‘Degrowth’ and the ‘Steady State Economy’ describe a grouping of related concepts and ideas which are critical of economic growth being a central tenet and goal of modern societies. Proponents of degrowth seek to arrest and ultimately reverse the primary global trend of the last 200 years or so (relentlessly growing economies), whilst those seeking a Steady State Economy imagine an economic system which would be stable in magnitude (via balancing feedbacks e.g., tight loops of material recycling) in order to stay within ‘planetary boundaries’. The latter would likely be the ultimate destination of the former, and together they may be labelled as ‘non-growth economic models’ [[1], [2]].
Degrowth traces its origins to several 19th century thinkers including John Ruskin and Henry David Thoreau, and modern degrowth theory started to gain traction during the 1970s. This resulted from work undertaken by scientists, economists and philosophers such as Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and E. F. Schumacher, with pioneering work such as the ‘Limits to Growth’ (LTG) report also providing a significant tailwind at that time. For steady-state economics, one of the early proponents was (perhaps surprisingly) Adam Smith; although considered a founding hero of orthodox economic theory today, he concluded that economies of all nations would reach a final ‘stationary’ state, and these ideas were later built on by other famous economists such as Herman Daly, John Stuart Mill and John Maynard Keynes. Through most of their history, non-growth economic models have however been considered by the mainstream as fairly fringe ideas, existing mainly as unworkable theories in textbooks, and having little relevance to the supposed real world business of creating wealth and driving progress forward. However, in recent years that has started to change, and these models are starting to move much more towards the mainstream once again [[1], [3]].
This shift is being driven largely by increasingly wide recognition that the pursuit of endless economic growth is the driving force of virtually all aspects of the gathering global predicament, captured by the term ‘polycrisis’ (i.e., interlocking, interacting and worsening crises such as climate change, biodiversity loss, global toxification and financial system instability). The potential for growth to drive these phenomena was recognised 50 years ago in the groundbreaking LTG report, but despite these insights this growth has continued apace, and we now find ourselves collectively in a deteriorating situation. The renewed interest in non-growth economic models as means to ease us back from this precipice has to date focused on different key social, economic and infrastructure aspects. This includes concepts such as: ‘contraction-and-convergence’ (reducing growth in developed regions to give developing regions ‘room’ to alleviate poverty); ‘universal basic income & bullsh*t jobs’ (provision of an unconditional payment to all citizens to separate employment and survival, and elimination of unproductive and wasteful employment); and ‘doughnut economics’ (operating societies within the boundaries of upper ecological limits and minimum social metrics) [[4], [5], [6]].
Despite the increasing depth and granularity of non-growth economic model research, one aspect is currently relatively under-represented in these efforts, namely the nature of the energy paradigm that could underpin societies operating in this form. To address this question, there are two aspects to consider: the energy paradigm that would support the transition to a non-growth economic model (i.e., the implementation of degrowth), and that which would support a society into the longer term (i.e., ongoing operation of a steady state economy) [7]. The beginning of an answer to this question is explored in a book (‘Future Energy Options from a Systems Perspective’ [[8]]) which I co-authored with Professor Aled Jones at the Global Sustainability Institute (part of Anglia Ruskin University in the UK) during 2023.
This book considers the uniquely crucial role that energy plays in maintaining complex societies through an account of the ‘phases’ of human energy use through time, and the ‘energy bind’ we collectively find ourselves in (i.e., that we are wholly reliant on energy, but our current sources are proving harmful and depletable). The book presents three broad pathways (or ‘branches’) that global society could follow in future [9]; these trifurcating options are: the ‘Fossil-Seneca’ Branch (essentially fossil fuel business as usual, potentially leading to a climate change-induced collapse); the ‘Continued Growth’ Branch (hypothetical use of low carbon fusion or renewables systems to grow the global economy indefinitely, which may avoid climate collapse but would likely generate other severe negative consequences) and the ‘Stabilisation’ Branch (emulation of natural systems that achieve systemic equilibrium via a full renewables transition, combined with degrowth, giving the best chance of achieving societal stability and longevity). It is therefore this Stabilisation Branch scenario that is most directly relevant to this question.
Degrowth would likely be a necessary aspect of a transition to a fully renewables based energy system for several reasons. Such a system would have a lower overall ‘energy return on investment’ (EROI) value (meaning that it would generate less ‘discretionary’ energy for non-essential but growth-supporting purposes such as consumption) and would generate intermittently as per environmental conditions. In these cases, the amount of renewables infrastructure could be made larger to offset these effects (e.g., through over-capacity and/or energy storage infrastructure to compensate for intermittency) but that would require more significant ‘re-materialisation’ (an increase in global mining activity, and energy and land demands), which could in itself generate destabilising dynamics for society. Therefore, the overall magnitude of an implementable and sustainable renewables system (even where materials recycling could be introduced) would likely be limited, and hence the scope of a society it could support would likely have to decrease to accommodate such a transition.
