by Nick Rendell
Peter Cook and Rowan Atkinson’s ‘End of the World’ sketch from The Secret Policemen’s Ball is a timeless piece of comedy because, like with all great comedy, we instantly recognise the target of the joke. Every generation throws up its own cultists, convinced that they alone can anticipate and possibly avert the ‘end times’.
If the bloke who stood, with sandwich boards proclaiming “the end of the world is nigh” in my childhood town had had access to social media, who knows, he may have become the Greta Thunberg of his day, with millions hanging on his every word.
Greta always puts me in mind of two characters: one fictional, Violet Elizabeth Bott of Just William fame, the spoilt brat from next-door who would yell, “I’ll thcream and thcream till I’m thick!” (translation: I’ll scream and scream until I’m sick); and, Elizabeth Barton, the Holy Maid of Kent, who almost brought down Henry VIII, so popular were her visions and prophecies.
While Greta chucked in school when she was about 12, Barton never went. Despite this, and again, like Greta, Barton met repeatedly with Henry’s senior ministers, though her meetings ended rather less well for her than did Greta’s. It was Thomas Cromwell who, worried that the Barton cult was getting out of hand, had her executed on trumped up charges and a number of her followers hung, drawn and quartered.
Perhaps humans are pre-programmed to adopt apocalyptic cults. After all, the Abrahamic religions all anticipate the end of the world as we know it. Christian breakaway sects, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians, appear to expect Judgement Day any time soon, but perhaps no sooner than those ‘green’ zealots who set up a trestle table each Saturday in our town square, cover it with baize and pamphlets and, literally, try and frighten the children. Ironically, their pitch is immediately opposite the Jehovah’s Kingdom Hall! Take your pick, they’re all selling the same thing.
Personally, I have my doubts that observance or otherwise of any religious dogma will make much difference, but it’s not something that’s easily proven, maybe prayer will work? However, on the ‘green’ front, I’ve recently come across the ‘Jevons Paradox’, a concept that rather wonderfully illustrates the utter futility of expecting Net Zero policies to succeed in ridding the world of fossil fuels by 2050 or any time prior to the sources of such fuels becoming exhausted.
English economist Jevons’s 1865 book The Coal Question set out to answer the question why, as steam engines become more efficient, does demand for coal increase rather than decrease? The rather obvious answer was due to the laws of supply and demand, identified by John Locke and later expanded upon by Adam Smith. It wasn’t just the upfront purchase price of a steam engine that affected demand but also their running cost. As the running costs went down due to greater efficiency, demand for steam engines went up even faster and the number of applications to which they could be applied increased exponentially. Coal became the great driver of progress, and Britain had loads of the stuff.
What was true for coal in 1865 is just as true for electricity now: whether that electricity is generated by coal or wind, globally we just can’t make enough of it.
This point was very much brought home to me by our own Tilak Doshi in a recent article titled ‘Barclays Sounds the Alarm on Renewable Energy’. He observed that renewable energy had become additive, not substitutive. Illustrating the point with the following chart showing global energy consumption by source since 1800.
Globally, as we generate more renewable energy we don’t use less fossil fuel generated energy, we use it all and still want more!
Recently I saw the additive nature of new forms of electrical generation while driving through a semi-desert area of Morocco. Beside the road were multiple small, fenced fields equipped with solar panels powering a pump and a healthy looking crop. While a power station was unlikely to be able to be built and deliver electricity to these outlying farms, localised solar systems were perfect. They didn’t need 24/7 power, just enough to keep the cistern tanked up.
Greens have yet to recognise the Jevons Paradox, but examples abound. Take LED lighting. LEDs didn’t simply substitute for pre-existing bulbs, instead they massively expanded the market for lighting. We now have LEDs everywhere. Where we used to have a couple of 60W bulbs in our kitchen we now have 36 5W LEDs in the ceiling, countless others under the kitchen cupboards, more inside the cupboards and several built into each kitchen appliance; we’ve even got them in the floor. Our demand for energy for lighting hasn’t gone down, it’s gone up, despite LEDs being 10 times more efficient than old tungsten filament bulbs.
