More and More and More as reviewed in The Economist

[deborah]

OK, this book hasn’t even been published yet (it’s due in August 2025), but the Economist talks about its thoughts, and they’re very interesting to me. My summary of what the economist says about the book is…

We tend to assume that the energy transition is from, say, wood to coal to oil to solar power. However, we aren’t really using solar power for most of our power. In fact, most people are still using wood.

And newer energy sources use older energy sources in different ways. Wood is used to shore up coal mine tunnels; steel is made using coal, and is used in most oil rigs. In fact, larger amounts of older energy sources are used now, in newer energy forms than were used in the  period when the periods when the older forms dominated.

To reduce our carbon emissions, we not only need to transition to renewable sources, we also need to reduce the usage of older energy sources, and that’s going to be fiendishly difficult.
…
Now, I’d never realised this (I knew that steel is made from coal - actually they prefer a special coal for this, and if I’d thought about it, I could have talked about the other dependencies), and this was a bit of a surprise to me. So I guess it is for others as well.

[GilesMM]

So if we reduce oil and gas consumption we can stop building oilfield drilling and production infrastructure, we reduce dirty coal consumption, which is good.  We just need more renewable energy available cheaply and it has to be added FASTER than global energy needs are increasing.

[reeshau]

You've just provided a summary, but it seems to me the wood connection is shaky: you don't burn wood to get coal; it's trapped carbon is not released.  And trees are a renewable resource--more get planted.  When trying to paint a verbal picture, have a weak link weakens the whole thing.

Also, it is possible to make steel without met coal.  This is just beginning to be addressed, but Volvo will be using it in their truck production beginning in 2026.  It relies on hydrogen to generate the heat; one of several uses for "green" hydrogen, including as a type of "battery" from solar + wind, to allow electrical generation on demand.

I don't disagree with the premise, but I hope the book includes profiles of possible solutions, which are developing as it is being written.

[Askel]

It's been a while since I watched this, and it's some classic Moore-esque muckraking, but it does raise some interesting datapoints: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

In short, green energy won't save us. Only reducing energy consumption from any source will.   

[FireLane]

Also, it is possible to make steel without met coal.  This is just beginning to be addressed, but Volvo will be using it in their truck production beginning in 2026.  It relies on hydrogen to generate the heat; one of several uses for "green" hydrogen, including as a type of "battery" from solar + wind, to allow electrical generation on demand.

It's also possible to make steel from iron ore using only electricity. A startup called Electra that's backed by Bill Gates has opened a plant in Colorado to do this:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-steel

Steelmaking’s giant carbon footprint comes from converting iron oxide ore into iron, which comprises about 97 percent of steel. The ore is melted at 1,600 °C in huge blast furnaces fired by coal, the same way it has been done for decades. Burning coal not only provides energy, Nijhawan explains, it is also a reducing agent. That is, the carbon in it acts with the iron oxide, forming bonds with the oxygen. The result is pure iron plus carbon dioxide. The process is responsible for 90 percent of the carbon emissions that come from making steel. “When we talk about steel decarbonization, we’re really talking about decarbonizing iron making,” Nijhawan says.

Electra has come up with an “electrochemical hydrometallurgical process” that directly reduces iron oxide into iron at temperatures of 60°C, colder than a cup of coffee; no blast furnace or coal burning is required.

...Electra’s iron could be turned to steel in electric arc furnaces (EAFs) that are used today to melt and recycle scrap metal into new steel. About one-fourth of steel today is produced in EAFs. Earlier in December, Electra announced that it is partnering with Nucor Corporation, the largest steel producer and steel scrap recycler in the U.S. Nucor plans to use Electra’s iron to further reduce the carbon emissions of its EAF-produced steel. The idea is that eventually, if EAFs are also powered with zero-carbon renewables, it will be possible to go from iron ore to steel with zero emissions, Nijhawan says.

Of course, the biggest problem isn't technical feasibility - it's the colossal investment required to transition the old industries into new ways of doing things.

[deborah]

Of course, the biggest problem isn't technical feasibility - it's the colossal investment required to transition the old industries into new ways of doing things.

Yes, this is the main problem.

[Beardog]

Nate Hagens interviewed the author about this upcoming book on the wonderful podcast called The Great Simplification:

https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/162-jean-baptiste-fressoz

[vand]

You only need to google "global oil usage" to see that our non-renewable energy usage has yet to peak. It's come down as share of overall energy usage, of course, as renewables gained traction.

Renewables faces real problems when it comes to eg transitioning air travel away from current oil usage, as the energy density required is multiples above what renewables can offer now and potentially far into the future. 

[GuitarStv]

Fundamentally, the problem is not one of clean vs dirty energy.  It's that we as a species have continued to increase consumption of energy, and there appears to be no end in sight to this behaviour.  Infinite growth is not sustainable.