"Energy Revolution? More like a Crawl" - Dr. Vaclav Smil

"Energy Revolution? More like a Crawl" - Dr. Vaclav Smil — Trottier Institute for Sustainability in Engineering and Design

Trottier Institute for Sustainability in Engineering and Design

AI-assisted summary of "Energy Revolution? More like a Crawl" - Dr. Vaclav Smil — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published:

Key ideas

  • Global energy transition remains sluggish: between 1990 and 2015, the share of fossil fuels in world primary energy declined by only 3% (from roughly 90% to 87%), with new renewables accounting for only 2.5% in 2015. (8:34)
  • Historical structural energy shifts require multi-decadal timeframes; moving from a 5% to a 25% global market share took 35 years for coal, 40 years for oil, and 55 years for natural gas. (12:55)
  • Western nations squander roughly 40% of their food supply and drive oversized multi-ton vehicles, creating a massive cushion of waste that would allow a country like Canada to operate on one-third of its current energy use without compromising standard of living. (65:19)
  • Carbon capture and sequestration faces severe physical scaling constraints: storing even 13% to 15% of annual global CO2 emissions underground would necessitate building an industrial infrastructure equal to the entire global oil industry. (75:55)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by the Trottier Institute for Sustainability in Engineering and Design on September 20, 2015, this recording features Dr. Vaclav Smil speaking at a joint TISED and Fondation 3E event titled "Energy Revolution? More like a Crawl." The lecture examines the true state of global and national energy dependencies, critiques arbitrary transition timelines, and argues that meaningful progress requires confronting the unaddressed necessity of using vastly less energy.

## TL;DR Dr. Vaclav Smil presents an empirical, quantitatively rigorous assessment of the global energy system, demonstrating that modern civilization remains fundamentally fossil-fueled and cannot execute a rapid, friction-free transformation. He illustrates how energy transitions take many decades due to infrastructure scale, low renewable power densities, intermittency hurdles, and the immense embodied fossil energy required to manufacture materials like steel, concrete, and plastics. Highlighting foundational sectors like blast furnace iron smelting and Haber-Bosch nitrogen synthesis, Smil explains why these pillars of civilization cannot be simply electrified away. Instead of placing faith in silver-bullet technologies or carbon capture, he maintains that the only pragmatic solution lies in the rational use of energy and drastically reducing the enormous cushions of waste built into Western lifestyles.

## Atmosphere & style Delivered entirely without slides or digital devices, Smil’s presentation feels like an unapologetic masterclass in physical reality, blending acerbic wit, vast historical memory, and relentless numeracy. The atmosphere is quiet, sober, and intellectually intense as he systematically dismantles Silicon Valley technological optimism and political green targets with dry, unvarnished pragmatism. The lecture avoids fatalism, concluding on a steady note of grounded hope by illustrating how society can easily pull back its vast material waste without sacrificing modern welfare.

## Bulletin - [08:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=514s) Global energy transition remains sluggish: between 1990 and 2015, the share of fossil fuels in world primary energy declined by only 3% (from roughly 90% to 87%), with new renewables accounting for only 2.5% in 2015. - [12:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=775s) Historical structural energy shifts require multi-decadal timeframes; moving from a 5% to a 25% global market share took 35 years for coal, 40 years for oil, and 55 years for natural gas. - [01:05:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=3919s) Western nations squander roughly 40% of their food supply and drive oversized multi-ton vehicles, creating a massive cushion of waste that would allow a country like Canada to operate on one-third of its current energy use without compromising standard of living. - [01:15:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=4555s) Carbon capture and sequestration faces severe physical scaling constraints: storing even 13% to 15% of annual global CO2 emissions underground would necessitate building an industrial infrastructure equal to the entire global oil industry.

## Key takeaways - [06:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=398s) Modern civilization remains fundamentally anchored to fossil fuels, and transitioning global supply is constrained by immense physical scale and decades of infrastructure inertia. - [11:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=685s) Rapid historical energy shifts in small nations like the Netherlands cannot be scaled to continental powers like China or the United States. - [15:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=912s) Energy density dictates technological adoption; coal, oil, and gas expanded because each step offered superior energy density over traditional wood biomass. - [28:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=1714s) Automotive efficiency gains achieved through superior engine engineering have been completely offset by escalating vehicle mass and discretionary size. - [32:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=1920s) Renewable sources like wind and solar suffer from low capacity factors (25% to 30%) and embody massive fossil fuel inputs through concrete, steel, and plastics. - [38:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=2313s) Intermittent renewable generation requires equivalent backup baseload capacity, typically gas-fired turbines, due to the absence of scalable, affordable electricity storage. - [43:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=2625s) Foundational civilizational infrastructure—including steam turbines, electric grids, and internal combustion engines—remains grounded entirely in breakthroughs from the 1880s. - [48:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=2929s) Nearly half the world population survives solely due to synthetic nitrogen fertilizers produced via the Haber-Bosch process, which relies directly on fossil fuel feedstocks. - [53:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=3230s) Low power densities make mass biofuels energetically unviable, requiring vast land areas and competing directly with food production and tropical ecosystems. - [01:01:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=3698s) Dense megacities exhibit continuous power demand densities of around 100 W/m², making self-sufficiency via rooftop solar and micro-wind physically impossible. - [01:13:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=4382s) Emissions reduction efforts must be viewed globally rather than nationally, as localized cuts in small countries are quickly eclipsed by economic growth in China and India. - [01:28:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=5293s) Western nuclear power construction has largely stagnated due to exorbitant costs and political opposition, shifting new reactor development predominantly to authoritarian or developing states. - [01:40:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=6045s) Depletion of critical groundwater aquifers in regions like the North China Plain and Northern India poses an absolute physical threat far more pressing than the depletion of mineral resources. - [01:46:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=6365s) The vast cushion of discretionary consumption and structural waste in advanced economies provides an opportunity to significantly reduce energy demand without diminishing human well-being.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=9s) Welcoming Remarks and the TISED–Fondation 3E Partnership

Professor Subhasis Ghoshal from McGill University’s Faculty of Engineering, Director of the Trottier Institute for Sustainability in Engineering and Design (TISED), opens the evening seminar titled *“Energy Revolution? More like a Crawl.”* Addressing a crowded room with attendees from across Montreal's universities—including Concordia University, HEC Montréal, Polytechnique Montréal, Université de Montréal, and UQAM—he highlights the collaborative effort behind the event.

The lecture is hosted as part of the Fondation 3E speaker program in partnership with TISED. Ghoshal notes that McGill’s relationship with Fondation 3E began approximately five years earlier and has grown steadily, directly bolstering TISED's core educational and research mission. He explains that both institutions share central values: treating energy literacy as a core pillar of sustainable engineering, fostering integrative teamwork among engineers, architects, and urban planners to curtail demand across the urban built environment, and confronting the urgent imperative to transition away from carbon-emitting energy supplies. Ghoshal then welcomes the board members of Fondation 3E and introduces its president, Michel Gélinas, highlighting Gélinas's background—from completing a master's degree at HEC Montréal to serving on a diplomatic posting in Trinidad and Tobago in the 1980s, where he was exposed to major oil and gas operations, through his work as an energy analyst and adviser since 2004 for Foreign Affairs and other governmental departments.

[02:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=178s) Fondation 3E's Perspective on Demand Reduction and Energy Literacy

Michel Gélinas addresses the audience on behalf of the Board of Directors of Fondation 3E, offering a special greeting to the university students in the hall, specifically singling out the cohort from course CIVE 546: “We place much hope on your shoulders.” He outlines the core philosophy guiding Fondation 3E, emphasizing that sustainability must be engineered on both the supply side and the demand side, though the foundation concentrates heavily on curbing absolute energy consumption.

Gélinas details three fundamental tenets anchoring their strategy: 1. **Energy literacy and numeracy:** “We cannot manage what we cannot frame and understand ends our singular focus on energy literacy and energy numeracy.” 2. **Integrated urban design:** Energy-literate engineers, architects, and urban planners working collaboratively have the capacity to design buildings and urban environments that radically cut inhabitants' absolute energy footprints. 3. **Alternative resources:** The transition toward non-emitting supplies is imperative, and both passive approaches and opportunistic energy sources must be aggressively harnessed.

Reflecting on the evening’s guest, Gélinas recalls meeting Dr. Vaclav Smil nearly a decade prior after reading his book *Energy at a Crossroads*. He recounts an academic review of the book published in *The Energy Journal* by economist Richard Gordon. While Gordon gave the book a very favorable review, he concluded with skepticism, arguing that Smil's vision of the energy future was idiosyncratic because it was grounded in the premise that humanity should simply consume less energy. Gélinas firmly counters this critique, telling the audience that Fondation 3E directly rejects Gordon's view and stands entirely with Smil’s conviction on energy reduction, before handing the podium back to Ghoshal for the formal introduction.

[05:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=333s) Introduction of Dr. Vaclav Smil

Professor Ghoshal returns to introduce keynote speaker Dr. Vaclav Smil, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. Ghoshal summarizes Smil’s interdisciplinary scholarship, spanning the global energy system, environmental change, population dynamics, technological history, risk assessment, and public policy.

Ghoshal recaps several of Smil's notable honors: - Listed in 2010 by *Foreign Policy* magazine among the Top 100 Global Thinkers. - Appointed as a Member of the Order of Canada for his foundational contributions toward understanding how human energy use impacts the biosphere. - Recipient of the OPEC Award for Research for outstanding achievements in oil and energy research.

Expressing his delight at having Smil visit Montreal, Ghoshal invites him to the lectern to deliver his address.

[06:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=398s) Seven Grounding Realities of Global Energy

Vaclav Smil begins his address with characteristic modesty and dry humor, expressing gratitude to the crowd for turning out on a late Tuesday afternoon to hear an “old-fashioned professor” lecture entirely without slides or digital crutches: “I don't even have a cell phone.” He outlines his preference for an unscripted, organic discussion guided by audience reactions, but commits to imparting seven foundational didactic points that define the physical realities of world energy:

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Seven Foundational Energy Realities accDescr: Diagram listing the seven principles outlined by Vaclav Smil regarding fossil fuels, transitions, scale, and efficiency.

subgraph CoreRealities["Civilizational Realities"] P1["1. Fossil Fueled Civilization"] P2["2. Long-Term Fossil Reliance"] end

subgraph TransitionDynamics["System Dynamics"] P3["3. Transitions Take Decades"] P4["4. Scale Matters"] P5["5. Power Density Constraints"] end

subgraph StrategyAndTech["Rational Use & Technology"] P6["6. Rational Use Beats New Supply"] P7["7. Innovation is Overvalued (1880s Tech)"] end

P1 --> P2 P2 --> P3 P3 --> P4 P4 --> P5 P5 --> P6 P6 --> P7 ```

Smil explicitly enumerates the principles: 1. “We are a fossil fueled civilization.” 2. “We shall remain so for a long time to come.” 3. Energy transitions inherently take a very long time. 4. Scale matters immensely. 5. Power density dictates technical limits. 6. “It's always better to use energy rationally than to come up with new ways how to use it,” despite society choosing the exact opposite course. 7. Innovation is a heavily overhyped and exaggerated concept: modern civilization still fundamentally rests upon the core engineering and infrastructural breakthroughs of the 1880s.

Smil emphasizes that quantitative literacy is non-negotiable when discussing energy transitions, inviting the audience to check his arithmetic and correct any slip-up as he begins diving into the raw figures.

[08:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=514s) The 25-Year Stagnation of the Renewable Transition

Smil tests the room's energy literacy by looking back across a generation—a 25-year interval from 1990 to 2015. He asks the audience to estimate the share of global primary energy supplied by fossil fuels in 1990, confirming that it stood at approximately 90%. When he asks what the fossil fuel share is in 2015, an audience member suggests 87%. Smil seizes on this figure to illustrate the sluggish reality of global progress: “So in 25 years we traveled 3% this renewable route.”

Smil deconstructs the remaining 13% of non-fossil primary energy to show where carbon-free energy actually originates: - **Nuclear energy:** Accounts for close to 7% of primary supply. - **Hydroelectricity:** Represents the second largest slice of non-fossil primary power. - **Old renewables:** Traditional biomass (fuelwood and agricultural residues), which remains widely burned in rural China, Ethiopia, and other developing regions, alongside legacy hydro. - **New renewables:** Modern installations consisting almost entirely of wind, solar, and commercial liquid biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel).

All new renewables combined account for merely 2.5% of total world primary energy supply in 2015. Furthermore, Smil attacks the biofuel slice of that 2.5%, calling it an artificial legislative distortion driven by the U.S. Congress rather than sound energy policy: “One third of U.S. corn now goes into making ethanol, one third of U.S. farmland devoted to corn is eroding and putting all that nitrate into the Gulf of Mexico so we could put few percent into gasoline cars.”

He projects that even if global deployment of new renewables doubles over the next 25 years, their share will merely rise from 2.5% to 5%. Even under an aggressive scenario where deployment triples through massive state subsidies and mandates, new renewables would reach only 7.5% to 8% of primary energy supply.

[11:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=685s) National Speed vs. Global Scale in Energy History

Smil notes that his historical findings on energy transitions—compiled in his book analyzing global trends alongside major economies like the United States, the Soviet Union/Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Japan—demonstrate that individual small nations can sometimes execute rapid structural shifts, but large continental powers cannot.

To illustrate rapid national transitions, Smil points to the Netherlands: - During the Dutch Golden Age in the 17th century, the economy ran predominantly on local peat. - As quality peat deposits were depleted, the country supplemented with wind power and imported coal, eventually developing its own domestic coal-mining industry. - Following the discovery of the massive onshore Groningen natural gas field in 1959, the Dutch completely phased out their domestic coal mining within a single decade.

In stark contrast, large nations face physical, geographical, and industrial constraints that prevent such agility: - **China:** China remains a coal-dominated economy and will continue to be for the foreseeable future; it cannot replicate the fast gas transition that the Netherlands achieved in the 1960s. - **United States:** The U.S. cannot replicate France’s rapid nuclear buildup carried out during the 1970s and 1980s. - **Global scale:** At the global level, energy transitions become progressively harder over time as the absolute volume of energy consumed increases, dismantling the popular misconception that the 18th-century shift away from wood was instantaneous.

[12:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=775s) Historical Tipping Points: From Wood to Coal and Beyond

Dr. Vaclav Smil opens by debunking common historical generalizations regarding energy epochs. Popular narrative holds that the eighteenth century belonged to wood, the nineteenth century to coal and steam engines—an “Industrial Revolution which really never happened, but that's another story”—and the twentieth century to oil. Dr. Smil points out that nearly all of this is historically inaccurate: the nineteenth century remained overwhelmingly dominated by wood and traditional biomass across most of the world.

Except for England, which crossed the tipping point from wood to coal around 1640, the transition occurred much later for the rest of the world. France reached a 50-50 split between wood and coal around 1870, coinciding with the Franco-Prussian War. The United States, endowed with vastly larger forest reserves than Europe, did not tip to coal until 1884. Japan crossed the threshold around 1901, Russia between 1925 and 1930, and China not until approximately 1965 to 1970. As Dr. Smil emphasizes, global civilization was fundamentally powered by wood, straw, and biomass until very recently.

To measure energy transitions systematically, Dr. Smil tracks the time required for a resource to grow from a 5% share of the global market—the point at which an energy source begins to truly matter—to 25%, where it becomes a commanding market force:

- **Biomass to Coal:** 35 years - **Oil:** 40 years - **Natural Gas:** 55 years

Explaining why these transitions take progressively longer, Dr. Smil remarks: “There will never be a global market where one source of energy will be 90% right, so going from 5% to 25% from biomass to coal, it took us 35 years globally; going from 5% of oil to 25% of oil took us 40 years; going from 5% of natural gas to 25% natural gas has taken us 55 years.”

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Timeline of National Coal Tipping Points accDescr: Chronological progression of when major nations crossed the 50 percent coal consumption threshold from wood. subgraph Early["17th to 19th Century"] UK["England<br/>(~1640)"] --> FR["France<br/>(~1870)"] FR --> US["United States<br/>(1884)"] end subgraph Modern["20th Century"] US --> JP["Japan<br/>(~1901)"] JP --> RU["Russia<br/>(1925–1930)"] RU --> CN["China<br/>(1965–1970)"] end ```

[15:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=912s) Energy Density, Infrastructure, and Technological Sophistication

The primary reason transitions take longer is sheer scale: adding an extra 5% of global market share in 1850 required roughly 10 million tons of fuel, whereas today an additional 5% demands half a billion tons. Furthermore, the fuels and conversion technologies become significantly more complex. Coal was a straightforward substitute for wood because it provided nearly double the energy density—rising from 15–18 gigajoules per ton (GJ/t) for air-dry wood to 28–30 GJ/t for high-grade nineteenth-century coal. Oil offered another leap in energy density to 42 GJ/t (compared to 22–24 GJ/t for typical bituminous steam coal) while being liquid and portable.

However, oil and gas introduced major supply and manufacturing hurdles. Out of approximately 200 countries in the world, roughly 160 are net oil importers, creating acute dependencies on foreign exchange. Liquid and gaseous fuels cannot simply be burned openly like lump coal; they require knowledge-intensive, high-precision prime movers such as internal combustion engines and gas turbines. Deploying these systems globally takes generations; after Henry Ford established the Model T in October 1908, it took about a century for the world to amass one billion motor vehicles.

High-performance conversion machines also face severe supply-chain bottlenecks. Large aviation and stationary power gas turbines operate with failure rates as low as 0.01%, but only five manufacturers in the world possess the capability to build them at scale—specifically General Electric, Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, and CFM. Consequently, even an abundant supply of cheap natural gas cannot be turned into electricity overnight. Addressing the physical constraints of deployment, Dr. Smil underscores: “You cannot simply say, ‘I want to convert, suppose I have infinite amount of natural gas right now, but I have to convert it using gas turbines—I cannot say let's have 10 gigawatts of gas turbines per week; I cannot, there are only five manufacturers to make it.’”

- **Energy Density Comparison:** - Air-dry wood: 15–18 GJ/t - Power plant bituminous coal: 22–24 GJ/t - High-quality 19th-century coal: 28–30 GJ/t - Crude oil: ~42 GJ/t - Natural gas is unlikely to reach a 33% global share for another 10 to 15 years despite its low price and high availability.

[18:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=1110s) The Triad of Fossil Fuels and Infrastructure Inertia

Dr. Smil observes that for the first time in history, the global energy system is anchored by three fossil fuels of roughly equal standing: crude oil at roughly 33% and falling, coal at approximately 30% and holding steady or rising, and natural gas at 25% and rising. Although oil reached well above 40% before declining after the 1970s OPEC price shocks, the fastest-growing fuel over the past two to three decades in absolute energy terms has been coal, driven primarily by China expanding its coal production from 1 billion tons per year to nearly 4 billion tons.

Because trillions of dollars are sunk into extraction, transport, and combustion systems, existing infrastructure changes only over generational timescales. In the United States, retirements of coal-fired power plants are frequently attributed to cheap shale gas, but Dr. Smil clarifies that plant age is the real driver. The US built hundreds of large power stations (200 MW to over 1 GW) during the 1950s and 1960s to meet annual demand growth of 7% to 10%; these plants are now 45 to 55 years old and naturally reaching the end of their operational lives.

Dr. Smil rejects claims from Silicon Valley and technophiles that computerized systems, artificial intelligence, and digital devices allow society to bypass physical laws and transition overnight. Pointing to the misapplication of the word "technology" (historically the study of technique) to refer narrowly to computers, Dr. Smil delivers a sharp assessment: “People say now it's different, we have silicon, we are electronic, we are sophisticated, artificial intelligence, no boundary is given, we can transit from this to that in no time, the old truths don't apply—absolute hogwash.”

Nowhere is physical inertia clearer than in China. Western nations like France, the United Kingdom, and Germany (with populations between 60 and 80 million) each have on the order of 60 GW of total installed electrical capacity, which took a century to construct. Between 2005 and 2007, China installed 60 GW of capacity *every single year*, roughly 80% of it coal-fired. At a cost of around $1.5 billion per 1.5 GW facility, these brand-new assets cannot simply be abandoned before completing their 35- to 40-year amortization cycles. While China's blistering rate of coal expansion is finally moderating, Dr. Smil notes that India is rapidly moving into the exact same trajectory, constructing massive coal infrastructure to drive its own industrialization.

[23:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=1400s) Coal Realities in India and China

India continues building coal-fired power plants as fast as possible across the country out of sheer domestic necessity. Dr. Vaclav Smil emphasizes that India is neither sitting on a large reservoir of natural gas nor bursting with crude oil; while imports may be cheaper at times, nations rely primarily on what they have domestically. However, Indian coal is fundamentally different from Chinese coal. Chinese coal is generally good-quality bituminous coal (unlike German lignite or brown coal), whereas Indian coal is of exceptionally poor quality: roughly 30% to 40% of its content is ash. As a result, generating a single useful kilowatt-hour requires burning significantly more material and capturing vast quantities of fly ash. The only mitigating factor is that Indian coal is not exceedingly high in sulfur, which spares operators from installing additional hundred-million-dollar desulfurization units per plant.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Comparison of Coal Quality and Constraints accDescr: Contrasts Chinese bituminous coal with low-grade Indian coal and its operational burdens.

subgraph China["China: High Economic Growth"] C1["Good bituminous coal"] --> C2["Higher energy yield per ton"] end

subgraph India["India: Future Economic Growth"] I1["High ash content (30–40%)"] --> I2["Burn more tonnage per kWh"] I2 --> I3["Catch large volumes of fly ash"] I1 --> I4["Low sulfur avoids $100M scrubbers"] end

China --> R["Dominant coal reliance driven by domestic resource limits"] India --> R ```

Smil underscores that these infrastructural dependencies are deeply embedded. Countries turn to coal because they have no realistic alternative, and the two major engines of global economic growth—China historically, and India going forward—are fundamentally coal-reliant nations. He rejects wishful energy transition projections that ignore these baseline physical realities:

> “So these are the embedded things and countries will do them because that’s the only thing they do really and unfortunately these two big countries where most of the global economic growth has come from in China and will come from India are the coal countries and they have no other choice right so you know to just project some graphs whatever what will happen you know that’s neither here nor there reality is is is what matters.”

[24:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=1479s) Oil, Aviation, and the Explosion of Mass Mobility

Smil shifts to crude oil, pointing out that it provided modern humanity with an unprecedented gift: hyper-mobility. Because oil is the densest practical fuel available—surpassed only by liquid hydrogen, which is exceptionally difficult and costly to produce and handle—it remains dominant. Smil recounts that when he was growing up in Europe, flying was essentially a fantasy seen only in movies. When he left Europe in 1969, perhaps two out of a hundred people had ever flown in their lifetime, and into the late 1970s, a German businessman traveling from Cologne to Munich would instinctively take a train.

Today, European buses display advertisements for €20 discount flights from Amsterdam to Cyprus, and Europeans fly more per capita than Americans. Unlike North America's hub-and-spoke model (where flying from Winnipeg requires routing through Toronto or Vancouver), Europe features direct point-to-point routes between peripheral cities like Riga to Zagreb or Aberdeen to Thessaloniki. Smil notes that a prominent discount airline even patented a proposal for standing-room-only passenger compartments with hanging straps to cut fares even further. Meanwhile, domestic European vacationers routinely spend weekends in Cyprus or travel to Thailand, Australia, and Alaska.

Smil warns that this mobility surge is only beginning as China enters international tourism. By 2020, the European Union expects 200 million Chinese tourists, heavily concentrated in six major gateway cities. He quips that anyone wanting to see Venice, Paris, or London should do so immediately, noting that these 200 million tourists represent merely the emerging middle class out of a population of 1.35 billion:

> “So you know if Chinese would travel like Japanese right then you couldn’t move in in European cities right and this is all subscribed by crude oil.”

- Even modern, efficient airliners such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner—which uses roughly 15% less fuel than the Boeing 777, which was itself 15% better than predecessors—still consume substantial amounts of petroleum fuel. - Smil criticizes proponents of rapid renewable transitions who fail to address aviation: solar electricity cannot power commercial airliners, except for fragile experimental planes carrying a single pilot flying at the speed of a moth, nor can natural gas or wind electricity support heavy passenger flights.

