Showing posts with label Simon Michaux. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Simon Michaux. Show all posts

Thursday, June 6, 2024

The really bad news and the really good news regarding the Green Transition

 The following is based on the extensive work of the PhD Mining Engineer, Dr. Simon Michaux, who currently works for the Geological Survey of Finland.  I've posted a few other pieces about his work on this blog.  Look for his name in the Index to the right of this essay.

In addition to engineering, Michaux has an academic background in applied physics and applied geology.  He has collated a significant amount of existing global data on minerals, mining, energy use, and renewables.  The data then was analyzed and synthesized into a Report which easily could be called The Minerals and Materials Blindness on the Path to Sustainability.  The Report came out in 2021, and the title is:  Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels - and here's a link to it - https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf
Warning:  the Report is 1,000 pages long.  😊

Finland commissioned the Study, and is paying attention to it.  What I can gather from watching multiple interviews of Michaux (videos on YouTube), most other Powers-That-Be in the public sector are ignoring it.  Even if it's factual, most people don't want to hear anything "negative".

I've not yet had the time the read the entire Report, but I've skimmed the whole thing.  Here's a tiny bit of the really bad news.
Because wind and solar power currently make up only about NINE PERCENT of primary energy usage, recycling of needed minerals will not suffice for the first generation of a massive increase in renewable energy gizmos.  Mining will have to expand greatly.  The problem is:  according to Michaux's analysis, here's what that means relative to key minerals and rare earth elements (in renewables) fully replacing fossil fuels---
1)  it will take about 195 years of mining of copper;
2)  about 400 years of mining of nickel;
3)  about 1,780 years of mining of cobalt;
4)  about 60 years of mining of Terbium;
5) about 7,100 years of mining of Vanadium;
6) about 40 years of mining of Neodymium; and
7)  there are more, but you get the idea.
All the above (plus many more) are required for a complete Green transition.  There are approximately 1.4 billion vehicles in the world today.  To supply them with electricity, massive amounts of mining will have to take place over decades and decades.  Never mind necessary electricity for residences, manufacturing, recreation, etc.

If the Powers-That-Be relied upon Science instead of their political and economic Ideology (the "Market" will provide whatever is needed), they'd see that the current approach to Going Green is fatally flawed.  It must be significantly modified.  Our society must reduce economic throughput and transition to low energy use.  The energy binge we've been on for 150 years is not normal, and it's just about over.  Either we'll plan for such, or it will be forced upon us by Nature's Laws.

The really good news is that Dr. Michaux has compiled the beginning of a plan for a sustainable Earth on which all life survives and thrives.  The title is Restructuring the Circular Economy into the Resource Balanced Economy, and here's the link:
https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/3_2021.pdf  
This one is 126 pages...

Some of the Highlights---
  • The "Circular Economy" (CE) - about which everyone is raving - does not fully account for the energy requirements of industrial society.
  • The CE does not take into account materials which cannot be recycled or are lost to the environment (e.g., the soles of your shoes are worn off in microscopic bits over time, and cannot possibly be 100% recycled; another example - clay is used to make bricks, but bricks cannot be recycled to obtain clay).
  • The CE does not account for the requirements and role of the mining of needed resources.  [The mining and smelting or refining of metals requires A LOT of energy and water.] 
  • The CE primarily is based upon the recycling of materials.
  • The "Resource Balanced Economy" (RBE) sprang from a much modified version of the old Resource Based Economy (of J. Fresco, and later, Peter Joseph).
  • The RBE is a Steady State Economy which recognizes the folly of pursuing infinite ( & exponential) economic growth on a finite planet.
  • Using Science rather than Ideology, the RBE Plan proposes a new system of resource accounting and allocation (which includes the health of ecosystems).
  • The RBE Plan proposes a paradigm shift and systems approach in the management of raw materials and physical goods.
  • The RBE Plan outlines the beginning of innovation and societal change which will lead to a sustainable and equitable existence.
  • The RBE Plan correlates and interconnects the concepts of small-is-beautiful - economics as if people mattered (E.F. Schumacher), planetary boundaries (Johan Rockstrom), ecological overshoot (William E. Rees), the-great-simplification (Nate Hagens), and the-closing-circle - Nature, Man, and Technology (Barry Commoner).  
Make no mistake, Michaux is in favor of Going Green; however, like many others, he recognizes that Going Green while pursuing infinite growth is an oxymoron. 

