The future may look bit uncertain, with technologically-heightened challenges proliferating: for example, there’s the growing impacts of climate change, but also of AI, that now being portrayed as a new existential threat, with calls for a halt or delay in its development- even from the Pope! Quite apart from the local impact of AI/data centres, there are certainly some big issues . Just as there are with climate change. We are struggling to deal with the later- mainly by pushing for renewables. But not everyone agrees. And it’s the same for AI. For example, in September, addressing the UN General Assembly in New York, US president Donald Trump said we should not to block AI, which he called ‘superintelligence’, adding that the people who warn that it is going to ‘kill us’ are the same ones who warned about global warming. Which evidently, unlike AI, he does not believe in. That is why he is so against renewables and so pro coal. It is good to have it all laid o...
With the energy policy debate churning on, I thought I would look back at what has sometimes been seen as useful metric for comparison of energy options - Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI). That’s a measure of how much energy you have to use to build (and where relevant, run) an energy supply system, compared with how much energy you get out of it over its lifetime of operation. For example, as fossil fuel resources get scarcer and harder to extract, the EROEI ratios for their use are falling (e.g. from 44:1 in 1950, to 8:1 in 2020 for oil) this being one more reason why they are on the way out . In terms of the non-fossil energy options, in some (but not all) studies I have seen, renewables generally do much better than nuclear, their only supply side rival, which should be no surprise, since (bio energy systems apart) renewables do not need any fuel to run. With nuclear, energy has to be used to mine, mill and process uranium ore into fuel, and the amount of energy needed...