Angelica, help me sharpen my thinking on growth and de-growth. I backed into this whole discussion from the POV of the mining industry. I never considered myself to be anything like a de-growther at all. I do observe that Diesel Fuel / Jet Fuel are limiting factors for Civilization because of:
1. the efficiency of the Diesel and Jet Engines;
2. because we source almost all fuel for these from crude oil;
3. only a tiny fraction of crude oil makes diesel/jet fuel; and
4. making diesel/jet fuel produces about 2x or more gasoline for each unit of heavy fuel.
Solely because of the above, Civilization's current growth is limited. It's foolish to abandon our two best engines. Therefore, the best path to abundance and growth is to focus attention on manufacturing heavy oil e-fuels via nuclear power using any feedstock other than crude oil. I also note that the petroleum industry is the world's largest consumer of process heat.
My argument is all about using nuclear power for non-electrical energy applications to attack Civilization's current growth limiting factor: Abundant, cheap, low-cost, Diesel and Jet fuel so we can have plenty of food and afford a vacation.
In my mind, this is a growth plan. We need to stop limiting nuclear power to electrical energy (which should be 100% NP but is only 15% of world energy). 500C to 1000C is best applied to the industrial sector, which is 85% of all energy.
I think both you and the degrowthers have noticed that at some point the lack of atoms/molecules is going to be a limiting factor on “business as usual” growth. Your answer is to conserve the precious atoms/molecules while maximizing nuclear energy whenever possible. Their answer is, well we need to get used to less.
This stands in contrast with mainstream thinking which is more focused on carbon and not so much on the scarcity of atoms/molecules. I think the thinking is there’s plenty in the ground (especially of the minerals/metals) and the priority should be reducing greenhouse emissions.
I think we're talking past each other a bit. Truth is that I pay zero attention to de-growthers because I don't care what they think. The only molecule I see as being limited are hydrocarbon chains in the diesel-kerosene range. Humans won't ever run out of metals and minerals. As grades decline, it will just take more diesel fuel to produce the minerals. It makes sense to make a lot more diesel-kerosene using nuclear power. That is the best decoupling opportunity humans have right now. Air pollution will take care of itself once we make most electricity and industrial heat, ammonia, H2, O2, etc with nuclear power. Oxy-combustion is also a great opportunity to do more with less and capture and recycle carbon. I'm not sure how my ideas align with broader philosophy. I consider myself a humanist and pragmatist. Doing more with less means growth and prosperity.
Angelica, help me sharpen my thinking on growth and de-growth. I backed into this whole discussion from the POV of the mining industry. I never considered myself to be anything like a de-growther at all. I do observe that Diesel Fuel / Jet Fuel are limiting factors for Civilization because of:
1. the efficiency of the Diesel and Jet Engines;
2. because we source almost all fuel for these from crude oil;
3. only a tiny fraction of crude oil makes diesel/jet fuel; and
4. making diesel/jet fuel produces about 2x or more gasoline for each unit of heavy fuel.
Solely because of the above, Civilization's current growth is limited. It's foolish to abandon our two best engines. Therefore, the best path to abundance and growth is to focus attention on manufacturing heavy oil e-fuels via nuclear power using any feedstock other than crude oil. I also note that the petroleum industry is the world's largest consumer of process heat.
My argument is all about using nuclear power for non-electrical energy applications to attack Civilization's current growth limiting factor: Abundant, cheap, low-cost, Diesel and Jet fuel so we can have plenty of food and afford a vacation.
In my mind, this is a growth plan. We need to stop limiting nuclear power to electrical energy (which should be 100% NP but is only 15% of world energy). 500C to 1000C is best applied to the industrial sector, which is 85% of all energy.
I am interested in feedback.
I think both you and the degrowthers have noticed that at some point the lack of atoms/molecules is going to be a limiting factor on “business as usual” growth. Your answer is to conserve the precious atoms/molecules while maximizing nuclear energy whenever possible. Their answer is, well we need to get used to less.
This stands in contrast with mainstream thinking which is more focused on carbon and not so much on the scarcity of atoms/molecules. I think the thinking is there’s plenty in the ground (especially of the minerals/metals) and the priority should be reducing greenhouse emissions.
I think we're talking past each other a bit. Truth is that I pay zero attention to de-growthers because I don't care what they think. The only molecule I see as being limited are hydrocarbon chains in the diesel-kerosene range. Humans won't ever run out of metals and minerals. As grades decline, it will just take more diesel fuel to produce the minerals. It makes sense to make a lot more diesel-kerosene using nuclear power. That is the best decoupling opportunity humans have right now. Air pollution will take care of itself once we make most electricity and industrial heat, ammonia, H2, O2, etc with nuclear power. Oxy-combustion is also a great opportunity to do more with less and capture and recycle carbon. I'm not sure how my ideas align with broader philosophy. I consider myself a humanist and pragmatist. Doing more with less means growth and prosperity.
Well said! 💚 🥃
Thank you!