not have to replace the primary energy, we have to replace the useful energy that comes out the other side. From the Sankey diagram in the article I linked [0], 67.5 units of energy are not useful energy. To put it to an extreme, instead of 67.5 units beings wastes, it could be 100 billion units for 32.5 units of useful energy produces. Focusing on the 100 billion is inherently misleading since they are irrelevant when the replacement technology basically creates the useful energy with over 100% efficiency at times. Heat pumps. Yes their COP is lower during cold winters, but that brings in 2 discussions. 1) any COP value above 1 means that we'll need less primary energy than when buying something, and even in cold weather they manage a COP above that [1]. 2) Lower COPs will cost you more, depending on what your natural gas prices are like due to any crazed lunatics invading their neighbours. Which conincidentally is only what pushes electricity prices up in many places that use natural gas for electricity (even just peak demand). The capital cost difference also depends drastically on situation. Many climates need both heating and cooling, so the price of heat pump versus furnace + AC unit is much smaller than heat pump versus furnace. > But especially without a strong will today those changes are practically too far off for the 2050 target. I agree, and even replacing the 1/3rd of the primary energy will be a tough challenge. But Vaclav continual framing in terms of primary energy is actively used to push inaction. His critics have been vocal about this point (and others) for a while, he should know better by now. [0]: https://spitfireresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LLNL-USA-Sankey-diagram-really-excellent-version.png https://spitfireresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LLNL... [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435123003513 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243512...
ZeroGravitas 1y ago
Smil is the only degrowther that doesn't get totally dunked on by radical centrists types for being a degrowther, which I find interesting. Apart from that oddity, it reinforces my thoughts that degrowthers are fairly rational people except they've fallen for the fossil fuel propaganda generated by people like Smil and then tried to take it seriously. I'm not familiar with this blog but it appears the author falls into that group.
- subjectivationx 1y ago
  Smil to me shows that most people that talk about this subject are completely full of shit. The subject is far too complicated to have any rational discussion on.
Panzerschrek 1y ago
Sure, full energy transition before 2050 isn't possible. But it should happen sooner or later, since fossil fuels aren't renewable. Doing this transition early allows to avoid shocks caused by fossil fuels exhaustion. Also I am afraid that such transition isn't possible with current economic system and with current population. Resources needed for carbon-free economy are scarce (like copper mentioned in the article above), so, overall consumption reduction is necessary, maybe even with population reduction. This means degrowth, which isn't compatible with modern capitalism.
- pjc50 1y ago
  > isn't possible with current economic system and with current population > This means degrowth, which isn't compatible with modern capitalism. The reason people don't like discussing this stuff is that the logical conclusion is that the world will transition towards authoritarianism, in the form of fascism and/or something labelled "communism", while along the way a huge number of people will get killed. Which is yet another reason to try to rush renewables.
ZeroGravitas 1y ago
> Nuclear electricity generation has been only 33% efficient (and no imminent breakthroughs are expected). This is a good example of the pointless numerology deployed against renewables by people like Smil, because he's doing it to nuclear here. What does this number mean in real life? Basically nothing. Why is he bringing it up then?. Because it sounds like a low number. Most of the numbers he uses are used because they sound like a big number. That's the level of debate he's aiming for.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Indeed. I didn't read the whole thing but presumably that's Carnot efficiency of the nuclear reactor as heat engine? In which case .. who cares? The important factors are "is there going to be sufficient fuel?" (insert argument about breeder reactors), "is it cost (money or resource) effective", and "is the proliferation risk important". By comparison, the increase in power/area efficiency of solar panels is useful but not very significant either; again, the critical factor is the cost falling by several orders of magnitude in the past decades.
- kristianp 1y ago
  I think you've pointed the one number that didn't make a substantive argument towards his thesis. The rest of the article is much more persuasive and uses facts that are more relevant.
hyperman1 1y ago
We use 55% more energy than in 1997? Where is all that going? I've seen graphs with plastic production with even higher numbers. I have no problem going back to my 1997 lifestyle and cant point to much explaining this growth. Is it more people getting access to western luxury or are we just that much more wastefull?
- em500 1y ago
  > We use 55% more energy than in 1997? Where is all that going? Mainly to rapidly developing countries like China and India. Europe and US have decreased fossil fuel consumption a bit, China and India have increased 3 fold. > I have no problem going back to my 1997 lifestyle and cant point to much explaining this growth. Approximately nobody in develping countries feels that way.
  - luis_cho 1y ago
    > Europe and US have decreased fossil fuel consumption a bit We did not decreased fossil consumption we externalised the fossil consumption to developed countries production. Developed countries use a lot of fossil fuels but most of that is to promote the lifestyle of developed countries. Oxfam estimates that 1% of the richest people emit double the carbon emission of the half the poorest of humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...
theothertimcook 1y ago
Definitely worth checking out his book, how the world really works if you're not that into or across this stuff, really fascinating. https://vaclavsmil.com/book/how-the-world-really-works-2/ https://vaclavsmil.com/book/how-the-world-really-works-2/