Driverless cars will prove to be another example. When you finally take delivery of your driverless car will you:
- Use the car less than at present?
- Use the car the same as at present?
- Use the car more than at present?
You don’t need to be uniquely insightful to suspect that the correct answer is ‘c’. Without the need to drive yourself, you’ll start driving to the pub or restaurant rather than walking or taking a taxi. You’ll start sending your car on unaccompanied journeys to run errands, to collect your mates before you go to the pub, or perhaps you’ll send the car to collect your elderly mother then get the car to drive her home again. Rather than making one round trip to go and see her your car will make two.
An innovative 2018 study by Harb and colleagues gifted households a chauffeured car (as a proxy for a driverless car) and monitored usage compared to their usage before and after the period of time with the accessible chauffeured car. Cars were dispatched all over for trivial tasks, friends were collected and driven home, nothing was too much trouble, because these additional tasks were, for the driverless car controller, no trouble.
Of course, the most obvious example is AI. The Jevons Paradox is working out for AI data centres in exactly the same way that in the 1860s it worked out for steam engines, where it was the coal rather than the steam engines themselves which were the constraining factor in their adoption. With AI it’s the availability of competitively priced electricity rather than the data centres or the software.
The tragedy for Britain is that, to date, we’ve failed to grasp the Jevons Paradox. We’re operating on the basis that renewable energy need only substitute for fossil fuel generation, but this only holds true if we’re happy to stand still or go backwards, while our competitor nations focus on generating as much kWhs as possible at the lowest cost.
Net Zero echoes Malthus rather than Jevons. We’re imposing our own ‘limits to growth’ by constraining our own electricity generation industry and so both making our traditional heavy industries uncompetitive and strangling our prospective new industries, such as AI, at birth.
Looking further ahead we already see Elon Musk talking about solar powered data-centres in space. Operating at close to absolute zero, data-centres will have no need of the cooling systems that on earth consume both a big chunk of the energy and account for the vast majority of its mass. Additionally, with no cloud cover in space and the opportunity to always have line of sight to the sun, solar power will be able to power orbiting data-centres 24/7.
It’s nonsensical virtue signalling of the worst kind not to exploit our own natural resources: we’ll simply get left behind as demand for electricity increases to power new applications.
In the same way that Malthusians were wrong about the constraints on food production, so they’ll prove to be wrong about both the future demand and supply of electricity.
The truth is, particularly in a world where the power of global institutions is waning, it will be cost not virtue that will dictate the energy mix. We need to ditch the hair shirts and embrace abundance.
Our most rabid Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich just died. He never did apologize for being consistently wrong.
Ehrlich arrives at the Pearly Gates.
Ehrlich: Ha, I knew I would be seeing you St. Peter and passing through the gates.
St. Peter: Whoops, it appears you have yet again made an incorrect prediction. Please turn to your right and take the descending stairs.
That should be “turn to your LEFT” 🙂
Au contraire, the cooling systems will be different than they are on Earth, but the demand for cooling remains. People could be surprised by how much effort goes into supplying that cooling out in space.
There is only one thing that bothers me about this article. If renewable energy is now becoming additive. Then all the falderal associated with it will become additive too. It is voraciously greedy of land, natural views, and presents its own hazards to wildlife. I hope to see it decline in my lifetime…
“Operating at close to absolute zero . . .” implies to me the likelihood of such data centers using superconducting electronics and interconnections (i.e., “circuit wiring”). If that be the case (in some distant future) there should be insignificant I^2*R power losses during operation . . . thus implying little need for cooling.
So, IMHO, “the demand for cooling remains” cannot be substantiated for future technology based on existing physics.
Then too, there are the “known unknowns” (/sarc) as to how quantum computing may be implemented at practical scale and how much power such may require per terraflop equivalent.
“People could be surprised by how much effort goes into supplying that cooling out in space.”
Good point. It could well turn out that thermal design will be a limiting factor.
Thermal design is a limiting factor in present time.
