Insight and inspiration in turbulent times.
Almost everything we use is at some point processed using heat. Where that heat will come from in the future poses problems in a world depleting its fossil fuels and focusing on addressing climate change.
Nowadays, we are obsessed with the idea that we need to “produce energy.” That is, of course, a wrong way to express the concept.
In this aptly titled book, University of Texas research scientist Carey W. King argues that the modern-day global economy is a superorganism.
In this post, I take a bit more time to introduce new elements in the book that Do the Math readers have not seen represented in some form in earlier posts. In other words: what new insights or calculations lurk within the book?
If you have found yourself occasionally challenged to follow some of the more technical conversations we have here, or even if you just want to brush up on the fundamentals, this mini-series is for you!
What would we do without energy? The short answer is, “Nothing, absolutely nothing.” And sadly, most people know next to nothing about energy and its fundamental role in society and life itself.
In the modern world, our perceptions of reality are largely shaped by economic and financial considerations, and our policy conversations are largely built around intellectual categories and evaluative criteria that pertain to the economics discipline. Yet a long-term view shows that ‘The world in 2018’ is in a significantly different place than what economists typically claim, and than what many of us want to believe.
A constellation of new technologies changed our ancestors’ lives 100 years ago, and haven’t changed fundamentally since then. Will these technologies remain possible for the next 100 years? An extended look at the work of Vaclav Smil.
Scientists at the Climate/Energy Design and Research institute (CEDAR) have just announced the discovery of an astounding new energy source that promises to solve several of humanity’s thorniest dilemmas at once.
One of the many barbs often pointed at peak oil proponents is that they are constantly shifting the goal posts. Peak oilers are accused of changing the definition of what peak oil actually means, therefore the entire concept of oil production peaking is rubbish. Far from a valid criticism however, this is actually a scientific virtue.
There is an outside chance that one or more will occur, and this would move markets and policy debates in unexpected directions.
The financial system as an accelerator and multiplier of the economic and social impacts of energy depletion.
