Not mentioned in this essay directly is the fact that regardless of the amounts of new wind and solar (I refuse to use the false term "renewables") we are, every day, farther from "transition" even with regards to electricity than we were the day before.
Wind and solar amount to, as typically reported, some 90% of new electricity sources. That means that for every 9 gigawatts of new wind and solar we must build one gigawatt of fossil, usually methane in the West and coal in Asia.
In other words, for every 9 gigawatts of new non-fossil generation facilities, we are 1 gigawatt farther from transition than we were before.
That's the reality of it. Even if the solar panels and wind turbines were themselves the product of immaculate construction, we'd still be moving backwards at a 1:9 ratio building them.
Assuming that we had to burn fossil fuels to mine, smelt, transport, and transfor, for instance, sand into silicon crystal, or oil into turbine blades, we're doing even worse than it looks.
And btw, I am aware that also this growth will only deepen overshoot. But I find it important to stick to basic facts, because only then can we estimate a way forward that's true to reality.
Great piece. The Energy-Benefit curve, like many things in life, is an “inverted “U” (forget the plateau, it definitely fall off a cliff). At the core is Thermodynamics 2.0 - the applicability of the second law to living and non-living systems and the concepts of maximum power principle/maximum entropy. And this is all interrelated with Joseph Tainter’s Energy-Complexity Spirals in which we are deeply positioned and trapped on an evolutionary basis. The planetary and human conditions are spiralling downward in concert. Our collective ability to manage the Human Predicament has passed the “Best before” date and is rapidly approaching “Expiry”. Only Roman Krznaric’s Disruption Nexus can provide any hope of extrication. (ps. nice article by Charles Hall and Timothy McWhirter https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2022.0290 )
The incident in Spain is just one in thousands of grid collapses. We had one here in Queensland Australia recently. A very subtle error in the operators understanding of their protection systems battery charger that led to a coal fired unit remaining online for some 20 minutes after its oil pumps had shutdown. Disaster which took down much of the east Australian grid. There is a fascinating report somewhere about the subsequent effects which took most other coal fired assets offline and of course solar and wind.
The PowerStation in question was a sister plant to the one at which I worked for several years. After the event my mates looked at their systems to see if they would have made the same mistake and they would have. All systems are complex and try as one might errors occur. Aeroplanes fall out of the air etc.
There are problems which can readily but not easily be solved. We just have to get on with it and accept reality.
Agree that a bigger problem in the balance of our energy use which is not currently supplied by electricity. It is happening though and is not impossible.
This issue was obvious when I was recently staying in Wales UK. The house we were in used LPG gas for heating. The electricity supply to the house looked like about 20A - about 5kW. Not nearly enough to run heat pump heating. This will require upgrading the entire grid in much of the UK. Just get on with it.
They have ideas on how quickly disruptive technologies can and will displace older technologies. Also, they look at the potential for the “super capacity” inevitable in the build-up of renewable capacity.
Thanks, Patrick, for the interesting history. But as I said toward the end of my piece, fixing these problems and finding a new cheap quantitative equivalent to fossil fuels would likely be catastrophic for the ecosphere and humanity. It would simply enable the growth-based status quo to carry on carrying on, depleting even so-called renewable resources. I think we should be learning to live with much less energy — smaller economy and smaller populations.
I wouldn’t worry too much about smaller populations. It will be done to us. I expect population will drop to about 10% within 50 to 100 years.
My question is will it be an apocalypse or more we grow old and die scenario. Many populations have experienced famines and other disasters that have decimated them but most of us have not noticed.
I don’t think our species has it in them to “fix” much. Technical solutions may make us feel good but when the collapse starts, I doubt that any will be “sustainable”. Producing a solar panel requires stable economy, politics world trade etc. These things likely to be the first to go.
What from our current civilisation will be valuable / possible to maintain?
We basically agree — except I think the collapse has already started and is proceeding at different rates and with different symptoms in various countries around the world.