Once in place, a renewables-based system could be amenable to achieving an equilibrium output. This is because these systems extract energy from a fixed exogenous input (total solar energy), so once the extraction becomes aligned with a value at or below this total ‘flow’ limit, they could in theory continue without effective limit (assuming recycling loops for the required materials can be closed). This would emulate Earth’s biosphere, which has equilibrated around the solar input value (in terms of total biomass supported by global scale photosynthesis) and has thus achieved stability over geological time. This contrasts with the ‘stock’ based energy sources which global society currently uses, which will inevitably deplete in the long run. Detractors of non-growth economic models often cite concerns that societies operating under these conditions would become unstable, impoverished and/or stagnant, and would therefore not be practical or sustainable. The biosphere analogy may apply here again, in that although it has operated in a steady state over prolonged timescales, it has maintained rich and ever-changing diversity under a ‘hard’ and unchanging limit.
Non-growth economic models are still a far from accepted idea by the majority of economists, governments and business leaders, but the global predicament must urge us to consider them more seriously. Indeed, without action, degrowth may well occur in the form of uncontrolled economic contraction or collapse as a result of the growing feedbacks associated with the polycrisis. If degrowth were to happen to global society rather than it being a choice or strategy, there would likely be little chance of it settling into a controlled steady state in which hallmarks of modernity (e.g., power grids) would persist in a big way. In this scenario, human extinction may be unlikely, but organised societies and knowledge accumulation as we understand them could well be over. The Stabilisation Branch scenario described here indicates that a large scale renewables-based energy system may be an inherent feature and necessity of achieving degrowth, and that once in place, may be well suited to maintaining a steady-state economic system which may be much more stable than our current paradigm. Armed with this knowledge, perhaps it is time for the proponents of non-growth economic models to become more assertive in discussing them as a real possibility for the future.
[1]. Kerschner, C. (2010) Economic de-growth vs steady-state economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 6, 544-551.
[2]. Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (2023) Definition of a Steady State Economy. Available online: https://steadystate.org/discover/definition-of-steady-state-economy/
[3]. Degrowth (2024) A History of Degrowth. Available online: https://degrowth.info/about/history-of-degrowth
[4]. Cascade Institute (2024) Polycrisis. Available online: https://cascadeinstitute.org/polycrisis/
[5]. Hickel, J. et al. (2022) Degrowth can work – here’s how science can help. Nature, 612, 400-403.
[6]. Raworth, K. (2017) Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Random House Business.
[7] Another important consideration might be the scale of such as society (i.e., whether it would be global or regional in scope), but for the purposes of this discussion it is assumed that a non-growth economic model would be global and homogeneous in its extent.
[8]. King, N., Jones, A. (2023) Future Energy Options from a Systems Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan Cham.
[9] Note that the focus is primarily the systemic characteristics of different energy paradigms, rather than the details of policy, economic or other practicalities of implementation.
Comments
Welcome to the new Resillience commenting system!
We have moved from the former Disqus commenting system to a new system as of September 10, 2026.
We made this change because of privacy concerns regarding Disqus. It's also part of a set of changes to bring more services to the Resilience community under a single login: commenting, (coming September 2026), and online courses (coming 2027). Unfortunately, your old Disqus comments may not reliably link to your account in this new system. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns.
"Through most of their history, non-growth economic models have however been considered by the mainstream as fairly fringe ideas, existing mainly as unworkable theories in textbooks, and having little relevance to the supposed real world business of creating wealth and driving progress forward."
Ideas which oppose endless growth are automatically labelled 'fringe'. But, since economics was a fabrication of extremists who enacted a revolution driven by minority wealth, we should expect such extremists to defend autocratic and violent histories.
The accepted propaganda of current economics is that because it produces growth it does not have to pay for nor resolve destruction and harms. In other words, a false progress is used to block progress towards honestly addressing necessity.
We need a new economics that replaces the economics of 1. planned failure, 2. minority wealth control of economics and politics, 3. the unaffordability of what must become fully affordable, and 4. affordability must be democratically designed such that monetary institutions make de-growth fully affordable. The end of the autocratic power of institutions created by authoritarian minorities.
We can afford what we decide to afford – affordability cannot/should not be decided by banks, private markets, financial institutions and anti-democratic governments that call themselves democratic. Corporations must be removed from power via ending the corporations as persons law.
We're in for a wild ride.
That’s just not true! Where are Resilience readers getting this myth that they quote so confidently? There are brands of every tech in the energy transition that reject relying on ANY rare earths or so called Critical Minerals. They’re going to out compete those brands that do. I don’t know where this is coming from?
