Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXXXII
We’re Saved! ‘Renewables’ and Energy Security.
We all interpret the world through our specific schemas and broader worldview. I have been reflecting on this phenomenon with regard to ‘renewables’ given an article I read and a meme making the rounds on social media in the shadow of the eruption of violence and chaos in the Middle East brought about by the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.
It’s been argued that people often make any facts they are presented with fit into their beliefs rather than forming or adjusting beliefs based upon these same facts. This psychological tendency serves to activate the reward centres of our brains, reduce any anxiety created via cognitive dissonance, and reinforce our personal and social identity. This phenomenon has also led to such statements as that offered by author Robert A. Heinlein: “Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.”
When someone holds a belief, facts are ‘modified’ to fit into them. Instead of acknowledging the complexity and inconvenience of competing ‘facts’ and adjusting one’s mindset, we focus on things that support our preconceived notions and interpret the world so as to align with our beliefs. We are all guilty of this since the process is rooted deeply in how humans make sense of their world and the need to avoid the physiological discomfort that accompanies contradictory information.
The article in question argues that the true market price of hydrocarbons is hidden due to massive subsidies, especially those dedicated towards protecting global oil supplies. Given that ‘renewable’ energy is essentially ‘free’ and unaffected by geopolitical events, the author argues that a transition away from hydrocarbons and towards ‘renewables’ will be more than simply an economic shift but also the best path to energy security.
The meme (shown above) suggests that hydrocarbon-based energy is stuck in the Strait of Hormuz while locally-situated, renewables-based energy is not and implies the same line of thinking as the article: ‘renewables’ can avoid the perils of geopolitical brinkmanship and supply chain disruptions that are being witnessed so obviously with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the uncertainty and consequences of disrupting about 20% of the global oil flow.
‘Free’ energy that provides energy security, and avoids geopolitical quagmires.
What’s not to love?
Well…
If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview.
This ‘renewables solution’ to geopolitical turmoil appears extremely compelling on the surface but if we run its implications/argument through the lens of the evaluative questionnaire for ‘solutions’ I proposed in a previous Contemplation (Website Medium Substack), it dissolves into a significantly more complex and problematic picture.
In fact, when I’ve pointed out these inconsistencies in response on social media, I have earned the label ‘hardcore doomer.’ But pushing back on ideas isn’t the same as trying to take away someone’s hope. It’s about honesty regarding where we’re at and what we’re up against—a necessary precursor to acceptance and, perhaps, harm reduction. Because acting on comforting but incomplete solutions does not merely fail to solve our problems; it actively exacerbates our predicament, committing ever more resources and energy to pathways that cannot deliver what they promise.
Narrative
Does the proposal discuss the major drawbacks such as environmental and/or social costs, or only its benefits? Is there irrefutable evidence that the ‘solution’ will replace the destructive technology/system it is proposing to, or is it merely adding to total human throughput? Are the benefits of small-scale applications being honestly applied to a global, industrial scale, or are they being disingenuously applied?
Comparing the ‘fuel’ of renewables to hydrocarbon logistics would appear to be a classic straw man fallacy through an exceptionally uneven playing field created by omitting/ignoring the drawbacks of the mass-produced, industrial technologies required to harness the ‘free’ energy that renewables provide. Mining operations. Complex, global supply chains. End-of-life waste management/reclamation. Not only are these ecologically-destructive processes left out of the equation, but so too is the geopolitical pressure that they also experience.
While some proponents recognise these aspects, they tend to argue that they are simply challenges that need to be managed better than they currently are. In other words, these are not fatal flaws to the ‘solution’ of a renewables-based society but inconvenient hiccups on the path to utopia. I would argue, however, that this perspective is not only inaccurate but existentially problematic given that the scale that is being proposed leads to a ‘cure’ that is worse than the ‘disease’. The attempt to ‘electrify everything’, especially via renewables, would be ecologically devastating, pushing already broached planetary boundaries far, far beyond human lifetime recoverable levels–if ‘recovery’ is possible at all.
Historically, the energy derived from any new energy source tends to be additive to a society’s use and does not replace established ones. In our global, industrialised world this can be seen in the fact that today’s world uses more coal than it did in the 1800s despite the presence of oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, and ‘renewables’; or that despite decades of exponentially-increasing production of ‘renewables’ we are witnessing ever-increasing amounts of hydrocarbon extraction and use. There is no ‘transition’ taking place. What we are experiencing is a compounding of energy consumption and associated material throughput.