[28:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=1714s) The Paradox of Vehicle Weight and Embedded Energy

Smil notes that nearly one-third of global primary energy is now consumed solely for transportation. Although internal combustion engines have grown substantially more fuel-efficient, automakers have completely undermined these efficiency gains by building significantly heavier and more massive vehicles. Observing a massive Infiniti SUV at the Toronto airport that appeared larger than a Hummer, Smil shares his own personal buying habits: he drove Honda Accords for decades but eventually switched to a Honda Civic because the modern Civic became longer, wider, and heavier than his older Accords. Over the past 25 years, Japanese cars have increased their average mass by approximately 50%.

The shift across global automotive design shows a sharp upward march in total vehicle weight:

| Vehicle Class / Era | Approximate Mass | |:--- |:--- | | Classic European (e.g., Citroën 2CV / "Deux Chevaux") | ~650 kg | | Modern Average European Car | ~1,400 kg | | Modern Average American Car | ~1,750 kg | | Full-size Luxury SUV (e.g., Cadillac Escalade) | ~3,000 kg (approx. 3 tons) |

Smil argues that this escalation totally negates the efficiency gains of the engines:

> “Notice that thing too we are making engines which are more fuel efficient but putting them into vehicles which are much more massive which totally negates all that thing right okay and then you have to think about embedded energy.”

Making vehicles lighter to meet environmental regulations introduces another paradox: substituting materials sharply increases embedded energy costs. Replacing standard structural steel with lighter alternatives requires far more energy during manufacturing:

- High-quality structural steel costs roughly 30 to 35 gigajoules (GJ) of primary energy per ton. - Primary aluminum requires close to 200 GJ per ton (nearly six times as much as steel). - Automotive plastics require roughly 80 to 140 GJ per ton, tripling or quadrupling the embedded energy per ton relative to steel. - Advanced composites (such as carbon fibers on the Boeing 787) and titanium are five to eight times more energy-intensive than conventional metals. - Electronics now account for about one-third of the total monetary value of a modern American car; electronic-grade silicon requires an order of magnitude more energy per ton than conventional materials.

[32:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=1920s) Capacity Factors: Renewables vs. Baseload Generation

Smil connects the issue of high embedded manufacturing energy directly to renewable generation technologies, specifically industrial wind turbines. Across countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, wind turbines dominate the landscape, yet Smil points out that for the vast majority of the time, they are not producing power.

Addressing the engineering-minded audience, Smil compares the typical capacity factor (the percentage of full theoretical annual output actually generated) across different power systems: - Conventional coal-fired power plants easily achieve a 75% capacity factor under normal operation (running as high as 90% in China during periods of power shortages). - Nuclear power plants in the United States and Canada lead global performance, operating at capacity factors of 92.5% to 95%, despite few new plants being built in recent decades. - European wind turbines achieve an average capacity factor of roughly 25%, meaning they produce nothing 75% of the time. - American wind turbines on the windy Great Plains perform slightly better, averaging a capacity factor of about 30%, remaining idle or unproductive 70% of the time.

Smil recounts flying across France or Switzerland and looking down from the jetliner to see massive wind turbines whose blades—each individually larger than a Boeing 747—stand completely motionless across the countryside.

[33:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=2026s) The Embodied Fossil Fuels and Finite Lifespan of Wind Turbines

Dr. Vaclav Smil challenges the conventional perception of wind turbines as purely "green" machines. While politicians point to massive wind farms as symbols of a clean energy future, Smil approaches them through the lens of an engineer and physical scientist, cataloging the immense quantities of fossil energy required to create and install them. Constructing wind farms on remote mountain ridges requires fleets of diesel-fueled bulldozers and graders to clear and stabilize heavy-duty access roads. Transporting individual 80-meter composite blades demands specialized heavy diesel transport trucks.

The physical structure itself relies heavily on energy-intensive industrial materials: the massive foundation requires tons of concrete produced in coal-fired kilns, the tower is built from structural steel to prevent the structure from collapsing in high winds, and the blades themselves are plastics requiring significant energy inputs. Looking at these installations, Smil remarks: “So I look at this and I see concrete and steel and diesel fuel and plastics. I don't see any renewable energy there really, right?”

Furthermore, Smil highlights the comparatively short operational lifespans of wind turbines—typically lasting only 15 to 20 years—and questions how the composite materials will ever be recycled. He points to Europe's ongoing wave of "repowering," where early subsidized turbines installed in the 1990s and early 2000s (rated at 200 to 500 kilowatts) were decommissioned after only a decade of service to make room for newer units rated between 2 and 5 megawatts. By contrast, conventional thermal infrastructure exhibits immense durability; Smil cites an Iowa power plant that operated continuously from 1924 until its recent retirement, as well as nuclear reactors being recertified to run safely for 50 to 60 years. He asserts that neither wind turbines nor photovoltaic cells will ever match that longevity, particularly in harsh environments like the Sahara where solar panels are mercilessly abraded by blowing sand.

- Modern wind turbine blades measure up to 80 meters and weigh around 120 kilograms per ton of plastic composite. - Foundations require extensive concrete and heavy steel towers to anchor against extreme wind forces. - Early European turbines rated at 200–500 kW were dismantled after just 10 years for repowering with 2–5 MW models. - Traditional thermal boilers and recertified nuclear power plants regularly run for 50 to 60+ years.

---

[36:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=2173s) The Misallocation of European Solar and Sub-Optimal Capacity Factors

Smil critiques the geographic allocation of renewable capacity, pointing specifically to Germany's aggressive push into solar photovoltaics despite its northern climate. Drawing a comparison to the Pacific Northwest of the United States, he notes that Germany receives about as much sunlight as Seattle. He cites a retrospective study conducted by Siemens revealing that if the solar capacity installed across Germany had instead been deployed in sunny southern climates like Spain and Italy—even accounting for the cost of building long-distance high-voltage transmission lines to wheel the power north—it would have saved €40 billion. Smil recalls being phoned by *The New York Times* in the early 2000s at the start of the German *Energiewende* to comment on the world’s largest solar PV plant near Nuremberg; having grown up only 50 kilometers from that region, he knew firsthand that weather systems rolling in off the Atlantic bring persistent cloud cover and rain every three days.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Solar Allocation Efficiency Comparison accDescr: Diagram contrasting Germany's solar investment and low capacity factor against high-insolation alternatives in Southern Europe.

subgraph North["Germany (Actual Policy)"] A["Capital Invested in German Solar"] --> B["Insolation Equivalent to Seattle"] B --> C["Average Load Factor: 11% - 12%"] end

subgraph South["Southern Europe (Siemens Counterfactual)"] D["Install Same Solar in Spain & Italy"] --> E["Build High-Voltage Lines to the North"] E --> F["Higher Capacity Factor (16% - 17%+)"] F --> G["Net Savings: €40 Billion"] end ```

The resulting average load factor for German solar installations languishes at a meager 11% to 12%, despite tens of billions of dollars in subsidies. Even in sunny Spain, typical solar capacity factors only reach 16% to 17%. While southwestern American installations in Arizona can hit 25%, Smil points out that large utility-scale facilities remain acutely vulnerable to weather variability. The Ivanpah solar electric generating system in the California/Nevada desert underperformed significantly in its inaugural year due to unexpectedly persistent regional cloud cover. Smil notes: “And you are spending billions of dollars and telling this is the green future, you know?”

- German solar power operates at an average load factor of only 11% to 12%. - Spanish solar capacity operates around a 16% to 17% load factor. - Desert solar in Arizona can reach roughly 25% load factor. - A Siemens study found relocating German solar capacity to Southern Europe and building HVDC grid links would have saved €40 billion.

---

[38:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=2313s) Intermittency, Forecasting Limits, and Regional Grid Mismatches

Smil examines the operational challenges created by intermittency. While modern meteorological models can reliably forecast wind and solar production 24 to 48 hours in advance to manage day-to-day loads, they are incapable of predicting output across seasonal or annual scales. In 2015, U.S. wind generation capacity expanded by approximately 6%, yet actual total generation fell by roughly 30% due to an unusually calm, windless year across North America. Because seasonal predictions are impossible, grid operators running intermittent sources must maintain vast duplicate backup capacity, typically in the form of fast-ramping natural gas turbines.

To illustrate the geographic disconnect, Smil describes his home city of Winnipeg, Manitoba. Despite local jokes about mosquitoes and harsh winters, Smil explains that Winnipeg is one of the windiest cities on Earth, situated at the tail end of the continental wind corridor running from the Gulf of Mexico up through the Great Plains. Manitoba Hydro added wind generation for political appearance even though the provincial grid was already 100% clean hydroelectricity.

However, electricity demand in Manitoba peaks severely in January during dark, freezing periods driven by the "Canadian High"—a meteorological high-pressure system characterized by clear skies, plunging temperatures (daily highs around -30°C), and complete calm that can last for three consecutive weeks. Without wind, the province must either rely on fossil backup or purchase imported power from elsewhere.

Smil emphasizes the structural deficit of the North American grid: - There is virtually no east-to-west electrical transmission capacity across Canada or the United States; existing lines run strictly north-to-south (e.g., Manitoba exporting south to Nebraska, Quebec to New York, and British Columbia to California). - The modest east-west grid tie in Texas is roughly 250 megawatts, which Smil describes as negligible. - In contrast, European nations feature extensive multilateral interconnectors; Switzerland acts as a central transmission and pumped-hydro storage battery, constantly importing and re-exporting power. - Denmark’s wind penetration (often cited as supplying 80% of domestic power on windy days) is feasible only because it balances its system by importing Norwegian hydropower and German coal and nuclear electricity whenever Danish winds die down.

Smil concludes that until low-cost, gigawatt-scale energy storage becomes a reality, societies cannot transition away from fossil backup: “We shouldn't even be talking about energy problem as soon as you give me a gigawatt-scale storage for reasonable price, right? Okay, then it doesn't matter what capacity my solar is.”

[43:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=2625s) The Myth of Modern Innovation and the Primacy of the 1880s

Smil questions whether electricity storage is genuinely further ahead today than it was 10, 50, or 100 years ago, answering flatly: “answer is no of course we are not are certain physical limits for good reason some things do not happen”. He dismisses the widespread belief that technological innovation can conquer every physical hurdle, emphasizing that the truly fundamental pillars of modern material existence were not devised in Silicon Valley. He takes direct aim at Silicon Valley celebrity culture, mocking the media's lionization of figures like Elon Musk as inventors greater than Thomas Edison.

Musk, Smil points out, simply buys Panasonic batteries from Japan, puts them under a plastic cover emblazoned with a giant "T", and sells them to consumers. Similarly, when the Space Shuttle program was cancelled, Musk merely hired unemployed NASA engineers into SpaceX. The fundamental world we inhabit was not created by Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, or modern tech founders:

> “The world you live in was invented by some young but mostly middle-aged white men in 1880s Thomas Alva Edison William Stanley George Westinghouse Nicola Tesla these people invented electricity generation steam turbo generator Transformer electric motor without this nothing would happen without this you couldn't hold your cell phone right without this you couldn't hit your house without this you couldn't travel on the airplane without this there would be no Western Civilization internal combustion engine right okay Daimler Maybach 1884 it's all the 1880s we've been just simply deriving secondary tertiary quaternary derivation from that basis of 1880s right so before you tell me how impossibly accelerating Innovation is moving us all know I tell you read your history right and learn what is there right”.

[45:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=2749s) The Seven Levels of Technical Derivation: From Maxwell to the Smartphone

Smil recounts speaking to a Silicon Valley company where he told the audience that their work operates at roughly a seventh-level remove from foundational science and engineering. Modern communication begins in the 1860s with James Clerk Maxwell, who conceived of invisible electromagnetic radiation without knowing how to prove or harness it. Heinrich Hertz then proved the existence of Maxwellian waves by transmitting a signal from point A to point B. Subsequent engineers, including Guglielmo Marconi and Lee de Forest (who invented the vacuum tube), enabled long-distance wireless communication. By 1906–1907, the basic vacuum tube technology existed to build television, though progress was interrupted by the First World War.

From thermionic vacuum tubes ("hot glass Electronics"), science advanced to solid-state physics. Smil notes that although John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley receive credit for the transistor, the original patent for a solid-state amplifier was filed by Julius Edgar Lilienfeld as early as 1925. Decades later, Robert Noyce and Jack Kilby developed the integrated circuit in the late 1950s, which Intel synthesized into the microprocessor in the 1970s. Only after this progressive chain of physical inventions was someone able to build a personal computer, assemble a smartphone, and write software applications for it. Smil compares modern tech consumers and developers to people standing in a vast, fully matured garden who merely brush pollen off a flower, smell it, and marvel at their own brilliance. Despite the obsession with digital gadgets, our civilization still relies primarily on 19th-century prime movers:

> “It still depends on your steam turbine this is still the number one Primal on this planet is a steam turbine right it still depends on electric motors it still depends on all these things so I'm not all that smitten it's just simply you know it's pictures and you know we are visual creatures and we are also social creatures so it's pictures putting us together in touch with other people that's why we think it's such a fundamental invention but let me tell you that this civilization could live quite well without cell phones and and uh any computer actually”.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Seven Levels of Electronics Derivation accDescr: Seven sequential technological milestones leading from Maxwell's theory to modern smartphone software. subgraph S1["Foundational Physics & Early Transmission"] L1["Level 1: Maxwell's Equations (1860s)"] --> L2["Level 2: Hertz's Transmission Experiments"] L2 --> L3["Level 3: Long-Distance Waves & Vacuum Tubes<br>(Marconi, De Forest, 1906)"] end

subgraph S2["Solid-State & Microelectronics"] L3 --> L4["Level 4: Solid-State Transistor<br>(Lilienfeld 1925 patent; Bell Labs)"] L4 --> L5["Level 5: Integrated Circuit<br>(Noyce & Kilby, late 1950s)"] L5 --> L6["Level 6: Microprocessor<br>(Intel, 1970s)"] end

subgraph S3["End Products"] L6 --> L7["Level 7: Computers, Smartphones & Software Apps"] end ```

[48:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=2929s) Haber-Bosch Ammonia Synthesis: The True Bedrock of Global Survival

Smil asks the audience to identify the single most critical technological breakthrough on Earth, without which 45% of the global population would not even be alive today. The answer is the Haber-Bosch synthesis of ammonia. Natural agricultural inputs—such as straw (which contains about 0.5% nitrogen), urine (which is mostly water with a tiny fraction of nitrogen), and animal manure—could never yield sufficient nitrogen to support today's 7 billion humans, even if every scrap of organic waste were gathered by millions of laborers. Chilean sodium nitrate deposits and tropical bird guano were temporary, depleting stopgaps.

In the summer of 1909, Fritz Haber successfully demonstrated bench-scale ammonia synthesis under high pressure and temperature, combining atmospheric nitrogen with hydrogen (initially derived from coal gas, now from natural gas). Carl Bosch of BASF then translated that delicate bench experiment into a full industrial-scale operation by October 1913. Smil contrasts this staggering four-year engineering triumph with contemporary venture-backed startups that absorb billions in capital only to collapse:

> “There is absolutely you see before you do anything you have to be alive right you know all the cell phones and mention and 45% of people on this planet wouldn't be alive and 70% of Chinese and 60% of Indians if it wouldn't be for Haber-Bosch synthesis of ammonia because your bar to grow what is the grow it's protein right what is protein amino acids what is amino acids nitrogen I mean it's a kindergarten science but most people apparently don't know kindergarten science these days so they think the greatest invention is iPhone right I mean what a joke really right”.

- Without Haber-Bosch ammonia, an estimated 45% of the world's population, 70% of Chinese citizens, and 60% of Indians would not be alive. - China is the world's largest producer of synthetic ammonia ($NH_3$), compelled by extreme arable land scarcity to fertilize intensively, followed by India. - Bosch transformed Haber's laboratory setup into a functioning industrial chemical plant at BASF between the summer of 1909 and October 1913.

[51:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=3077s) The Unavoidable Primacy of Steel and the Limits of Green Electricity

Smil discusses his book on steel, recalling that he had to persuade his publishers that steel is fundamentally more important than microchips or iPhones. Modern civilization remains utterly dependent on steel: textile looms, industrial saws, stamping presses, extrusion dies, turbine towers, and photovoltaic mounting frames are all built of steel. Even advanced composite-heavy aircraft like the Boeing 787 rely on high-strength steel for the punishing impact loads of landing gear undercarriages.

The production of virgin steel requires pig iron smelted in blast furnaces, which consume metallurgical coke. Smil highlights that approximately 1 billion metric tons of coal are consumed every year solely to produce coke for iron smelting, and no alternative industrial method exists to produce virgin iron at the required scale. While direct reduced iron (DRI) exists, the scale discrepancy is overwhelming: the world makes 1.2 billion tons of blast furnace pig iron compared to only about 50 million tons of direct reduced iron. Smil emphasizes that even if wind or solar energy were provided completely free of charge, it would not solve the problem of producing 1.2 billion tons of iron without carbon reduction agents. As he prepares to address transport fuels, he notes how regular flights across the Canadian Prairies have shifted in crop appearance from an unbroken expanse of wheat toward other crops like canola.

> “We make now about 1.2 billion tons of pig iron and we make about 50 million tons of direct reduction iron right you see the scale again really right so suppose you know if if somebody gives you infinite amount of not cheap but free wind or solar electricity right how do you make 1.2 billion tons of pig iron right I ask you right we just cannot make it if it's totally cheap and free electricity”.

[53:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=3230s) The Neglected Metric: Power Density and the Folly of Biofuels

Smil turns to the agricultural transformation of the Canadian Prairies, pointing out that while wheat once dominated, flying over the region now reveals endless fields of yellow. Canola (rapeseed) has taken over as the number one crop by value. Yet, rapeseed is minuscule, containing only about 20% oil, making it an absurd candidate to crush for biojet fuel once realistic calculations are applied. This leads into the core thesis of his book *Power Density*, a concept he describes as universally neglected yet utterly indispensable for evaluating energy systems.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Power Density Comparison of Energy Sources accDescr: Diagram contrasting low power density biomass with high power density fossil wells and solar potential.

subgraph LowDensity["Low Power Density (Diffuse Land Use)"] A["Corn Ethanol: ~0.5 W/m²"] B["Wind Farms: ~1.0 W/m²"] end

subgraph MidDensity["Intermediate Power Density"] C["Current Solar: 20–30 W/m²"] D["Theoretical High-Efficiency Solar: 40–50 W/m²"] end

subgraph HighDensity["High Power Density (Concentrated Footprint)"] E["Saudi Oil Wellhead: ~10,000 W/m²"] end

LowDensity -->|"Requires 100x–300x city footprint"| MegaCity["Modern Mega City Demand: ~100 W/m²"] MidDensity -->|"Requires 2x–4x city footprint"| MegaCity HighDensity -->|"Fuels civilization from tiny footprint"| MegaCity ```

To demonstrate, Smil asks the audience to calculate along with him the power density of corn ethanol in the United States. The American Corn Belt in Iowa represents the highest-yielding farmland on Earth—averaging 10 to 12 tons per hectare, compared to 6 tons in Europe or 3 tons in Asia. At 10 tons per hectare and 15 gigajoules (GJ) per ton, one annual harvest yields 150 GJ. Dividing 150 GJ by the roughly $3.15 \times 10^7$ seconds in a year, and then dividing by the 10,000 square meters in a hectare, yields a meager power density of approximately 0.5 watts per square meter ($0.5\text{ W/m}^2$).

In sharp contrast, an oil well sunk in Saudi Arabia occupies an area no larger than a lecture room yet operates at a power density of 10,000 watts per square meter ($10,000\text{ W/m}^2$). Consequently, a few thousand wellheads in the Middle East can fuel most of the world, whereas fueling a single Boeing 787 to fly to Asia on biofuels requires planting endless hectares of Prairie land year after year. While palm oil achieves higher energy yields per hectare than rapeseed, pursuing it at scale accelerates tropical deforestation and the destruction of global ecosystems.

Smil highlights this glaring environmental hypocrisy: “So you see, on one hand we have green people telling us we have to preserve biodiversity, we have to preserve tropical rainforest, and on the other hand they are telling us we will fly on biofuels.”

- Iowa yields 10 to 12 tons of corn per hectare, compared to ~6 tons in Europe and ~3 tons in Asia. - 10 tons of corn yields 150 GJ of gross energy once per year, which equates to roughly $0.5\text{ W/m}^2$. - A typical Middle Eastern oil well produces energy at roughly $10,000\text{ W/m}^2$. - Running all American transport on 100% domestic corn ethanol would require dedicating every single acre of US cropland exclusively to corn, completely eliminating the food and livestock feed supply.

---

[57:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=3448s) Solar Potential versus Transmission Bottlenecks

Evaluating renewables strictly through the lens of power density, Smil identifies solar photovoltaic power as far superior to other alternatives. Earth receives an average solar flux of about 170 watts per square meter ($170\text{ W/m}^2$). Operating at 10% efficiency provides $20\text{ W/m}^2$; raising that to 20% delivers $40\text{ to }50\text{ W/m}^2$. Conversely, he dismisses ocean wave and tidal energy devices (such as the Pelamis wave machines) as financial and thermodynamic dead ends, noting that the pioneer wave firm in Scotland went bankrupt after producing barely enough energy to brew coffee. Wind is viable in prime corridors, but solar remains the most scalable prospect if efficiencies reach 40% in high-insolation desert regions like Arizona or Algeria, where capacity factors approach 25%.

However, high-density solar generation in deserts collides with geographic reality. In both the United States and Canada, populations are concentrated on the coasts, leaving the interior sparsely inhabited. There are no high-voltage direct current (HVDC) "juice lines" crossing the continent to transmit solar power from Arizona to New York, or wind power from Manitoba and North Dakota to Toronto or Vancouver. Building a single kilometer of high-voltage transmission costs between $1 million and $5 million depending on terrain, but the true barrier is social opposition: NIMBY resistance routinely stretches project approval times to a decade.

Germany encountered this exact dilemma during its *Energiewende*. After saturating terrestrial wind sites in the north, developers moved into the North Sea with giant offshore turbines, only to discover that the industrial load centers lie in central and southern Germany. Running undersea cables from wind farms 50 kilometers offshore to the coastline proved as expensive as building the offshore wind installations themselves, before even factoring in the multi-billion-euro north-south onshore grid links.

Furthermore, intermittent surpluses create severe grid operational strains. On exceptionally sunny days, German legislation mandates that grid operators take 100% of available solar power, forcing baseload coal and natural gas turbines to idle at noon—when solar provides over 50% of the nation's electricity—only to abruptly ramp them back up after 5:00 PM as the sun dips. Smil emphasizes that short bursts of high renewable penetration mask the massive, costly fossil-fuel reserve capacities required to survive extended windless, overcast periods.

As Smil argues regarding capital allocation: “If I would be running the show—not that I want to, but if I would be running the show and asked me where to put my money into—I would put money... above all, solar.”

- Average incident solar radiation on the rotating planet: $\approx 170\text{ W/m}^2$. - High-voltage transmission line costs: typically $1\text{ to }1.5\text{ million per kilometer}$, escalating up to $5\text{ million/km}$ under difficult conditions. - Approval and permitting timelines for major interstate/interprovincial transmission corridors average 10 years. - German offshore transmission: the electrical grid link from 50 km offshore to the coast roughly equals the capital cost of the entire offshore wind farm.

---

[01:01:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=3698s) Mega-Cities and the Need for Rational Use

Smil pivots to the demographic reality of global energy consumption. Since 2007, more than half of humanity resides in urban environments, increasingly concentrated in dense megacities such as Tokyo, Shanghai, and Mumbai. These urban areas exhibit immense continuous energy demand densities, averaging roughly 100 watts per square meter ($100\text{ W/m}^2$) across their entire geographic footprint, including parks and roads.

Meeting that concentrated urban demand with diffuse renewable energy requires vast territorial collection footprints outside the city: - **Solar PV** ($20\text{--}30\text{ W/m}^2$): requires an external gathering area 3 to 4 times the size of the city. - **Wind power** ($\approx 1\text{ W/m}^2$): requires an external area 100 times the size of the city. - **Biomass energy** ($\approx 0.5\text{ W/m}^2$): requires an external collection footprint 200 to 300 times larger than the city.

Under our current system, fossil fuels extracted from tiny, highly concentrated footprints are gathered and piped into urban centers. Smil dismisses naive notions of urban decentralization: “So if you tell me how decentralized energy with your little wind turbine on your roof and little solar panel on your roof will work in 70-story houses in megacities of the world, then I say welcome to the green world, but otherwise it's a very difficult thing.”

