Where the world stands in terms of meeting green-energy material demands

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
11,369
Location
Indianapolis, IN
This is a sobering view of where our world economy stands in terms of making the energy transition to electrification.

This is a long video, but very much worth watching. I attempted to check and see if this has already been posted and discussed; I believe this is fresh material for us to discuss.

The bottom line is that supply/demand curve is not anywhere near balancing out on any of the major needed materials in the foreseeable future.

What I like about this presentation is that there's no policitcal agenda here; he's not pushing one view over another. Rather, this appears to be a very well researched man who knows the details and merely presents it in a straighforward (albiet lengthy) manner. I did a few random checks and the data seems credible.

PLEASE - DO NOT MAKE POLITICAL COMMENTS. I HAVE NO PROBLEM LOCKING MY OWN THREAD IF YOU CANNOT BEHAVE YOURSELVES.

 
Last edited:
I’m in the electrical industry and very much look forward to listening to this when I get a chance.

We are always discussing how exactly we are going to support this change in terms of material, technology and most importantly but often forgotten manpower. There is a massive projected shortage in the labor force looming. The older generation is moving out and the younger is not entering this industry in enough numbers to support the loss of personnel plus the growth ambitions. It’s a dizzying problem. But it will likely be very financially beneficial for me in the longterm. I’m already starting to see my “stock” go up and I’m not at all sad about it.

Thank you for posting this.
 
Im not sure why we are transitioning to electricity would be my answer. Batteries are not the answer.
Current technology for things like EVs arent any better than what we have now and using statistics from a small country with less than 6 million people doesnt compare to the land mass of the USA and a population of 350 million.
Also showing EV sales for Norway does not transition to the USA. I mean in any small country or even USA cities that is an easy statistic to meet with 5.5 million people. The population of Long Island NY is higher including Queens and Brooklyn than Norway.
Im also not sure why one wants to transition to relying on just one company, with no other choice for energy except their electric utility.

I do love statistics such as 500,000 lbs of mining for one battery. I need to rewatch it when time, I do like the presentation and it does seem balanced. The solution is to work on efficiency and I think we will get there over time, the market will force that as people can only afford what they can afford to spend, so either a company will come up with a solution or not sell anything.

Great video and Im not really surprised about anything he is saying, actually relieved but I do think, we as humans are not as advanced as we think we are and in time, when its time, there will be a solution, there always is and always will be someone who thinks outside the box and comes up with that solution, all the way back to the days mankind was freezing to death, then all of a sudden someone invented fire.
 
Last edited:
Physics don't change, it still takes X amount of energy to move the weight, you just don't directly burn your hydrocarbons in an EV.

I think the most practical thing which could be done is to reduce the weight of vehicles. There really is no need to have a 4500Lb vehicle to move a 180Lb person. The majority of vehicles I see only have the driver inside.
 
I really enjoyed the video. It is a truly engaging presentation where there's really no room for argument; the facts do not lie and cannot be circumvented.

Nearly every topic he covers has one or two quote-worthy pieces of information. When I watched it, I was repeatedly pausing the video, looking at the graphs, and then replaying it to understand the implications.

I cannot stress this enough. Every BITOGer should watch this, and then share it with his/her family, friends, co-workers, etc.
 
Physics don't change, it still takes X amount of energy to move the weight, you just don't directly burn your hydrocarbons in an EV.

I think the most practical thing which could be done is to reduce the weight of vehicles. There really is no need to have a 4500Lb vehicle to move a 180Lb person. The majority of vehicles I see only have the driver inside.
I agree on the weight reduction 110%. Unfortuantely we have too many regulations that require the amount of mass OEMs have to put in their vehicles. OEMs could make a car weigh much less by making the chassis and body components from reinforced plastics.....but then someone would say that we are using to many hydrocarbons to produce them.
 
There isn't investment in a supply chain for anything unless and until the demand exists.

One could easily put the shoe on the other foot and look at the scary "Peak Oil" videos from 20 years ago.
 
I’m in the electrical industry and very much look forward to listening to this when I get a chance.