Cite your sources. Give your evidence.
Gladly!
FACT CHECK: The Energy Transition is NOT running out of minerals!
Have you ever played “The Substitution Game?” EG: “Can you make X without Y?” For example – “Can you make solar without tellurium?” Google it. Read. Check all the energy transition technologies for all the minerals you’ve heard are “essential.” EG:-
SOLAR PANELS: 95% of solar panel brands are normal crystalline cells that already avoid ANY rare-earths or Critical Minerals by using silicon – which is 27% of the Earth’s crust, and aluminium 8% and some silver or copper to send the electricity out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystalline_silicon
THIN FILM is the only sector with rare earth issues. But they’re only 5% of the solar panel market for special niches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel#Technology
”Thin-film solar cells are made by depositing one or more thin layers (thin films or TFs) of photovoltaic material onto a substrate, such as glass, plastic or metal. Thin-film solar cells are typically a few nanometers (nm) to a few microns (µm) thick–much thinner than the wafers used in conventional crystalline silicon (c-Si) based solar cells, which can be up to 200 µm thick. Thin-film solar cells are commercially used in several technologies, including cadmium telluride (CdTe), copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS), and amorphous thin-film silicon (a-Si, TF-Si).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_solar_cell
“Silicon solar cells are used in 95% of solar panels produced in the world today. Not including the aluminium frames, the report says these panels are, by weight:-
– 5% high purity silicon in solar cells. (Actually under 4%.)
– 1% copper in the panel’s wiring. (I never bothered to check how much copper is in a panel, so I got nothing here.)
– Less than 0.1% silver and other metals. (Yeah… I’m in the same boat as with copper.)”
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/critical-minerals-solar-batteries/
WIND TURBINES – are made from iron – 5% of the earth’s crust, aluminium, and fibreglass blades – that’s polyester resin and glass fibres. They’re recyclable now. Wind generators WITHOUT rare-earth magnets are now a thing:- http://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/07/28/15-mw-rare-earth-free-offshore-wind-turbine-seeks-path-to-market/
Niron Magnetics: https://www.nironmagnetics.com/
This next one has radically reinvented their turbine so that instead of requiring servicing 4 times a year, those parts NEVER need servicing once installed. http://newsreleases.sandia.gov/turbine_innovation/
LITHIUM RESERVES: We have 22 million tons of lithium reserves. At 8kg per EV it’s enough for 2.75 BILLION EV’s, twice what we need. I’ve even done some rough math on how many trucks, buses and mining vehicles are in the world – and there’s still about 6 million tons left over! But some smaller city cars can be sodium – and the battery swap trucks in Australia can be sodium if it’s only a minute to swap the battery! https://www.januselectric.com.au/ (Basically if a battery-swap was mandated by governments even for EV’s there’s no technical reason we could not move ALL cars to sodium.)
GRID storage: Sodium batteries for the first 2 hours: then pumped hydro takes over. Sodium is 30% cheaper, operates in a much greater temperature range and is thermally stable (doesn’t suddenly burst into flames). For deep storage use OFF-river pumped hydro. There are over 100 TIMES the off-river pumped hydro sites we need worldwide. https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/pumped_hydro_atlas/
ELECTRIC MOTORS: Valeo have a rare-earth free electric motor. https://www.valeo.com/en/catalogue/pts/high-voltage-rare-earth-free-electric-motor/
TESLA are working on one – prototype due mid 2024? https://www.carwow.co.uk/tesla/news/5220/new-tesla-ev-compact-electric-car-hatchback-price-specs-release-date
It’s a trend across the industry with Tesla, BMW, General Motors, Borgwarner, Jaguar & Land Rover, Tata, ZF, Vitesco, Renault, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Bentley, Marelli and Eurogroup Laminations all working on it. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/automakers-suppliers-pushing-cut-rare-earths-evs-2023-11-14/
RECYCLING all these is getting more efficient. Unlike burning fossil fuels, once mined, all these minerals go into the industrial ecosystem to be recycled forever. “Black mass” from ground-up EV batteries is no longer a waste product to dispose of, but a sought after resource.
COPPER: Replace with aluminium. Aluminium is less conductive so you have to have 25% thicker wires – but that doesn’t matter as it is half the price and weight. HVDC lines are already aluminium. It can replace 90% of the functions of copper. https://www.shapesbyhydro.com/en/material-properties/how-we-can-substitute-aluminium-for-copper-in-the-green-transition/
OTHER REFERENCES:-
Wang et al Jan 2023 says we have enough minerals
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(23)00001-6#%20
The IEA says we have enough but must encourage speed of mine approval
https://www.iea.org/topics/critical-minerals
Data scientist Hannah Ritchie of “Our world in data” and her own research says we have enough minerals – but there might be temporary shortages as we need to open more mines
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/minerals-for-electricity
LESS mining than fossil fuels – even when accounting for all the rock ore bodies moved to refine into the pure metals https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/energy-transition-materials
Be accurate please.
