FRESH

Hacker News

Vaclav Smil on why there will be no energy transition

15 points by measurablefunc

by ZeroGravitas

2 subcomments

> 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.

by theothertimcook

0 subcomment

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/

by ZeroGravitas

1 subcomments

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.

by hyperman1

1 subcomments

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?

by DriftRegion

0 subcomment

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.

by Panzerschrek

1 subcomments

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.

by Wordsongo

0 subcomment

by _aavaa_

1 subcomments

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