Then there is radiation effects. Alpha, Gamma, and Beta particles love integrated circuits. Radiation hardening is not easy and not cheap and shielding is only partially effective.
“Thermal design is a limiting factor in present time.”
True.
As of early-2024, there were approximately 600 operational satellites in Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO). The typical design lifetimes for such satellites range from 7-10 years, although many have demonstrated reliable operation in excess of 15 years.
Based on these facts, one can conclude that today’s satellite design, thermal engineering and space environment-radiation-protection engineering, and available manufacturing materials and techniques have pretty well dealt with radiation hardening as well as thermal issues.
Same thing can be said about the numerous satellites in LEO and MEO orbits. As examples, the Hubble Space Telescope has been in orbit for over 35 years and is still going strong, and the Chandra X-ray Observatory has been in orbit for over 26 years and is likewise still performing its mission.
Many critical components of the HST have been swapped for new ones in the five services it had. The last service was 17 years ago, pretty long considering the environment.
I worked in that area for a number of years.
The problems are understood.
There are solutions used. None are perfect.
I worked to advance the state of the art.
There is much work to be done.
It is not cheap or easy.
You might find this interesting if it’s news to you.
After the Europa Clipper spacecraft was assembled and just a mere days away from being shipped from JPL in Pasadena to Kennedy Space Center, a serious problem with the MOSFETs used in it’s construction was found by happenstance. The assumptions made about their suitability for the radiation environment near Jupiter were wrong. Very wrong.
At best, they could find a mitigation pathway. At worst, the spacecraft would have to be shipped back to JPL, partially disassembled, the MOSFETs replaced, flight readiness testing redone and a launch slip of two years all at tremendous cost.
Bottom line: It’s not good enough to trust Mil-Spec testing standards when the application is not terrestrial.
The whole story: https://spacenews.com/end-run-around-radiation-the-saga-and-surprise-vulnerabilities-of-europa-clipper/
In current time frame, space based testing standards require first establishing the maximum predicted environment and testing with significant margins above those levels with qualification being the most extreme.
When using Mil-Spec testing standards, the first thing one does is look at the date of issue/update. Very often they are out dated. Someone did not do due diligence, if the report is accurate.
Pause while I read the article….
They accepted the parts and the claims by the manufacturer? They did not procure samples for independent testing? Shame on them.
Yes. This was during a time when most employees were remote so oversight suffered. Not an excuse, just the way things were during the pandemic. To management’s credit, they did not try to conceal anything from anyone. Shame, indeed.
And radiation-hardened chips tend to run slower than non-rad-hard ones, at least with recent technology.
True and it differs if the IC is hardened for alpha or beta or gamma.
I wonder if we will see a global shortage of tungsten if this goes forward.
Viability of AI in Space
The Trinity of questions:
Compared to what?
At what cost?
Based on what evidence?
I’d be more concerned with “Why?”
James T Kirk might turn out.to be… a talking toaster oven?
No property taxes.
No electric bills.
Just a quick list.
Those are the only two items I’d think of to put on the list.
Engineering and launch will cost the expected lifetime savings from those two things.
I don’t imagine it will be cheap to send a data center into space. And what about beaming all that data into space and back down again. Is that a problem? I don’t know- just wondering. Will they be in orbit or high enough to remain fixed over a location? (forgot what they call that). If in orbit, how many would be needed for that entity?
“A geosynchronous orbit (GSO) is an Earth-centered orbit with an orbital period of one sidereal day, matching Earth’s rotation. Positioned ~35,786 km above Earth, these satellites stay in sync with the planet’s rotation, ideal for continuous monitoring or communication over a specific region.”
Launch cost is not well defined, but it is high (and quote is for easy-mode LEO):
“Launch costs to Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) generally range from $1,000 to over $10,000 per pound ($2,200–$22,000+/kg)”
Data centers in today’s technology are big:
“Average full-scale data centers typically span around 100,000 square feet and house approximately 100,000 servers, often consuming roughly 100MW of power.”