Because supply-side substitution faces such steep thermodynamic and spatial constraints, Smil insists the focus must shift to demand: the "rational use of energy." He rejects the traditional phrase *energy conservation* as scientifically illiterate, observing that physics dictates energy is always conserved under the first law of thermodynamics.

True rational use means eliminating glaring inefficiencies, such as using three-ton sport utility vehicles for routine single-occupant trips. Smil observes wryly that in his home city of Winnipeg, massive SUVs are almost invariably piloted by petite 60-kilogram women running errands to Safeway, while their primary commuter car sits at an office. Fueling a three-ton passenger vehicle with resource-intensive corn ethanol represents the height of absurdity, compounding severe soil erosion and excessive nitrogen fertilizer runoff for an irrational end use.

[01:03:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=3835s) The Gross Irrationality of Energy Consumption

Smil shifts his focus from technical energy supply metrics to the sheer waste embedded in modern consumer culture. He begins by criticizing vehicle choices: while high-efficiency vehicles might achieve 100 miles per gallon, people instead pour fuel into three-ton vehicles getting barely 11 miles per gallon, which he characterizes as completely absurd. He points out a similar paradox with residential lighting: while solid-state LED bulbs are hailed as ultra-efficient, homeowners respond by installing dozens of outdoor LED fixtures—more than Smil has inside his entire house—and leave them burning all night simply because power in places like Montreal is dirt cheap. He also mocks ultra-cheap European budget tourism, such as flying from Amsterdam to Cyprus for €20.

He illustrates the absurdity of global travel by recounting the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Thailand. One of the largest victim groups among foreign tourists was Norwegian babies whose parents had flown them halfway across the globe to sit in the tropical sun. Smil scoffs at the necessity of such journeys, asking why a parent would not simply fly to Italy instead, noting sarcastically that it is the exact same sun causing the exact same skin cancer. To Smil, mild complaints about waste understate reality: modern society's relationship with energy is thoroughly and structurally broken.

> “Our energy system is grossly irrational, grossly irrational.” — Dr. Vaclav Smil

[01:05:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=3919s) Food Waste, Triple-Pane Windows, and the "Dark Ages"

Turning to the food system—the topic of his current writing—Smil underscores that food is embodied energy, encompassing Haber-Bosch ammonia synthesis, intensive irrigation, synthetic pesticides requiring roughly 150 grams of energy equivalent per ton, heavy tractors, combines, steel, and plastics. Despite this massive investment of energy, Western countries in North America and the European Union systematically discard 40% of the food they produce. Smil observes that the principal outcome of this caloric excess is an epidemic of obesity unprecedented in the evolutionary history of *Homo sapiens*.

Addressing the McGill audience directly, Smil asks for a show of hands to see how many people have triple-pane windows installed in their homes. Seeing no hands raised, he declares that Canada is effectively living in the pre-medieval era in energy terms, drawing an unflattering parallel to the 6th century AD before the medieval monastic awakenings. Smil explains that his own home features triple-pane windows filled with argon gas and low-emissivity reflective coatings. He argues that if he were tasked with re-engineering national infrastructure, Canada could maintain its exact standard of living on just one-third of its current energy use. Achieving this would not require hardship, but simply eliminating mindless excesses—such as flying babies to Thailand, commuting in three-ton cars, and illuminating suburban lawns all night.

- Embodied agricultural inputs wasted include Haber-Bosch nitrogen fertilizer, tractor diesel, combine manufacturing, and pesticide synthesis. - Western nations (US, Canada, EU) discard approximately 40% of all food produced. - Smil's personal standard for home efficiency: argon-filled, low-e, triple-glazed windows.

> “If I ran the things, I could design a system then you could run Canada on one-third of the energy which you are using, and our standard of living would be pretty much the same.” — Dr. Vaclav Smil

[01:07:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=4060s) High-Speed Rail: Canada’s Glaring Transportation Failure

Smil turns to what he describes as one of the greatest national embarrassments in Canadian history, located right in Quebec. The Montreal-based company Bombardier manufactures world-class high-speed electric trainsets (as well as commercial planes, though Smil remarks their regional jets have had mixed success). Yet, none of Bombardier's rapid electric trains operate on Canadian soil. Canada possesses the world’s cheapest, abundant hydroelectric power through Hydro-Québec and Manitoba Hydro, making it the ideal geographic setting for an electrified corridor.

Instead, Smil recounts his morning flight, lamenting the wasteful aviation shuttles that depart every hour between Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal. Contrasting this with his travels in Japan riding the 300 km/h Shinkansen past Mount Fuji in comfort, he notes that a downtown-to-downtown high-speed rail run between Montreal and Toronto would take just 1 hour and 20 minutes. He laments that Canada remains an energy-primitive outlier alongside the United States, lacking high-speed electric intercity rail despite Chinese and European networks expanding aggressively. While acknowledging a transcontinental high-speed line through the empty Canadian Shield to Vancouver makes no demographic sense, the Windsor–Quebec City corridor has ample density, where a single train carrying 1,500 to 2,000 passengers could easily replace dozens of 100-to-150-seat shuttle planes.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Comparison of High-Speed Rail and Hourly Air Shuttles accDescr: Contrasts the current Toronto-Montreal aviation corridor with an electrified rail alternative.

subgraph StatusQuo["Current Reality: Air Shuttles"] direction TB SQ1["Hourly Shuttle Flights<br>(Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal)"] --> SQ2["Small Capacity<br>(100-150 seats per plane)"] SQ2 --> SQ3["Aviation Jet Fuel Burn<br>+ Airport Transfers"] end

subgraph ProposedAlternative["Rational Alternative: High-Speed Rail"] direction TB PR1["300 km/h Electrified Train<br>(Bombardier Technology)"] --> PR2["Mass Capacity<br>(1,500-2,000 seats per train)"] PR2 --> PR3["Downtown to Downtown<br>(Toronto to Montreal in 1h 20m)"] PR3 --> PR4["Zero-Carbon Hydro Power<br>(Hydro-Québec / Manitoba Hydro)"] end ```

- Bombardier manufactures high-speed passenger trainsets in Quebec, but exports them abroad rather than deploying them domestically. - Hourly air shuttles between Toronto Pearson, Billy Bishop Island Airport, Ottawa, and Montreal carry only 100–150 passengers per departure. - A 300 km/h downtown-to-downtown high-speed train could link Montreal and Toronto in approximately 80 minutes, carrying up to 2,000 travelers per trip.

> “We are the last civilized country—except for the US, of course, which is not civilized—which do not have a rapid electricity-powered train, although we have the cheap hydroelectricity and although we make those trains.” — Dr. Vaclav Smil

[01:11:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=4277s) Q&A: Global Warming and Limits of Rationality

Opening the floor to questions, an audience member challenges Smil, asking why his talk did not center directly on global warming and greenhouse gas abatement targets. Smil counters that if society adopted genuine energy rationality, the climate crisis would largely solve itself, reiterating that Canadian energy consumption could be cut by two-thirds without sacrificing quality of life. The questioner pushes back, noting that while Canada consumes roughly three times more energy per capita than many other developed nations, the real drivers of future global demand growth are developing nations like China and India, where baseline per capita use is still low and conservation offers smaller absolute reductions.

Smil agrees with the distinction between theoretical potential and geopolitical reality: his role as an analyst is to define the physical boundary conditions of what is possible, rather than predict what political systems will actually execute. He notes that answering such challenges often provokes dismissive accusations of fatalism. To illustrate the nuances of public debate, Smil brings up a calculation he conducted on the Canadian oil sands. While acknowledging that bitumen extraction—whether surface mining or steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD)—requires significantly more energy per barrel than conventional crude oil production, he notes that critics often exaggerate how much dirtier it is relative to standard global supplies.

> “I said I know, but if you use energy more rationally, the problem will almost disappear, because I told you I could design Canadian system using one-third as much energy as we are using now—and that is the solution: rational use of energy.” — Dr. Vaclav Smil

[01:13:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=4382s) The Fallacy of National Reductions and the Montreal Protocol Myth

Vaclav Smil underscores that analyzing carbon dioxide emissions through a purely national lens fundamentally misunderstands atmospheric physics. Carbon dioxide is a well-mixed greenhouse gas in a single planetary reservoir. Smil recounts a calculation he performed regarding Canadian emissions: if Canada were to shut down the entirety of its oil sands operations to eliminate those emissions, China’s rapid energy growth at the time would have offset the entire savings in just seventeen days. For a nation of 35 million people, adopting complete rationality accomplishes little on a global scale when another billion people are being added across Asia and Africa—populations that must urgently consume whatever energy sources they can access to survive and develop. As Smil puts it, “People have to realize that talking about CO2, you shouldn't talk about nations; you have to talk globally.”

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Asymmetry of Carbon Emissions accDescr: Flowchart illustrating how small-nation emissions cuts are rapidly offset by growth in developing economies.

subgraph Developed["Developed World Action"] A["Canada shuts down oil sands /<br/>Denmark cuts fossil fuels"] --> B["Marginal global reduction"] end

subgraph Developing["Global Realities"] C["1 billion new people in Asia & Africa"] --> D["Industrial & basic energy demand"] D --> E["Emissions growth offsets cuts in days or hours"] end

B -.->|"Overwhelmed by scale"| E ```

Smil strongly dismisses the common belief that the climate crisis can be resolved the same way the world solved the depletion of the ozone layer through the Montreal Protocol. Eliminating chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was straightforward because only a handful of wealthy nations and major chemical manufacturers—such as DuPont, Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), and a Russian state enterprise—were producing them. These companies readily agreed to phase out CFCs in favor of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), on which they made higher profits, while rich nations agreed to pay off developing countries to accelerate their transition. In contrast, carbon dioxide is deeply woven into every facet of modern civilization, from basic heat and electricity to agricultural production, where clearing tropical rainforest for oil palm biofuels generates immense amounts of carbon.

- Smil calculated that China’s expanding energy consumption would have eclipsed the total emissions saved by closing Canada’s oil sands in a mere 17 days. - Small European countries like Denmark (with approximately four to five million people, equivalent to a modest Chinese county town) could abandon fossil fuels entirely, and the savings would be absorbed by Indian and Chinese growth in hours or days. - Tropical deforestation for land use and agriculture remains the second largest source of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions after the direct combustion of fossil fuels.

---

[01:15:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=4555s) The Scaling Trap of Carbon Capture and the Math of Planetary Consumption

Examining technical proposals for atmospheric mitigation, Smil argues that humanity has already passed the 400 parts per million (PPM) threshold and has virtually no chance of halting atmospheric concentrations at 450 PPM. Even stabilizing atmospheric concentrations at 500 PPM would require the developed world to make immense reductions in living standards to accommodate developing nations rising out of poverty. Addressing claims that direct air capture (DAC) or carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) will solve the issue, Smil focuses entirely on the sheer physical scale of the energy system. Global petroleum extraction amounts to roughly four billion metric tons per year, supported by vast pipelines, tankers, refineries, and drilling infrastructure built over more than a century.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Physical Scale Comparison of Oil Extraction vs CO2 Emissions accDescr: Diagram contrasting annual global oil extraction with global CO2 generation to show the impracticality of complete carbon capture.

subgraph Extraction["Global Oil Extraction"] Oil["~4 Billion Tons / Year<br/>(Massive Global Industry)"] end

subgraph Emissions["Global CO2 Emissions"] CO2["> 30 Billion Tons / Year<br/>(Total Human Output)"] end

Oil -.->|"Reversing oil industry handles ~13% of total"| CO2 ```

Smil points out that generating an equivalent underground sequestration apparatus handling four billion tons of carbon dioxide—effectively building the entire global petroleum infrastructure in reverse—would sequester only a fraction of annual emissions, given that humanity emits more than 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. Because the required scale is so astronomically large, Smil argues that relying on carbon capture from ambient air or underground storage is fundamentally unrealistic. As Smil summarizes: “There is no simple engineering solution because of the scale, so forget about the capture from the air, forget about the storage underground—that cannot work really.”

- Global annual oil extraction stands at roughly 4 billion metric tons. - Annual human emissions of carbon dioxide exceed 30 billion metric tons, meaning an underground sequestration system equal in size to the entire global oil industry would manage only around 13 to 15 percent of emissions. - India and China will not curtail basic human modernization for Western emissions targets; in negotiations like the Paris Agreement, India has affirmed its intent to burn available energy, while China pledged only that emissions would peak before 2030 without defining the absolute peak level.

---

[01:18:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=4684s) Per Capita Disparities, Historical Debt, and the Limits of Efficiency

Smil frames the climate dilemma as a fundamentally moral and behavioral issue rather than an engineering challenge. Primary energy consumption in Canada sits at roughly 360 gigajoules (GJ) per capita, compared to China at roughly 90 GJ per capita—a fourfold difference today. However, under Mao Zedong until the late 1970s, China’s primary energy consumption lingered near 15 GJ per capita. When viewed in terms of cumulative historical emissions over the past 150 years, the Western advantage expands to roughly fifty times that of developing countries on a per capita basis. Developing nations therefore operate with an unassailable moral argument to pursue modernization, leaving Western nations with no standing to dictate consumption limits to them.

During the subsequent exchange, an audience member challenges Smil on this dynamic, pointing out an institutional paradox:

> “Now you've presented us with a rather interesting paradox. You're suggesting the solution to our energy problems is not technical, but obviously is political and economic, but those very same political and economic forces are pushing the technical argument because it's easier for them to do so than it is to change the system. So how are we going to change this system in the direction that you think we ought to go?”

Smil responds by clarifying that while society is entirely suffused with technology, the solution cannot be *primarily* technical because modern machinery is already bumping against thermodynamic limits:

> “So you see, I should have I should have been more careful. I should have said the solutions are not primarily technical. Of course, everything is technical. The society is just suffused with la technique, everything—so to do anything without mucking with the current arrangement, current tech, is impossible.”

To illustrate these thermodynamic ceilings, Smil points to residential heating. His own home uses a natural gas condensing furnace running at 97 percent efficiency with no traditional chimney, while modern Canadian building codes mandate mid-efficiency units of around 78 percent. Moving from 78 percent to 97 percent captures an incremental 15 to 20 percent efficiency improvement, leaving almost zero room for future thermodynamic gains. The same constraints apply across aviation and transport: replacing entire fleets with state-of-the-art aircraft like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner yields at best a 15 to 18 percent fuel burn improvement. Smil concludes that replacing every motor, engine, and turbine worldwide with the most efficient model available would save only 15 to 25 percent overall. With world population expanding from 7.3 billion toward 9 billion, and with developing populations like India seeking to increase their per capita consumption from 15–20 GJ up toward China's 90 GJ, efficiency improvements are swiftly overwhelmed by demographic and economic growth.

- Primary energy per capita: Canada consumes ~360 GJ per capita, China consumes ~90 GJ per capita (having risen from ~15 GJ prior to 1980), and India consumes roughly 15 to 20 GJ per capita. - State-of-the-art condensing natural gas furnaces operate at 97% thermal efficiency, leaving virtually no physical headroom for further efficiency gains over the code-mandated 78% standard. - Upgrading the entire global fleet of aircraft to advanced models like the Boeing 787 yields an efficiency gain of approximately 15 to 18 percent. - Universally adopting the most efficient modern energy converters across all applications would reduce total primary energy use by only 15 to 25 percent, an amount easily surpassed by population growth from 7.3 to 9 billion alongside rising global living standards.

[01:22:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=4923s) Pricing Energy and the Myth of Costly Consumption

An audience member asks how society can convince people to make more intelligent use of energy if technical fixes alone cannot solve the crisis. Dr. Vaclav Smil responds without hesitation: “People very—there is no secret to it: hit them in their pocket, make them pay, is very simple as that, really.” He challenges the room to guess what proportion of disposable income the mythical, non-existent American middle-class family beloved by politicians actually devotes to energy. The answer is merely 9 percent, with an additional 9 percent spent on food—the most essential energy form of all. Consequently, the typical North American household spends under 20 percent of its disposable income on the core essentials of life: light, heat, mobility, and sustenance. The remaining 80 percent is dissipated on mortgages for homes people cannot afford and disposable junk manufactured in China.

Smil contrasts this extreme modern affluence with his youth in postwar Europe, where households routinely spent 50 to 60 percent of their disposable income on food alone. Rationing persisted in Great Britain until 1954, and across much of the developing world—and historically in Maoist China—food still claims 40 to 60 percent of household earnings. Even modern Europe spends roughly 20 percent (and up to 22 percent in Switzerland). In North America, by contrast, society practically gives away electricity, gasoline, and food for free. Because prices do not remotely reflect the embedded energetic costs of production, systemic waste becomes inevitable. As Smil observes, “We are living in a society which is the cheapest food and energy prices in history of mankind, period.”

- North American middle-class households allocate approximately 9% of disposable income to energy and 9% to food. - Post-WWII European households spent 50% to 60% of disposable income on food; modern European families still spend around 20% to 22%. - Developing nations continue to spend between 40% and 60% of household income on basic nutrition. - Smil notes that a consumer can buy 1.5 kilograms of pork on sale at a supermarket for just $7, a price disconnected from the thermodynamic input required to produce it. - Feed conversion ratios highlight this disconnect: warm-blooded livestock require vast feed inputs simply to maintain body temperature and basal metabolism, demanding roughly 7 units of feed per unit of pork, and up to 20 units of feed per unit of beef in fenced feedlots, after which society wastes roughly 40% of the edible meat. - Smil argues that if prices reflected the full embodied energy in apparel, footwear, meat, or vegetables, consumer goods would cost two to three times more, compelling immediate conservation.

[01:26:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=5176s) Ecological Limits of Agriculture and the Promise of Synthetic Genomics

Looking ahead, Smil warns that food and energy will inevitably become far more expensive because the planetary biosphere is under acute degradation. Global food security hinges directly on ecological stability, yet crop yields for staples like rice, wheat, and corn, which soared during the Green Revolution of the 1960s, have largely plateaued over the past two decades. Breaking past these yield ceilings would demand vastly higher inputs of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and energy-intensive irrigation, or alternatively, radical biological redesign.

While Smil views synthetic genomics as humanity's most plausible long-term hope, he cautions against the breathless hype peddled by biotechnology promoters. Researchers frequently hold press conferences in white lab coats announcing miraculous cancer cures or breakthrough organisms, only to append that practical deployment remains decades away. He cites Craig Venter’s promise a decade earlier to engineer bacteria that would secrete liquid hydrocarbons on demand, a goal that remains completely unrealized. While precise genome-editing tools like CRISPR represent significant scientific milestones, Smil notes an inherent danger: once humanity masters the genetic engineering of metabolic organisms, society will inevitably attempt the wholesale engineering of human beings—a future he views with deep foreboding.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Limits of Agricultural Yields and Genetic Solutions accDescr: Flowchart illustrating the historical yield growth, the current plateau, and future biotechnology hurdles described by Vaclav Smil.

subgraph Historical["Green Revolution (1960s–1990s)"] A["High-Yield Crop Varieties"] --> B["Dramatic Yield Expansion"] end

subgraph Present["Current Agronomic Reality"] B --> C["Yield Growth Plateaus for Corn, Rice & Wheat"] C --> D["Higher Chemical & Water Inputs Required"] D --> E["Accelerating Ecological Stress"] end

subgraph Future["Biotechnological Frontiers"] C --> F["Synthetic Genomics & CRISPR Editing"] F -.->|"Hype vs. Decadal Lag"| G["Engineered Hydrocarbons / Cultured Meat"] G -.->|"Unintended Consequences"| H["Widespread Human Genetic Engineering"] end ```

- Major grain yields have flattened over the past 20 years, resisting simple linear improvements. - Further yield increases under conventional methods require disproportionate infusions of energy-intensive inputs, particularly Haber-Bosch nitrogen fertilizers and pumped irrigation. - “This is our great hope, you know, that most of our problems we can eventually solve by synthetic genomics, but we are not there yet really,” Smil explains, noting that commercialized organisms secreting transport fuels remain years off. - Smil cautions that technological capability will inevitably expand from microbes to people: “We won't stop at engineering gasoline-spitting bacteria, right? We'll start engineering people on a big scale.”

[01:28:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=5293s) The Stagnation and Shifting Geography of Nuclear Power

Prompted by an audience member to assess the prospects of nuclear power and its historical rollout in France, Smil intervenes with an unsparing diagnosis: “If I would be flippant I would say, you know, why are we talking about nuclear energy, it's dead.” Clarifying the remark, he points out that nuclear power has essentially halted across the Western industrialized nations that pioneered it. Canada has not built a new commercial reactor in twenty-five years, and the United States operates roughly 100 aging reactors from an initial 1960s–1980s buildout while only constructing a handful of replacement units. In Europe, only two reactors are under construction, highlighted by the Olkiluoto plant in Finland, which has suffered catastrophic delays and massive cost overruns. Meanwhile, Japan, which formerly derived 30 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, will never return to that baseline following the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.

The locus of nuclear construction has shifted entirely to authoritarian or developing states: China, South Korea, North Korea, Iran, and to a limited degree, India. Smil emphasizes that this shift dramatically elevates operational and catastrophic risks. In Japan, the Fukushima disaster unfolded in the relatively sparsely populated Tohoku region, requiring the evacuation of roughly 100,000 residents. In China, however, commercial reactors are not situated in the remote interior of Tibet, but are clustered in coastal provinces like Zhejiang and Jiangsu, directly adjacent to megacities like Shanghai. Smil points out that eastern China is seismically vulnerable—recalling the 1976 Tangshan earthquake that killed over 700,000 people—meaning a major accident could imperil up to 100 million individuals in the densest urban corridors on earth.

- There are approximately 440 commercial nuclear reactors operating globally, with roughly 100 located in the United States. - The United States is constructing merely two and a half to three and a half replacement reactors, while Western Europe has only two underway. - Finland's showcase EPR reactor at Olkiluoto has taken nearly double the projected construction time and more than double its original budget. - Japan has permanently retreated from its pre-2011 standard of generating 30% of national electricity from nuclear fission. - Active nuclear construction programs are now largely concentrated in China, South Korea, North Korea, Iran, and India. - High demographic density along China’s eastern seaboard magnifies accident consequences by orders of magnitude compared to Japan's 100,000-person evacuation: “In China, similar accident will affect 100 million people, right, given the density.” - Smil underlines eastern China's seismic hazards by citing the Tangshan earthquake of September 1976, less than 150 kilometers from Beijing, which claimed an estimated 700,000 lives.

[01:31:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=5499s) The Troubled Geopolitics and Stagnation of Nuclear Power

Dr. Vaclav Smil surveys the current global landscape of nuclear power construction, pointing out that Western nations have largely exited the arena. The remaining builders form a geopolitically volatile cohort: China, South Korea, India, Iran, and Russia. While South Korea may appear friendly and stable, Smil emphasizes that it sits directly within the strike range of everything North Korea can launch, including strikes targeting South Korea's extensive fleet of nuclear reactors. In India, stability is challenged by bordering a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Meanwhile, Russia's nuclear industry traces its lineage back to the design of the Chernobyl reactor, an engineering disaster built without a containment building, operated by personnel who were casually experimenting in the middle of the night. In contrast, when the Three Mile Island accident occurred in the United States, proper containment ensured that everything remained trapped within the concrete structure. Smil questions whether the world should feel comfortable leaving all future reactor construction exclusively to this group of nations, noting with resignation that while they are building, the Western world has completely stepped away.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Nuclear Power Trajectory accDescr: Flowchart contrasting the past success of nuclear power with its current geopolitical risks and western abandonment.

subgraph Legacy ["Historical Accomplishments"] Success["'Successful Failure'<br/>Generates more TWh than hydro & new renewables<br/>Supplies 70% in France, 30% in Japan"] end

subgraph Bottlenecks ["Unresolved Problems"] Waste["No Permanent Repository<br/>(US, Russia, China, France lack deep storage)"] Economics["Cost-Prohibitive<br/>$13B per 1 GW vs. $40/bbl oil"] BreederFail["Breeder Reactor Cancellation<br/>GE 1974 forecast failed: 0 operating in West"] end

subgraph Geography ["Active Builders vs. Western Exit"] Builders["Active Builders<br/>China, Russia, South Korea, India, Iran"] Exit["Western Retreat<br/>France cutting share, Flamanville delays, US stalls"] end

Legacy --> Bottlenecks Bottlenecks --> Geography ```

Looking back at his long study of the sector, Smil explains how he coined a concise phrase to describe atomic energy: “I came up with oh it's right it's simple it's primitive but nevertheless I'm proud of it because you know in two words it encapsulates nuclear electricity: it's been a successful failure.” It is successful because it supplies more electricity globally than all hydroelectric dams and all modern renewables combined, representing the largest non-fossil chunk of power, providing 70% of France’s supply and historically 30% of Japan’s. Yet it remains a failure because Western society grew terrified of it, abandoned it, and never resolved the ultimate NIMBY problem: deep geological repositories for long-lived radioactive waste. Neither the United States, Russia, China, France, nor Japan has an operational permanent depository. Furthermore, the economics have become prohibitive; spending $13 billion to construct a single gigawatt of capacity makes little sense in an era of $40-per-barrel oil. Even France, the world’s preeminent nuclear pioneer, has committed to reducing its nuclear share, bogged down by troubles at projects like the Flamanville EPR. Smil contrasts today's reality with a 1974 General Electric forecast in his possession, which had projected that by the year 2000 fossil-fueled power plants would be entirely obsolete and 80% of all generation would come from fast breeder reactors. Today, after billions poured into prototypes across the US, France, and Japan, there is not a single commercial fast breeder reactor operating anywhere in the Western world.