We are always discussing how exactly we are going to support this change in terms of material, technology and most importantly but often forgotten manpower. There is a massive projected shortage in the labor force looming. The older generation is moving out and the younger is not entering this industry in enough numbers to support the loss of personnel plus the growth ambitions. It’s a dizzying problem. But it will likely be very financially beneficial for me in the longterm. I’m already starting to see my “stock” go up and I’m not at all sad about it.

Thank you for posting this.

I have some pretty deep insight into the electrical industry.


There's not going to be anything that meets the new demand of electricity due to the war on "fossil" fuels. It can't be done.

I'm knee-deep into researching solar for my house. I really like the EcoFlo system and it's DIY approach to the residential solar system for a home versus the 'secretive', difficult to figure out, proprietary systems that the general public seem to gravitate towards.

I will say that the EcoFlo/DIY solar array probably isn't best suited for the subdivision/city living lifestyle, but for those of us who are the President of the HOA/have acreage and Gladys Kravitz/Karen SB not living across the street, the DIY/etc approach is really starting to look good.
 
Fascinating video; I did not find it sobering rather I found it exciting. Any transition (change) requires an upstream change to the supply chain up to the raw materials. As Mr. Mills pointed out, this is likely to produce an economic boon. Opportunity abounds. While reluctance to change is human nature, I have learned to embrace change or at least get out of the way. It's coming.
Mr. Mills also cited the role of technology. I have witnessed the growth of semiconductor capability, from 65nm to 5nm technology nodes. So no one can tell me it can't be done. No one in the world thought this would occur. No one. But it takes an honest look at where we are and what it takes to transition. And, of course, the relevant cost.
 
I have some pretty deep insight into the electrical industry.


There's not going to be anything that meets the new demand of electricity due to the war on "fossil" fuels. It can't be done.

I'm knee-deep into researching solar for my house. I really like the EcoFlo system and it's DIY approach to the residential solar system for a home versus the 'secretive', difficult to figure out, proprietary systems that the general public seem to gravitate towards.

I will say that the EcoFlo/DIY solar array probably isn't best suited for the subdivision/city living lifestyle, but for those of us who are the President of the HOA/have acreage and Gladys Kravitz/Karen SB not living across the street, the DIY/etc approach is really starting to look good.
The problem with any grid-tie solar system is, typically, assuming some sort of NEM or FIT arrangement, that you are socializing the cost of somebody's personal generator while reducing system revenue; system-level consumption, which necessarily increases system cost (which is one of the drivers of rate increases). This disproportionately impacts low income earners; the poor, because they are unable to take advantage of these schemes, but are still required to pay the higher system costs that they bring.

We are beginning to see the first signs of some common-sense recalibration on this with NEM 3.0 in Cali, where solar compensation more closely aligns with market value, but it will likely take similar levels of incremental increases to rates before enough resentment and outrage is stirred up that it prompts policy change.

It's quite possible for nuclear to be ramped up to cover new electrical demand. We've seen it done before in both Ontario and France. Now, whether that will actually happen? That's a whole other discussion.
 
Last edited:
The problem with any grid-tie solar system is, typically, assuming some sort of NEM or FIT arrangement, is that you are socializing the cost of somebody's personal generator while reducing system revenue; system-level consumption.

We are beginning to see the first signs of some common-sense recalibration on this with NEM 3.0 in Cali, where solar compensation more closely aligns with market value.
Market value is what the market will bear. Sellers' job is to maximize profit. And sellers have a near monopoly, at least in my area.
We need alternatives to bring down cost while improving product.
IMO, that's the larger issue.
 
Market value is what the market will bear. Sellers' job is to maximize profit. And sellers have a near monopoly, at least in my area.
You aren't doing either of those things with NEM or FIT though, you are forcing a specific price (retail or an even higher feed-in tariff) that's typically much higher than the market price at the time of delivery.
We need alternatives to bring down cost while improving product.
IMO, that's the larger issue.
Well, the recent revision to NEM appears to be at least working to slow or stop the escalation. But perverting the market with subsidies and then throwing up your hands when retail rates go through the roof (which have to cover all the subsidies and system costs) has to stop before things that can actually reduce system costs can be implemented.
 