The conclusion I draw from Rees’s analysis is not “do nothing” but refocus our scarce resources towards resiliancy (dams an levies to mitigate flooding rivers, food security, desalinization plants, developing redundencies to strengthen brittle and stretch supply chains) rather than squandering them on the pipe dream of “energy transition.” I was a huge fan of green engergy until earlier this year when I read Adam Tooze’s review in the LRB of *More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy* by Jean-Baptiste Fressoz. Tooze’s review compliments Rees’s analysis, and I would highly recommend reading it, if you don’t already know Fressoz’s book. I think you probably haven’t, because it goes straight to the heart of the assumption you seem to be making that new (energy) technologies “can and will displace older technologies.” Fressoz explains why that is not how it works for energy production. Using historical data he shows that new energy sources are not substitutive (e.g. like the digital calculator to the slide rule or abacus) but additive. Here’s the link: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n01/adam-tooze/trouble-transitioning
Not disagreeing, but two thirds of fossil fuel energy generation is lost as waste heat thanks to thermodynamics, so roughly only one third as much wind/solar is needed to replace the same amount of "useful" thermal energy from fossil fuels,if used close to source . Obviously less if lost to transmission etc but the same applies to fossil fuel generated distribution. It helps a bit, but totally agreed - still more renewables needed to be rolled out faster and immediately.
Very true. I tried to calculate how much wind energy would be necessary to displace all fossil fuels in Canada a few years ago, and the result was about a million windmills! But your point which is right on is that electricity is far more efficient at creating power in most uses (transportation, induction heating for cooking for example). But the gap is still HUGE.
In order to get off of all FF as fast as possible we need to change the way we consume energy while simultaneously build out solar/wind/geothermal and nuclear.
Thank you. Always good to see some actual numbers in claims - as you say, they reveal how vast the size of the problem is. And don't get me started on direct air capture for CO2 removal! Anyone who's tried the most basic calculation for DAC and insists it is even remotely viable is seriously deluded. But there I go, off topic! Thanks again for the numbers.
This concept of an energy crisis is classical corposystem displacement activity, redirecting our thinking from the problem to something else that generates growth. The problem, of course, is that unlimited growth is the problem. It is, in fact, impossible without destroying the Biosystem which in turn will destroy us humans. Selling more green stuff does not reduce growth or even level it off to sustainable.This is classical corposystem displacement activity, redirecting our thinking from the problem to something else that generates growth. The problem, of course, is that unlimited growth is the problem. It is, in fact, impossible without destroying the Biosystem which in turn will destroy us humans. Selling more green stuff does not reduce growth or even level it off to sustainable. Keep watching and you will find this kind of "displacement" o the problem wherever he corposystem power is expressed.
I basically agree with your assessment, Martin, but with one proviso. History tells a tale of the ‘cycle of civilizations’ —from hopeful birth, development, expansion and maturation, to a point of fumbling incompetence in the face of excess complexity and diminishing returns accompanied by corruption at the top which, in turn, induces popular disenchantment with government and cultural institutions, leading, finally, to collapse. The latter can be a slow unravelling or a more rapid implosion depending on circumstances. In any case, I suspect we are beyond ‘peak civilization’ and have begun the downslide. And there is no going back.
Not mentioned in this essay directly is the fact that regardless of the amounts of new wind and solar (I refuse to use the false term "renewables") we are, every day, farther from "transition" even with regards to electricity than we were the day before.
Wind and solar amount to, as typically reported, some 90% of new electricity sources. That means that for every 9 gigawatts of new wind and solar we must build one gigawatt of fossil, usually methane in the West and coal in Asia.
In other words, for every 9 gigawatts of new non-fossil generation facilities, we are 1 gigawatt farther from transition than we were before.
That's the reality of it. Even if the solar panels and wind turbines were themselves the product of immaculate construction, we'd still be moving backwards at a 1:9 ratio building them.
Assuming that we had to burn fossil fuels to mine, smelt, transport, and transfor, for instance, sand into silicon crystal, or oil into turbine blades, we're doing even worse than it looks.
Thanks for that additional perspective — every nail in the coffin helps.