- South Korea possesses one of the world's most extensive nuclear construction programs despite lying entirely within North Korean military range. - The Chernobyl RBMK reactor lacked a secondary containment structure, whereas the Three Mile Island containment building successfully prevented widespread environmental contamination. - France generates roughly 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, but government policy now targets a contraction of this share rather than expansion. - General Electric’s 1974 long-range energy forecast predicted the complete phaseout of coal, oil, and gas by 2000, alongside the widespread adoption of liquid-metal fast breeder reactors.

---

[01:35:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=5740s) Hubris, Historical Surprises, and the Collapse of Peak Oil

A student from the McGill Faculty of Engineering asks the final question, jokingly praising Smil for telling the engineering faculty that the "emperor has no clothes." Smil quips back that the emperor has clothes, but they are exceptionally skimpy. The student then asks what role engineers should have if technological innovation cannot magically rescue civilization, whether society is flying toward catastrophic Icarus-like hubris, and what ultimately gives Smil hope. Smil responds that across long-term historical horizons, human beings are consistently terrible at anticipating their true crises: the disasters society worries about most obsessively often end up being solved or avoided, while the threats that blindsided civilization come from matters nobody paid attention to.

To illustrate grounds for optimism, Smil points to the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union. As a former citizen who fled behind the Iron Curtain, he finds it extraordinary that a superpower possessing 11,000 active nuclear warheads simply dismantled its empire on a Sunday without triggering global thermonuclear war. While border skirmishes in Ukraine and Chechnya followed, the central disaster everyone feared throughout the Cold War—a global nuclear exchange—never materialized. By comparison, China represents a less hopeful sociopolitical picture; despite lifting its population out of poverty and introducing elements of a market economy after Mao's death, it remains an authoritarian regime governed by an omnipresent Communist Party that expends vast resources employing armies of censors merely to police citizens' private messages.

Turning back to resources, Smil targets the apocalyptic hysteria surrounding "peak oil" that peaked around 2005. At the time, doom-laden bestsellers predicted immediate civilizational collapse due to oil exhaustion, prompting Smil to publish detailed rebuttals arguing that the Earth held vast untapped hydrocarbons. Ten years later, the public narrative had reversed 180 degrees: instead of panicking about imminent shortages, market analysts were complaining that energy was far too cheap and that low oil prices were destabilizing producers. Smil underscores that the world is not running out of minerals or fossil fuel deposits. The hydraulic fracturing revolution has granted North America an estimated 100-year supply of low-cost natural gas. Here, Smil notes, engineers proved their value: early fracking was inefficient, wasting massive volumes of water and proppants. Over time, engineers optimized horizontal drilling, pumping vastly higher volumes of inexpensive sand to prop open the fractures in tight shale formations, driving down production costs per well. While Saudi Arabia initially assumed that sustained $50 or $60 prices would wipe out US tight-oil drillers in the Bakken and Eagle Ford, engineering learning curves enabled several operators to remain viable down toward $25 per barrel, debunking the narrative of physical depletion. However, Smil cautions that humanity is exhausting other vital resources that receive virtually no attention, the foremost being water.

- The peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union occurred despite the state holding an arsenal of approximately 11,000 nuclear warheads. - Predictions in 2005 warned that imminent global peak oil would trigger irreversible collapse; by 2015, markets faced a glut, with crude falling toward $40 per barrel. - Fracking and horizontal drilling techniques unlocked an estimated century-long reserve of natural gas for the United States and Canada. - Enhanced sand proppant loading drastically improved output per shale well, allowing US shale plays like the Bakken and Eagle Ford to withstand oil prices far lower than Saudi Arabia had anticipated.

[01:40:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=6045s) Depleting the World's Water: Groundwater Subsidence and Population Pressures

Vaclav Smil identifies water scarcity as a far more imminent crisis than running out of oil or bauxite. Citing a landmark paper published in *Nature*, he explains that high-precision satellites can detect millimeter-scale shifts in ground elevation, revealing that both the North China Plain and the Gangetic Plain are physically sinking due to the aggressive extraction of underground aquifers. The water table depletion in India is especially concerning given the rapid demographic surge; Smil notes that recent projections anticipate India surpassing China as the world's most populous country around 2035—roughly fifteen years earlier than prior estimates of 2050—adding half a billion people to an already stressed environment.

Smil emphasizes that water vulnerabilities are not confined to Asia. Significant portions of Europe, including Germany and Poland, are fundamentally dry and rely heavily on river flows. While humanity has historically overcome severe resource constraints through technical innovation and survived immense political upheavals—such as China after Mao Zedong or Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union—water depletion presents an inescapable physical limit. As Smil argues:

> “If I would worry about something really you know I wouldn't worry about oil or bauxite or whatever right you know I would worry about water in large parts of the world including China India and including large parts of Europe.”

- Satellite observations can detect surface subsidence down to a few millimeters caused by aquifer depletion beneath major agricultural basins. - India is projected to become the world's most populous nation by around 2035 rather than 2050. - Key European nations such as Germany and Poland are comparatively dry and heavily reliant on river systems.

---

[01:42:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=6145s) Fictional Economies, Quantitative Easing, and California's Exceptional Drought

Moving beyond ecological limits, Smil criticizes modern macroeconomics, which he characterizes as lacking the rigors of an actual physical science. He expresses bewilderment at central bank policies in the United States, pointing to the printing of roughly one trillion dollars annually under the euphemism of "quantitative easing" while anchoring interest rates at near zero. He argues that this paper wealth creates a pure mirage (*fata morgana*) where individuals borrow cheaply for houses they cannot fundamentally afford. Combined with an economic landscape where 25% of European youth aged 18 to 25 are unemployed, Smil warns that physical and social realities must inevitably catch up with the system.

Turning to regional environmental mismanagement, Smil points to the historic drought in California. Tree-ring data indicates that a comparable dry spell has not occurred in 1,200 years, back when the region supported roughly 10,000 Indigenous people hunting deer and gathering acorns. Today, California represents the seventh largest economy in the world, with zero snowpack remaining in the Sierra Nevada mountains to feed its rivers. The situation deteriorated past "severe" into an officially designated "exceptional drought." Smil recounts visiting Stanford University just ten days earlier and observing irrigation systems running at 11:00 a.m. under peak transpiration conditions:

> “Stanford University just watering lawns at 11:00 a.m. at the time of the highest transpiration haven't these people taken a course in basic biology right you know can if they are so stupid cannot they water at least at 4:00 a.m. really instead of watering at 11:00 a.m. really.”

When university personnel excused the practice by claiming the water came from an on-campus lagoon, Smil pointed out the absurdity of treating it as separate from the regional hydrological balance. The underlying motive, he remarks, is preserving green grass for returning alumni who donate billions to the university endowment.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Systemic Risks to Global Stability accDescr: Diagram illustrating three major global pressures identified by Vaclav Smil: macroeconomic imbalances, social crises, and environmental water stress.

subgraph Macroeconomics["Macroeconomic Vulnerabilities"] A["Quantitative Easing: ~$1T/year printed"] B["Near-zero interest rates & artificial asset inflation"] end

subgraph Social["Socioeconomic Fragility"] C["EU youth unemployment at ~25%"] D["Mounting risk of structural social unrest"] end

subgraph Hydrology["Hydrological Depletion"] E["California Exceptional Drought: 1,200-year tree-ring anomaly"] F["Disappearing Sierra snowpack vs. wasteful landscaping"] end

A --> B C --> D E --> F ```

- Dendrochronological records show California's dry spell was unmatched in 1,200 years. - California's drought scale required creating the category "exceptional drought" beyond "severe." - Sierra Nevada snowpack was completely exhausted, eliminating run-off reserves for the state's massive economy.

---

[01:46:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=6365s) The Cushion of Waste: Finding Hope in Material Retraction

Addressing what provides him genuine optimism, Smil points to the staggering margin of modern wastefulness. Because contemporary society discards roughly 40% of its food and squanders vast quantities of energy on non-essential luxuries, civilization possesses a wide buffer that could be curtailed in hard times without destroying human welfare. People could pull back into their shell, eliminating discretionary activities like spontaneous weekend flights to Amsterdam, while maintaining high living standards.

Smil reminds the audience that the dramatic surge in energy consumption across Western societies occurred very recently. Rather than a gradual doubling over two centuries, primary energy use doubled since the 1960s alone. French historical records show that as late as the late 1950s, the majority of French households lacked indoor toilets, bathrooms, refrigerators, or private automobiles—conveniences that only generalized in the early 1960s. He asks whether quality of life was intolerable in Bordeaux in 1960 or Tokyo in 1975, when energy consumption was half of present levels. The immense room between essential need and gratuitous consumption represents our best defense:

> “This is what gives me hope that we are living so much beyond our means we can pull back and still live nice productive life without wasting as much as we do.”

Following loud applause for Smil's remarks, the event organizer steps up to close the session. Speaking on behalf of the Trottier Institute for Sustainability in Engineering and Design (TISED), Fondation 3E, and McGill University, the host thanks Dr. Smil for a thought-provoking evening, expresses gratitude to the audience, and invites attendees to follow TISED's website for upcoming events.

- Roughly 40% of food produced in the developed world is squandered, illustrating modern society's huge margin of inefficiency. - Energy consumption across Western countries doubled in the period following 1960 rather than across the whole Industrial Revolution. - Well into the late 1950s, a majority of French households functioned without indoor bathrooms or passenger cars.

## Notable quotes > [06:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=398s) We are a fossil fueled civilization. — Dr. Vaclav Smil

> [01:13:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=4382s) People have to realize that talking about CO2, you shouldn't talk about nations; you have to talk globally. — Dr. Vaclav Smil

> [01:15:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=4555s) There is no simple engineering solution because of the scale, so forget about the capture from the air, forget about the storage underground—that cannot work really. — Dr. Vaclav Smil

> [01:05:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4&t=3919s) If I ran the things, I could design a system then you could run Canada on one-third of the energy which you are using, and our standard of living would be pretty much the same. — Dr. Vaclav Smil

## Mentioned Dr. Vaclav Smil, Michel Gélinas, Professor Subhasis Ghoshal, Richard Gordon, Henry Ford, Elon Musk, Thomas Alva Edison, William Stanley, George Westinghouse, Nikola Tesla, Gottlieb Daimler, Wilhelm Maybach, James Clerk Maxwell, Heinrich Hertz, Guglielmo Marconi, Lee de Forest, Julius Edgar Lilienfeld, John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, William Shockley, Robert Noyce, Jack Kilby, Steve Jobs, Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, Craig Venter, Mao Zedong, Trottier Institute for Sustainability in Engineering and Design (TISED), Fondation 3E, McGill University, University of Manitoba, Royal Society of Canada, Foreign Policy, The Energy Journal, The New York Times, Nature (journal), Siemens, General Electric, Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, CFM, Bombardier, BASF, DuPont, Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), Panasonic, SpaceX, Intel, Manitoba Hydro, Hydro-Québec, Stanford University, Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 777, Boeing 747, Model T, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Citroën 2CV, Cadillac Escalade, Infiniti SUV, Shinkansen, Pelamis Wave Power, Groningen natural gas field, Bakken shale formation, Eagle Ford shale play, Olkiluoto nuclear power plant, Flamanville EPR, Fukushima Daiichi, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Montreal Protocol, Paris Agreement

## Video description Dr. Vaclav Smil was the speaker at a TISED and Fondation 3E event in September 2015 called "Energy Revolution? More like a Crawl". He explored the current state of global and major national energy dependencies and appraised the likely speed of their transformation. In his words, "The desirable development of new renewables should not be guided by wishful preferences and arbitrary targets. Using more energy, albeit more efficiently and with lower specific environmental effects, is unlikely to change our fortunes — yet no serious consideration has been given to how to use less, much less."

To learn more, please visit https://www.mcgill.ca/tised/public-events/past-events/energy-revolution-more-crawl

Smil is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (Science Academy), and the Member of the Order of Canada; in 2010 he was listed by Foreign Policy among the top 100 global thinkers.

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4)

中文简报

瓦茨拉夫·斯米尔博士:“能源革命?不如说是缓慢爬行” 瓦茨拉夫·斯米尔博士对全球能源系统进行了严谨的实证和量化评估,指出当代文明在本质上仍由化石燃料驱动,无法实现快速、无阻碍的转型。他阐明,由于基础设施规模庞大、可再生能源功率密度偏低、间歇性难题,以及制造钢铁、混凝土和塑料等基础材料需要耗费巨大的物化化石能源,能源转型往往需要耗费数十年。通过聚焦高炉炼铁和哈伯-博施法合成氨等基础行业,斯米尔解释了为什么这些文明支柱产业无法简单通过电气化来替代。他坚称,与其寄希望于万能技术或碳捕集,唯一务实的解决方案在于理性利用能源,并大幅减少西方生活方式中根深蒂固的巨大浪费空间。 全球能源转型依然迟缓:1990年至2015年间,化石燃料在全球一次能源中的占比仅下降了3%(从大约90%降至87%),而新型可再生能源在2015年仅占2.5%。 (8:34) 从历史上看,结构性能源转变需要数十年时间;在全球市场份额从5%上升到25%,煤炭用了35年,石油用了40年,天然气则用了55年。 (12:55) 西方国家浪费了大约40%的食物供应,并驾驶超重的数吨级车辆,形成了巨大的浪费缓冲带;这使得像加拿大这样的国家在不牺牲生活水平的情况下,仅用当前三分之一的能源就能维持运转。 (65:19) 碳捕集与封存面临着严重的物理规模限制:即使仅将全球每年CO2排放量的13%至15%封存在地下,也需要建立一个规模堪比整个全球石油工业的工业基础设施。 (75:55)

Source quotes

[6:38] Dr. Vaclav Smil: We are a fossil fueled civilization. [73:02] Dr. Vaclav Smil: People have to realize that talking about CO2, you shouldn't talk about nations; you have to talk globally. [75:55] Dr. Vaclav Smil: There is no simple engineering solution because of the scale, so forget about the capture from the air, forget about the storage underground—that cannot work really. [65:19] Dr. Vaclav Smil: If I ran the things, I could design a system then you could run Canada on one-third of the energy which you are using, and our standard of living would be pretty much the same.