And while the benefits of any small-scale applications are being applied, it is being done disingenuously. Arguably, local resilience can be illustrated with the use of solar photovoltaic panels on a rural cabin. But a societal-scale grid powered by vast arrays of panels manufactured in centrally-located factories, shipped via diesel-fuelled transportation, occupying land cleared by hydrocarbon-based equipment, and feeding into energy-storage facilities whose components and manufacture also rely on massive hydrocarbon inputs and complex globalised industry, transportation, and supply chains (protected by the military complex) is not the same–not even close.
Biogeophysical Reality
Does the analysis of the inputs of the ‘solution’ and any required supplementary technologies and/or systems include all lifecycle stages, in particular: raw material extraction; manufacturing; transportation; operation; maintenance; byproduct disposal; decommissioning; reclamation; end-life disposal and waste management; and, associated infrastructure needs?
What is the net energy return over the entire lifecycle, and is it greater than 10-14:1 (societal maintenance) or 3:1 (basic survival)? What finite materials/minerals are required, and are these readily available or have they already encountered supply chain bottlenecks, diminishing returns, or severe depletion?
What are the ecological blind spots? Is it being assessed through carbon tunnel vision or is it taking in a broader consideration of the various planetary boundaries?
Can the waste it is generating be safely managed in perpetuity, or are there long-term liabilities being created? Is the planetary sink that might help to mitigate any waste already overloaded or close to it?
The article’s analysis exhibits carbon tunnel vision, focusing primarily on operational emissions while omitting the full lifecycle impacts of the hardware involved–especially those outside the narrow carbon focus. And while suggesting that the funds for the military to protect shipping lanes are a subsidy to hydrocarbons, it overlooks that these shipping lanes are also required to ship all the lithium for batteries, the bauxite for the aluminum frames of panels, and the finished panels themselves. The renewables system is not independent of the security apparatus criticised as supportive of hydrocarbons but part and parcel of it.
Another significant blind spot concerns the energy-return-on-investment (EROI) differences where high-quality hydrocarbons have provided those in the 30-100:1 range (and supported the development of modernity) but renewables are estimated to provide 5-12:1 in typical lifecycle analyses. When battery storage facilities are accounted for, the EROI falls below the 10-14:1 level estimated to be capable of supporting modernity and dangerously close to the 3:1 ratio of mere survival.
Perhaps most importantly, the ‘solution’ also ignores the impact of geopolitical uncertainty upon the material inputs for renewables. Lithium. Cobalt. Nickel. Copper. Rare-earths. These minerals are not located across the planet in equitable concentrations for all to use at their leisure to produce technologies. The supply chain dependencies and associated geopolitics on these finite materials are not accounted for in the analysis. In fact, they are only applied to hydrocarbons.
Also overlooked by those leveraging the current Middle Eastern conflict–what some are referring to as a Third Gulf War–to rationalise the buildout of renewables is the significant diminishing returns being experienced by many of the finite minerals that are required to build these products. Copper, the most vital to the electrification of everything, is witnessing significant ore grade decline resulting in evermore energy use and waste production to extract increasingly less metal–yet, electric vehicles require about four times more copper than a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle resulting in a massive compounding of demand pressure.
Beyond this compounding effect, there is also the scale of what advocates propose, with some arguing that the required materials do not exist in sufficient quantities on our planet. The numbers show this quite clearly: it has been estimated that to electrify the global fleet of transportation vehicles somewhere in the order of 55% more copper mines than current projected expansion would be required. This alone would mean 115% more copper would need to be mined over the next 30 years than has been accomplished in all of human history to date. And this is just for the copper required for electric vehicles; that required for the massive expansion of the supportive infrastructure is on top of this.
And all of this is only for the energy infrastructure itself. Every device, machine, and system that this ‘electrified’ society would run–from heat pumps and industrial machinery to data centres and consumer electronics–carries its own material supply chain dependencies, each reliant on the same shipping lanes, the same geopolitical stability, and the same hydrocarbon-powered extraction and manufacturing that the ‘renewables solution’ claims to transcend. The problem is not merely swapped; it is multiplied across every domain of modern life.
With a focus solely upon carbon emissions, the ecological blind spots of this ‘solution’ are massive. Mining is profoundly destructive to biosphere integrity. Industrial-scale buildout of renewables requires significant land use, resulting in ecological systems disruption and often competition with food production. The production of renewables involves various toxic chemicals with their lifecycle ‘management’ often ignored.
Then there is the ‘management’ of the waste produced. Despite arguments by advocates that these complex technologies are fully recyclable, such ‘circularity’ is still in its infancy and cannot currently fully recycle components–not even close. Almost all solar photovoltaic panels and wind turbine blades with such hazardous material as cadmium and lead currently end up in landfills.