EV are less worse (but not by much, relatively); not ‘better’. Both are dissipative; one less than the other.
The science says buying an electric car is better than oil. But not as good as an Ecocity of course.
I’ve long been skeptical of EROEI numbers–seemed like the parameters chosen for solar were vast, while for coal they’d consider only the cost of delivering coal and just assume the power plants, etc. But you still have to have the materials to build the panels, and the batteries–and the only way this overbuild thing works is with a huge, continent-spanning grid, which is more ecological damage; if you relocalize, as I think we must, then having 100 times as many turbines or panels does no good if the wind isn’t blowing or the sun shining. I think we need to get over the idea that we HAVE to have every watt of desired power instantly; instead we should regard electricity as a desirable luxury, ditto with items that must be sourced from far away (e.g. coffee and cocoa in temperate zones).
As for the notion that we need to avoid sourcing things from places that don’t have Environmental Impact Statements, I can see that you have never been an environmental activist. Or you would know what such things are worth–demanding an EIS is a tactic for delaying an atrocity in your locality, not a means of fending it off, because regardless of environmental impact, permits will be issued approximately 100.0% of the time (the exact percentage for fights I have been involved in over 30 years). When we are able to get a project cancelled (almost never) it isn’t because of a negative EIS, it’s because pressure from the public ramped up to a high enough level that it was deemed expedient to back off a project. If you think the existence of environmental laws and bureaucracies equals environmental protection, go talk to a resident of Cancer Alley–where the state of Louisiana, ever mindful of its citizens’ wellbeing, just successfully sued EPA to drop an investigation into environmental injustice.
” if you relocalize, as I think we must, then having 100 times as many turbines or panels does no good if”
Mwildfire – there are many assertions in your writing and no links to credible sources.
I almost WISH I could still believe extreme localism to be coming – but there’s no empirical data to suggest it has to happen. We do not need to Overbuild the grid 100 times.
Countries in the “Sunshine Belt” between the 35 parallels only Overbuild their electricity sector maybe 2 times.
EG: Engineer David Osmond graphed Australia’s terrible La Nina weather of 2022. He calculated Australia only needed a 170% capacity Overbuild during some of Australia’s WORST weather in decades to firm the grid. http://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/
A year later he reworked the numbers – and got storage down to 5 hours. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/
Modern HVDC powerlines are so efficient they only lose 1.6% of their power over 1000 km. Hypothetically that means the Sahara in Africa could power a base at the North Pole 10,000 km away for just a 16% loss! Mexico City to Alaska is only 11%.
Germany is part of the ENTSO-E super-grid anyway! https://vision.entsoe.eu/ They have a 100% renewables plan for all 35 countries with 532 MILLION customers spread across an area a third larger than Australia! Talk about a “Law of large numbers”.
Youtuber “Real Engineering” – 2020 explains the EU will save *$12 to $40 BILLION annually* by integrating their super-grid. https://youtu.be/gacGuWjqKco
More on super-grids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_grid
There are even plans for a GLOBAL GRID with just 9 horizontal and vertical HVDC lines. I don’t think renewables NEED this to function the regional super-grids will do the job for now. But the next generation can build this if it works out even cheaper! https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2020/69/e3sconf_energy-212020_01002.pdf
Fan of HVDC here
Bart – go watch Donella Meadows; Thinking in Systems: A Primer.
Watch it 2-3 times. Think.
Then come back and tell us how the System which produces/installs/maintains such Grid infrastructure, might be continued.
I see war and runaway climate change as the significant threats to humanity.
If hard times come upon us slowly, I see our clever primate species adapting.
Look again, and please do the Donella Meadows thing – which from your reply, you didn’t.
This might be an interesting exercise too:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2015/04/programmed-to-ignore/
I’m no expert in M/B; but my guess is that you aren’t an ‘N’? As for the evangelist who studiously ignores entropy and dissipation….
Exactly – but I also am concerned about the bit by bit whittling away at biodiversity. Maybe it’s not so much a great threat to our functional civilization worldwide. A sudden collapse in ecosystem services could be bad for a local city. But more as something that saps away at our conscience and collective culture.
But I’m with you in that climate change is the ultimate Threat Multiplier as the Pentagon says.
Absolutely! That’s one of the many threats we face.
I’m especially concerned about changes that happen so quickly that we won’t have the opportunity to respond to them.