Original transcript

[0:09] boswa good [0:11] evening welcome everyone to this uh [0:13] special seminar event uh energy [0:17] Revolution uh more like a [0:19] crawl uh by distinguished speaker vaslav [0:23] smill it's wonderful to see such a nice [0:27] turnout uh I know we have here in the [0:30] audience uh representatives from just [0:33] about every University campus uh in [0:36] Montreal so from concard University the [0:39] HC poly technique um university moral [0:43] and ukam so thank you all for showing [0:47] up so um I'm subasish kosal I'm a [0:51] professor in Mel's faculty of [0:52] engineering and director of the Trot [0:55] Institute for sustainability and [0:56] engineering and design which we call [0:59] tiet [1:00] short and tonight's event is part of the [1:04] fasio 3E speaker program and is [1:07] co-hosted with tyed so a bit of [1:11] background here on fasia 3E and the [1:14] collaboration with [1:15] tyed Miguel's partnership with fontasia [1:18] 3E began about 5 years ago looking back [1:21] I'm very pleased to say that this [1:23] relationship has grown over the years [1:26] and has directly supported Ted's own [1:28] mission we at taed share fasio 3's core [1:32] beliefs that energy literacy is a pillar [1:35] of sustainable [1:37] engineering that integrative and [1:39] collaborative design work of uh [1:41] Engineers Architects and urban planners [1:44] is required to reduce energy consumption [1:47] in the urban [1:49] envelope and the transition to [1:52] non-emitting energy sources is an very [1:55] important task at [1:57] hand members of the board of n 3 are [2:01] here with us today and I extend them a [2:04] warm welcome on behalf of [2:06] taied and I would now like to introduce [2:10] Mr Michelle jalina the president of [2:12] fasia 3E Mr jalina obtained a masters [2:16] from HC Montreal his passion for energy [2:20] issues traces back to a 1980s diplomatic [2:24] assignment in Trin in Trinidad and [2:26] Tobago who's obviously oil and gas [2:29] producer and [2:30] supporter and since 2004 Michelle has [2:33] been an analyst and adviser on energy [2:35] issues Michelle has worked for foreign [2:38] affairs and very other various other [2:40] government departments with a particular [2:42] focus on energy infrastructure and [2:44] Technology issues I'd like now to invite [2:48] Michelle to the stage to say a few words [2:58] please thank you very much [3:01] Tois well on behalf of the board of [3:04] directors of for I would like to extend [3:07] our special thanks to all students that [3:10] are with us tonight in particular those [3:12] of C [3:13] 546 uh so we place much hope on your [3:16] shoulders M [3:17] say like I said we believe that [3:21] sustainability must be [3:23] engineer and uh and that it applies to [3:27] both the demand and the supply side of [3:29] energy and material consumption we're [3:31] more focused on the demand [3:33] side uh the question is could we reduce [3:37] our absolute energy consumption we [3:39] believe that it can be done and our [3:41] beliefs are basically of three I mean [3:43] they're anchored on three sub beliefs if [3:46] I may say so one we cannot manage what [3:49] we cannot frame and understand ends are [3:53] singular focus on energy literacy and [3:55] energy numeracy two working as a team [4:00] energy literate Engineers urban planners [4:04] and architect can design and erect [4:06] environments that will dramatically [4:08] reduce the Absolute Energy footprint of [4:12] the inhabitants and three the transition [4:16] to nonemitting energy sources is [4:17] desirable and the contribution of [4:19] passive as well as opportun sorry [4:22] opportunistic energy sources should be [4:25] Earnest our guest speaker here tonight [4:28] whom I had the privilege of meeting [4:29] meeting nearly 10 years ago greatly [4:31] influenced our thinking at foundational [4:34] 3E uh his book energy at a crossroad in [4:38] particular I recall at the time uh being [4:41] half an economist uh I reviewed I had a [4:45] chance to review a criticism or review [4:47] of that book by Mr Gordon in energy in [4:50] the energy Journal [4:53] Gordon give a very favorable review of [4:55] your book vaslav and uh and at the end [4:59] he noted he had he had this view that [5:02] well however Mr smill is a bit of his [5:05] views of energy future and the future of [5:07] energy is a bit indos syncratic because [5:10] it is based on this assumption that we [5:12] should be using less energy well let [5:14] Meen to say that we disagree with Gordon [5:17] and we agreed with vaslav sois I would [5:20] like to ask you to introduce vaslav more [5:22] formally thank [5:28] you [5:33] so it is indeed my privilege to [5:36] introduce vasl smill a distinguished [5:39] professor emiritus at the University of [5:42] Manitoba a fellow of the Royal Society [5:45] of Canada vast lives smill is a [5:47] distinguished interdisciplinary [5:49] researcher and author in areas panning [5:52] energy environment population Dynamics [5:54] uh technical Innovation risk assessment [5:57] policy and probably more [6:00] Professor smill has been listed by the [6:02] foreign policy magazine as among the top [6:05] 100 Global thinkers Professor smill was [6:09] made a member of the Order of Canada for [6:11] contributions to understanding the [6:13] impact of energy use on our biosphere [6:16] and this year he received the OPC [6:18] research award for outstanding work in [6:20] oil and Energy [6:22] Research it's wonderful to U have you [6:25] finally in montal vaslav um and we are [6:28] honored to have you here with us today [6:31] so um I invite you to come to the podium [6:34] for your [6:38] talk thank you thank [6:42] you I'm glad to be here I'm humbled by [6:44] so many people willink to spend uh late [6:47] Tuesday afternoon early evening uh by [6:49] listening to an Old-Fashioned Professor [6:52] uh without PowerPoint I don't even have [6:54] a cell phone [6:57] um we can do it in many ways [7:00] I myself usually don't know what I will [7:01] say in next five or 10 minutes I like [7:04] you know to do it like that we can make [7:06] it very structured but we'll see how it [7:08] will go I'll see how it will react and [7:11] but anyway I want to leave you with at [7:12] least sort of five pedagogical dactic [7:15] messages to take away number one we are [7:19] a fossil fueled civilization right one [7:22] more we are a fossil fuel civilization [7:25] number two we shall remain so for a long [7:28] time to come [7:30] because number three energy transitions [7:32] take a great deal of time right because [7:35] number four scale matters number five [7:39] soda's power density number six can go [7:43] on but at least couple more number six [7:45] uh it's always better to use energy [7:48] rationally than to come up with new ways [7:50] how to use it we are doing exactly the [7:53] opposite right um number [7:57] seven Innovation is an overvalued [8:01] exaggerated item uh because when you [8:03] actually think of it we are still living [8:06] in the world of [8:08] 1880s you think I'm crazy but I will [8:10] show you in a while that it is so okay [8:12] let's take them one by one and let's [8:14] look some numbers in numbers are [8:15] absolutely essential so I will just [8:17] throw you know great many numbers if I [8:20] get one wrong just correct me I'm told [8:22] this is an extraordinary numerate [8:24] scientifically literate energy advanced [8:26] class so uh uh I will I'm ready to stand [8:30] corrected [8:32] um [8:34] okay quarter century is enough time 20 [8:37] five years you know one generation to [8:39] get things moving right things usually [8:41] should change substantially 5 years not [8:44] enough 10 years but 25 years so 25 years [8:47] ago [8:48] 1990 does somebody have an idea what [8:51] percentage of global primary energy [8:54] Supply in 1990 came from fossil [8:57] fuels to the nearest [9:00] % 90 okay in 1990 90% of the planet's [9:05] primary energy all fuels and primary [9:09] electricity Hydro nuclear wind solar [9:12] whatever 90% what [9:16] percentage of global energy Supply will [9:19] come from fossil fuels this [9:23] year [9:25] 87 okay so in 25 years we traveled [9:29] 3% this renewable route so you look at [9:34] the 133% what is that 133% composed of [9:39] what is the single largest chunk of the [9:41] nonfossil [9:44] fuels [9:46] clear close to 7% see they switch it off [9:49] so close to 7% is nuclear is here right [9:52] or is the second largest chunk of non [9:54] fossil thing is hydro right what is what [9:58] I call the new Renewables right because [10:01] hydro and wood and straw still B lots of [10:05] it in China in Ethiopia that's old [10:08] Renewables right biomass or phytomass [10:10] fuels and hydro but when I call the new [10:13] Renewables that is basically two big [10:15] items only right that's wind and solar [10:18] and in terms of fuels is the mar [10:19] biofuels ethanol biodiesel all of these [10:22] new Renewables are this year about 2 and [10:25] a half% of global primary energy Supply [10:28] 2 and a half% [10:30] right of which big chunk is biofuels [10:34] which as you know a totally artificial [10:36] Creation in United States created by the [10:38] mandates of US Congress one3 of us core [10:42] now goes into making ethanol one3 of us [10:45] Farmland devoted to Corn is eroding and [10:48] putting all that nitrate into the Gulf [10:50] of Mexico so we could put few per into [10:53] gasoline cars I'll get into cars later [10:56] but you know it's just it's all insane [10:58] actually um [10:59] so suppose you know in next 25 years we [11:02] we'll double it right we'll increase the [11:05] new Renewables from what they are now 2 [11:07] and a half% so in next 25 years they'll [11:11] become 5% suppose we'll just massively [11:14] up everything right subsidize like crazy [11:16] force people to do it we would triple [11:18] the rate of introduction of new [11:19] Renewables we will be at 7 and a half% [11:22] or 8% really right so you see the point [11:25] right um I decided to look into it in [11:28] some detail because history is always [11:30] the best guide and um few years ago I [11:32] wrote this book about energy transitions [11:34] nothing else but quantitative detail [11:36] look at energy transitions globally and [11:38] in all major countries us USSR Russia [11:42] China uh France UK Japan okay and the [11:47] globally see individually you can do in [11:49] small Nations you can move very rapidly [11:52] Dutch Dutch Golden Age 17th century [11:55] running on Pete then the Good Pete runs [11:57] out uh they start in importing Some Coal [12:00] you know they have still a little bit of [12:01] wind from [12:02] windmills and then they return to the [12:05] cold Li so they've been a major coal [12:07] miners coal producers but then they [12:09] discover horing field and basically they [12:11] shut down their coal in a decade right [12:13] so in one nation you can do a rapid [12:16] energy transition in small nation in a [12:18] big nation you cannot do it in China [12:21] basically is a cal country always has [12:23] been always will be I mean always for [12:25] long foreseeable future so China cannot [12:28] do what ddg did in 1960s right us cannot [12:31] do what uh what French did uh with [12:36] nuclear power plants in 1970s and 1980s [12:40] but you look at it globally and actually [12:42] the transitions are getting more [12:44] difficult when we move from wood which [12:46] was the number one Energizer of [12:48] everything see people have this idea [12:50] right that uh 18th century this is this [12:53] kind of you know the half learn history [12:55] 18th century was a century of wood and [12:57] 19th century was the century of coal all [12:59] these steam engines so-called Industrial [13:01] Revolution which really never happened [13:03] but that's another story and 20th [13:04] century was the century of oil all wrong [13:07] except for the first one right 18th [13:09] century was the century of wood but so [13:11] was the 19th century 19th century most [13:14] of the stuff for most of the countries [13:16] in the was wood wood wood if you look at [13:18] the Tipping points we have many good [13:19] historical statistic except for England [13:22] England tip from wood to Coal by about [13:24] 1640 right but when did France St 50% [13:27] coal 50% oil 50% wood about 1870 right [13:31] at the time of the great defeat France [13:33] became finally the wood the C country [13:35] 1870 when did the US flip sooner or [13:38] later or natur later because it is much [13:41] more wood to burn than France right but [13:42] 1884 up to 1884 most of the American [13:46] Energy Right was coming from wood only [13:49] from 1884 was cold right Japan flip [13:52] about 1901 and Russia flipped about 1925 [13:55] 1930 right and China flipped only about [13:57] 1965 19 7 right so you know until [14:01] recently we've been still at biomass [14:03] wood and straw fueled countries and [14:05] continents and civilization so anyway [14:07] going from globally going from wood to [14:09] Coal I and I started I had to choose [14:12] something I chose not arbitrarily but [14:14] you know 5% if you reach 5% of the [14:17] market you matter 1% of the market [14:19] nobody notice you but 5% one out of 20 [14:22] that's pretty good thing so I look you [14:23] reach 5% of the market right and by the [14:26] time you get to 25% you become a king of [14:28] the market right because there are very [14:29] few items which go like 90% right there [14:32] will never be a global market where one [14:34] source of energy will be 90% right so [14:36] going from 5% to 25% from biomass to [14:40] Coal it took us 35 years globally going [14:44] from 5% of oil to 25% of oil took us 40 [14:50] years going from 5% of natural gas to [14:53] 25% natural gas has taking us 55 years [14:56] right so it's Tak us longer and longer [14:58] but it's obvious why because the base is [15:00] getting larger right scale is increasing [15:02] really right so you know to shove it [15:03] extra 5% in 18 550 you know was 10 [15:06] million tons to sh extra 5% now is half [15:09] a billion tons right so scale is getting [15:12] larger so that's one simple physical [15:14] part of it but the techniques and the [15:16] fuels themselves are getting trickier [15:19] you get coal everything you do with wood [15:21] you could do with coal only better the [15:23] fuel has higher density right air dry [15:26] wood it's about 17 depends what kind of [15:28] wood it is 15 16 17 18 G per time right [15:32] very good coal and we start with some [15:34] very good coal in 19th century is 28 29 [15:37] 30 G so almost twice the energy density [15:40] right so when you when you use coal to [15:43] replace wood it's it's easy right it's [15:45] just it's perfect right you go into oil [15:48] and energy density is there right a ton [15:51] of oil is 42 G compared to ton of [15:54] average binus SC you burn in power plant [15:57] it's about 24 22 G so you get almost [15:59] twice as much energy density or twice as [16:02] much energy actually in uh in oil than [16:05] coal and on top of it of course is a [16:07] portable fuel so you can you know run [16:09] the planes and trains and cars with it [16:12] so it seems to be great however it's not [16:14] so great because the distribution is [16:16] tricky right you know there most [16:18] countries in the world don't have it [16:19] right uh we have about 200 countries in [16:22] the world today and of them 160 are [16:24] importers of it right so you have to [16:26] import it from somewhere so if you don't [16:28] have the foreing um exchange it's not so [16:31] easy to import it and it requires some [16:33] sophistication of use you could burn it [16:36] right like you burn coal in the open but [16:38] that's heck you know that's polluting so [16:41] you have to have sophisticated machine [16:44] for it internal combustion engine gas [16:46] turbine right and these things are [16:48] energy intensive knowledge intensive [16:50] take a while to produce them so by the [16:52] time you get to have a billion car well [16:54] you know you don't get a billion car [16:55] when you staish fort marle in October [16:58] 1908 it takes you about a century to get [17:00] your Billy and Cy right so to convert [17:02] that Easy Fuel so the scale is getting [17:05] larger and the the uh requirements [17:08] technical requirements are getting more [17:10] sophisticated one of the most [17:11] sophisticated machines in modern [17:13] civilization is the machine which flew [17:15] me here today right and that's a gas [17:18] turbine right uh for those of you who [17:21] don't know we can take exactly the gas [17:23] turbine which room me here and we can [17:24] put it on the ground right and just use [17:26] it to generate electricity not quite the [17:28] do a little bit modification right but [17:30] uh it's the same thing so gas turbine [17:32] stationary gas turbine flights that's a [17:34] very sophisticated machine extreme you [17:36] know extremely low fail rate [17:40] 0.01% but you know there are only [17:45] five companies in the world who can [17:47] really make it the big one right you [17:48] know it's only Rolls-Royce and G and CFM [17:51] and and Prat and Whitney there are not [17:54] many people can tell so you cannot [17:55] simply say I want to convert suppose [17:57] suppose I have infinite amount of [17:59] natural gas right now right but I have [18:01] to convert it using gas turbines right I [18:04] cannot say let's have 10 GW of gas turb [18:07] points per week I cannot that's only [18:08] five manufacturer to make it right you [18:10] know so it's very limited these things [18:12] so when you get into more sophisticated [18:14] conversions many limits get in and this [18:16] is why it takes longer probably natural [18:19] gas will not hit 33% despite of having [18:22] you know lots of it very cheap probably [18:24] will not hit 33% for another 10 15 years [18:27] right um so no matter what uh transition [18:32] you look at it's always decades decades [18:34] decades just to go from 5 to 25 oil [18:37] actually Co of course at one point was [18:39] like you [18:40] know very high like 80 90 in some [18:43] countries basically 100% this will never [18:45] be repeated oil went way above 40% but [18:49] then with the double increase of prices [18:51] by OPEC in 1970s all has started to [18:54] decline and right now it's about 33% and [18:57] we are globally we are not a very [18:59] strange position globally right now that [19:02] oil is 33% and falling although the low [19:05] prices now will probably bump it up a [19:06] little bit coal is at 30% and Rising Co [19:10] actually has been rising most the [19:11] fastest increase in past 20 years hasn't [19:13] been natural gas in terms of total [19:16] energy based but it's C because you know [19:18] 25 years ago Chinese are mining 1 [19:20] billion tons Now Chinese are mining [19:22] almost 4 billion tons no so this has [19:25] been the single largest increase in past [19:27] 30 years hasn't mean wind or solar or [19:29] nuclear it's been c c c right so still [19:32] this is very much a for China very much [19:34] a CO C fuel sine [19:38] so we have gas at 25 and Rising coal at [19:42] 30 and kind of you know Rising but [19:43] almost steady and and oil at 33 and [19:46] falling so for the first time in history [19:49] we have these three fossil fuels almost [19:51] at the same level about close to 30% [19:53] really right and what's interesting [19:55] because we invested so much into each of [19:58] them [19:59] that it's to a very large extent [20:01] embedded it's changing all the time but [20:04] very slowly so let's say right now in us [20:07] people say oh the US coire power plants [20:09] are going out it right because there is [20:11] cheap natural gas it's not so much [20:13] because of cheap natural gas it's simply [20:15] so much because of the age of these cire [20:17] power plants right American Quire power [20:19] plants simply exploded in 1950s because [20:21] electricity consumption was increasing [20:23] by 10% a year 7 8% a year so we built [20:26] electric this this giant you know 200 [20:28] 300 and 500 800 meab plants gab plants [20:32] everywhere in 50s and 60s well you add [20:34] it up 50s and 60s right now well they [20:36] are old right 40 50 55 years so they are [20:40] naturally closing down and when you [20:41] close it down you put a gas turbine or [20:43] combine cycle gas turbine or whatever [20:45] you have so it's a natural process but [20:48] look at China right then people talk [20:50] okay we can do this differently this [20:52] time you know we are so smart we are so [20:54] high tech by the by by the way this me [20:58] know and that we took a perfectly nice [21:01] word which should be actually it's [21:03] better in France in French you L [21:05] technique and we took the technique and [21:07] make a technology out of it which is [21:10] kind of a bird word because technology [21:11] is a science about technique really [21:13] right okay and we took the technology [21:16] and shrink it to stupid computers only [21:18] right like a gas turbine is not [21:20] technique right everything is technique [21:22] right you know will is a technique [21:24] really right you know so anyway people [21:26] say now it's different we have silicon [21:28] we are electronic we are sophisticated [21:30] artificial intelligence no boundary is [21:32] given we can Transit from this to that [21:34] in no time right the old truths don't [21:35] apply right absolute hogwash absolute [21:38] hogwash look at China okay um or look at [21:41] first these big Western countries like [21:43] France Germany UK each of these three [21:47] countries Germany is bigger right German [21:49] is 80 million people these other about [21:51] 60 plus so they have let's say on the [21:55] order of 60 gaw okay total install [21:58] capacity in these countries right took [21:59] them 100 years to get there right China [22:03] in 2005 2006 2007 you see the point [22:07] right every year was installing 60 gaw [22:10] every year per year and 80% of it call [22:13] 80% of it call right so imagine the [22:15] Chinese pumping it you know 40 G of [22:18] course one year 40 G next year 50 g next [22:20] year and that was done few years ago are [22:23] they going to walk away from this when a [22:26] single power plant is what does somebody [22:28] have an idea what a power plant of let's [22:30] say one and half gwatt is even in China [22:33] what about1 and half billion dollars [22:34] right okay so you don't walk away from [22:36] and half billion which you put in place [22:38] in 2008 just because somebody says World [22:41] should be green right and we should [22:42] transit to beautiful solar right so [22:46] China got itself into this embedded [22:48] situation where 80% close to 80% of [22:51] electricity is in coal and in brand new [22:53] Cal Fire power plants which have to be [22:55] amortized over next 35 40 years whatever [22:58] right [22:59] China is now easing out finally after [23:01] this rush you know this rapid growth [23:03] past 20 years China is everything is [23:05] easing out China economy growth [23:07] electricity consumption coal consumption [23:09] is finally coming down this year I mean [23:11] no not like that but a little bit but [23:13] who's coming to fill the Gap India India [23:16] is now doing exactly the same thing [23:18] which China was doing building massive [23:20] Cal Fire power plants right left and [23:22] Center as fast as they can why because [23:25] it's the only fuel which they [23:26] domestically have India is not sitting [23:28] on a bubble of natural gas India is not [23:30] bursting with crude oil right you know [23:32] so it's cheaper now they can import it [23:33] but still the best thing is what you [23:35] have except there is one big difference [23:37] between Indian coal and Chinese coal [23:39] Chinese Co whatever you say about it [23:41] it's a good good baminos [23:44] SK unlike German Co which is ly liite [23:47] right the brown call Chinese Co is a [23:49] good binus co what is the Indian coal [23:52] well you hesitate to call it coal about [23:55] 40% of his Ash right you know 30 35 40% [24:00] which means to generate one useful [24:02] kilowatt hour you got to burn so much [24:04] more of that junk really right and [24:05] you've got to catch so much more flyers [24:08] and fortunately Indian coal is not [24:10] terribly high in s otherwise you have to [24:12] desize and other whatever 100 million [24:14] dollar per plant or whatever like crazy [24:16] so these are the embedded things and [24:18] countries will do them because that's [24:20] the only thing they do really and [24:22] unfortunately these two big countries [24:24] where most of the global economic growth [24:26] has come from in China and will come [24:28] from India other the coal countries and [24:30] they have no other choice right so you [24:32] know to just project some graphs [24:34] whatever what will happen you know [24:35] that's nether here nor there reality is [24:38] is is what [24:39] matters um then you look closer at at [24:42] the scale of oil because oil of course [24:46] has given us something which we never [24:48] never ever had before and it's the [24:50] mobility it's a it's a it's a because [24:52] it's the densest of all normal fuels the [24:54] only denser fuel is what than than uh [24:57] than oil [24:58] well is the liquid hydrogen but to make [25:00] hydrogen liquid you know that is no fun [25:02] right so oil is the king and will remain [25:06] King because we want to be mobile people [25:09] are mobile to the level which people [25:11] didn't even realize that 20 years ago I [25:13] grew up in Europe when I grew up in [25:15] Europe as a little kid I mean flying was [25:19] something like you know that was from [25:20] movies right you know when I left Europe [25:24] in [25:25] 1969 maybe like two people out of 100 [25:28] ever flown in their life right even in [25:31] late 70s very few people if you were a [25:34] German businessman in 19 let's say 75 [25:38] and you took a trip from K to M [25:41] naturally you jump on a train right now [25:44] you know where the story ends right [25:46] every bus in EU has a side panel which [25:49] say 20 Euro flight from Amsterdam to [25:51] Cypress right right for 20 EUR right [25:54] Europeans are now flying more per capita [25:56] than Americans right for 20 Euro right [25:58] from and Europeans have most of these [26:01] mad connections you know in North [26:03] America we still have the Hub system [26:04] right so if I want to fly somewhere I [26:06] have to fly to Vancouver or Toronto from [26:08] Vin right now in Europe we have this [26:11] connection from Ria in ltia to Zagreb [26:14] right we have from from forever we from [26:18] uh Aberdine to Tessalon right I mean [26:21] it's just crazy Europe is and all these [26:23] this kind of uh by the way you may have [26:25] noticed that last year um a famous [26:29] discount let that Airline be unnamed [26:32] patented the proposal for standing room [26:34] only holding the strap right so I mean [26:37] it will cost probably a Euro right from [26:39] a Euro from Amsterdam to sicil right for [26:41] Euro and this is all subscribed by what [26:43] you know friend of my we have many [26:45] friends you know in Europe they don't [26:47] think twice you know they go over the [26:48] weekend they fly from from you know [26:51] wherever you know from Holland to Cyprus [26:53] for a weekend today right and for bigger [26:55] vacation they constantly half of [26:57] Germany's constantly in Thailand in [26:59] Australia right or you know walking in [27:01] askan Wilderness right now you haven't [27:04] seen anything yet because now Chinese [27:06] are starting to travel by 2020 EU will [27:09] expect 200 million Chinese tourists [27:11] right okay I mean you know they're [27:13] already coming right you can see them in [27:14] Paris and and they will not come to [27:16] Europe they will come to six big cities [27:18] basically right you know so if you [27:19] haven't seen your Venice or Paris or [27:21] London do it now because you know we [27:23] have only about like you know shrinking [27:26] right 200 million of them right and we [27:28] are we are talking about only so-called [27:30] middle class right there is another 1.1 [27:33] billion of them right there's 1.35 [27:35] billion right so you know if Chinese [27:36] would travel like Japanese right then [27:39] you couldn't move in in European cities [27:41] right and this is all subscribed by [27:43] crude oil true we are getting we are [27:45] getting more efficient really right but [27:47] you know even this most efficient even [27:48] beautiful new 787 it still sucks quite a [27:51] bit really right it's 15% less than 777 [27:55] which was 15% less than whatever but [27:57] still you know it's screwed oil [27:59] now this is what people who usually [28:02] retail these wholesale sagas of wind and [28:04] solar taking over tomorrow they don't [28:06] tell us how we will fly solar [28:09] electricity is not quite conducive to [28:11] Flying haven't you noticed that really [28:12] right you know do I put my panels on oh [28:14] yes we can put the panels on the and [28:17] what it can carry what one man right [28:19] lying like that you know fearing for the [28:21] life at the speed of a mouth little [28:24] little moth flying so [28:29] nor can you fly on natural gas nor can [28:32] you fly on V electricity so we have this [28:34] fundamental problem globally now it's [28:37] pushing about 30% more than Wonder every [28:41] third unit of energy we use now is to go [28:43] somewhere really right you know uh in [28:46] the airport today in Toronto I just saw [28:48] this latest [28:50] infinity sq8 or something like it's like [28:53] a it's like a massive it's bigger than [28:56] humi right I it's just unbelievable [28:58] we are creating cars you see I used to [29:00] buy always Honda Accord for ages then I [29:04] sto buying Honda Accord because my new [29:06] Honda Civic is longer wider bigger and [29:09] heavier than Honda Accord right even the [29:11] Japanese cars have increased by about [29:14] 50% in their Mass over past 25 years and [29:17] you know what happened to average [29:18] European car right what was the EUR [29:21] European car they sh wall 650 kilo right [29:24] what is not average European car 1,400 [29:27] kilo right what is the average American [29:29] Car 1,750 kilo right and of course there [29:34] are these other things like these SUVs [29:35] like escalate you can walk past to it [29:37] right for about five minutes right you [29:39] know that's the the size of escalate [29:40] it's about three ttimes ear right okay [29:42] so notice that thing too we are making [29:45] engines which are more fuel efficient [29:48] but putting them into Vehicles which are [29:50] much more massive which totally negates [29:52] all that thing right okay and then you [29:56] have to think about embedded energy [29:58] right what will cost