The 90% number is what is part of an exponential sequence of numbers that recently started becoming huge, as evident by that now famous figure (https://www.exponentialview.co/p/the-forecasters-gap). Ember is an excellent source for any up-to-date information on electricity-related issues: https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2025/global-electricity-trends/#global-electricity-generation. There's unfortunately much misinformation being spread these days, and misrepresenting a dynamic figure as if it were static is part of that. There's a story behind the figure, and it's pretty intriguing how exponential growth might be part of the solution, also! (cf social tipping points)
Thus, that 90% figure is not a nail in the coffin but a symbol of hope. And who knows, perhaps the 940 GW new generation annually the IEA predicts by 2030 (https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2024/executive-summary) is likewise an underestimation. It means, even without them underestimating again, that displacement is in reach. Especially given how cheap it is now to produce electricity via solar or wind (https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8yG0N6HnOy8g/44acf742-3f8d-4c58-81db-dc40d7be4000/w=1350) and how easy it is to install solar anywhere on the planet, particularly in areas with abundant sunlight and where additional electricity is needed (cf Africa).
And btw, I am aware that also this growth will only deepen overshoot. But I find it important to stick to basic facts, because only then can we estimate a way forward that's true to reality.
Great piece. The Energy-Benefit curve, like many things in life, is an “inverted “U” (forget the plateau, it definitely fall off a cliff). At the core is Thermodynamics 2.0 - the applicability of the second law to living and non-living systems and the concepts of maximum power principle/maximum entropy. And this is all interrelated with Joseph Tainter’s Energy-Complexity Spirals in which we are deeply positioned and trapped on an evolutionary basis. The planetary and human conditions are spiralling downward in concert. Our collective ability to manage the Human Predicament has passed the “Best before” date and is rapidly approaching “Expiry”. Only Roman Krznaric’s Disruption Nexus can provide any hope of extrication. (ps. nice article by Charles Hall and Timothy McWhirter https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2022.0290 )
More uncomfortable truth from Bill, that I have added to my blog post titled "Sustainability’s Place in Killing the Living Planet".
https://kevinhester.live/2016/05/14/sustainabilitys-place-in-killing-the-living-planet/
So? What to do?
Nothing in this world is easy, is it?
The incident in Spain is just one in thousands of grid collapses. We had one here in Queensland Australia recently. A very subtle error in the operators understanding of their protection systems battery charger that led to a coal fired unit remaining online for some 20 minutes after its oil pumps had shutdown. Disaster which took down much of the east Australian grid. There is a fascinating report somewhere about the subsequent effects which took most other coal fired assets offline and of course solar and wind.
The PowerStation in question was a sister plant to the one at which I worked for several years. After the event my mates looked at their systems to see if they would have made the same mistake and they would have. All systems are complex and try as one might errors occur. Aeroplanes fall out of the air etc.
https://www.csenergy.com.au/what-we-do/thermal-generation/callide-power-station/c4recovery
There are problems which can readily but not easily be solved. We just have to get on with it and accept reality.
Agree that a bigger problem in the balance of our energy use which is not currently supplied by electricity. It is happening though and is not impossible.
This issue was obvious when I was recently staying in Wales UK. The house we were in used LPG gas for heating. The electricity supply to the house looked like about 20A - about 5kW. Not nearly enough to run heat pump heating. This will require upgrading the entire grid in much of the UK. Just get on with it.
Incidentally there are fascinating observations by these guys. https://www.rethinkx.com/
They have ideas on how quickly disruptive technologies can and will displace older technologies. Also, they look at the potential for the “super capacity” inevitable in the build-up of renewable capacity.
Thanks, Patrick, for the interesting history. But as I said toward the end of my piece, fixing these problems and finding a new cheap quantitative equivalent to fossil fuels would likely be catastrophic for the ecosphere and humanity. It would simply enable the growth-based status quo to carry on carrying on, depleting even so-called renewable resources. I think we should be learning to live with much less energy — smaller economy and smaller populations.
I wouldn’t worry too much about smaller populations. It will be done to us. I expect population will drop to about 10% within 50 to 100 years.
My question is will it be an apocalypse or more we grow old and die scenario. Many populations have experienced famines and other disasters that have decimated them but most of us have not noticed.
I don’t think our species has it in them to “fix” much. Technical solutions may make us feel good but when the collapse starts, I doubt that any will be “sustainable”. Producing a solar panel requires stable economy, politics world trade etc. These things likely to be the first to go.
What from our current civilisation will be valuable / possible to maintain?
We basically agree — except I think the collapse has already started and is proceeding at different rates and with different symptoms in various countries around the world.