Hi Bart,
my (potential) son-in-law is studying town planning and my daughter and I were just talking about the wonders of Amsterdam and public transport and New Urbanism and bicycles. I get it! I watch “Not just Bikes” etc. I was just raving to colleagues this morning – like RAVING – about how much I want to live near a good “Third Place”. In other words – I’m a fan.
But the engineering realities I highlighted in my post above to Jan do not vanish because someone online recycles a peaknik meme.
Yes, “Not Just Bikes” is a favorite of mine too. Have you seen his withering send-up of car culture?
https://youtu.be/8nZh7A7qTPo
Congratulations to your (potential) son-in-law. It looks like town planning is going to be a hot profession in the coming years. Lots of changes and challenges.
About EVs, I think they are an improvement on a deeply flawed system, so I’ll let other people fight those battles. Since I don’t have much time left, I’m going to focus on system change – bikes!
Not yet – so many youtubes – so little time! 😉 The one on soccer-mums and dads in North America being practically jailed for letting their kids out on bikes – compared to live in the Netherlands – really shocked me!
Hi Jan, sure they use more metal. But they avoid the horrendous quantities of OIL that must supply them over their gas guzzling lives. Want to compare the numbers? Aussie Engineer Rosie Barnes just covered this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0ZtX5d-WE0
BUT – suburbia is still a thing – and I for one am not in denial about where the technology is heading. We’re going to have to SELL them the benefits of bikes and Ecocities because – like it or not – the economics and engineering of EVs as a viable alternative to oil just gets better every year. Sure – they use more metal than oil cars. But NO – they will NEVER run out of the minerals required because every major car company is substituting rare earths and critical minerals for vastly abundant plainer material. There is even an alternative to COPPER if they have to! (Decades away). This is the way. Or as the Dothraki say, “This is known.” So we’d better have more than these easily debunked peaknik memes to fall back on if we really want to promote New Urbanism!
ELECTRIC MOTORS: Valeo have a rare-earth free electric motor. https://www.valeo.com/en/catalogue/pts/high-voltage-rare-earth-free-electric-motor/
TESLA are working on one – prototype due mid 2024? https://www.carwow.co.uk/tesla/news/5220/new-tesla-ev-compact-electric-car-hatchback-price-specs-release-date
It’s a trend across the industry with Tesla, BMW, General Motors, Borgwarner, Jaguar & Land Rover, Tata, ZF, Vitesco, Renault, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Bentley, Marelli and Eurogroup Laminations all working on it. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/automakers-suppliers-pushing-cut-rare-earths-evs-2023-11-14/
RECYCLING all these is getting more efficient. Unlike burning fossil fuels, once mined, all these minerals go into the industrial ecosystem to be recycled forever. “Black mass” from ground-up EV batteries is no longer a waste product to dispose of, but a sought after resource.
COPPER: Replace with aluminium. Aluminium is less conductive so you have to have 25% thicker wires – but that doesn’t matter as it is half the price and weight. It can replace 90% of the functions of copper. https://www.shapesbyhydro.com/en/material-properties/how-we-can-substitute-aluminium-for-copper-in-the-green-transition/
OTHER REFERENCES:-
Wang et al Jan 2023 says we have enough minerals
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(23)00001-6#%20
The IEA says we have enough but must encourage speed of mine approval
https://www.iea.org/topics/critical-minerals
Data scientist Hannah Ritchie of “Our world in data” and her own research says we have enough minerals – but there might be temporary shortages as we need to open more mines
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/minerals-for-electricity
The future is indeed powered by real-time solar capture.
And photosynthesis does it for free….
AND SOLAR and wind does it 1/4 the cost of nuclear (Lazard) and can clean up the world’s industrial ecosystem, stop climate change, bankrupt Petro-Dictators, create energy independence, and run the world forever. Not bad hey?
Thanks, Jan. Glad to hear that you are in the choir too!
The more I research bikes, the more I realize they are a good response to multiple problems, not just the Last Mile.
As I mentioned to Eclilpse Now, they aren’t just an improbement to a bad system (as EVs are). They are a new system.
I’m sure you know the benefits, but I’m listing some here for the public:
– Improve health since people are exercising regularly. Obesity, diabetes, etc.
– Improve health since they reduce air pollution.
– Reinvigorate local communities, because it becomes easier to get needs met locally, rather than having to go 20 miles to a shopping center or fitness gym.
– Reduce the use of raw materials and energy in the manufacture of any type of car, EV or gas–owered.
– Improve mental health.
– Improve urban land use. Maybe 30 to 40 per cent of urban land is devoted to cars – both roads and parking. That land is not usable for anything else, so taxable reneue is lost. The public has to pay (lots) to build and maintain that infrastructure.
– Fewer people killed and disabled.
And much more.