I’m a futurist and I have lesser-but-real experience with space hardware like reaction wheels and launch vibration isolators. Wanting to see space fantasies like interstellar travel and terraforming or even the dreaded “space mirrors” gets increasingly painful as a fan starts learning more about the problems. When people say the cost must be (put the biggest thing you can imagine here), it gets (put something even bigger than that here).
For giggles:
“A standard concrete mixer truck typically weighs between 26,000 and 30,000 lbs (13–15 tons) empty.”
26k lbs (low end EMPTY cement truck weight estimate) x $1k per pound (low end easy-mode launch cost) = $26 million to put one empty cement truck into a crappy, decaying orbit. And that’s if you get a great deal. And then you have to explain to the rental company what you did with their truck!
No, it won’t be cheap. But moreover, besides the data center, there are the cost and physical problems of sending into space the means to power such a data center.
If such a data center is to use around 1 GW of electrical power (equivalent to the typical nameplate rating of a single-nuclear reactor in a modern power plant, as has been discussed will be needed for near-term data centers supporting AI), then one has basically two choices:
1) Launch into space and couple to the subject “data center” about 3 GW’s equivalent of nuclear-reactor(s) as well as the thermal radiation area necessary to dissipate 2 GW of waste heat, given that nuclear fission reactors operating with a steam turbine power conversion cycle are only about 33% efficient in generating electricity.
2) Launch into space and couple to the subject “data center” sufficient arrays of solar cells with the required mechanisms for tracking the Sun so as to provide the ~1 GW of electrical power. Since the Sun’s total radiation in space at Earth’s average orbital distance is on average about 1360 W/m^2 and the best commercially-available solar PV cells as of early-2026 have about 24% conversion efficiency over the solar spectrum, that 1 GW of electricity would need a total solar cell array size of about 3 million m^2, equivalent to a single square array about 1.8 km on a side!
It is “left for the student” to calculate how large the copper “wire” conductor(s) will need to be to safely carry the 1 million ampere current for the solar panels that would equivalent to 1 GW of DC electrical power, optimistically assuming the individual PV cells in subarrays are wired in series to provide a design transmission voltage of 1000 vdc.
The Webb Telescope has five thermal shields and very careful orientation control required to reach 5-6K, while orbiting a Lagrangian Point. PV in space, like PV on the ground turns 80% of the incoming high quality solar energy to low quality heat. That heat must be shed in space just as on the ground. PV facilities are become ‘heat islands’, just as do cities.
A well-designed USC thermal power plant, in contrast, uses its ‘waste’ heat to perform useful tasks. Co-generation and co-production can raise the efficiency to 75-80%. This thermal efficiency is the key to efficient energy production in the future, taking Jevons’ Paradox fully into account.
The problem is when people are manipulated into thinking rampant consumerism equals life satisfaction and happiness.
I am not my things.
I own my things, my things do not own me.
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
— Mark 8:36, Bible, NKJV
Few people want the whole world- most just want a fair amount of stuff- including a reasonable amount of security. You are less secure when you have little.
As opposed to rampant shortages and lack of adequate food, water, housing and electricity?
Manipulated certainly occurs. Marketing psychology has made great advances in the past half century.
Also things like:
Pokemon’s “gotta have it.” Veruca Salt, “I want it now!”
And good thing for marketing psychology. We are far more productive- so if all that stuff isn’t sold, what jobs will exist? If few people want stuff- are we all gonna be serfs again? The fact is that people like stuff and always have.
Of course.
We would all be scraping an existence on 40 acre farms, ala 1840.
Note: I did not comment on the “thinking rampant consumerism equals life satisfaction and happiness.” part of his rant.
The basic condition of Man is poverty. Is that satisfaction and happiness?
Mankind is unique in that he wants to fulfil his wishes and desires to increase his utility, not just exist by meeting needs: water, food, shelter, reproduction. Animals do only that. It’s why Humans run economies, animals don’t. It’s why Countries with least economic activity are poorest, why poor people have least.
The more “rampant” your consumption, the wealthier you are, the less, the poorer.
We can tell level of wealth by just looking at what people have, what they consume, without looking at their salary or bank account.
