@georgeelliot19.bsky.social
CO2 emissions > CO2 concentration > energy imbalance > temperature increase > temperature impacts…
Yes CO2 emissions may be increasing slower than some projections but each of these other factors is worse than expected.
Yes CO2 emissions may be increasing slower than some projections but each of these other factors is worse than expected.
November 21, 2025 at 5:30 AM
CO2 emissions > CO2 concentration > energy imbalance > temperature increase > temperature impacts…
Yes CO2 emissions may be increasing slower than some projections but each of these other factors is worse than expected.
Yes CO2 emissions may be increasing slower than some projections but each of these other factors is worse than expected.
and the resource use and environmental impacts of datacenters are in turn really a minor issue compared to the social impacts of AI (even for fighting climate change I think the social impacts of AI are worse than the biophysical impacts)
November 19, 2025 at 11:23 AM
and the resource use and environmental impacts of datacenters are in turn really a minor issue compared to the social impacts of AI (even for fighting climate change I think the social impacts of AI are worse than the biophysical impacts)
Also people should consider the indirect and offsite water footprint of datacenters. Electricity generation requires a lot of water. So high direct power use of datacenters comes with high indirect and off site water use. That said water use of datacenters is a minor issue compared to energy use...
November 19, 2025 at 11:23 AM
Also people should consider the indirect and offsite water footprint of datacenters. Electricity generation requires a lot of water. So high direct power use of datacenters comes with high indirect and off site water use. That said water use of datacenters is a minor issue compared to energy use...
Yep. The "primary energy fallacy"-fallacy. Haha
November 19, 2025 at 2:21 AM
Yep. The "primary energy fallacy"-fallacy. Haha
That graph shows input-equivalent primary energy which counts every unit of primary electricity (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear) as ~2.5 units of primary fossil fuels. It's not perfect but it does a decent job of accounting for efficiency. You've been lied to or mislead about primary energy statistics.
November 18, 2025 at 5:34 AM
That graph shows input-equivalent primary energy which counts every unit of primary electricity (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear) as ~2.5 units of primary fossil fuels. It's not perfect but it does a decent job of accounting for efficiency. You've been lied to or mislead about primary energy statistics.
inconsistent with Vaclav Smil’s views, and if we have a much faster transition today it will be primarily due to slower growth in total energy use than in the past… NOT due to innovation per se
November 17, 2025 at 4:16 PM
inconsistent with Vaclav Smil’s views, and if we have a much faster transition today it will be primarily due to slower growth in total energy use than in the past… NOT due to innovation per se
occurring much faster than pace of previous energy transitions when you account for both greater scale and slower growth rate of total energy system today. The rapid performance improvement and cost reductions and near-exponential deployment of solar/wind over the last few decades is actually not…
November 17, 2025 at 4:16 PM
occurring much faster than pace of previous energy transitions when you account for both greater scale and slower growth rate of total energy system today. The rapid performance improvement and cost reductions and near-exponential deployment of solar/wind over the last few decades is actually not…
Meanwhile Smil has kept his use of metrics consistent and frames the problem correctly. What’s the share of total input-equivalent primary energy for different sources? And how are emissions changing at global level? I’m writing an essay showing that current growth of solar/wind is actually not…
November 17, 2025 at 4:16 PM
Meanwhile Smil has kept his use of metrics consistent and frames the problem correctly. What’s the share of total input-equivalent primary energy for different sources? And how are emissions changing at global level? I’m writing an essay showing that current growth of solar/wind is actually not…
Remember we have had decades of headlines claiming solar and wind are overtaking fossil fuels. The headline has stayed the same but the metrics have changed. First it was share of new capacity; then share of new generation; now in some countries share of total generation.
November 17, 2025 at 10:13 AM
Remember we have had decades of headlines claiming solar and wind are overtaking fossil fuels. The headline has stayed the same but the metrics have changed. First it was share of new capacity; then share of new generation; now in some countries share of total generation.
It’s obvious radical changes are needed. And that’s all Vaclav Smil really says. His problem is he is overly contrarian and likes to correct people. He spends a lot of time in his books deflating hype about renewables. But his actual assessments are not nearly as pessimistic as people think.
November 17, 2025 at 10:13 AM
It’s obvious radical changes are needed. And that’s all Vaclav Smil really says. His problem is he is overly contrarian and likes to correct people. He spends a lot of time in his books deflating hype about renewables. But his actual assessments are not nearly as pessimistic as people think.
What he thinks we should do and what he thinks we will do are different. Gates seems to take what Smil thinks we will do as what we should do. Do you think we *WILL* rapidly reduce out fossil fuels over the next 10-20 or 20-30 years?
November 17, 2025 at 9:21 AM
What he thinks we should do and what he thinks we will do are different. Gates seems to take what Smil thinks we will do as what we should do. Do you think we *WILL* rapidly reduce out fossil fuels over the next 10-20 or 20-30 years?
I also hate how Bill Gates totally twists the work of Vaclav Smil in service of climate delay. Smil consistently advocates for both accelerated deployment of low carbon energy technologies and deep reductions in energy demand in rich countries.
November 17, 2025 at 5:58 AM
I also hate how Bill Gates totally twists the work of Vaclav Smil in service of climate delay. Smil consistently advocates for both accelerated deployment of low carbon energy technologies and deep reductions in energy demand in rich countries.