At least have a look at the graphs and charts in the Plan.  From only that, you'll learn a lot.
.......................
Not only my opinion.  Happy Trails

Monday, December 11, 2023

"Old School, the Vikings, the Realists/Community Preppers, and the Arcadians"

 From the mining engineer, Dr. Simon Michaux and the ecologist, Dr. Nate Hagens, four metaphors for the people of the world (all of us) as we face the ongoing socio-eco-econ-ethical Crisis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb801wdRULM&list=WL&index=66&pp=gAQBiAQB 

The title of the video is "The Arcadian Blueprint".  In it, Michaux and Hagens offer specific details for a beginning of the transition to sustainability.  Basically, it's an introduction to Michaux's "resource based economy".  [I posted this link (but with different commentary) awhile ago, maybe a month or so.  The video is both entertaining and extremely informative.]

Which of the four metaphors (or what combination) applies to you?
Old School---
those who believe everything will soon get back to "normal"; it's okay, the Powers-That-Be are handling it; we'll muddle through; reductionist thinkers.
The Vikings---
those who take advantage of the disruption by "raiding" the economy and the ecosphere, grabbing whatever they can for themselves; little to no social conscience, or concern for future generations.
The Realists/Community Preppers---
those who see the Crisis, and are working toward fairly immediate, short-term solutions re energy, food, water, shelter, and economy for their family, often in concert with neighbors or the whole community.  [Note: this category does not include those few people who believe a bunker, rifles, hand grenades, claymore mines, and razor wire are needed for defense of the "compound".]
The Arcadians (as in ancient Greece)---
those with the wisdom to work for long-term sustainability, a thriving Earth for current and future generations; comprehensive, holistic, systems thinkers.
.....................
Be Well


Wednesday, November 29, 2023

"Unseen Costs of Net Zero", Simon Michaux

To be clear:  YES, we do need to GO GREEN.  The Establishment and much of Main Street, however, apparently are not aware of exactly what it will take to do so.  They also seem to be unaware of the scale needed for such a transformation, and of the entire mining-minerals-metals situation.

The current thinking of most people who support a transition to Green energy appears to be as follows.  Here's what we'll do:
a)  get off petroleum and all its products;
b)  build a large number of Green energy gizmos;
c)  electrify all transport vehicles (personal and commercial);
d)  scale up nuclear energy, if necessary;
e)  recycle and reuse materials;
f)   increase energy efficiency;
g)  use carbon offsets and cap & trade to balance things out; and
h)  with all the above in place, we can continue the pursuit of infinite economic and population growth on our finite planet.
Sounds great, eh?!

But there's a massive problem (which The Establishment doesn't want to acknowledge), and here it is---

Infinite growth is not necessary for humans to thrive, and for the sake of all life on Earth, it must cease.  Do a Search for "CASSE top 10 policies for a steady state economy".  Read anything by Herman Daly.  Neoliberal/neoclassical economics is not sacrosanct.
.........................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Wednesday, November 8, 2023

"Minerals and Materials Blindness"

Here's another case of speaking Truth to Power:

Prof. Nate Hagens and Prof. Simon Michaux address the human predicament re energy, the economy, fossils, renewables, recycling, minerals, materials required, and the present & future.  It's highly informative and down-to-earth...and a must-see interview.

The following points are obvious to ecologists:
yes, we must get off fossil energy;  yes, we must transition to renewable energy; but Green infinite economic growth is an oxymoron.  Conclusion:  we must start to reduce economic throughput ASAP.  In other words, we must embrace degrowth if we are to survive and thrive.  Economic development does NOT require constant economic growth.  Many books and articles have been published which explain how such is done.

To put it another way, we must move from high energy use to low energy use.  A paradigm shift.  Because all the foregoing is politically unpopular, we are being told by the Powers-That-Be:  we can eat our cake and have it too, if we just "Go Green".  If you believe that, then please watch the piece at the link above.

If you can't (or won't) watch the entire interview, at least start it at about 45 minutes in and continue to about the 60 minute mark.  Just those fifteen minutes will show you why infinite economic growth must be abandoned.  And again, yes, we must "Go Green"; but it's folly to believe we then can still pursue infinite economic growth without catastrophic consequences to all life on Earth, including us.  Hagens and Michaux explain why with great specificity.  It's a dynamite discourse.  Most politicians would  hate it (if they ever bothered to see it).
..................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well 

"Don't Believe Him"

The Nazis in the 1930's and 1940's used exactly the same propaganda tactic as is used by Trump:  repeat a lie over & over, and m...