People who decry “rampant” consumption want us to be poor.
Yes, and as I like to point out to those that will listen, people who want to lower your standard of living are not your friends.
It’s normal to be acquisitive. You don’t need to be manipulated.
I imagine that in what passes for your mind, “rampant consumerism” is defined as being anyone who wants the stuff you can’t afford.
You will have nothing and you will be happy. BTW, who put you in charge?
I can’t see that Chris Martz’s chart at the beginning of your article is fully correct. Imbedded in the chart is the assumption that the energy of wind and solar machines are additive to nuclear and fossil sources. They are not, they are partly or wholly parasitic. Each watt of wind and solar electricity must be backed up by nuclear or fossil generated electricity to maintain an electric grid. This requires many nuclear and fossil machines be operated at hot standby or reduced and variable power to accommodate the vagaries of wind and solar generation. The fuel efficiency of thermal machines is reduced when operating at lower-than-design power levels and power cycling increases maintenance costs. With regard to fuel efficiency, our most common type of fossil generation machine, natural gas, is notorious in this regard. On average, about 28% of a gas turbines full-power fuel load is consumed just to keep the machine on hot standby producing nothing whatever. For some turbines, it can be as much as 40%. This is why turbines are unsuitable for cars and trucks not to mention the fry-the-chickens-in-the-barnyard exhaust temperature. So adding a windmill or solar panel to a grid does not reduce CO2 production by an equal amount of fossil production, its less for any fossil or nuclear backup and quite a bit less where gas turbines are the backup. Add the increased cost of maintenance and its not at all clear that wind and solar machines do anything at all but increase the cost of maintaining a grid. For single purpose needs where there is no grid power available, such as pumping irrigation water, wind or solar machines may work quite well, but add them to a grid and the answer is quite different.
I have never seen an analysis of cost and CO2 generation of a wind+solar+fossil+nuclear grid compared to a nuclear/fossil grid (free of renewables) analyzed to include these shortcomings. I am not smart enough to do it myself. Perhaps you are?
There are applications where WTGs and SVs work well. The pumps mentioned are one. Powering road signs or overhead street/parking lot lights is another.
Grid scale? I am in a program that reduces the fuel charge on my electric bill with the solar array is producing. That works.
I would never risk relying on WTGs or SVs exclusively.
‘I am in a program that reduces the fuel charge on my electric bill with the solar array is producing.’
CT’s program pays the entire retail rate, which I find abusive given that the homeowner is still utilizing the utility’s T&D infrastructure. This is obviously a huge subsidy that is paid for by other ratepayers in addition to the costs of curtailing previously scheduled generation.
Your program sounds a bit more equitable, but only if I’m correct in assuming that the previously scheduled, but now curtailed, energy provider only gets paid the previously awarded energy rate less some deemed allowance for unused fuel. Does that sound correct?
Without going through the contract, I cannot reliably answer.
I believe it is true, but without verification.
As the cost of electricity increases people cut back; led lights are replacing incandescent lights. A friend of mine uses a small solar panel and battery to power lighting in a small shed to prove he doesn’t need the grid to illuminate our get togethers on Sunday night. Along with a catalytic converter stove we were warm and cozy with 10 degree weather and 80 degrees in the shed. I have almost all lights led and have not added more. I do keep a light on all day (6 watts) in the dark living room for my dog and the bedroom (4 watts) so at night I don’t have to turn on a light when I enter the room. Therefore cost must also be factored into the equation.
Now that all the lights are LED, I don’t go far out of my way to turn off a light that has been left on, nor do I constantly remind the kids to turn lights off when leaving a room.
Your kitchen example is a commercial kitchen, right? Why would you need light in the floor, though?
So you can find your way to the fridge for your midnight glass of water without turning on the main lights and ruining your night vision.
Nobody “needs” lights in the floor. There are people who want lights in the floor.
College basketball was experimenting with light’s on the court, I believe for advertising. It was not a hit as the LED floors turned out to be slippery compared to standard hardwood.