How many times has Gail Tverberg cried wolf and peak oil and collapse again? Just remind me. But like a cult predicting a sort of “environmental judgement day” it never arrives – and we must all continue to mull along watching the Energy Transition curve go up, and the fossil fuels curve go down. Also – she’s just plain exaggerating the amount of servicing – and how old was that claim anyway? Today’s wind turbines are turning out to be radically different.
Now, while there are a variety of brands of wind turbines that do not require any rare earths in development, it’s the last one that also has implications for servicing.
First – WIND TURBINES – are made from iron – 5% of the earth’s crust, aluminium -8%, and fibreglass blades – that’s polyester resin and glass fibres. They’re recyclable now.
Wind generators WITHOUT rare-earth magnets are now a thing:- http://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/07/28/15-mw-rare-earth-free-offshore-wind-turbine-seeks-path-to-market/
Niron Magnetics: https://www.nironmagnetics.com/
This next one has radically reinvented their turbine so that instead of requiring servicing 4 times a year, those parts NEVER need servicing once installed. http://newsreleases.sandia.gov/turbine_innovation/
Electric trucks are a thing now. Australia’s Janus Electric has a battery swap system that could run on sodium batteries which are basically sea-salt, agri-waste (hard carbon), and aluminium. Not going to run out of any of those before the sun goes Red Giant – especially as it’s all recyclable. While there will be an expansion of the Energy Transition minerals mining – metals for the E.T. are a TINY fraction of the metals we mine today. The vast majority is steel for bridges and skyscrapers – and we can replace a LOT of that with the new CLT timber products.
FACT CHECK: THE ENERGY TRANSITION ISN’T EVEN REPLACING FOSSIL FUELS!
This is a skewed way of seeing the world I call the “Selective Static Snapshot fallacy”. For example, a doomer might point out that as of 2023 only 1% of all cars in America are electric. That was true of 2023. But as we all know exponential growth starts off tiny, and then suddenly is everywhere. 1% is mathematically meaningless. What matters is the rate of growth over time.
EV’s were 7.2% of all new American car sales in 2022. They were 9% in 2023. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/electric-vehicles-EVs-new-car-sales-2023/700799/
EV’s WILL CAUSE OIL GLUT by 2028!: The IEA says global car sales were: 2020: 5% 2021: 9% 2022: 14% https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/executive-summary
This creates an oil GLUT of 3.8 mb/d by 2028!
https://www.iea.org/news/growth-in-global-oil-demand-is-set-to-slow-significantly-by-2028
OIL GLUT means more time for trucks and mining to go Electric.
MEANWHILE – RENEWABLES DOUBLE EVERY 4 YEARS OR SO! The Paris Agreement wanted 615 GW solar annually by 2030 – but that could happen in the next year or so and it’s still doubling. This article wonders if we’re going to see 3 TW of capacity annually by 2030! https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/12/25/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-one-terawatt-of-solar-deployed-annually/
Wind and solar are now both cheaper than coal – even including the costs to Overbuild and Storage. The world wants LOTS of NEW energy – and renewables are now most of that. 90% next year! https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/electricity-generation-renewables-power-iea/
BUT IT TAKES OIL TO MINE MINERALS FOR THE ENERGY TRANSITION!
At one stage the first Pit Ponies went underground. They slowly multiplied and grew – until they dominated the movement of coal by their tens of thousands. But they were replaced by the steam shovel which was adopted slowly at first and then grew in an upwards curve, and gradually the Pit Ponies curved down as they were replaced. Diesel kit took over, curving up as the age of steam curved down. These days most underground mining is ALREADY electric for health and safety reasons – and all the biggest miners are starting to go electric.
Watch an electric 240 TON mining truck BURN PAST the old diesel tuck driving UP HILL while charging from hydro-power on overhead catenary lines in Canada! 60 seconds here: https://youtu.be/6TxMeHRq1mk?t=213
There are already funds to convert 8,500 mining trucks over the next 3 years. https://www.mining-technology.com/features/mining-vehicle-electrification
Industry are going to ‘Electrify Everything’ to SAVE MONEY! A giant industrial think-tank worth a THIRD of the Australian stock-market have a plan to build 3 TIMES Australia’s 2020 electricity grid to meet our domestic demands – another 3 TIMES for anticipated exports by 2050! PDF page 45: https://energytransitionsinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Pathways-to-Industrial-Decarbonisation-report-Updated-August-2023-Australian-Industry-ETI.pdf
But because it’s 1/4 the cost of nuclear (Lazard) we can afford to Overbuild capacity.