more to make of [30:00] course the heavier car will cost more to [30:03] make because not only will contain more [30:05] steel but we are putting more high [30:08] energy materials into it right the [30:11] substitution of materials has gone only [30:13] one way toward higher embedded energy [30:16] materials 1 kilogram of perfectly fine [30:19] steel really high quality specific steel [30:22] you know we have like 20,000 steel so [30:24] you select the best one whatever your [30:26] chromium vanum specification and you can [30:28] make it for about 30 me right 30 per T [30:32] what is one t of aluminum if I'll [30:34] replace that aluminum to make it lighter [30:36] right what is one of aluminum close to [30:39] 200 g right instead of 35 G right I [30:42] replace it by plastic right to make it [30:44] lighter that steel is bad what is one [30:46] one ton of plastic your average whatever [30:49] it is you know there's zillion between [30:53] 80 to 140 G per so I'm tripling [30:56] quadrupling the cast again every which I [30:58] do to make it lighter more efficient EDS [31:01] more energy into it right and forget [31:03] about the fact now about you know that [31:04] about one3 of the value of American car [31:07] now is electronics right there are so [31:10] many microchip in your car you have have [31:11] no idea [31:13] right I will not tell you the secret you [31:15] will go and find out for yourself what [31:18] is the [31:19] energy required to make one ton of [31:22] silicon electronic quality silicon right [31:24] you'll be surprised it's an order of [31:26] magnet it's not gig per time right just [31:29] you'll find for yourself so what we are [31:31] doing you know we are constantly moving [31:33] in the direction of more energy [31:34] intensive materials the same with 787 I [31:37] mentioned while right composite fibers [31:39] right composite fiber will not cost you [31:41] as much as steel right look at the cost [31:43] it's through the window really right [31:45] okay or you can play with titanium same [31:47] story right it's about five eight times [31:49] as much whatever so it's not only the [31:53] cost of what you pour in or put in it's [31:55] the cost what you embed in and and while [31:58] I'm on this [32:00] uh this applies to all these new [32:02] renewable [32:05] conversions you go to Europe and there [32:06] are V turbines everywhere right Denmark [32:09] Sweden Germany everywhere are V turbines [32:12] mind you most of them most of the time [32:14] are not earning right you know it why uh [32:18] this is a this is a very engineering [32:20] minded class so what is the typical load [32:23] factor a capacity factor of my [32:25] runof-the-mill CI power plant which I [32:27] built in as I say in us or saskat or [32:30] Alberta but it doesn't what is the [32:31] typical Lo factor of the power plant [32:33] that is what percentage of time a year [32:35] it operates well I have to conk it off [32:38] for scheduled maintenance and something [32:40] happen but I can get easily 75% out of [32:42] it no problem chines get 90% out of it [32:45] in shortages right you know what is the [32:47] what is the capacity factor for nuclear [32:49] power plants actually this country [32:51] happens to be a leader we haven't built [32:53] a nuclear power PL for ages but the ones [32:55] which we have we operate them what [32:58] 95% of the time 92 and half 93 95 that's [33:02] the capacity Factor what is the capacity [33:04] factor of average European win turbine [33:08] 25 what is the capacity of aage aage [33:11] American win turbine little bit more [33:13] windy right on the pl 30% right 30% so [33:16] 70% doesn't do anything 75% doesn't do [33:19] anything so whenever I fly from you you [33:23] look and these these these these [33:24] monsters are so big even from the jet [33:26] line you see if they are turning on not [33:27] turning right and it's always amazing [33:29] how many are not turning when I fly [33:31] across Switzerland or France or whatever [33:34] right but anyway people say this is the [33:36] great future I look at these monsters [33:39] and they are monsters right you know the [33:41] blade is bigger than boing 747 I mean [33:44] you know you see them from airplane they [33:46] you know well what are these Monsters [33:48] made of so you look at these things and [33:49] you see green probably you know whatever [33:52] Elizabeth May or Thomas mker our next [33:55] prime [33:56] minister uh [33:58] I'm not commenting uh see that this is [34:01] the green future what do I see as an [34:03] oldfashioned stupid scientist I see the [34:06] big trucks needed to bring these 80 M [34:09] blades to the side right giant diesel [34:12] trucks to fetch it up to the top of that [34:15] mountain right first I have the [34:16] bulldozers the graders grading the road [34:18] to make it accessible and Firming the [34:20] road so these trucks wouldn't collapse [34:22] into it right this is all diesel fuel [34:24] going all the way right there these [34:26] giant TS built into the place right what [34:28] are these big blades right plastic 120 K [34:31] per ton what is the foundation concrete [34:33] how do you make concrete you fire lots [34:35] of coal in the big furnace and te the [34:38] clay around there right then you have to [34:40] do a big steel stem because it cannot [34:42] you know you cannot put it on wood [34:43] because in the first wind it would just [34:45] be ripped off so I look at this and I [34:47] see concrete and steel and diesel fuel [34:49] and Plastics I don't see any renewable [34:52] energy there really right and these [34:53] things will last what maybe 15 20 years [34:57] right and then will they will do it was [34:58] with them how will you recycle all these [35:00] things right which is already in Europe [35:03] This is called repowering because they [35:05] came this first wave subsidized wave in [35:07] Europe in in '90s and early 2000 and [35:11] they put these dinky little turbines [35:12] like you know [35:14] 200 300 500 now they are putting what 2 [35:19] megawatt three megawatts right so they [35:21] repowered they just after just 10 years [35:23] of the service they just simply shut [35:24] down all these 200 300 and they put now [35:27] they putting up to what three four [35:29] megawatt or 5 megawatt units right so [35:32] while if I build my power plant as I [35:34] said we are closing down they closed [35:36] down few years ago one in Iowa which was [35:38] working since 1924 really right you know [35:40] boil is an extremely durable Thing [35:42] Really Right engine is do nuclear power [35:46] plants most of our nuclear power plants [35:48] are recertified and they'll be [35:49] eventually before they die they'll be [35:51] working for what 50 60 years right you [35:53] know I guarantee you not a single wind [35:55] turbine will very for 60 years abs [35:57] abolutely guaranteed you that right not [35:59] a single photo cell out there 60 years [36:02] right um because what will happen to [36:04] them especially in ideal places ideal [36:06] Place being what of course Sahara all [36:08] these stories right they'll get pitted [36:10] mercilessly by all that sand blown [36:12] against them by the way this shows you [36:14] the famous you know this German [36:16] engineering you know for technique as [36:19] how say right so seens of all people Cen [36:22] just made this few few few years ago [36:24] they made a study saying you know [36:25] because what is the number one solar [36:27] power in Europe and in in the world now [36:30] next to China is Germany right Germany [36:33] is about as sunny as Seattle right so [36:35] imagine you make the engineering choice [36:36] you know a place which is as sunny as [36:38] Washington State to be the Hub of the [36:40] solar energy in in Europe right so [36:43] Simmons looked back and they did that [36:45] study a few years ago saying you know if [36:48] you would have put all of that capacity [36:49] which you put in German Sol it would put [36:51] into Spain and Italy and build even [36:54] additional high voltage lines we would [36:56] have saved 40 billion [36:58] I would have told them that when I was [37:00] like 10 years old right kind of right [37:02] because I grew up in that part of the [37:04] world right and I remember as if today [37:07] when they called me when German started [37:08] the energy vendor this big energy change [37:11] shortly after 2000 this phone call from [37:13] New York Times 2000 whatever one to see [37:16] and they say could you comment on the [37:17] world's largest photo plant I said I [37:19] would if I would know where it is they [37:21] said few kilometers from nberg right I [37:25] said come again because I grew up about [37:27] 50 kilm from that place and I always say [37:30] we as children we didn't want to have [37:32] summer vacation because you know this is [37:34] not far from Atlantic and North Sea and [37:36] these frontal systems come every three [37:37] days and everything is cloudy right and [37:39] it rains every three days so you look at [37:41] the sky serious cloud that means you [37:43] know there'll be cumulous Cloud tomorrow [37:44] right and heavy rain there after right [37:46] so in one of the most well what do I say [37:49] it's Seattle right go to Seattle and see [37:50] how Seattle is Sun so they've been [37:52] putting solar so what is the average [37:55] load factor of German Solar [37:58] 11% 12% and you are spending billions of [38:02] DS and telling this is the green future [38:04] you know for even in Spain what would [38:06] you think is the Spanish load factor in [38:08] Spain 16% 16 17% right now the Arizona [38:12] things are getting better in Arizona you [38:14] can get 25% right but the biggest one in [38:17] Arizona biggest one in Southwest us now [38:19] is the you know that one I I nobody [38:23] knows the name Ivan right Ivan actually [38:27] failed in the first year why because [38:29] this shows the limits of our capacity to [38:31] manage these things we are now very good [38:34] with v and Sol to tell you the next day [38:37] it will shine or it will not it will [38:39] blow or it will not right so day [38:41] forecast today forecast good so you can [38:43] manage your load kind of you know for [38:44] next two three days but we are not at [38:47] all good in an annual basis and this Ser [38:50] is proving up really funny right kind of [38:52] the preo Year capacity of wind in us [38:56] will be up [38:58] by 6% or whatever but the production [39:01] will be down by about 30% why because [39:05] this year is a very still year right [39:08] there is much less wind on an annual [39:10] basis than before and same happened in [39:13] Ian they start the biggest solar plant [39:14] in us and it's just not generating [39:17] because it was much more cloudy actually [39:20] right so you see this is the thing that [39:23] this is just gives you a little taste of [39:25] it what we are up to it has engineering [39:26] solution but It's [39:28] Tricky with all of these intermittent [39:31] sources where the predictions are [39:33] possible on a daily basis but Impossible [39:35] on seasonal basis and utterly impossible [39:37] annual basis you've got to make sure [39:39] that what you have a huge amount of [39:41] Reserve capacity in place as way you [39:43] burn right okay so you you can have the [39:46] situation like where I live right this [39:48] is the most ID we are most people don't [39:51] people associate V only with mosquitoes [39:53] and unbearable Winters but that's not [39:55] true we have no mosquito B and Winters [39:58] are quite better much better in Montreal [39:59] you know or in OT right there's nothing [40:01] worse than minus 2 celsus and 100% [40:04] humidity right and so anyway uh we for [40:08] our size about 700,000 people we are the [40:10] windy city on the planet right because [40:12] we are the end story of that between [40:14] from GF of Mexico all the way through [40:16] the plains right so are very windy right [40:17] so it's ideal place to put win turbines [40:20] right so monit TOA Hydro I don't know [40:23] why they put some V turbine they [40:24] subcontracted they don't need it because [40:26] we are 100% Hydro but they wanted to be [40:28] politically correct so they put some [40:29] wind turbines so we are the super windy [40:32] place but when do we need that [40:34] electricity most well of course in [40:36] January right when it's cold and dark [40:38] and ugly outside right and why is it [40:41] cold you know if if only all these [40:43] people would study kindergarten climate [40:45] science well it's cold because there is [40:47] so-called Canadian High what Canadian [40:50] high does well it's simply skies are [40:53] blue you know high air presses down and [40:57] then is not a bit of wind for three [40:59] weeks and our daily high are below our [41:03] normal overnight lows okay so our daily [41:05] high is let's say -5 overnight orus 25 [41:08] but for 3 weeks our daily high maybe- 30 [41:11] right and there is no wind at all right [41:14] so what do I do right when 1 million [41:16] people need this juice well so I have to [41:19] have some other form right so I have to [41:21] install equal capacity in gas turbines [41:24] really right for these three weeks when [41:26] I have nothing really or I have to have [41:28] massive internet connections to buy from [41:30] somebody else do we have in Canada any [41:32] internet connections going from east to [41:34] west no not a single one you cannot send [41:37] a kilowatt hour east to west right in us [41:41] or we do the one in Texas is about 250 [41:44] megawatts which is a joke really right [41:45] you know us and Canada have none of this [41:48] we have this right Manito says all the [41:50] way to Nebraska right Quebec say all the [41:52] way to right New York right BC says all [41:54] the way to California right but nobody [41:56] is selling this way [41:58] right Europe is different Europeans are [42:01] selling electricity like we are selling [42:03] marijuana in this country right [42:04] everywhere right everybody sing to [42:06] everybody else right you look at the [42:08] statistics right it's very [42:09] interconnected right Switzerland is the [42:12] best best case you look at the Swiss [42:14] electricity statistics they generate X [42:17] and they sell X plus 20 and they buy X [42:21] plus 10 they just it's just you know [42:22] it's just constantly moving in and out [42:24] because they are H they are basically [42:25] storage up in the middle so Europeans [42:27] have that capacity but there is a limit [42:30] to it you heard about the Danish Miracle [42:32] Dan have all these V turbines right you [42:34] know when it's VY they get like 80% of [42:37] the electricity small it's a scale Mets [42:39] right so they get 80% of Elric from wind [42:42] but when there is no wind there 7 place [42:44] but still there's no wind why D could do [42:46] that well because they can get the cheap [42:48] Hydro from Norway or they can get that [42:50] coal or nuclear from Germany right where [42:53] is my Norway in Manitoba where is my you [42:56] know German coal in Manitoba right not [42:58] in Nebraska right so if I go green solar [43:02] and wind in Manitoba I have to have a [43:04] huge Reserve capacity for up to three [43:07] weeks right and as you know uh most of [43:10] you being of [43:12] engineering uh background uh we do not [43:15] have any storage on that scale look it's [43:18] very simple we shouldn't even be talking [43:20] about energy problem as soon as you give [43:22] me a gab scale storage for reasonable [43:24] price right okay then it doesn't matter [43:26] what capacity my solar is I could have a [43:29] 5% load factor of my solar but as long [43:32] as it's working little bit and stuffing [43:34] all that electricity into my gabat [43:36] storage I don't care really right you [43:37] know I could have wind blowing only here [43:39] and there but as long as it's putting [43:41] that storage in [43:42] so are we any closer to gigawatt scale [43:45] storage today than we were 10 years ago [43:47] 50 years ago 100 years ago answer is no [43:50] of course we are not are certain [43:51] physical limits for good reason some [43:53] things do not happen this idea that [43:55] Innovation can solve every problem not [43:58] so actually Innovation hasn't solved [44:00] most of the fundamental problem let me [44:03] get back to my favorite 1880s before I [44:04] forget about this um you see if you [44:07] would bring the people from 1880s people [44:09] who invented the world which we live in [44:11] you know the world which we live in [44:12] wasn't invented by Alon musk what did [44:15] Alon musk invent I ask you can you tell [44:18] me one thing which Alon musk invent [44:20] American Media he's the most inventive [44:22] man bigger than Edison what did he [44:24] invent he's buying Panasonic batteries [44:26] from Japan think on a plastic cover with [44:28] a big tea on it right and sells it to [44:30] people right that's what he you know [44:32] what did he invent right and then he [44:33] gets because we stop sending shuttle up [44:36] so there's lots of unemployed NASA [44:37] Engineers he buys them into X company [44:40] right what did he invent right so the [44:42] world we live in wasn't invented by jobs [44:44] or Tesla or Alon musk or or none of [44:48] these people the world you live in was [44:50] invented [44:53] by some young but mostly middle-age [44:56] white men in [44:57] 1880s Thomas Alva Edison William Stanley [45:02] George West [45:04] inous Nicola Tesla these people invented [45:08] electricity generation steam turbo [45:10] generator Transformer electric motor [45:13] without this nothing would happen [45:15] without this you couldn't hold your cell [45:16] phone right without this you couldn't [45:18] hit your house without this you couldn't [45:20] travel on the airplane without this [45:21] there would be no Western Civilization [45:24] internal combustion engine right okay [45:26] Daimler might B 1884 it's all the 1880s [45:30] we've been just simply deriving [45:32] secondary tertiary quaternary derivation [45:35] from that basis of 1880s right so before [45:38] you tell me how impossibly accelerating [45:41] Innovation is moving us all know I tell [45:43] you read your history right and learn [45:46] what is there right [45:49] um I was seuring at a one of these [45:52] Silicon Valley outfits uh about 10 days [45:55] ago and I reminded them that what are [45:57] doing really is about the seventh level [45:59] remove from what really matters what [46:02] really matters is what is Maxwell [46:06] because Maxwell had this idea because [46:08] before Maxwell nobody had the idea there [46:10] is something you canot touch it you [46:11] cannot see it you you don't even know [46:13] it's there right and Max had a brilliant [46:16] idea that it will be there right he [46:18] didn't have any idea how he could prove [46:20] it and make it whatever but that's it [46:22] right 1860s then comes the man who [46:24] actually makes it right sends a signal [46:26] from to be and that's Herz right so [46:30] Maxwell is the first level right Herz is [46:33] the second level right then there are [46:35] people who makes the herzan maxian waves [46:37] go longer distances right if you get [46:39] into what well if you get into Telegraph [46:41] Hill right if you get into Marone right [46:43] we radio and we we get into Le Forest [46:46] right you create a tube right and once [46:48] you create a vacuum tube by 1906 1907 we [46:52] could have built everything television [46:53] everything but the war intervened and we [46:55] didn't right so you get from Maxwell to [46:58] Herz to uh sending the signal and making [47:01] the hot glass Electronics really and [47:03] then you get into solate Electronics [47:05] right which is not which is not chly bat [47:08] and Bin because uh unbeknown to most of [47:12] the people but you know eventually been [47:14] recognized uh the patent for solid state [47:17] transistor was filed by lilienfeld in [47:20] 1924 right so by 1924 if somebody would [47:23] have picked it up he could have made all [47:24] this you know it had to wait after [47:25] another war and we made right so that's [47:28] another level then you have to make that [47:31] that transistor into a bunching of [47:34] something right and you can you can come [47:35] this integrated circuit and that's noise [47:38] and Kilby late 1950s and then you get [47:40] lots of the circuits and make them into [47:42] microprocessor right and that's Intel [47:44] 1970s right once you have the int [47:46] microprocessor then you can start making [47:48] your computers and cell phones right and [47:50] then just somebody writes as some [47:52] software for the cell phone really right [47:55] so you see that's about the seventh [47:56] level of the ation without the six level [47:58] before none of these things would work [48:00] right so we are basically going know say [48:03] this beautiful garden and everything's [48:05] been you know planted and in in the [48:07] garden and we are kind of just brushing [48:08] some pollen of some flower and smelling [48:11] it and saying oh this smells great right [48:12] cell phone and whatever right but you [48:14] know this is this is not original at all [48:16] you know it's so fundamental it depends [48:18] on your steam turbine this is still the [48:20] number one Primal on this planet is a [48:22] steam turbine right it still depends on [48:24] electric motors it still depends on all [48:26] these things so I'm not all that smitten [48:29] it's just simply you know it's pictures [48:32] and you know we are visual creatures and [48:35] we are also social creatures so it's [48:36] pictures putting us together in touch [48:38] with other people that's why we think [48:40] it's such a fundamental invention but [48:42] let me tell you that this civilization [48:44] could live quite well without cell [48:46] phones and and uh any computer actually [48:49] what is the single most important [48:51] invention talking about techn in this [48:52] planet without which 45% of people would [48:55] be dead right now what is it harb [48:59] synthesis of ammonia right because there [49:02] is not enough nitrogen in the global [49:04] ecosystem when I take every bit of [49:06] manure every bit of human excrement and [49:08] urine every bit of straw and recycle [49:11] them into the soil right these things [49:13] contain what straw half a perc of [49:16] nitrogen right urine it's mostly water [49:19] it's a fraction of per so if I take all [49:22] animal you see how many millions of [49:23] people have to be employed recycle all [49:25] the V and put in and still you would not [49:28] have enough nitrogen to grow food for [49:30] about 45% of human population now and [49:33] that was the birri which was with us we [49:35] try you know little bit of Chilean [49:37] nitrate but you know you run out of it [49:38] soon little guano from tropical birds [49:40] you run out of it soon and then comes [49:42] fridge Harbor this is Brilliant [49:44] Invention 1909 synthesizing ammonia from [49:46] its element you put under pressure high [49:48] temperature you take your nitrogen right [49:51] from the air you take a hydrogen he took [49:53] it from hydrogenation of coal now we [49:54] take it from natural gas and create NH3 [49:57] right who is the biggest maker of NH3 on [49:59] the planet now of course Chinese right [50:01] because they have no land and they have [50:03] to fertilize like crazy right and then [50:05] Indians and then so I wrote a fat book [50:09] and lots of articles about this years [50:10] ago so in my mind there is absolutely [50:12] you see before you do anything you have [50:14] to be alive right you know all the cell [50:16] phones and mention and 45% of people on [50:18] this planet wouldn't be alive and 70% of [50:21] Chinese and 60% of Indians if it [50:23] wouldn't be for Harbor B synthes of [50:24] ammonia because your bar to grow what is [50:28] the grow it's protein right what is [50:30] protein amino acids what is amino acids [50:32] nitrogen I mean it's a kindergarten [50:34] science but most people apparently don't [50:36] know kindergarten science these days so [50:37] they think the greatest invention is [50:39] iPhone right I mean what a joke really [50:41] right you know know I fall is the [50:43] greatest invention right you know [50:45] probably like 98% out of 100 even [50:47] educated westerners have no idea about [50:49] hyper of ammonia right BOS being the guy [50:52] working for bus Bish fabric who made a [50:55] bench experiment of Harbor into an [50:57] industrial process in just three four [50:59] years haror was done by in summer 1909 [51:02] and by October 1913 the factory was [51:04] running right that's what I call applied [51:06] engineering CL right you know so these [51:08] guys today they get billion dollars of [51:10] investors money and Venture funds and [51:13] and still you know the company flops so [51:15] you know there is very little to admire [51:17] you know it's just simply very [51:17] superficial but fundamentals um I just [51:20] finished a book about steel uh let me [51:22] say a few things about steel uh people [51:25] think that some Ste kind of you know who [51:28] cares Ste right uh I had to convince my [51:31] Publishers that book about Ste is [51:33] eminently important not about you know [51:35] microchips or iPhones [51:38] um we are dependent on steel more than [51:42] ever in our history and the dependence [51:44] is not going to get away because [51:46] literally and I'm not exaggerating here [51:48] everything you can see in this room [51:51] nothing would be here without steel [51:53] right how are the Fabrics woven by Steel [51:57] machines how is everything cut or molded [51:59] or extruded right by Steel sauce punches [52:03] presses everything right know how do you [52:06] fly okay you know the uh 787 could be [52:10] lots of composite stuff and lots of [52:11] aluminum whatever but what are the most [52:14] bearing Parts when you dunk on that [52:15] ground right you know it's steel right [52:17] without it steel you wouldn't land right [52:19] you don't want to have your steel you [52:21] know your your your your [52:24] undercarriage I mentioned the vent [52:25] turbines right that's steel how do you [52:28] put that photovoltaic stuff on your roof [52:30] steel frame right to put it on your roof [52:32] and then put right how do you make steel [52:35] well you know you make it from uh you [52:37] can recycle it of course and then you go [52:39] through electrical furnace but if you [52:41] make it Deno uh you have to make it from [52:43] pig iron right cast iron how do you make [52:46] pig iron from coal because you need coke [52:49] 1 billion tons of coal these days goes [52:51] into making Coke we know of no other [52:55] large scale method how to make iron but [52:57] from Coke right there is a direct iron [53:00] reaction right we can do that really but [53:02] listen to this we make now about 1.2 [53:06] billion tons of pig iron and we make [53:09] about 50 million tons of direct [53:10] reduction iron right you see the scale [53:12] again really right so suppose you know [53:15] if if somebody gives you infinite amount [53:17] of not cheap but free wind or solar [53:21] electricity right how do you make 1.2 [53:24] billion tons of pig iron right I ask you [53:26] right we just cannot make it if it's [53:28] totally cheap and free electricity right [53:31] how do you fly over that weekend from [53:34] Holland to oh you can say bofur oh here [53:38] comes my favorite [53:40] um sometimes when I fly to Asia so I [53:42] have to go to Vancouver so you fly over [53:44] the Prairies and now a few years ago we [53:45] broke you know things change over time [53:48] it used to be always weed weed wheed [53:50] right now [53:52] wheat is still important but sometimes [53:55] in some you fly over the prair is what [53:56] all yellow right because it's all rap [53:58] seed now right so we broke the way that [54:01] in terms of value now the number one [54:03] crop on the prair is not wheat it's the [54:05] rape seed right have you ever seen the [54:08] size of the rape [54:09] seedy and 20% of that size is oil right [54:14] now you crush them to make yourself [54:16] bioet fuel really right start doing your [54:19] calculations which brings me to [54:21] essential thing about power density my [54:22] latest book power density is such an all [54:25] important concept you're totally [54:28] neglected I mentioned the ethanol [54:31] calculate with me here right you know it [54:33] would be nice to have board but you know [54:34] you are you are highly numerated so we [54:36] can calculate all the sub mag in your [54:37] head okay calculate me in us they [54:40] mandated ethanol from corn corn in us [54:43] there is no better corn in this planet [54:44] the highest un that's why it's called [54:46] Corn Belt right you go to Asia you get [54:49] three tons per hectar okay you get to [54:51] Europe maybe you get six tons in Iowa [54:54] you get 12 tons per hectar on the [54:55] average 10 tons per hectare okay here we [54:58] go 10 tons per hectare one ton is 15 one [55:03] ton is 15 G okay 10 tons 150 g right how [55:09] many Harvest of that corn I make a year [55:12] one right climate is not good enough [55:14] just one one 150 g right so what is the [55:17] power density of it well I divide by the [55:19] number of seconds in a year right energy [55:21] divide by time is power right so 150 GJ [55:24] divide by 3.1 to 10 to7 seconds right [55:27] okay and divided by what 10 10 10 10 [55:31] right hectar is 100 by 100 met right [55:33] okay you've done the calculation is half [55:35] a per square meter right half a wat per [55:37] square meter I get half a watt right [55:40] when I go to Saudi Arabia or to Alberta [55:43] but if I go to Saudi Arabia and I SN my [55:46] well right and that Val is like will [55:49] occupy to like you know half of this [55:50] room really all like this room really [55:52] right what will be the power density of [55:54] production from that well 10,000 wats [55:57] per square meter okay so I need only [55:59] like few thousand vs in the Middle East [56:01] to do what to fuel most most of the V [56:04] right here to fly 1787 to Asia I have to [56:08] plant you can do calculations hectars [56:10] and hectars of land in mon every every [56:13] year just to fly there um you can do [56:17] better than rap seed you can go to the [56:19] most intensive oily stuff on this planet [56:22] which is palm oil which is what tropical [56:25] deforestation and of the plan as we have [56:27] known it right but it is the high energy [56:29] density right you you you harvest a lot [56:33] more palm oil per hectar then rapes it [56:36] right uh you can look into my power's [56:40] book published in in June um if you [56:44] would go for palm oil uh let's say first [56:47] if you would go for ethanol if you would [56:50] go for ethanol only in the US 100% [56:53] ethanol every acre in