If you read in some history book "the rulers and merchants of <country> held young sex slaves, including teenagers and children" you wouldn't be surprised. But somehow people find it surprising that some/many politicians and billionaires today have coerced sex with teens and children.
November 15, 2025 at 9:21 PM
If you read in some history book "the rulers and merchants of <country> held young sex slaves, including teenagers and children" you wouldn't be surprised. But somehow people find it surprising that some/many politicians and billionaires today have coerced sex with teens and children.
People should not be surprised at all by any of this. What basis is there to believe elites today are so much less deplorable or more morally refined than elites of the past? Sure cultural and legal norms have changed... but the portion of population with dark personality traits hasn't.
November 15, 2025 at 9:15 PM
People should not be surprised at all by any of this. What basis is there to believe elites today are so much less deplorable or more morally refined than elites of the past? Sure cultural and legal norms have changed... but the portion of population with dark personality traits hasn't.
Note: CH4 per animal and per unit production are actually lower in intensive feed-based systems than in extensive grass-based systems; BUT extensive systems have lower total livestock numbers and production; and CH4 from extensive systems need to be compared to ecosystem baselines.
November 15, 2025 at 8:46 PM
Note: CH4 per animal and per unit production are actually lower in intensive feed-based systems than in extensive grass-based systems; BUT extensive systems have lower total livestock numbers and production; and CH4 from extensive systems need to be compared to ecosystem baselines.
minimize competition between livestock and forests (maximizing carbon sequestration); and minimize livestock CH4 above ecological baselines. These constraints would require reducing global livestock production by much more than half. See: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption
The need for more sustainable production and consumption of animal source food (ASF) is central to the achievement of the sustainable development goals: within this context, wise use of land is a cor....
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
November 15, 2025 at 8:42 PM
minimize competition between livestock and forests (maximizing carbon sequestration); and minimize livestock CH4 above ecological baselines. These constraints would require reducing global livestock production by much more than half. See: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
but less true where livestock grazing replaces closed canopy ecosystems (ie forests). Globally we should mostly limit livestock production to 1) non-edible feeds and 2) non-arable and non-forestable lands. This would minimize competition between livestock and crops (maximizing food production);
November 15, 2025 at 8:42 PM
but less true where livestock grazing replaces closed canopy ecosystems (ie forests). Globally we should mostly limit livestock production to 1) non-edible feeds and 2) non-arable and non-forestable lands. This would minimize competition between livestock and crops (maximizing food production);
In many contexts the avoided CH4 emissions by removing livestock from an ecosystem will be partially offset by increased fire (in short term) and by mostly offset but increased wild herbivores (in long term). This is especially true in open canopy ecosystems such as grasslands and savannahs...
November 15, 2025 at 8:42 PM
In many contexts the avoided CH4 emissions by removing livestock from an ecosystem will be partially offset by increased fire (in short term) and by mostly offset but increased wild herbivores (in long term). This is especially true in open canopy ecosystems such as grasslands and savannahs...
Methane from cattle is more complicated because you need to compare with baseline ecosystem emissions. Yes current livestock numbers and production is way too high globally (and we should totally eliminate intensive feed-based livestock production which makes food system less efficient). However..
November 15, 2025 at 8:42 PM
Methane from cattle is more complicated because you need to compare with baseline ecosystem emissions. Yes current livestock numbers and production is way too high globally (and we should totally eliminate intensive feed-based livestock production which makes food system less efficient). However..
This constant "good news" is a soft form of climate denial I think.
November 15, 2025 at 6:21 AM
This constant "good news" is a soft form of climate denial I think.
Also notice how headlines are constantly twisted to show "good news" on climate and energy transition. Solar/wind providing ~75% of new electricity *capacity* means they provided something like ~30-50% of new electricity *supply* after adjusting for capacity factors.
November 15, 2025 at 6:21 AM
Also notice how headlines are constantly twisted to show "good news" on climate and energy transition. Solar/wind providing ~75% of new electricity *capacity* means they provided something like ~30-50% of new electricity *supply* after adjusting for capacity factors.
2) the increased material stocks and embodied energy in electricity generation, storage, transmission, end use. The upfront energy costs mean during fast transition a larger share of final energy will be directed towards supporting energy system itself.
November 14, 2025 at 10:30 PM
2) the increased material stocks and embodied energy in electricity generation, storage, transmission, end use. The upfront energy costs mean during fast transition a larger share of final energy will be directed towards supporting energy system itself.
On the other hand the efficiency gains and avoided energy demand is somewhat exaggerated because they don't consider:
1) the energy losses from overcapacity, storage, transmission of variable and diffuse solar and wind, which partially offset efficiency gains (and in some scenarios can be large)
1) the energy losses from overcapacity, storage, transmission of variable and diffuse solar and wind, which partially offset efficiency gains (and in some scenarios can be large)
November 14, 2025 at 10:30 PM
On the other hand the efficiency gains and avoided energy demand is somewhat exaggerated because they don't consider:
1) the energy losses from overcapacity, storage, transmission of variable and diffuse solar and wind, which partially offset efficiency gains (and in some scenarios can be large)
1) the energy losses from overcapacity, storage, transmission of variable and diffuse solar and wind, which partially offset efficiency gains (and in some scenarios can be large)