To Nick Rendell, author of the above article:
Thank you very much for such a well-argued and well-written article, backed up with historical precedents and a graph of hard data!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G4glndGWAAAUD4P?format=png&name=small
Malthus wasn’t wrong; he just isn’t right yet.
“Well, now, we all know the Navy is never wrong, but in this case, it was a little weak on being right.”
— In Harms Way (Henry Fonda)
“Operating at close to absolute zero, data-centres will have no need of the cooling systems that on earth consume both a big chunk of the energy and account for the vast majority of its mass.”
Not true. Space has no atmosphere, therefore convection of thermal energy is not possible. Heat build up in space platforms is a problem as only the outer surface is available to transition thermal energy to EM radiation via what is commonly known as the black body.
The part that is true is no atmosphere and no clouds, so solar panels work well. Batteries are needed if the orbiting platform passes in the Earth’s shadow.
Story tip
The father of Leftist doom is dead.
Adios Paul Ehrlich
The problem with Jevons Paradox is it implies increased efficience increases demand, but it is increased demand which is the driver of increased efficiency, and the latter is achieved via the supply/demand/price market mechanism which rations resources.
As demand in ours and emerging economies goes up, then more energy will be required, and as has been the case for decades, more efficient use of energy and more efficient ways of producing it have been developed to meet it.
Only about 15% of our energy is electricity. The focus of Net Zero is entirely on that and how to swap generation from fossil fuels to “renewables” which are less efficient and cannot meet current, never mind increased demand. And they do not increase supply to the grid, just replace fossil fuel input on those occasions they can.
Growth of that 85% fossil fuel primary energy will carry on, and more, not less, will be needed to plug the significant gaps in supply and as back-up for growing wind/solar intermittency.
Increased demand does not necessarily result in increased efficiency.
As long as demand can be met by simply increasing capacity the capacity will only increase.
That’s how it goes as one wants to make profit first.
It’s usually competition that explores the potential to get an edge and outcompete the leader/pioneer – that’s why monopoles are poison to innovation/ efficiency.
It is simply that the consumerbase is increasing when energy gets cheaper as goods get cheaper as result and former high -end/tech becomes mainstream.
Really? I thought that a major part of Net Zero involved eliminating ICE-powered ground transportation and replacing such with EVs that could be powered by non-carbon-consuming “renewable” energy sources, or perhaps by going to hydrogen-powered vehicles.
But perhaps I’ve been misinformed.
In general, increases in efficiency are driven by the desire for greater profits on the part of providers.
“It’s nonsensical virtue signalling of the worst kind not to exploit our own natural resources…”
Holds true of other resources too- such as forests. I was a forester for 50 years. Pisses me off when I see/hear idiots say we should lock up all the forests to sequester carbon and create species diversity. Of course not all forests should be managed (in the sense of periodic harvesting) – such as in national parks, designated wilderness areas, recreation areas, local parks and the like. The forestry haters have succeeded here in Wokeachusetts. On the state owned almost million acres of forests- they hardly ever did much anyway, out of laziness and excess paper work- and now they’re doing even less because the “haters” have pushed them into a do nothing mode. On one well planned THINNING in western Wokeachusetts, the haters chained themselves to the logging machinery while screaming “they’re gonna clearcut our ancient trees”. But it wasn’t a clearcut and the trees were about 75 years old.
“the haters chained themselves to the logging machinery while screaming “they’re gonna clearcut our ancient trees”. But it wasn’t a clearcut and the trees were about 75 years old.”
There’s a joke there about turning them loose in US congress but I don’t wanna get on lists. There’s a comedian with a standup routine Google won’t find for me to quote. His heritage was arabic, his joke involved an email scooped by DHS and the punchline was something like “just because you wrote haha at the end does not make it funny”. I think clearcutting ‘ancient’ deadwood can be a funny joke, but I also like to fly for vacations sometimes… so make your own joke.
Joseph the Forester,
Have you reached the conclusion that I have held from the beginning, that national parks, world heritage listings, designated areas of special beauty, conservation reserves and even attempts to preserve species on Nature’s finished list are a construct by spoilt humans desperate for a way to make themselves feel wanted by society? Folk we used to label “do gooders” before labelling was declared sinful?
