How Much Energy Will the World Need?
April 20, 2022
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
This is a must watch video by Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute:
Particularly interesting are his comments about changing technology. As we innovate more things, we don’t only need more energy to power them, we also need more to manufacture them.
In essence, civilisation has always progressed by making societies and economies less labour intensive, which in turn means technological. Human effort is replaced by energy intensive alternatives. There is no reason to suppose that this process will be reversed.
38 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Much, much more than the NWO globalists will allow. You will own nothing and be happy. Cold, yes…
But the global warmists do want to reverse the progress of the human race – nearly said mankind there… – and have already made huge progress in the energy field by re-introducing windmills that were a dead technology in the 19th century, and by having devices to worship the sun god. And as part of their vision of the future, as industries and businesses close down, people will be out in the fields tending the crops that will keep them from starving – just – during the winter.
But the crops tended by the people do not belong to them . They belong to the landowner . And there will be no work on the land in winter with crops gathered, grain and cattle in barns. A return to 1830 when agricultural workers were deprived of winter work by the arrival of threshing machines.
The return of Captain Swing?
There will be no threshing machines in our bright new future. Back to good old hand flails.
Thumbs up to Mark Mills for not once mentioning carbon (dioxide) or net zero in the video. It’s no surprise that renewables are just as, if not more resource intensive than fossil fuels. Doubtless the same comparison applies to life cycle CO2 emissions. The green blob has all the lofty ideals but none of the solutions.
Clear concise and excellent video
I do wish that it was possible to get this video in front of Boris Johnson.
Sorry, he wouldn’t understand it.
Then again, energy use in the UK has been declining. Due in large part to LED light bulbs, energy efficient appliances and domestic energy efficiency gains in general.
Technology enabled the switch to LED lights, so it saved energy there.
Robotic factories mean thousands of workers don’t drive to work. Quite likely that more than compensates for the electricity used by the robots. So it is not a given that more tech means more energy consumption.
It’s true that robots do not drive to work.
But the displaced humans continue to drive to their new jobs, because they do not suddenly decide to be people of leisure. So production rises, and more energy is used by the robots, and the workforce stays the same.
The LED bulb saved the world from having to use low energy, aka dim, mercury containing curly flourescent bulbs that politicians thought were the solution for lighting in the 21st century. Unfortunately nobody has come up with a low energy way of boiling a cup of water.
Workers replaced by robots may actually increase energy consumption, longer commutes to new job. Moving is not always a viable option, job in an area of more expensive housing, children in critical stages of education (most of their lives after about 8 years of age); hoping for a job nearer home, and so on.
When I was last made redundant I got a new job with a three times longer commute, but with less than 7 years until retirement I decided not to move.
A large part of the decline has been due to the offshoring of energy-intensive technologies such as steel and plastics to states that use fossil fuel to manufacture them, of course.
Quite ! Then add the shipping . . . increased use of fossil fuels . . . Same demand . . . But we look soo green . . . on paper . . . There is No Such Thing as ‘Clean or Green’ energy.
https://www.academia.edu/76965285/Clean_Green_Energy_and_Net_Zero_Fairy_Tales_on_Steroids
And aluminium. To places that tend to be less energy effectient so emit more CO2 per product. And less environmentally-conscious so pollute more too. Utter stupidity.
“Then again, energy use in the UK has been declining” No it hasn’t. If you do not understand the difference between “electricity” and “energy” that is your problem.
Actually I think it has been declining, with much of the decline due to reduced industrial production, and to reduced use in the domestic sector. Transport took a big hit from the pandemic and has yet to fully recover.
Everything needs energy to move, whether human or natural resource based. If the govt/greenies want us to use less natural resource based energy, let them be the first to walk the traditional human treadmills.
I see AEP is at it again in today’s DT, this time praising the Moroccan version of Ivanpah!
Yes, I wonder how they’ll deal with that orange dust that occasionally blankets everything.
Just wash it off with all that water sloshing around the Sahara. Doh….
Ah..but as far as I can see, they’re not talking about electric solar but thermal solar- focused on molten salt backed up with gas heating!! You have to have a degree in green stupidity to think it would work.
As I understand it, this was an EU project paid for by them, as a precursor to importing lots of solar power from north Africa. That was a green fad a few years ago once they (or some of them) realised that solar wasn’t really much use above the 50TH latitude.
The Moroccan energy minister was happy; he pointed out that most electricity there was from (smallish) diesel generators and so there would be backup if there were any problems. Besides he said, it was being wholey paid for by the EU and he was hoping for more projects.
Indeed. When the world’s four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe’s per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America’s total consumption. Wind and solar? .. I don’t think so.
Once again, for Boris, the BBC and the Gullible:
The Impossibility of Windmills, including hydrogen conversion, by Jan Smelik, an expert, Dutch engineer who actually does know what he is talking about:
The impossibility of wind power in a very visual and graphic way —
Excellent video, thanks
Ibid !
By the time our elites have a better acquaintance with thermodynamics than they currently do with Chateau Latour, we’ll be choking on the ashes of civilisation.
Moreover most of that energy still comes from fire. Civilization is based on fire. The greens big mistake was going from successful attacks on SO2 and CFCs to attacking fire.
So we cannot really achieve net zero? whatever that might mean.