ELECTRIFYING EVERYTHING WILL DO THE SAME WORK WITH 40% OF THE ENERGY! We’ll use vastly more electricity as we build out huge wind and solar farms, but because it’s going straight into electric work and cutting the stupid waste of thermal systems, we’ll only need 40% of today’s ridiculous system. As we Electrify Everything – one unit of renewables replaces OVER 2 units of oil or gas or coal! https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electrification-energy-efficiency
Renewables are racing exponentially forward towards our clean energy goals, but as we Electrify Everything we’ll start to see those goals racing back to meet us!
SOON it will replace more and more OLD energy. Even Australia will be coal free in 10 years! https://reneweconomy.com.au/aemos-jaw-dropping-prediction-for-coal-power-all-but-gone-from-the-grid-in-a-decade/
Winner of Queen Elizabeth Prize for engineering (Nobel prize for engineers) says WORLD will be all renewable well before 2050! https://theconversation.com/theres-a-huge-surge-in-solar-production-under-way-and-australia-could-show-the-world-how-to-use-it-190241
Zero. That’s not her style. You should try reading her sometime, so you can make arguments that are not laughable.
Gail says things like, “If this doesn’t change, that is going to happen.” Much like you do with your cherry-picked pseudo-news.
I’ll remind you that Gail is an actuary, not some wild-eyed zealot, like you. Actuaries are the people who look at risks for insurance companies so they can price their products and still make money. Her interest in overshoot and collapse is also that of an actuary: she’s evaluating the risks of civilization, so that we can limit our consumption to within our means.
The problem with being a unquestioning zealot is that’s all you can see in others. Not everyone thinks like you do.
In the meantime, try reading Art Berman, another industry professional who wears a necktie and never got near a hair-shirt in his life.
Art’s latest blog shows that so-called “renewables” do not supplant fossil fuel! Instead, total energy consumption goes up to meet the increased supply.
Most people would see this as a recipe for disaster. But not zealots.
Well said.
Wide-eyed zealot is accurate – I noted parallels to evangelical religion too. The giveaway is that not EVERYTHING can ever be wonderful (that’s why the contributing-to-Elite consumption-rates serfs were given images of a conveniently-later Heaven). Thus anyone proposing ‘wonderful’ is demonstrating a pre-need for said outcome. Add in the sheer size of the irruptions ….
Ironically, Gail is religious herself – in my view, a major Achilles Heel to dispassionate logic, and one I filter her articles through.
I love how Jan and you got straight onto the name calling, but assiduously omitted any attempt to debunk all the Critical Mineral free brands from the various Energy Transition technologies above. You might think of me as a wide-eyed zealot – but what am I to make of the level of cognitive dissonance that thinks it is so right, so unchallengeable, that it does not even have to do basic due diligence in a reply? What comes to mind is a child with their fingers in their ears and their eyes scrunched hard shut shouting “Is not! Is not!”
But go ahead – tell me how we’re running out of minerals – I’ll get my popcorn!
That one paragraph mixed truth with some outright myths. Yes, renewables must be Overbuilt – across a wide geographic area. That was what drove me to support nuclear all those decades that renewables were vastly to expensive to Overbuild. But now that they are 1/4 the cost of nuclear (Lazard – unfirmed LCOE) – we have the right price signal to Overbuild.
Enough Overbuild across a wide enough area means storage is VASTLY reduced. Check this out from Scientific American!
“While at first glance it might sound like adding too much renewable energy could destabilize the delicate balance of the electric grid, it turns out that renewable energy actually becomes more predictable as the number of renewable generators connected to the grid increases thanks to the effect of geographic diversity and the Law of Large Numbers.
The Law of Large Numbers is a probability theorem, which states that the aggregate result of a large number of uncertain processes becomes more predictable as the total number of processes increases. Applied to renewable energy, the Law of Large Numbers dictates that the combined output of every wind turbine and solar panel connected to the grid is far less volatile than the output of an individual generator.
Because the grid operator is only concerned with balancing the total amount of renewable generation with the rest of the grid, the Law of Large Numbers causes the amount of reserve capacity required to balance renewables with the grid on a second-by-second basis to be a lot less than intuition suggests. In a study commissioned by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, General Electric calculated how much new reserve capacity will be required as Texas increases the amount of wind energy installed. The report found that an additional 15,000 megawatts of installed wind energy only requires an additional 18 megawatts of new flexible reserve capacity to maintain the stability of the grid. In other words, the spare capacity of one fast-ramping natural gas power plant can compensate for the variability introduced by 5,000 new average-sized wind turbines.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/renewable-energy-intermittency-explained-challenges-solutions-and-opportunities/
15 GW requires 18 MW of storage! Oh no – we’re rooned – that’s 1/833th the capacity backed up!
Today’s Sodium batteries or off-river PHES can supply ALL the power we need.