The question of whether such preserves are a wasted asset is amenable to traditional benefit:cost analysis, but we seldom see such serious studies. Those like me who call for them (as standard operating procedure for public monies) used to be labelled “hard economic realists” before labelling projected us as nasty types who enjoy pulling wings off live flies.
Goodness, current society is badly screwed up, with the value of expertise degraded in favour of those with feel-good minority dreams. Geoff S
The preserves should be a very small percent of the forest land. Many people like visiting those lands. It’s not a loss to our economic needs because if most of the forest were properly managed, we’d produce more than enough wood products. As for saving endangered species- that’s probably a lost cause no matter what we do. And many endangered species aren’t endangered as we see with the polar bears.
Story tip: We’re saved. Miliband has cracked fusion.
Miliband targets ‘limitless’ clean energy with Nottinghamshire fusion plant
I hope he told New York City!
“We’re saved. Miliband has cracked
fusion.”Now that would be a story.
Nick,
Thank you for this article and its delightful reasoning.
It will be fun to see arguments by those who object to its economic logic.
BTW, a technical point about the graph you show. The commodities are not independent. The demand for some is not driven by free enterprise, but by poor human planning. The big example is having to use coal and gas inefficiently as backup for low outputs from wind and solar due to unfavourable weather. The growth of coal, oil and gas indicates that expansion is not limited, so these fuels can be and should be used with top economic efficiently, not with stupid impositions imposed. But then, greens history is about stopping progress, not encouraging it. Geoff S
As important as the exponential function is; the logistic function in our finite earth system is crucial. Ehrlich and his contemporaries such as Commoner, were not only wrong, but knew they were wrong. The logistic had already stopped growth 5 years before Ehrlich’s book. He loved the fame and fortune of a community organizer of ignorant, but enthusiastic youth.
Then, he turned to climate change.
ts a little difficult to see from the piece what the bearing of Jevons is on Net Zero.
Jevons case is for an input, in his case coal to the production of a product, in his case steel. Industry finds a way to deliver the same product while using less coal. That makes the end product, steel, cost less. This means price of steel falls, which increases demand, as people find its cost effective in new uses, which then increases demand for coal.
With Net Zero we seem to be going sort of in reverse but in a sideways way. We have not changed the amount of the input that is required, as happened in the steel industry in the 19c, We have just discovered and implemented a way of making electricity at a higher cost than previously – generate it from wind and solar. You still need just as much of it, its just that it costs more than it did.
The effect of this is to raise costs and therefore prices for everything that has electricity as an input, and that is just about everything, from aluminum smelting to making hot coffee.
Jevons would happen to the energy industry in its original form if we were to find ways of doing the same things with less electricity. This would lower the input costs from electricity and should result in lower prices through the economy. Home insulation is an example, we use less energy to keep equally warm. Increased gas mileage: we drive further for the same amount of gas. As the piece says, LED bulbs are a perfect example: we get the same amount of light for less power, so we find more uses for light and so demand for electricity for light does not fall. Computing has also been an example – we get the same, actually more, computing power from every smaller chips with ever lower costs, and this makes smart everything cost effective.
But Net Zero is not at all like the LED or computing example. Net Zero isn’t about changing – lowering – the amount of power we use to do the same things, or making that power cheaper. Its just about changing the way we produce that power, and the cost of producing it, and therefore the price of it, and that isn’t anything like the LED example, all it amounts to is raising the price, The technology has nothing to do with it. You could achieve exactly the same economic effect by taxing electricity.
So I’m not really clear why the piece invokes Jevons. Maybe the argument is that its operating in reverse. But that is not too surprising, surely? Jevons original so called paradox came from the hidden assumption of constant steel demand. It was only surprising if you did not take account of the fact that lowering input costs would lower steel prices and thus increase uses and demand. Maybe the point is that the reverse happens if input costs rise. Rising prices will lea to lower use? But you do not need to invoke Jevons to explain that. Its pretty obvious in itself.