The conclusion I draw from Rees’s analysis is not “do nothing” but refocus our scarce resources towards resiliancy (dams an levies to mitigate flooding rivers, food security, desalinization plants, developing redundencies to strengthen brittle and stretch supply chains) rather than squandering them on the pipe dream of “energy transition.” I was a huge fan of green engergy until earlier this year when I read Adam Tooze’s review in the LRB of *More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy* by Jean-Baptiste Fressoz. Tooze’s review compliments Rees’s analysis, and I would highly recommend reading it, if you don’t already know Fressoz’s book. I think you probably haven’t, because it goes straight to the heart of the assumption you seem to be making that new (energy) technologies “can and will displace older technologies.” Fressoz explains why that is not how it works for energy production. Using historical data he shows that new energy sources are not substitutive (e.g. like the digital calculator to the slide rule or abacus) but additive. Here’s the link: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n01/adam-tooze/trouble-transitioning
Not disagreeing, but two thirds of fossil fuel energy generation is lost as waste heat thanks to thermodynamics, so roughly only one third as much wind/solar is needed to replace the same amount of "useful" thermal energy from fossil fuels,if used close to source . Obviously less if lost to transmission etc but the same applies to fossil fuel generated distribution. It helps a bit, but totally agreed - still more renewables needed to be rolled out faster and immediately.
Very true. I tried to calculate how much wind energy would be necessary to displace all fossil fuels in Canada a few years ago, and the result was about a million windmills! But your point which is right on is that electricity is far more efficient at creating power in most uses (transportation, induction heating for cooking for example). But the gap is still HUGE.
In order to get off of all FF as fast as possible we need to change the way we consume energy while simultaneously build out solar/wind/geothermal and nuclear.
Here is the back of the envelope calculations I did…
https://open.substack.com/pub/dougflet/p/chatgpt-vs-canadas-climate-action?r=fjrpt&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Thank you. Always good to see some actual numbers in claims - as you say, they reveal how vast the size of the problem is. And don't get me started on direct air capture for CO2 removal! Anyone who's tried the most basic calculation for DAC and insists it is even remotely viable is seriously deluded. But there I go, off topic! Thanks again for the numbers.
This concept of an energy crisis is classical corposystem displacement activity, redirecting our thinking from the problem to something else that generates growth. The problem, of course, is that unlimited growth is the problem. It is, in fact, impossible without destroying the Biosystem which in turn will destroy us humans. Selling more green stuff does not reduce growth or even level it off to sustainable.This is classical corposystem displacement activity, redirecting our thinking from the problem to something else that generates growth. The problem, of course, is that unlimited growth is the problem. It is, in fact, impossible without destroying the Biosystem which in turn will destroy us humans. Selling more green stuff does not reduce growth or even level it off to sustainable. Keep watching and you will find this kind of "displacement" o the problem wherever he corposystem power is expressed.
Nice summary of why we are hooped!
Keep up yourgood work. You are needed.
Lynn Lamoreux
Your article makes me hear the lyrics of, Jane’s Addiction, no one‘s going to Stop
https://youtu.be/ZwI02OHtZTg?si=LJWnYk1kOapjVJj3
Just a remark: the blackout in Spain was at the end of April 2025, just two months ago
Absolutely correct — my error, a senior’s moment!
Thanks for this Bill and for all your thoughts over the years which helped me develop my own!
Clearly the growth delusion ends at some point but in a civilization so removed from natural systems in the day to day it can continue for some time.
Modern finance is the accelerant and quasi religion so either needs to be part of of the solution or get out of the way.
Exploring this in my sub with a long view and interested in your thoughts…!
I basically agree with your assessment, Martin, but with one proviso. History tells a tale of the ‘cycle of civilizations’ —from hopeful birth, development, expansion and maturation, to a point of fumbling incompetence in the face of excess complexity and diminishing returns accompanied by corruption at the top which, in turn, induces popular disenchantment with government and cultural institutions, leading, finally, to collapse. The latter can be a slow unravelling or a more rapid implosion depending on circumstances. In any case, I suspect we are beyond ‘peak civilization’ and have begun the downslide. And there is no going back.
https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI?si=n3RMlNxRn6E2gw6D