the US or every [56:55] hectar would have to be planted to Corn [56:57] right you would have nothing for food [56:59] people no fet for an nothing you know [57:01] just um you would go for palm oil it [57:05] would be doable to fly on palm oil [57:07] providing that you would [57:09] surr to palm oil right cut down so you [57:12] see on one hand we have green people [57:14] telling us you we have to preserve [57:16] biodiversity we have to preserve [57:17] tropical rainforest and on the other [57:19] hand they are telling us we will fly on [57:21] biofuels right just do your calculations [57:23] including power densities and you will [57:25] see that it's not so easy now if we [57:28] would be run the system by power density [57:30] is the only not the only but by far the [57:33] Superior Energy is solar because you [57:36] start on the average is 170 watts per [57:38] square meter of the rotating planet [57:40] right that's a big chunk if I can use it [57:42] this efficiency of efficiencies are [57:44] rising right if I can use it only this [57:45] 10% like now it's about 20 WTS per [57:48] square meter if I eventually the [57:50] efficiency 20% whatever I can have 40 50 [57:52] watts per square meter that's a sizable [57:54] chunk right so so the best investment if [57:58] if I would be running the show not that [58:00] I want to but if I would be running the [58:01] show and ask me where to put my money [58:03] into right I would put money [58:05] into seedu you've seen them right moving [58:08] with the waves right oh my God you know [58:11] we generate about as much energy to you [58:12] know boil a coffee in half a day by the [58:15] way the big big seedu company went [58:17] bankrupt in Scotland right last year [58:19] it's over right right so please no tidal [58:22] power no save power um no uh [58:27] no basically I shouldn't say no wind [58:29] because some wind is pretty good really [58:31] but above or solar because if we would [58:33] get the solar efficiency by hook and [58:36] Crook and that out to to 40% right and [58:39] you eventually get there right so if you [58:40] get me a 40% solar efficiency and if you [58:43] put it in a place which has 25% capacity [58:46] Factor like Algeria or Arizona really [58:48] right and when you make a big plant in [58:51] in a desert where nothing grows anyway [58:53] except for that pitting and cleaning you [58:55] know because you to clean it basically [58:56] all the time because if you don't clean [58:57] it the performance will deteriorate [58:59] right uh but we are talking so this is [59:02] the by far the greatest potential but [59:04] then you have to do [59:06] what where the where the demand is in Us [59:10] in [59:10] Canada east and west there's nobody in [59:13] the middle right I said a while ago we [59:16] have no juice lines running from Arizona [59:18] to New York right or if you go big With [59:20] The Wind in monito or North Dakota we [59:22] have no juice lines running to Toronto [59:23] or Vancouver right how how much it cost [59:26] to build one kilometer of a high voltage [59:28] line well it depends where you build it [59:31] but you know if you do it on cheap but [59:34] half a million but that's very cheap and [59:36] very rare usually it's like million [59:38] million and a half it could be 2 million [59:39] three it could be 5 million actually [59:41] depending what you do really but even [59:43] that is not important suppose it's only [59:44] 1 million per kilometer right but what's [59:46] more important what it's the Nim comes [59:49] in right nobody wants to have giant [59:50] voltage line in the backyard so it will [59:52] take you with average voltage line about [59:53] 10 years of approval process before you [59:55] can start building this is what Germans [59:57] discovered when they ran out of the wind [60:00] places in the north Germany basically [60:02] they said okay we'll put it in the North [60:03] Sea right and there we can put the giant [60:05] turbines and everything right but they [60:08] do not have interet connections like [60:09] that to north to south Germany and the [60:11] industrial power of Germany is in the [60:13] middle and the South right so they did [60:15] it this so they started to build these [60:16] north south links expensive but then [60:19] they discovered that even more expensive [60:21] is to build that link from this 50 km [60:23] offshore to the shore basically this [60:26] discover that the cost of that link from [60:27] offshore Wind Farm is about as much as [60:30] the cost of that wind farm itself really [60:32] right so then you have to double it and [60:34] then you have to build these north south [60:35] links in in Germany right so all of [60:38] these things are doable all of these [60:40] things are possible there are constant [60:42] limits running at you and you maybe like [60:45] last year happen you know one one day it [60:48] was very sunny very nice and in Germany [60:50] by law you have to buy the solar power [60:52] all of it when it's available by law [60:54] right so during that one noon hour more [60:58] than 50% of electric in Germany came [61:00] from solar because your Gast turbines [61:03] and because your kofam have to close [61:05] down to preferentially buy that solar [61:07] right only to be restarted later when [61:09] that sun goes down after 5:00 p.m. right [61:12] so in short period of time you can you [61:13] can achieve some marvelous coverage and [61:16] amount of of green power but in long run [61:19] you have to put in huge huge Reserve to [61:22] cover for this long windless cloudless [61:25] uh uh [61:28] um [61:30] and we've been mocking with it in the [61:32] rich countries and in China because [61:34] China has lots of you know U desert [61:37] place in the [61:38] west but look where the future of [61:40] humanity is by 2007 more than half of [61:43] the people began to living in big cities [61:46] right so we are in the future most of [61:48] the people live in mega [61:50] cities think about about energy density [61:53] that Mega City if I'm talking about [61:55] Shanghai or Mumbai or Tokyo each square [61:59] meter of that City average including the [62:01] streets and parks maybe 100 wats per [62:03] square meter if I go [62:06] solar today 20 30 W square meter right [62:09] still I need somewhere else the area [62:11] three times or four times that City to [62:13] GA it right if I go wind which is one [62:16] watt per square meter I need 100 times [62:18] the area of that City somewhere to GA [62:19] that V right if I go biomass which is5 [62:23] watt per square met as we calculate I go [62:25] right I need 200 300 times more area of [62:27] that city right and then I have to bring [62:29] it and bring it to that city right [62:31] totally new way how to organize Energy [62:33] System right because now we bring it [62:35] from 10,000 Wells to these cities so if [62:38] you tell me how decentralized energy [62:41] with your little wi turbine on your roof [62:44] and little solar P your roof will work [62:47] in 70 story houses in mega cities of the [62:50] world then I say welcome to the green [62:52] world right but otherwise it's a very [62:54] difficult thing [62:56] so this is why I always say what we need [62:58] is a rational use of energy not energy [63:01] conservation that's a wrong term right [63:03] you [63:04] know energy is always conserved after [63:06] all right you know you don't need energy [63:08] if you if you know your physics you know [63:09] you don't worry about that really what [63:11] you worry about the rational use of [63:13] energy and rational use of energy is not [63:15] to pour it into three ton car [63:18] okay notice almost invariably maybe [63:21] vinek is a weird place but all of the [63:24] big SUVs are driven by small women right [63:27] because the number one car is the car [63:29] which he drives downtown for work right [63:31] and number two car is an SUV which he [63:33] drives to safe right you know so there's [63:35] a 60 kgam woman Tooling in this three [63:38] ton car right that's clearly not a [63:40] rational use of energy now imagine I'll [63:43] be fueling this ethanol this green fuel [63:46] right does it make any sense really [63:47] right you know the only way you could at [63:50] least make a half apology for ethanol [63:52] after all this erosion and nitrogen and [63:55] you know station by if it you be forced [63:58] to put it into something like we should [63:59] consume like 100 miles per gal right [64:01] that would be the only thing but to pour [64:03] it into this thing right which weighs [64:04] three tons and makes like 11 miles per [64:06] gallon right this is this is Criminal [64:07] think right then we come with LEDs this [64:11] is the flavor of the day everything is [64:13] Led everything is so efficient it's [64:14] unbelievable right so people build new [64:16] houses and they installed so many LEDs [64:19] outside more than I have inside now and [64:21] they let them on all night right because [64:23] is so daming cheap in mon bar right [64:26] that's not a rational use of electricity [64:27] right and of course these Europeans [64:30] flying for 20 EUR from Amsterdam to [64:32] Cyprus that's not a very rational use of [64:34] electricity right one of the most [64:36] amazing illustrations of this is [64:38] remember the big tsunami right the [64:40] Indonesian tsunami which killed so many [64:42] people in Thailand what was the one of [64:45] the largest absolutely you would never [64:47] think about the classes of people killed [64:49] Norwegian babies because Norwegian [64:52] parents flew half around the world to [64:54] expose that baby to Tropical Sun right [64:57] and then tsunami kill those Norwegian [64:58] babies right I mean if you want your son [65:01] why not just to fly from Norway to Italy [65:03] right wouldn't there be enough it's the [65:04] same Sun causes the same skin cancer [65:07] right there's no difference there right [65:09] so we to say that we are wasting energy [65:12] is not saying anything our Energy System [65:15] is grossly irrational grossly irrational [65:19] best example of course I'm writing about [65:20] this right now is [65:22] food do you have any idea what is the [65:24] average percentage of food wasted in US [65:26] Canada and [65:28] EU and all that food don't see food all [65:31] that food is energy right har synthesis [65:33] of ammonia right irrigation right [65:36] pesticides average pesticide 150 g per T [65:39] right Machinery tractors combines right [65:41] steel Plastics everything [65:44] right Western countries was 40% of food [65:47] are produce okay I mean for what to [65:51] achieve massive obesity unknown in the [65:53] history of man before right that's [65:55] that's the result right that's the only [65:57] that's the only thing which got out of [65:58] it you know obesity unknown in history [66:00] of homo sapiens right and and still we [66:02] waste 40% over it right so we would be [66:05] rational people we would be you know [66:07] producing about half as much food as we [66:08] are producing now we wouldn't be flying [66:11] from to Cyprus from Amsterdam for for [66:13] six hours we be bringing Norwegian [66:15] babies to Thailand uh um we will be [66:18] driving Street Town Cars how many people [66:20] in this class have I have to shave [66:22] myself how have to people have triple [66:24] windows [66:27] nobody has triple windows in this room [66:30] in your house nobody has triple window [66:32] you see the point made right this is [66:34] absolutely criminal every person can [66:36] actually have triple Windows not only [66:38] triple windows but triple Windows is gas [66:40] like I have is argon and with reflection [66:43] oh wow you see this is what I'm talking [66:45] about today right so you people so this [66:47] is basically what Canada Canada in [66:48] energy terms is [66:50] living pre-middle ages kind of you know [66:52] in darkest times of like equivalent of [66:54] Canada like 6th Century ad right [66:56] something like that you know just you [66:58] know before some medieval Enlightenment [67:00] before they started building some you [67:01] know clo in France you know I'm just [67:04] people got it's just unbelievable so we [67:07] could again if I would R the things I [67:09] wouldn't want to right you know I'm just [67:11] like I'm glad to do my RO garden and my [67:13] cooking and my books but if I run the [67:15] things I could design a system then you [67:17] could run Canada on one third of the [67:18] energy which you are using and our [67:20] standard of living would be pretty much [67:22] the same except we wouldn't be flying to [67:24] Thailand right you know and except we [67:25] would be driving three down car right [67:27] and except we wouldn't be building [67:29] average houses where the number of [67:30] outdoor lights surpasses the number of [67:32] indoor lights and are left all night out [67:35] there right we'll be charging people for [67:36] that electricity right [67:40] so I will end on my favorite point in [67:43] this province which actually should be [67:44] the Hub and center of it which is the [67:46] one of the greatest disgrace in in [67:48] history of Canada which I don't [67:50] understand there's a Fame company in [67:52] this city stav is Big B which is making [67:56] rapid rains and some planes planes are [68:00] not so good I think but maybe the new [68:02] one will be better right uh new series [68:05] but the trains are Dam and good because [68:06] these trains are running in foreign [68:08] places right have you noticed that none [68:11] of these fast trains is running in [68:12] Canada which country all the rapid [68:15] trains are electric trains right they [68:16] not diesel trains or you know whatever [68:18] you know Choo Cho coal trains which [68:21] country is the best suited to have rapid [68:22] electric trains in the world well the [68:25] country makes them that's this province [68:27] makes them the country is the cheapest [68:29] hydroelectricity in the world and that's [68:31] kec hydro and Manitoba Hydro we have it [68:33] right instead I flew today with the most [68:37] rampant example of not inefficiency but [68:39] absolute idiocy a shuttle every hour [68:42] from Toronto to otwa from Toronto to [68:43] Montreal every hour every hour instead [68:46] of what what are we doing two weeks in [68:48] Japan going downtown in Comfort sitting [68:51] in a train which go 300 kilomet per hour [68:53] looking out of the window you know just [68:55] working on my company if I want looking [68:57] there the F Fuji goes by and beautiful [69:00] green R Fields right and I would make it [69:02] from Toronto to Montreal from downtown [69:04] to downtown in 1 hour and 20 minutes [69:06] right and be done visit right we are the [69:08] last civilized country except for the US [69:11] of course right which is not civilized [69:13] we do not have a rapid electricity power [69:15] train although we have the cheap Hy [69:17] electricity and although we make those [69:19] trains what else can I tell you this is [69:21] a Primitive Country in energy terms [69:22] totally Primitive Country right and what [69:25] is the worse about it it's not going to [69:27] change right now I realize that we [69:29] cannot have a rapid rain from Toronto to [69:32] Vancouver right there is no population [69:34] density in between right my wife always [69:37] Marvels when we fly from Vancouver to [69:38] Toronto from vek to Toronto you fly and [69:41] for two hours you see what Canadian [69:44] Shield right know just forest and legs [69:46] forest and legs right so nobody will [69:48] jump on the train right between Toronto [69:49] and V okay there is Sunbury and whatever [69:52] right but you know that doesn't count so [69:54] you have to have a certain population [69:56] density but surely we have population [69:58] density when there is a shuttle every [70:00] hour right and another shuttle going to [70:02] the Toronto Island now right okay train [70:05] and this plane get gets what 100 150 [70:07] people train gets 1500 2,000 people [70:10] right downtown to downtown much more [70:11] convenient much cleaner much safe much [70:14] everything is superior about it and we [70:16] don't even have it we don't even have a [70:18] serious discussion about having it we [70:20] should have these trains all the way [70:21] from Chicago to Toronto from Toronto all [70:23] the way to probably Quebec City right we [70:25] should from Montreal to New York it [70:27] would be a civilized normal country we [70:28] would have it Europeans have it Chinese [70:31] have it Chinese have it now Chinese have [70:33] a longer network of these things than [70:35] anybody else okay even per capita terms [70:38] you know they are not quite like [70:39] Japanese but they are catching up so [70:41] this is what I mean by rational use of [70:42] energy I don't mean conservation [70:44] conservation what like you know I unplug [70:47] my whatever toaster whatever no it's the [70:49] ration energy and this is the prime [70:51] example of the most irration energy on [70:54] the planet know [70:56] at marari from C to the SE to the other [70:58] SE right there's nobody inefficient that [71:01] allows as VR okay attack me any [71:03] questions show me wrong what the wrong [71:06] number what [71:17] are thank you very much uh so we have [71:20] some time for questions and there are [71:22] mics on both aisles so uh please walk up [71:25] to the microphone U for your questions [71:29] first question there please go ahead yes [71:32] hello I'm [71:33] n uh you didn't say a word about the [71:37] challenge of global warming which means [71:39] we have at one point to right to try to [71:43] I said I know but if you use energy more [71:45] rationally the problem will almost [71:46] disappear because I told you I could [71:48] design caran system using one3 as much [71:50] energy as we are using now and that that [71:52] is the solution rational use of energy [71:54] no but it it's easy in Canada because we [71:56] use about three times more energy per [71:58] capita than uh the other developed [72:01] countries but we don't have to no I know [72:03] but the Canada is window you wouldn't [72:05] have to right I agree but the the pro as [72:07] you said the growth at the moment is in [72:10] China is in India right where they're [72:12] still not using so much energy so the [72:14] idea of rational use I mean you cannot [72:17] gain that much course you see that that [72:18] applies to everything that applies to [72:20] food everything so of course you know so [72:21] what I'm saying is the I'm outlining the [72:24] limits of possib [72:25] lots of the stuff is possible Right what [72:28] is likely to happen is a totally [72:30] different story right um fous reply to [72:34] this would be saying it's out of our [72:35] hands because suppose we become very [72:37] rational right I did a calculation a few [72:39] years ago because I got kind of you know [72:41] fed up is that people attacking the [72:43] Tarson right of course the AA go dirty [72:47] the normal oil not by that much actually [72:49] they not like twice as dirty right but [72:51] you know it takes a lot more energy [72:52] right you have to no no matter how you [72:54] produce it if you recovery them or if [72:55] you use the steam assisted recovery it [72:57] takes more energy than produce classical [73:00] crude o which you know you can pump or [73:02] flowing from the so but I did the [73:05] calculation several calculations saying [73:07] you know suppose we save that extra or [73:10] suppose we will not do any tasin at all [73:13] that was few years ago when China's [73:14] energy was still doing this right now [73:16] it's kind of Ling off so I calculated [73:18] Chinese would have made up for it in 17 [73:20] days okay so fous reply would be [73:23] basically we don't matter anymore right [73:26] imagine we close down thousands in terms [73:28] of emissions right to save these [73:29] emissions and Chin would have caught up [73:31] Global because it's the glob just thing [73:33] people have to realize that talking [73:34] about [73:35] CO2 you shouldn't talk about Nations you [73:38] have to talk globally I mean you know [73:40] the gas mixes right there is only one [73:42] to2 reservoir that's the that's the [73:44] planet right gas may be heavier than the [73:46] than the air but you know it's it's a [73:48] dynamic mix atmosphere so you can we are [73:52] 35 million people so we can become [73:53] utterly rational which we won't but even [73:56] we would really you know over next 20 [73:58] years there is another billion people [74:00] coming in Asia and Africa right and they [74:02] will not become utterly rational because [74:04] they have to use as much as fast as they [74:07] can whatever they can right as simple as [74:10] that so um as I say I'm not you know [74:13] saying that to you know sh and [74:15] responsibility saying you know there's [74:16] nothing we can do but to a large extent [74:18] because this is a global problem [74:20] requires Global commitment right and the [74:22] only time we have been able to globally [74:24] pitch was with CFCs which was a totally [74:27] differencing famous Montreal protocol [74:29] and it was easy why because they were [74:32] actually only very few makers right few [74:33] rich countries were making it and [74:35] actually there were only few big makers [74:37] you know Russian State company deant and [74:40] um and the bridge side um [74:45] I I like yeah so there are very and [74:49] these people switch from CFCs to hcfcs [74:51] and make more make more money on it [74:53] right so there was that easy it didn't [74:55] require the agreement of 200 countries [74:58] and didn't require the subversion of all [74:59] Industries right it required the [75:01] agreement of few rich countries saying [75:03] we pay off the poor countries to switch [75:05] faster and these companies supplied [75:07] alternative product right so this is not [75:09] people say we've done a VCF we can do [75:11] the CO2 totally wrong example right [75:13] because CO2 is everything CO2 is see [75:15] anytime you want to produce your [75:17] biofuels by planting more oil Palms you [75:20] generate CO2 because you cut down the [75:22] tropical rainforest right and the second [75:24] largest source after burning fast is [75:27] what cutting down the tropical [75:28] rainforest right so this solu this is [75:31] only Global solution and in many [75:34] countries I'm not saying you we [75:35] shouldn't anything but in many countries [75:36] you know let's say Denmark you know [75:39] these European countries you know four [75:40] million people like you know country [75:41] like a city in in country like country [75:44] like a County Town in China like four [75:46] million people like they could they [75:47] could totally give up fossil fuels right [75:50] it will be made up by Indians and [75:51] Chinese in in matter of hours or or days [75:54] right so uh [75:55] this is a problem which is not so much a [75:57] technical problem not so much an [75:58] engineering problem it is a problem of [76:00] you know uh us saying well you know [76:03] these people have to come up because [76:06] they will come up no matter what right [76:08] and for them to come up and keep it [76:09] whatever to 450 we we will not keep it [76:12] we are way over 400 PPM right now we are [76:16] not way over but we are so we we will [76:18] not keep it but say 500 you to keep it [76:20] to 500 PPM CO2 really right we would [76:22] have to come down because they will come [76:23] up regardless right you know are you [76:25] willing to come down you know that's the [76:27] question are you willing to come down [76:28] really are you willing to you know [76:30] consume 1/3 one for 40 personal so this [76:34] is not problem it's not a technical [76:35] problem because it doesn't have any [76:36] technical solution because the technical [76:38] solution would be what oh yeah capture [76:41] of CO2 from the air please study [76:43] carefully the chemistry and study [76:45] carefully the amount you would have to [76:46] remove right for it to make any [76:48] difference right you have to remove what [76:51] about 10 billion tons every year right [76:53] to begin with right or capture and [76:55] sequester it down right I used to give [76:58] this [76:59] example what we take out of the ground [77:01] in terms of oil right about 4 billion [77:03] tons right if you put 4 billion tons of [77:06] CO2 down there just reversing the [77:09] process right of of oil production right [77:11] what is it we generate now more than 30 [77:13] billion tons right so this like 15% not [77:15] even so right so again the scale that [77:17] fits us we've got we become so big in [77:20] Energy terem site that there is no [77:22] simple engineering solution because of [77:23] the scale so forget about the Capt from [77:25] the air forget about the storage [77:26] underground that cannot work really [77:27] right so the only thing which can work [77:29] really is to consume less and to consume [77:32] less on a global scale is they will come [77:34] up as they say they will not ask us for [77:35] permission right India said you know [77:37] famous Paris agreement whatever you said [77:39] no we'll burn as much as we can right [77:41] and did you notice what China said right [77:43] oh that's a beautiful [77:45] formulation we promise to Peak before [77:49] 2030 huh what does that mean Pi at what [77:53] level right you know okay so as I say [77:55] they'll get it no matter what we'll say [77:57] I'll do really right so to keep it [77:59] globally below whatever 500 people [78:01] whatever we have to come down okay so [78:04] the onus is on us because it's very [78:06] difficult to tell them you know China is [78:08] about 90 G per per capita primary energy [78:10] we are 360 okay okay four times as much [78:14] right so Chinese in and moreover Chinese [78:17] ra this argument chin don't say oh in [78:19] per capita terms you have four times as [78:21] much no China will say what in per [78:23] capita terms and cumulatively past 150 [78:26] years you are about 50 times as much [78:28] right because Chinese went to 50 90 G ju [78:32] only like yesterday right because under [78:33] ma until 197 they like 15 G right so [78:37] Chinese say per capita in historical [78:39] accumulation terms right we still can go [78:41] like 200 times more than we are going [78:43] right now and you have no moral argument [78:45] to say no to them right because we have [78:47] done it already right so just trying to [78:49] do that right so this is a basically [78:51] it's a it's a it's a moral problem it's [78:53] a behavioral problem it's not a [78:54] technical problem cuz there is no [78:55] technical solution to it not on a time [78:58] scale required right not not in next 30 [79:00] 40 50 years right if you want to keep it [79:03] below 500 PPM or whatever right also we [79:05] don't know right God knows right this is [79:07] an evolving knowledge right you know [79:09] just maybe F PPM will not be that bad [79:12] maybe F PPM will be catastrophic you [79:13] know we have no idea as I said we are [79:15] not very good at getting this you know [79:17] truly long-term forecast I mean just [79:19] it's just don't forget all of these are [79:21] just models right you know just modeling [79:23] is one thing and reality is and other [79:25] right so so perhaps yeah we question [79:29] over here now you've presented us with a [79:32] rather interesting [79:34] Paradox you're suggesting the solution [79:36] to our energy problems is not technical [79:40] but obviously is political and economic [79:43] but those very same political and [79:45] economic forces are pushing the [79:47] technical argument because it's easier [79:49] for them to do so than it is to change [79:52] the system so how are we going to change [79:55] this system in the direction that you [79:58] think we ought to go no so you see I [80:00] should have I should have been more [80:01] careful I should have said the solutions [80:03] are not primarily technical of course [80:05] everything is technical the society is [80:07] just suffused with L technique [80:08] everything everything is so to to do [80:12] anything without mocking with the [80:14] current Arrangement current Tech is [80:16] impossible so you know let me let me [80:19] qualify the statement I would say [80:20] primary because even when we could get [80:23] the most efficient things suppose you [80:25] know we have what we have suppose the [80:27] whole world is using only the most [80:29] efficient electric motors internal [80:31] combustion engine gas turbines [80:32] everything is most efficient as is right [80:35] well that would still save us probably [80:37] you know we see we are having slow [80:39] margins now let me give you some [80:40] examples to impress some people how we [80:42] do not have that much [80:45] room I have in my basement a furnace gas [80:48] which is 97% efficient how much far can [80:51] I go really right I mean you know I [80:53] don't have any chimney anymore [80:55] 97% even soal mid efficiency furnace [80:58] which is now required by building codes [81:00] in Canada is what about 78% efficiency [81:03] right so we cannot double the efficienc [81:05] so I go from 78 to 97 right everybody [81:08] gets that right okay you know so this is [81:11] not marginal but I'm getting what you [81:12] know 10 15 20% is most of these things [81:15] right I go from uh from the best engine [81:18] to the average engine again you know I [81:20] get something like that right uh I go [81:22] from the best plane suppose you know you [81:23] eliminate all the other planes and you [81:25] just fly 787 well you say 15% right or [81:28] 18% whatever right so the best suppose [81:31] we get all the oldfashioned stuff out of [81:33] the system and globally we use only the [81:35] most efficient energy converters we have [81:37] saves us about 15 20 25% right given the [81:40] population growth we are 7.3 billion [81:42] will be 9 billion in next 30 Years right [81:45] 40 years that's not going to solve the [81:47] problem really right and it's not only [81:48] the growth these are the people expect [81:50] to consume more because if China was at [81:53] 15 on the mile and it's 90 K per ton [81:56] India is still 15 now or 20 right and [81:58] they want to go to 90 so it's the [82:00] population growth plus the increased [82:01] consumption right so the technical [82:03] solution as important as it is cannot [82:06] hack it alone it's not a primary [82:08] solution I know but we're still stuck [82:09] with the problem of how do you convince [82:11] people to make more intelligent use of [82:14] their of energy oh people very there is [82:17] no secret to it hit them in their pocket [82:20] make them pay is very simple as that [82:22] really look you know okay let's see if [82:25] somebody knows this what do you think a [82:28] typical you know this non-existent [82:31] mythical American middle class family [82:33] which