Of course, when the increased costs are disguised and piecemeal spread through the economy by lots of different subsidies and regulations you have actually two effects, one being direct electricity costs, the other being the general costs. So you have two costs of Net Zero, one a sort of general invisible impoverishment, lie a rise in VAT. The other a specific one due to the rising price of electricity which you see in the rising price of a cup of hot coffee,.
Well, all scientific calculations about what should or could be once ‘net zilch’ has finally been achieved can once and for for verified – the world has its new test bed available for experimentation. After Venezuelan oil was cut off, Cuba cannot sustain electrical power generation or provide diesel or gasoline for power generators or transportation. Effectively this is as near to ‘net zilch’ as can achieved without reverting to a Papua New Guinea tribesmen lifestyle. Should be interesting to see if windmills and photovoltaics can carry the day!
Forgot to add, Cuba has been upheld as the model for ‘communism, done right’. So, we can watch, in real time, the pillar of the commie Utopian dream existence as it unfolds on the world stage.
I think Nick has missed the bigger point. It is true we are in a pickle right now but it is of our own making. Almost all of the energy problems we are facing right now are due to misguided and ignorant government policies. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with climate or science even though they are the instruments used to justify the crappy policies. It is all power and control. Think about how powerless the Manns, Gores and all the other experts are without the force of government. Take away the force of government and the whole mess goes away.
“Driverless cars will prove to be another example. When you finally take delivery of your driverless car will you:
You don’t need to be uniquely insightful to suspect that the correct answer is ‘c’”
You do need to not be paying attention, though, since “c” isn’t one of the choices.
OK, what is that sawtooth dogleg jag in the plot just before the present? It cuts across the entire stack but is especially pronounced in the pipsqueak sectors.
Randle,
I suspect that you know the answer.
Politico-medical reaction to Covid-19.
Geoff S
Geoff, yes, the timing is right. However, the fact the absolute magnitude of the jog is constant regardless of the sector suggests a conceptional or computational flaw in the plot. I would think the jog on the plot would scale with the sectors.
“Christian breakaway sects, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians, appear to expect Judgement Day any time soon…”
Being neutral, I felt I had to check this out! As it happens, it’s not just the so-called “breakaway sects”, that point to the end of this system – it’s actually stated in the Bible on several occasions. No matter which of the many translations of the Bible is used, try looking at Matthew chapter 24; Luke chapter 21; and 2nd Timothy chapter 3.
Apart from environmental disasters, the end times in the Bible refer principally to wars and reports of wars; nation rising against nation, kingdom against kingdom. Additionally, later writings refer to people being unwilling to reach agreement, being overly proud and basically in love with themselves…..hatred being the main causal factor.
I’m glad this was pointed out in the article because it all seems remarkably accurate to me! These writings weren’t the words expressed by any “breakaway sect”, which is an interesting expression in itself, given that Christianity in its early beginnings was exactly that – a breakaway sect. In fact these writings were the words of two of the Gospel writers, quoting Jesus’ own words, while the later writings were the words of the prolific Bible writer Paul, earlier known as Saul of Tarsus.
Too bad the internal Chinese electronics running the LEDs fail in about the same time as the old incandescent filaments did.
Are the LEDs that are still just as efficient inside a broken LED bulb that wont light saving the world?
“Too bad the internal Chinese electronics running the LEDs fail in about the same time as the old incandescent filaments did.”
that hasn’t been my experience. Have run LEDs for years now, have only replaced one so far. That includes name brands such as Sylvania, and Chinese brands purchased on Amazon. None of the latter have failed.
“Energy-efficient households targeted in plan to promote ‘pro-environmental behaviours’” by Noah Eastwood • 18 March 2026
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/net-zero/nanny-state-plot-turn-down-heating/
Notice that consumer decisions about energy use are framed in religious terms (moral/immoral)
This is kind of humorous. It was British Economist William Stanley Jevons who described and explained the phenomenon more than a century and a half ago. Economists call it Jevon’s paradox.
You don’t say. Face Palm.
Beatings will continue until morale improves.