So government policy is unachievable and will have unforeseen consequences, it has always been that way.
The phrasing isn’t quite right. Energy has allowed workers to become far more productive. A single farmer driving a combine harvester does the work of 10 people in one tenth of the time. She is 100 times more productive and so 100 times wealthier. We see that in how long we need to work to buy the equivalent of a candle’s worth of light now – a hundreth of the time.
Mark Mills produced a very good paper on this subject 2 years ago
Click to access mines-minerals-green-energy-reality-checkMM.pdf
The video is really a floow on form this paper. Well worth a look.
Maybe it is time to dust off your copy of the Limits to Growth – 30 year update. The prediction in the update are starting to unfold. Where there is some discrepacny is on the population growth which has been faster than the prediction.
The real crux of the matter is the EROIE (energy return on energy invested). All our best sources of dense energy have been depleted – The Best First Principle. All our hydrocarbon resources that are being produced are worse than before requiring ever greater energy and resource inputs. Likewise for most critical raw materisl the energy inputs are only going to rise.For those that think fracing (correct spelling) is the answer then do some homework. Lumped together the US has spent $300 billion more than it has earned from the produced oil and gas. It has been a giant Ponzi scheme and few wells have payed out. Future production growth will be limited and within 10 years production will have peaked and then declined.
You can forget shale in the UK. It will never be possible to drill all the wells that would be required and there is no gathering system. The cost of the wells- drilling and completion – will be much higher than in the US.
If you think there is a crisis now just wait another 5 years. It is only going one way and sooner or later we are going to have to accept that the global population is THE problem . We have exceeded the carrying capacity of our ecosystem. Mass migration to the developed world will test our inept governments and voters.
Only thing I can say to that – Utter, absolute, 24 carat hundred proof twaddle from start to finish!!
I concur !
You are of course entiteld to your opinion but where is your counter argument? You do not provide any proof or argument, yet earlier in the comments you make refreence to offshoring energy intensive industries, which includes much of the so called green technologies – PV and wind turbine being perfect examples. The Jan Smelik video says it all.
What is the solution then? Again no point of view on this topic. If you think we can carry on extracting unlimited amounts of oil and gas then you are about to be disappointed. The global supply is tightening and new investment in in oil an gas production limited. Some of this is due to poor prospects (EROEI) and some due to politics. I am amazed at the number of internet fracing experts who talk a lot but know very little about the process. I have worked in the oil and gas and petrochemical industry all my working life and I have worked on drilling rigs, refineries and petchem plants so I know a little bit more than most. One of my current studies is looking at the prospects of the chemical industry go forward. Pretty challenging. What would you like to go without?
Oh dear, where to start…
Let’s try “t will never be possible to drill all the wells that would be required and there is no gathering system.”
It will indeed be possible to drill all the wells and as to the gathering system there is a widespread natural gas distribution network in the UK, I know this for a fact because in the 1960s I helped to build it!
As to the shortage of fossil fuels, there are literally trillions of tons of coal under the British Isles which are available via in-situ gasification techniques which produce primarily syngas.
Then there are the ongoing pilot schemes to recover ocean bed methane, one of which involves replacing it in the hydrate with CO2.
In any case, it’s the Chinese and Indians that are using resources.
As expected you bring out all the old ideas that have never made it commercially and that is what matters.
You worked on a gas distribution system which is rather different to a gas gathering system. Very rarely can natural gas be used directly without processing. It is normally sent to a gas treating plant for the removal of acid gases, moisture and gas condensates (incuding LPG). The piped gas to the end user must meet a certain specification with respect to calorific value, moisture, carbon dioxide and so forth.
Shale require many more well than conventional reservoir and in the US the reservoir is broken down into drilling assessment units, typically covering 640 acres. Lately two DSU have been combined to allow long lateral completions of up to 10000 feet. In a single or pair of DSU’s there may be multiple wells spaced 600 ft +/- appart. As a result the landscape becomes polpulated with a large number of drilling pads. Fine in the deserts of Texas and New Mexico but highly contentious in the UK. Globally there are about 2 million oil and gas wells. The US has one million plus oil and gas wells, slightly more gas than oil. Productivity of the US oil and gas wells is low. To produce enough gas to power our economy we would need thousands of gas wells drilled in a similar manner to the US. These wells cost in excess of $10 million each for drilling and completion – in the UK they would cost even more.
A for in situ gasification then good luck with that. It has not so far ever been done on a conmmercial scale and would be exceedingly difficult to control. To date synfuels have been a boutique process. Shell own the biggest plant with the Qatari’s in Qatar but this uses natural gas which was provided free to pay down the huge CAPEX > $22 billion for 7.5 milion tonne products process. Sasol converted their much smaller plant in south Africa to run on natural gas rather than coal. There is a good reason for this in terms of the hydogen: CO ratio which is better( more favourable for fuels) with natural gas. Despite all the promises of cheap gas in the US no company has invested in a US synfuels plant. Why, EROEI and cost. It is a hugely energy intensive process.
I will not lower myself to use the same language that you used to refer to my posting. Suffice to say it might be a good idea if you did a little more homework on the subject as you appear to be lacking in detail, which is rather typical of internet experts.
Heh! Whatever!
Is that it? Well, we can really see what you can contribute. SFA.
It a pity you cannot add something meaningful rather than twaddle- your words.