I found the linked article to be difficult to follow. Vacliv Smil wrote a book called Energy and Civilization (2017) in which he argues that the ability to harness energy is what makes civilizations thrive and enables the production of culture.

Wordsongo 1y ago

there is energy transition

_aavaa_ 1y ago

Here we go gesticulating at “primary energy” again. https://spitfireresearch.com/the-primary-energy-fallacy/ https://spitfireresearch.com/the-primary-energy-fallacy/

binoct 1y ago
Primary energy sources are what they are, both your comment and the linked article seem to imply discussing them should lead to a deserved punch in the face. Can you help me understand why? As far as I can tell, your link argues that if we overcome all the practical challenges (politics, resources, financing, technical innovation) and go all-electric for global energy, we only need ~1/3 as much input energy potential as we use today for the same useful work. That’s useful, but the hard part lies in those practical challenges. And the primary sources of global human energy use are a long way away from that goal. So should we strive to get there? Sure. Should we be tactical about how? Yes. And the link seems to argue that as well. But is it reasonable to hit our 2050 goals based on the current global fossil fuel usage? Not really. So I’m really missing how this refutes Smil’s article, and why “primary energy” is such a stupid thing.
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  The problem with it is that it makes it easy to make bad faith arguments for why we can’t or shouldn’t transition (kinda like is being done here). Take for example paragraphs like: > Primary electricity (hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and a small contribution by geothermal plants) accounted for no more than about 18% of the world’s primary energy consumption, which means that fossil fuels still provided about 82% of the world’s primary energy supply in 2022. Are used as justification for why green green energy is a scam, it can’t be done, or it’s too expensive, etc., etc. after all 82% of primary energy is still from fossil fuels. Except we don’t have to replace 82%, since 2/3rds of that is wasted. Of 100 kWh we’re already done 12 kWh and only need to add 27 (NOT 82) more kWh of electricity to replace all the fossil fuel usage. And that’s before talking about any efficiency gains (e.g heat pumps with COP >4).
  - binoct 1y ago
    Ah, seems like I was missing some context where the fossil fuel and anti-renewable folks have been using the term in arguments against trying to change. I’m not sure of Smil’s politics but to be fair, there’s nothing in that quote that is inherently misleading. I can see through how others could spin it, and I’ll be more careful knowing the term has some politics behind it now. To me his argument in the article is that it’s not practical to expect a transition in a 25-year timescale, not that it’s impossible or not worth working on. Heat pumps are a good example where the practice has been a lot harder than we might hope. Sure COP > 4 for heating is great, but the units are very expensive today, and in most of the US and Europe with sub-zero winter temps operate with much worse efficiencies, making them significantly more expensive to operate. I’m sure with effort those issues will improve, and major policy shifts can help mitigate some of the costs. But especially without a strong will today those changes are practically too far off for the 2050 target.
    - _aavaa_ 1y ago
      > there’s nothing in that quote that is inherently misleading The discussion of the issue in terms of primary energy is the very thing that's inherently misleading. To move away from fossil fuels we do not have to replace the primary energy, we have to replace the useful energy that comes out the other side. From the Sankey diagram in the article I linked [0], 67.5 units of energy are not useful energy. To put it to an extreme, instead of 67.5 units beings wastes, it could be 100 billion units for 32.5 units of useful energy produces. Focusing on the 100 billion is inherently misleading since they are irrelevant when the replacement technology basically creates the useful energy with over 100% efficiency at times. Heat pumps. Yes their COP is lower during cold winters, but that brings in 2 discussions. 1) any COP value above 1 means that we'll need less primary energy than when buying something, and even in cold weather they manage a COP above that [1]. 2) Lower COPs will cost you more, depending on what your natural gas prices are like due to any crazed lunatics invading their neighbours. Which conincidentally is only what pushes electricity prices up in many places that use natural gas for electricity (even just peak demand). The capital cost difference also depends drastically on situation. Many climates need both heating and cooling, so the price of heat pump versus furnace + AC unit is much smaller than heat pump versus furnace. > But especially without a strong will today those changes are practically too far off for the 2050 target. I agree, and even replacing the 1/3rd of the primary energy will be a tough challenge. But Vaclav continual framing in terms of primary energy is actively used to push inaction. His critics have been vocal about this point (and others) for a while, he should know better by now. [0]: https://spitfireresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LLNL-USA-Sankey-diagram-really-excellent-version.png https://spitfireresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LLNL... [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435123003513 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243512...