Viability
Can the ‘solution’ survive without massive government subsidies, externalised costs, or loan guarantees? Does it require a new, massively complex, and resource-intensive infrastructure to bring it to fruition? Is it dependent upon ‘breakthrough’ technology that has yet to exist or is only in the prototype stage?
Modern industrial production is heavily subsidised. Not just the extraction and consumption of hydrocarbons, but all of it including that of renewables. From mining to manufacturing to distribution and installation. Everything is subsidised. The cost of cleaning up mining operations or ‘recycling’ material is omitted. The subsidies for hydrocarbons are highlighted by advocates, but the analysis does not account for the role that hydrocarbons play in renewables production.
There exists a stark gap between promises made and reality. The embodied energy for manufacturing solar panels, for example, may be recouped in 1-3 years as is often highlighted by advocates, but research indicates that only a single case of retired residential systems ever ‘paid back’ the economic cost prior to decommissioning, with most recovering less than 60% of their initial investment. Then there exist the distribution, maintenance, and reclamation/disposal ‘costs’; to say nothing about the original energy security argument and the military support required to ensure supply chains.
Also left out of the equation are the massive and resource-intensive infrastructure needs of renewables. Transmission systems. Energy storage. Redundancies. There exist massive energy and material costs to making this ‘free and secure’ energy bonanza come to fruition.
And while the solar and wind technologies themselves do not depend upon any technical ‘breakthroughs’, the energy storage technologies certainly do. Current storage technologies are incapable of meeting societal-level demands. Research supports this assertion: it has been estimated that batteries require a storage efficiency of at least 2 and perhaps up to 20 times greater than that which is currently available in order for such storage to be energetically preferable to hydrocarbons.
Social Aspects
Does the ‘solution’ challenge the infinite economic growth paradigm or enable its continuation? Who is promoting it and who profits from it? Will it help to further concentrate wealth/power or help to distribute it? Does it challenge or reinforce status quo wealth and power structures?
Does it promote relocalisation and community resilience, or does it require globalised, centralised, and fragile supply chains? Does it shut down discussion of more fundamental changes (e.g., degrowth, simplification), or is it presented as the only alternative within the current system of continued growth?
The renewables ‘solution’ enables the continuation of the infinite growth paradigm. In fact, its core appeal is just this: a continuation of business-as-usual growth and consumption with nary a hiccup in the transitional process. It is a ‘fix’ via technology that helps to avoid the more distressful conversations and choices that are sorely needed.
The ‘solution’ is promoted by a coalition of major corporate actors across the energy, technology, and finance sectors. This promotion aligns with observable outcomes: the infrastructure being built centralises power within existing industrial giants such as Siemens, General Electric, and Chinese state-affiliated manufacturers.
Renewables do not promote localisation as is often argued. They very much depend upon globalised and fragile supply chains. In fact, the manufacturing of solar photovoltaic panels is perhaps one of the most globalised projects on the planet, dependent entirely upon the very shipping lanes and geopolitical stability the ‘solution’ claims to transcend.
As for shutting down discussion on the fundamental changes to society that are desperately needed, this ‘solution’ is right on target. It offers a narrative that allows for the continuation of status quo consumption and growth, especially of material throughput which must increase massively to build out these ‘free-energy’ technologies.
Conclusion
The ‘solution’ offered in the article and implied in the meme(s) is seductive but disingenuous and a dangerous, incomplete picture of reality. They identify the vulnerability of dependence upon oil and its flow through one geopolitically uncertain chokepoint. However, they ignore the same serious vulnerabilities in their own resolution to energy insecurity.
Renewables can be said to swap one fuel dependence for another. Although, this is even oversimplified since in our current reality, and for the foreseeable future, renewables depend entirely upon hydrocarbons and the military-industrial complex for their existence–they are a ‘parasite’ on the hydrocarbon economy and cannot be built, deployed, maintained, or decommissioned without the hydrocarbons they purport to replace and the military-industrial complex they suggest can be avoided. This is not a transition but a complex symbiosis.
As presented, the ‘solution’ also fails to consider the core reality of ecological overshoot and the massive material throughputs that have exacerbated it. This ‘solution’ simply rebrands these within a ‘clean’ and ‘free’ narrative. Advocates are, in effect, fitting reality into their belief system–a tendency the opening of this Contemplation identified as deeply human, but one that becomes dangerous when it shapes the material future of a planet in overshoot.
What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:
“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better. Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.”
If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).
Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).
If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.
Costs (Canadian dollars): Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99
Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps… https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US
If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.
You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.
Well put. Appreciate it, Steve.
12 like, a few share and some restacks...we aren't winning...folks want to believe what their tribe believes. pity that. i shared, i'm a parasocial warrior. wink