I believe there's enough natural gas in the Earth to power everything from homes to cars. And I also believe there should be a transition from crude oil based fuels to alcohol based fuels made out of bacteria and water. Global corruption is forcing the solar panels down our throats.
 
You aren't doing either of those things with NEM or FIT though, you are forcing a specific price (retail or an even higher feed-in tariff) that's typically much higher than the market price at the time of delivery.

Well, the recent revision to NEM appears to be at least working to slow or stop the escalation. But perverting the market with subsidies and then throwing up your hands when retail rates go through the roof (which have to cover all the subsidies and system costs) has to stop before things that can actually reduce system costs can be implemented.
Stopping the escalation (if you mean production, not sure) is wrong. We need to increase production, improve delivery (total) costs and lower consumption across the board. How? Smooth the demand curve through technology.

I struggle with the term subsidy. I am not saying it is incorrect, I am saying that in a market economy, there are always winners and losers. There is no equilibrium; there is no fair. Let's say someone I know pays more federal income tax than most Americans make in many tax years. Am I subsidizing those others? The price of progress (and a market economy) is winners and losers. But in time, more winners than losers! Our limited market exonomy has raised more people out of poverty than any other system in history.

A key driver of increased electricity demand is the EV. How many companies built out a charging network in support of EVs? How many are at least looking into buying a mining company?

My takeaway from Mr. Mills' lecture was the need for comprehensive, long term solution, not just short term. Bumps in the road? Sure.
Just my 2 cents...
 
Stopping the escalation (if you mean production, not sure) is wrong. We need to increase production, improve delivery (total) costs and lower consumption across the board. How? Smooth the demand curve through technology.
I mean the escalation of retail rates.
I struggle with the term subsidy. I am not saying it is incorrect, I am saying that in a market economy, there are always winners and losers.
If you pay a source $0.80/kWh and market price is $0.04/kWh, that's a subsidy in the form of a FIT. That's not a functional market economy at that juncture if the market is being removed from the picture for certain sources.
There is no equilibrium; there is no fair. Let's say someone I know pays more federal income tax than most Americans make in many tax years. Am I subsidizing those others? The price of progress (and a market economy) is winners and losers. But in time, more winners than losers! Our limited market exonomy has raised more people out of poverty than any other system in history.
See above.
A key driver of increased electricity demand is the EV. How many companies built out a charging network in support of EVs? How many are at least looking into buying a mining company?

My takeaway from Mr. Mills' lecture was the need for comprehensive, long term solution, not just short term. Bumps in the road? Sure.
Just my 2 cents...
EV's, electric heating, electric cooking...etc. There are myriad contributors in an electrified economy that will drive-up demand, and drive up average demand, which drives up the requirement for baseload power sources.
 
I’m in the electrical industry and very much look forward to listening to this when I get a chance.

We are always discussing how exactly we are going to support this change in terms of material, technology and most importantly but often forgotten manpower. There is a massive projected shortage in the labor force looming. The older generation is moving out and the younger is not entering this industry in enough numbers to support the loss of personnel plus the growth ambitions. It’s a dizzying problem. But it will likely be very financially beneficial for me in the longterm. I’m already starting to see my “stock” go up and I’m not at all sad about it.

Thank you for posting this.
I just read an article about my area. SHELL is very big employer all around the gulf south region and has been for close to 100 years. They are actually planning to build new and expand some facilities. The first thing they mentioned is they know there is a manpower shortage all over. They are now in the process of trying to build some process units with more automation to allow them to need less field operators. But they still say they even have a shortage of young who want to sign on as maintenance or trainees. How on earth do so many live without working. Saw a report of about 7.5 million working age males in the USA from 18 -35 yrs old who are not working and not looking for jobs. What do these people plan to do when they get elderly? I guess you dont think about tomorrow when your face is smashed in a Smart phone and video games all day just hanging out having your fun times.. How do they even pay the Smart phone bills?
 
Joined the electricity industry January 1989, so literally a "lifer".

If you take the footprint of (for example) a black coal station, and the energy produced by a "business card" sized block of footprint (including mines and ash placement), a nuke would typically take two business card sized footprints to do the same...get to wind and batteries, and it's 7 square metres of impacted land.

Great conversations
 
Back
Top