every politician refers to what is [82:35] the typical average middle class family [82:38] how much of their disposable disposable [82:40] income not gross earings how much of the [82:42] disposable income they pay for energy [82:44] what [82:46] percentage [82:49] 9% 9% and another 9% they pay for food [82:53] the most ESS energy of all right so your [82:56] average American and Canadian family pay [82:58] less than 20% for essential energies [83:01] light heat motion food rest of it is the [83:05] mortgages on the houses which they [83:07] cannot afford and junk made in China [83:09] right okay that's to okay FML stuff to [83:12] be thrown away all these plastic Judas [83:14] and everything right now when I was [83:16] growing up in Europe as a young boy how [83:19] much did we pay for food some of the [83:22] white people will remember because he [83:25] well in Europe after the war was 60% [83:28] right um don't forget even in England [83:32] food was rationed until 1954 even in [83:34] England right so 50 60% of disposable [83:37] income for that was normal in China on [83:39] the M was 50% right in most poor [83:43] countries it's 40 to 60% still really [83:45] right in Europe it's still 20% not nine [83:48] is year in Switzerland is still like 22% [83:50] it's 20% in Europe right so this is what [83:53] we need so so the only way not to waste [83:57] that much and only way to you know use [84:00] things more rationally is to pay more [84:02] for it you'll be more careful not [84:04] everybody right some people are [84:05] zillionaires but most people more [84:06] careful and so we just basically we are [84:09] giving away electricity we are giving [84:11] away gasoline in North America we are [84:13] basically giving everything we are [84:14] giving away food right AB amazing right [84:16] if you think of um if you think like's [84:18] say of of of animals right how much [84:21] energy you have to spend because animal [84:23] warm blooded animal like a pig or even [84:25] more than cow right most of the energy [84:28] you feed them for the time they are [84:29] growing goes into what having them [84:31] running and you know having keeping the [84:33] body temperature right so you have to [84:35] use even for a pig seven units of feet [84:37] to produce one unit of meat right [84:41] for for cows which are fed in this [84:45] big [84:47] fenced Texas Arrangements it's up to 1 [84:50] to 20 right and then you waste at the [84:53] end of it 40% of really right so because [84:57] what I was in I shop several times a [85:00] week so I was soes or whatever and they [85:03] had a sale on pork one and a half kilo [85:05] of pork for $7 for $7 you know if our [85:10] energy would be that cheap you just [85:11] couldn't produce it so everything this [85:14] is you have today every price we pay in [85:16] North America no price reflects the cost [85:20] of production in energy terms right no [85:22] price if you would pay the real cost [85:24] reflecting the embedded embodied cost of [85:27] energy in your sweater or in your shoes [85:30] or in your steak or in your red peppers [85:32] right we be paying for everything two [85:34] times or three times as much and food [85:36] would cost whatever you know 30% of [85:38] disposable income so that's the only way [85:40] to go if you are giving if you are [85:41] giving away people will waste it as [85:43] simple as that there is no other way [85:45] some people will still waste right some [85:46] people ostentatious consumption but most [85:48] people will will manage right so please [85:50] you know I know people con complain [85:53] price of gas expensive whatever but no [85:55] you know this is the we we are living in [85:57] a society which is the cheapest food and [85:59] energy prices in history of mankind [86:02] period That's a statement of absolute [86:05] fact right from now on it it will get [86:08] only worse right we could make it vers [86:10] by Design not to waste so much but it [86:13] will get vers on its own be sure right [86:16] because the stateof develop ecosystem is [86:19] not very good right and the state of [86:21] theel ecosystem determines the [86:22] production of the most important energ [86:24] in the world which is food most simp [86:26] energy is not electricity or gasoline [86:28] it's food and our food production if you [86:31] look at historic long term side we used [86:33] to have these yields you know comes the [86:35] Green Revolution of 60s and yields go up [86:37] up up up up what what have been the most [86:39] of the yelds of rice corn we've been [86:41] doing in past 20 years flattened they [86:44] are not going up up up anymore really [86:46] right and if they'll go up up up we need [86:48] more inputs we need more irrigation [86:50] especially with STS we need more [86:52] fertilizer and if not we we need some [86:54] massive genetic interventions but we are [86:56] not that point yet this is our great [86:59] hope you know that most of our pl we can [87:00] eventually so by synthetic genomics but [87:03] we are not there yet really right [87:05] because once you once you really M [87:07] synthetic genomics you can have your [87:08] bacteria spitting your gasoline right [87:10] and you can other bacteria spitting your [87:12] whatever you know hamburger meat so to [87:14] speak right but we are not there quite [87:17] yet despite of the crisper cutting and [87:19] everything you know it's it's a while [87:20] you know it's like all these men these [87:22] men appear in this this does everybody [87:24] does it this man appear behind that long [87:27] desk in the white coats and say we've [87:29] just invented another cure for cancer [87:31] but it will not be available for next 20 [87:33] years L right so the same is crisper [87:35] cutting of jeans and everything not so [87:37] fast so we will not have remember the [87:40] guy who started the game vent right he [87:41] said you know I will give you the [87:43] bacteria we be spitting gasoline right [87:45] yesterday well 10 years later we still [87:46] don't have them right so it is a [87:48] possibility and for me speaking as a [87:50] biologist this is the greatest hope for [87:52] the future right that we will engineer [87:54] thing which means also we will engineer [87:56] people and that will not be so nicely [87:58] right you know just because you see we [88:00] want stop at engineering gasoline [88:02] spitting bacteria right we start [88:04] engineering people on a big scale right [88:06] so that may be a scary this may be much [88:08] worse than living in a world with energy [88:10] scarcity but normal people there right [88:13] so so next question here uh well thank [88:17] you so much for your presentation I'd [88:19] just like to reiterate a lot of what [88:21] we're all feeling and that you sort of [88:23] opened our minds to a lot of the [88:25] different perspectives on global energy [88:27] problems um I wouldn't mind hearing a [88:30] perspective more on something a little [88:31] more specific I spoke about Canada don't [88:33] forget the most primitive energy country [88:35] in the world that's right that's right [88:37] so I was hoping to hear something on a [88:39] little more of a smaller Topic in [88:40] particular nuclear you alluded to it [88:43] slightly at the beginning in sort of [88:45] making note of France and how France [88:47] changed I I was wondering if you could [88:50] sort of give a little discourse on that [88:52] change as well as what your thoughts are [88:54] for nuclear in the future mostly because [88:56] it's such a dormant and controversial [88:59] topic and then it has so much promise [89:01] but I was in particular wondering what [89:03] your thoughts were on this issue okay if [89:05] I would be flippant I would say you know [89:07] uh why are we talking about nuclear [89:10] energy it's [89:11] de now this statement requires [89:14] qualification right it's that in the [89:16] sense how many nuclear power plants have [89:18] you built in this country in past 25 [89:20] years zero right how many power plants [89:24] the country which is there about 4 38 of [89:28] them now whatever roughly like 4 let's [89:30] say 440 nuclear plants around the world [89:32] of them about 100 is in the US right all [89:35] of them are aging now right all of them [89:37] were built in 60s 70s early 80s they all [89:39] aging to replace the current plants [89:42] right we would should be building like [89:44] 50 of them how many we are building two [89:47] and a half or three and a half depends [89:48] how you count it right how many they are [89:50] building in Europe two right the one [89:54] which used to be The Shining Light the [89:56] big finish one right which used to be [89:57] finished on time and on money it's now [90:01] what nearly twice as much time and more [90:03] than twice as much money right the [90:06] country which derives 30% of nuclear [90:08] electricity from fromy from nuclear [90:11] Japan right I don't have to say anymore [90:14] post Fukushima right Japan will never [90:16] ever derive 30% of nuclear electricity [90:18] from from electricity from Nuclear So [90:21] the West EU North America Japan is not [90:25] building who is [90:28] building yeah you do you really want [90:30] these people to keep on building I give [90:32] you the list of the people are building [90:34] North Korea South Korea China and Iran [90:38] huh and India a little bit right imagine [90:42] an accident happening in one of these [90:43] countries right in China Fukushima [90:48] that's what you call to Hoku the the [90:49] northern Japan which is lightly [90:51] populated relatively poor you evacuate [90:54] 100,000 people you are done with it [90:56] right in China similar accident will [91:00] affect 100 million people right given [91:02] the density all these plants in China [91:04] they are not somewhere in the bundock of [91:05] Tibet right there is no juice line from [91:07] they are in populated areas in East [91:08] China they in the suburbs of Shanghai in [91:11] Chang Province right and CH they are [91:13] there you know so imagine a Fukushima [91:15] star accident in China right it's only a [91:17] matter of time it's extremely [91:19] volcanically active place right one of [91:21] the worst earthquakes of the 20th [91:23] century was just when Ma died in [91:25] September 1976 in [91:27] tangshan less than 50 kilm from Beijing [91:29] 700,000 people died okay this is [91:32] extremely active place right so imagine [91:35] say I don't have to tell you any about [91:37] North Korea nuclear weapons right they [91:39] are building they just announce a new [91:40] reactor running great South Korea well [91:43] South Korea be nice and cudly and [91:44] friendly but it's within the range of [91:46] everything which North Korea can throw [91:47] at it including their nuclear power [91:49] plants right so do I want the South [91:51] Korea to build they have one of the [91:52] biggest programs right [91:54] and then is India right is it stable [91:58] well there is a Pakistan ex door right [91:59] so how stable it can be really right you [92:01] know so do I want this quartet of people [92:03] to and there is Iran do I want these [92:05] people so these are the only Builders [92:07] today so so much about the state of [92:09] nuclear and Russian are kind of building [92:11] right but that's pretty much the same [92:12] story after all these are the creators [92:14] of Chernobyl reactor right so you know [92:16] which didn't even have a containment [92:17] building right that's speaking about [92:19] engineering right you just build a [92:20] reactor and you read the guys to play [92:22] with it at 4:00 a.m. or 3 [92:24] kind know we're just playing with it [92:25] right you know this is how Chernobyl [92:27] accident happened right and then it [92:29] happened it wasn't even a containment [92:30] building at least we are not that dumb [92:33] that at least we had an accident at [92:35] three miles Island right and everything [92:36] remained within the concrete building [92:38] really right nothing escaped right so do [92:41] I want these five people to build no but [92:43] they are building we are not so so much [92:47] I years years ago and I was thinking [92:49] about these things saying you know what [92:50] should I say about nuclear power and I [92:52] came up with oh it's right it's simple [92:54] it's primitive but nevertheless I'm [92:56] proud of it because you know in two [92:59] words it in encapsulates nuclear [93:02] electricity it's been a Successful [93:04] Failure right successful because we are [93:07] getting more electricity out of it than [93:09] Hydro more than all these new Renewables [93:12] right it's a single biggest chunk after [93:14] thermal electricity from coal and oil so [93:16] you've been successful Japan 30% France [93:19] 70% right but it's been a failure [93:21] because we are not building anymore and [93:23] we was of it and we walked away from it [93:25] and we left it to Koreans and Iranians [93:28] right you know so so much about nuclear [93:30] as you see I'm a friend of nuclear [93:31] electricity I have nothing against [93:32] nuclear electricity right if you do it [93:34] right you know you can do it right [93:35] French have done it right right you can [93:38] do it right also even French haven't [93:40] solved the ultimate nimi problem where [93:42] do you put the longli waste right nobody [93:45] has a longli depository Russians don't [93:48] have it Chinese don't have it Americans [93:49] don't have it Japanese don't have it [93:52] nobody has it right so that's another [93:54] thing but so far as I say Successful [93:56] Failure it has been you know it's done [93:57] lots of good but future of it is [94:01] questionable and the cost of it is mind [94:04] barging especially these days when you [94:05] can get a barrel of oil for $40 you know [94:08] to build something for3 billion to get [94:10] you one gab this is not such a kind of [94:13] you know enticing enticing proposition [94:14] so I don't see anybody building anything [94:16] anytime soon after all even the mother [94:19] of this all La France itself says what [94:23] we are not going going to bir anymore in [94:24] fact we will redu right so if the France [94:27] the ultimate derious nuclear power says [94:30] no more then it's over for Power Nuclear [94:32] Power in the Western World right was the [94:34] only Shining Light right look at the [94:36] flaman V and you know it's it's not a [94:38] pretty story nuclear power is a story of [94:40] you know as I say it's been successful [94:43] but it's been beyond disappointing [94:46] actually and in my historic work I look [94:48] at these things you know that there is [94:50] this forecast General Electric it's not [94:52] like you know some you know little dinky [94:54] forecasting but General Electric big [94:57] internet publication in 74 I have the [94:59] original copy said by your [95:02] 2000 there will be no thermal power [95:04] plants no coal oil natural gas [95:06] everything will be nuclear not only that [95:08] 80% will be fast breeder [95:10] reactor there is not a single fast breed [95:13] reactor working anywhere in the Western [95:15] World we all had them we all Finance [95:17] them you know we had them in Japan we [95:19] had them in France we had them in United [95:22] States all shut down right that was to [95:24] be the future of nuclear power so you [95:27] know has nothing to do with liking or [95:29] not liking nule power but the facts on [95:30] the ground are it's just not moving [95:32] ahead it's not happening [95:34] right last question there [95:38] okay please go [95:40] ahead um I want to congratulate you for [95:44] coming to the McGill uh faculty of [95:46] engineering and telling the emperor that [95:49] uh that he doesn't have any clothes well [95:52] there there are some clothes but skimpy [95:54] right they're skimpy clothes that's [95:55] right the emperor is poorly clad and um [95:59] so if Innovation is not the answer or is [96:01] not entirely the answer then what are we [96:03] all doing here um studying engineering [96:06] uh with uh with with Bright Futures in [96:08] our minds and um how close is the human [96:11] race to to Icarus and should we be [96:13] looking say the last one how close to [96:15] what the human race to the hubris of our [96:19] um Collective um ego are we headed [96:23] towards catastrophe our climate [96:26] scientists telling us inflated lies uh [96:30] what is what gives you hope I suppose is [96:32] my question see this when you look when [96:34] you take you know this this [96:36] um very long-term historical perspective [96:40] uh we never know things usually we worry [96:43] about I mean it's not a iron rule but [96:46] it's it's pretty good rule things we [96:48] worry about usually kind of know they [96:50] get Sol but things we which don't worry [96:52] about uh catch us and when you look [96:55] historically this you know that in past [96:58] 25 years you ask what's hopeful many [97:00] thing are one of the most absolutely [97:03] unbelievable things speaking as the [97:04] former citizen of the evil empire is the [97:06] peaceful collapse of the USSR these [97:09] people had 11,000 nuclear warheads [97:11] really right and they just went home [97:12] like one Sunday they just went home [97:14] that's it really right they've given the [97:15] Empire right you know just just like [97:17] that okay there'll be a little Skirmish [97:19] in Ukraine and you know res was CH and [97:21] you know it's not all pretty but this is [97:23] is absolutely unbelievable right you [97:25] know it's like you [97:26] know that's it really [97:30] um China is a different story because [97:33] China Chinese people have benefited [97:34] tremendously from uh after M death with [97:38] this uh turn to more or less real [97:41] economy and you know having enough to [97:42] eat whatever but otherwise China of [97:44] course is is is is run as deeply and [97:47] strongly by uh by Communist party as it [97:50] ever just check the number of people [97:52] which they employ to censor internet [97:55] right just check the number I will not [97:57] tell you the number again check it for [97:58] yourself it's just absolutely amazing [98:00] The Power of One political party how [98:02] many people can employ just to censor [98:04] people are sending each other messages [98:06] yet you know they feel obliged to censor [98:07] that really right so China is much less [98:10] of a hopeful story they have enough to [98:11] eat and they will now all travel to see [98:13] AR the tri really right but otherwise [98:15] you know it's not such a triumphal story [98:18] right um but Russia is despite his [98:20] problem because you know this was the [98:22] this was the seats of the World War [98:24] right and you know it it didn't happen [98:26] not going to happen uh so that was that [98:28] was very interesting [98:31] um the fact that we have been [98:36] able despite of these many prophecies [98:39] how everything will end up terribly 2005 [98:42] that was the peak here of the peak oil I [98:44] got so F busy that I wrote this article [98:46] saying you know this is other nonsense [98:48] there is so much oil in the world [98:50] there's no okay now of course you know [98:51] people now people say there is too much [98:53] much oil right it's too low price we [98:55] should is it funny right people are [98:56] telling us in 2005 peak oil immediately [98:59] we are running out it's the end of the [99:00] world now they say oh we should worry [99:02] about low energy prices we need a higher [99:04] energy price right you know just in 10 [99:06] years right so we worried mightily about [99:08] running out of everything right are we [99:11] running out of anything no in terms of [99:13] mineral stuff we are not running out of [99:15] anything right with this fracking now we [99:18] have probably natural gas in US and [99:20] Canada for next 100 years for nominal [99:22] low price because we are getting better [99:25] this is where the engineers have the [99:26] role to play right when we started to [99:28] Frack right we use this much water and [99:31] that much sand and inefficient now we [99:34] are getting smarter how do you keep [99:36] those pores open right because when you [99:38] not pores this inter these places when [99:41] you force it open by the high water [99:43] pressure right you have to keep it open [99:44] right so we are now pouring lot more [99:46] sand right to keep it open really so our [99:48] yield per well is increasing right C is [99:50] coming down right send is cheaply right [99:53] know so this is what the where the where [99:56] the Saud is somewhat miscal in Long Run [99:58] Saudis will be right you know in long [100:00] run people in backen or Eagle for Shell [100:05] they cannot produce for $5 a barel right [100:07] but they said $60 will kill them $50 [100:10] will kill them $40 no probably some of [100:12] them will produce at $25 right because [100:14] this is the learning this is the [100:15] Engineering Process but it is a limit [100:17] right they cannot produce like in Saudi [100:19] Arabia you know these Old Fields you [100:20] drill the hole and you produce for 25 [100:22] cents basically so you cannot do that [100:24] right you know but so you see so we [100:26] basically we lay to the rest this this [100:29] this big you know terrifying Dragon of [100:31] running out of everything right by but [100:34] we are running out of something which we [100:36] don't talk about nearly as much as we [100:38] talk about PE oil in 2005 everything was [100:41] Pig oil you know everything special [100:43] there is a pig water many places are [100:45] running out of water very seriously [100:47] including large parts of China large [100:49] parts of India I know I don't know if [100:51] you seen the paper in in nature few [100:52] years ago just absolutely marvelous [100:54] paper we can see from satellites because [100:56] these satellites you know we can down [100:57] with with we can down literally you know [100:59] to few millimeters we can see how the [101:02] North China plane and gantic plane how [101:06] it's really sinking because of [101:08] the sucking water from the underground [101:11] water right so you can see from [101:12] satellites that the ground you know you [101:14] can see so this is a very simp because [101:16] there'll be another 500 million people [101:18] in fact the latest projections are that [101:20] India will surpass China about 15 years [101:22] early than we thought right because [101:25] about 20150 now we see about 2035 India [101:28] will be number one population right and [101:30] they already are sucking the gtic plane [101:32] dryway right so if I would worry about [101:34] something really you know I wouldn't [101:35] worry about oil or boite or whatever [101:39] right you know I would worry about about [101:41] about water in large parts of the world [101:43] including China India and including [101:45] large parts of Europe I don't know if [101:46] you realize it but large parts of includ [101:49] Germany Poland are very dry countries [101:51] actually you know it's they Li most [101:53] mostly on River and whatever so this is [101:55] this is my serious serious worry um so [101:58] we've been able to uh to you know rise [102:01] to this resource challenge uh uh by by [102:04] technical Innovation we've been able to [102:07] overcome some of these big political [102:08] challenges you know China after ma could [102:12] have ended up you know could have ended [102:14] up like you know Syria after Assad right [102:16] I mean you know the potential was there [102:18] um Russia after after after USSR um so [102:23] it's very difficult where it will come [102:25] from uh if you would ask me what I what [102:28] I worry about besides water do you [102:30] people realize that we are still [102:33] printing in the US $1 trillion a year [102:35] literally printing paper money one TR [102:37] this is how we solve our economic [102:38] problem can it go forever well of course [102:40] it cannot really right the so-called [102:42] economy this just totally this is just [102:44] fatana totally really right you know [102:46] just it's called quantitative easing oh [102:50] my God what an orali and super new [102:51] speaker I know you just you don't create [102:54] any value you just print trillion [102:55] dollars right you know and what our [102:58] interest rate fundamentally zero right [103:00] so people can go and borrow the money [103:01] for the biggest house they cannot afford [103:03] because it cost them nothing really [103:05] right you know so I worried eventually [103:08] the fundamentals of the economy there is [103:10] no such science as economics it's all [103:12] you know it's in your head anyway but [103:14] there are some physical fundamentals [103:15] underlying it eventually right you know [103:17] and it will have to catch up so with us [103:19] so I think about the state of the global [103:21] economy which is totally ridiculous both [103:23] in China or in US these big powers and [103:26] EU and think of that EU 25% of your age [103:31] are unemployed right 18 to 25 25% [103:34] unemployed I can it go on forever [103:36] without some social unrest or something [103:38] will give eventually right you know so I [103:40] worry about the social conditions of the [103:42] western world I worry about the state of [103:44] the western economy or Eastern economy I [103:46] worry about the state of water Look at [103:49] California California drought last time [103:52] it's not unprecedented [103:53] but last time they had such a Dr was [103:55] what we can read the three rings right [103:58] from three is very reliable right 1,200 [104:01] years ago that was the last time right [104:04] how many people live in California 1,200 [104:06] years ago right about 10,000 of Indians [104:09] right Gathering uh whatever the acorns [104:12] and right and hunting some deer right [104:14] now if it if it'll be the state alone [104:17] will be what seven largest economy in [104:18] the world really right and it hasn't [104:20] rained there just check the check the [104:22] drought map of California it's not [104:25] drought it's not severe [104:28] drought it's not there is one more [104:31] category they have to create another [104:33] category it's called exceptional drought [104:34] right it's not serious it's not severe [104:36] it's exceptional and about like now it [104:39] got a little better on the margin but [104:42] still this exceptional drought basically [104:45] and what is most important there is no [104:46] snow pack left on sieras so there's [104:48] nothing to feed so so in the seven [104:51] largest economy in the world or whatever [104:53] it is now I would worry about it right [104:55] so and again of course I was there 10 10 [104:57] days ago and what people are still [104:59] watering The Lawns going to your [105:00] question right if these people have to [105:02] pay ,000 per drop of water nobody [105:04] watering anything really right but you [105:06] know it's still cheap people are [105:08] watering clones you know just just like [105:10] that right you know Stanford University [105:12] just watering clones at 11:00 a.m. at [105:15] the time of the highest transpiration [105:17] haven't these people taken a course in [105:18] basic biology right you know can if they [105:21] are so stupid canot they want at least [105:22] at 4:00 a.m. really instead of watering [105:24] at 11:00 a.m. really right you know know [105:26] and they told me oh no that's no problem [105:29] it's from Lagoon right well it's the [105:31] water it's the total water so that lagon [105:33] will be gone when they water and [105:34] there'll be nothing left then right you [105:35] know it's just so this makes it good I [105:38] still have my little private reserve for [105:39] water and I use it to water my laundry [105:42] right you know from the because alumni [105:44] want to see The Lawns green when they [105:45] come back to stanf forth and alumni give [105:48] billion dollars in endowment right so [105:49] you have to keep the loans Green right [105:51] so uh so you know to make the wrong I [105:55] don't know what I should worry about [105:57] because what uh what really Catches Us [106:00] in the long run is something which we [106:02] cannot foretell [106:05] uh one thing which gives me the greatest [106:07] hope is that we are living so much [106:09] beyond our means wasting 40% of food [106:12] wasting whatever that we could in times [106:16] of toughness we could you know shelter [106:19] go down scrunch you know go into the [106:21] shell and we can survive is much less [106:24] you know it will not be so pretty right [106:26] no flights to Amsterdam over weekend [106:28] whatever but we can so this gives me the [106:30] hope you know that the margin of the [106:33] waste and irrationality is so big that [106:35] we can pull back right and do something [106:38] like as always tell people I you know [106:40] because I'm an old man so I I have this [106:42] perspective was the life so unbearable [106:45] let's say then I tell people let's say [106:46] let's use half as much energy as we are [106:48] using now half as much was the life so [106:51] unbearable in Bordeaux in [106:53] 1960 and they use half as much energy as [106:56] we are using now right okay was the life [106:58] so unbearable you know in Tokyo in [107:03] 1975 [107:05] so [107:07] sorry that is [107:10] what I have I have no idea what that was [107:14] um so you see we can if to to finish to [107:18] answer a question about hope we could [107:20] pull back quite substantially to the [107:22] level very very let's say 1960s when [107:25] people think that we doubled our energy [107:27] like over past 200 years no we doubled [107:28] it since 1960s in most of the Western [107:30] countries right most of the people I I [107:33] was studying beautiful French historical [107:35] statistics by late 1950s most of the [107:38] French families didn't have an indoor [107:40] toilet and indoor bathroom right that [107:42] all came in early 1960s for most of the [107:44] French people right so most of people [107:47] didn't have a car most of have refriger [107:49] so our riches are very recently and most [107:52] of people didn't fly over to weekend [107:53] anywhere until the 1980s or whatever [107:56] right so this is what gives me hope that [107:58] we are living so much beyond our means [108:00] we can pull back and still live nice [108:03] productive life without wasting as much [108:05] as we [108:06] do well thank you very much [108:09] [Applause] [108:21] than [108:24] so that was a very thought-provoking uh [108:28] evening and thank you again very much um [108:31] I'd like to thank all of you for coming [108:33] on behalf of fasia 3E Ty said and Migel [108:37] and uh please do keep in touch with me [108:39] with tyed and uh please uh look up our [108:42] website for future events which are [108:44] coming up I guess in a week or so thank [108:47] you all [108:51] bye