The mining will be a challenge, as it takes time to develop and so there will be some price volatility. But this is not a cap on the amount of renewables we can build! When only 0.1% of the land gives us all the power we need, and the mining will be LESS than the 14 billion tonnes of fossil fuels we ALREADY mine each year, I’m not sure why this is perceived as a limit? Yes there are enormous social justice and environmental issues in those countries that do not have strong Environmental Impact Statements and regulations. We’ve got to be careful who we buy from, and got to support those conservation and rights organisations in those countries. But – although not perfect by any regard in these issues – Australia is scaling up various mineral supplies. We can friend-shore with this.
Lastly – you might have had a point about EROEI decades ago when solar required 3 TIMES as much high-embodied energy silicon as it does today and yet delivered LESS energy back then. But now that’s of course reversed – a third the silicon and 22% efficiency – and 29% is on the horizon! Now check this:-
ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF EROEI SAYS SOLAR IS NOW FINE
The founders of the EROEI concept were Professor Charles Hall and David Murphy. They originally concluded that the Energy Return on Energy Invested of renewables was not high enough to run the modern world. But studies into this have a huge range.
“Studies have given figures for the EROI of solar energy as low as 3.9 and as high as 45.45. The lowest estimate, produced by Weissbach et al, was thoroughly discredited by technology entrepreneur Ramez Naam as glaringly low, and he estimates the EROI of solar PV at “above 10, and probably above 15…And rising.” In the most thorough meta-study of the EROI of solar PV, conducted by Bhandari et al, 232 papers estimating solar’s EROI were analysed and the mean estimate was 11.6. Mean EROI varied greatly between types of solar PV, with cadmium telluride coming in at an astounding 34.2. It is also important to note that many of these studies focussed on older installations, which lowered the average. Most modern studies find an EROI for polysilicon solar PV of about 16 and future systems will continue to rise.
In a similar meta-study, systems ecologist Charles A.S. Hall as well as researchers Jessica Lambert and Stephen Balogh looked at the data in studies of other energy sources. Their results are shown in the following table (except for solar – due to their results underestimating its EROI by including decades old studies, Ramez Naam’s estimate of 15 is used).“
https://www.vikramsolar.com/eroi-of-solar-energy/
David Murphy critiqued some of his earlier work with Charles Hall, and said certain EROEI system boundaries needed streamlining. So he did a meta analysis of the literature and clarified those. With efficiency gains more solar panels are made from less materials, Dr David Murphy now categorically puts solar at 10 and oil down at 4.6! That’s one of the FOUNDERS of the very concept of EROEI saying solar is now higher than oil. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856
How do we crack that nut?
Daniel Quinn said that we don’t need to change the way we’re doing what we’ve always done; we need to “change minds.”
It seems to me that things aren’t tough enough for people to change their minds — beyond changing their light bulbs and buying an electric car, which only makes things worse.
If degrowth were to happen to global society rather than it being a choice or strategy, there would likely be little chance of it settling into a controlled steady state in which hallmarks of modernity (e.g., power grids) would persist in a big way.
This is true, but it still assumes that “hallmarks of modernity” are possible and desirable. I’ve lived mostly in the modern world, but have also lived a non-modern life for a couple of years during Peace Corps service. I can attest that modernity is not essential for a happy life. Most moderns who think modernity is desirable, even essential, would quickly adjust to a non-modern life if given the chance.
But the biggest obstacle to long-term modernity is its impossibility. Modern renewables, like wind and solar, require huge amounts of metals. Since basic thermodynamics ensures that no recycling program can be 100% effective, the maximum rate of metals use is restricted to the rate at which concentrated ore bodies are created by plate tectonics. Unfortunately, this rate is so slow that concentrated metal ores may not reappear near the surface of the earth for millions of years.
Since modern technology has already enabled the depletion of most high-grade metal ores globally and new ore bodies are going to arrive only in the distant future, a steady state economy is limited to the amount of metal already present in human artifacts and structures. This might be enough to last for a few thousand years, but only if the size of the world economy were reduced to a tiny fraction of its existing size (and the world population were similarly reduced).
This dramatic reduction of the human footprint is inevitable, if only because the Holocene climate is rapidly disappearing, but the timing of this reduction (collapse) makes a big difference to the eventual fate of the climate. If it happens soon, a more habitable climate is still possible for posterity. Too late and human life may be possible only in latitudes much closer to the poles. Whenever it happens, a big die-off is coming.
I doubt that any program of degrowth could manage to maintain even the slightest hallmarks of modernity through such a dramatic period of rapid economic decline / impoverishment and mass death. Humans living in the not-to-distant future will be living like most people lived well before the industrial revolution. We will still be living in the iron age and there will be metals for tools and simple weapons, but most industrial uses of metals will be a thing of the past.