ZeroGravitas 1y ago

Smil is the only degrowther that doesn't get totally dunked on by radical centrists types for being a degrowther, which I find interesting. Apart from that oddity, it reinforces my thoughts that degrowthers are fairly rational people except they've fallen for the fossil fuel propaganda generated by people like Smil and then tried to take it seriously. I'm not familiar with this blog but it appears the author falls into that group.

subjectivationx 1y ago
Smil to me shows that most people that talk about this subject are completely full of shit. The subject is far too complicated to have any rational discussion on.

Panzerschrek 1y ago

Sure, full energy transition before 2050 isn't possible. But it should happen sooner or later, since fossil fuels aren't renewable. Doing this transition early allows to avoid shocks caused by fossil fuels exhaustion. Also I am afraid that such transition isn't possible with current economic system and with current population. Resources needed for carbon-free economy are scarce (like copper mentioned in the article above), so, overall consumption reduction is necessary, maybe even with population reduction. This means degrowth, which isn't compatible with modern capitalism.

pjc50 1y ago
> isn't possible with current economic system and with current population > This means degrowth, which isn't compatible with modern capitalism. The reason people don't like discussing this stuff is that the logical conclusion is that the world will transition towards authoritarianism, in the form of fascism and/or something labelled "communism", while along the way a huge number of people will get killed. Which is yet another reason to try to rush renewables.

ZeroGravitas 1y ago

> Nuclear electricity generation has been only 33% efficient (and no imminent breakthroughs are expected). This is a good example of the pointless numerology deployed against renewables by people like Smil, because he's doing it to nuclear here. What does this number mean in real life? Basically nothing. Why is he bringing it up then?. Because it sounds like a low number. Most of the numbers he uses are used because they sound like a big number. That's the level of debate he's aiming for.

pjc50 1y ago
Indeed. I didn't read the whole thing but presumably that's Carnot efficiency of the nuclear reactor as heat engine? In which case .. who cares? The important factors are "is there going to be sufficient fuel?" (insert argument about breeder reactors), "is it cost (money or resource) effective", and "is the proliferation risk important". By comparison, the increase in power/area efficiency of solar panels is useful but not very significant either; again, the critical factor is the cost falling by several orders of magnitude in the past decades.
kristianp 1y ago
I think you've pointed the one number that didn't make a substantive argument towards his thesis. The rest of the article is much more persuasive and uses facts that are more relevant.

hyperman1 1y ago

We use 55% more energy than in 1997? Where is all that going? I've seen graphs with plastic production with even higher numbers. I have no problem going back to my 1997 lifestyle and cant point to much explaining this growth. Is it more people getting access to western luxury or are we just that much more wastefull?

em500 1y ago
> We use 55% more energy than in 1997? Where is all that going? Mainly to rapidly developing countries like China and India. Europe and US have decreased fossil fuel consumption a bit, China and India have increased 3 fold. > I have no problem going back to my 1997 lifestyle and cant point to much explaining this growth. Approximately nobody in develping countries feels that way.
- luis_cho 1y ago
  > Europe and US have decreased fossil fuel consumption a bit We did not decreased fossil consumption we externalised the fossil consumption to developed countries production. Developed countries use a lot of fossil fuels but most of that is to promote the lifestyle of developed countries. Oxfam estimates that 1% of the richest people emit double the carbon emission of the half the poorest of humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...

theothertimcook 1y ago

Definitely worth checking out his book, how the world really works if you're not that into or across this stuff, really fascinating. https://vaclavsmil.com/book/how-the-world-really-works-2/ https://vaclavsmil.com/book/how-the-world-really-works-2/