The TED speaker's narrative is 'how clever we are': How things became as they are due to clever people, evolving ideas. Where is the mention of high ratio EROEI? Rapid, 20th century growth is due to one thing - Oil.
Can you discount the role hydrocarbon energy played in this - he doesn't mention it at all. All of the things he discusses are relevant, but without the context of energy supply: None of it holds up without factoring in thermodynamics.
Care to refute the role our Oil/Coal/gas have played in population, and corresponding economic growth?
I don't know what the new mix of energies is going to be
You don't know, and neither do I. Honesty is the best place to start.
And no - it's not all about oil production. Perhaps we will greatly increase our nuclear capacity, use solar, geothermal, wind and wave - maybe we will ally improved healthcare with genetically modified crop technology or improve agricultural and work practices with technology and communications but one thing is for sure - we will find a way - as we did last decade - and the one before that and the one before that ad infinitum.
What is actually going to replace the high, net gain ratios of Oil?
(Oil is the biggie - even Coal and gas can't touch oil for it's versatility as fuel for thermal combustion and it's massive relative energy output.)
Nuclear? Guess again - what is going to fuel the agricultural machinery and food distribution vehicles? Also, is finite and massively subsidized - the UK taxpayer is still paying nuclear industry subsidies from the 1970's and earlier. It won't be enough for just domestic electricity anyway as the fuels is itself a finite mineral that requires massive amounts of hydrocarbon processing and refining.
Private capital won't touch new nuclear builds without socialized, tax payer support and underwritten liability for any failures.
Solar? Currently not enough EROEI. Needs much higher efficiency and currently uses some hard to source minerals (which themselves are finite). We are one of the best examples of Solar energy conversion - everything we do is as a result of it.
Wind and Wave? We need to keep increasing their research and design to improve efficiency and rates of return. We have had windmills before btw. Are they enough to mill the grain to feed our current planetary population?
Geothermal? Fixed and location dependent.
A blend of the above is possible. But there is nothing on the horizon to replace Oil. GM crops are not going to engineer biofuels out of thin air - biochemistry says they require solar energy and nutrients, regardless of any new design. All of this assumes that the energy in, is less than the energy out - currently (based on existing biofuel tech) we are spending more than a barrel oil, to produce a barrel of oils worth of energy from biofuel. It has a negative EROEI. And it is less efficient for thermal combustion than gasoline.
Improve working efficiencies is mandatory for any kind of adaptation - we are still too wasteful - but it does not address the huge drop off when you eliminate hydrocarbons (particularly oil).
I admire the optimism that 'we will find a way'. We have sometimes, through history, found the way. And maybe we will again. Currently, we need a new way and current methods and technologies are insufficient. We must try harder.
the whole of human history has pointed to a progression in our living standards and population numbers through the use of innovation and technology - a trend that is only increasing in time with improvements in communication.
No, it hasn't. Archeology points towards there being ups and downs. Things like modern medicine insulate us from disasters like the plague, other pandemics and the massive, relative attrition rate from warfare. Empires rose and fell. There has not been linear, upwards progression through the years - disease, natural disasters and war have brought humanity low, time and time again. These things are cyclical.
And disribution of these medicines and refrigeration, pesticides, fertalizers (along with their manufacture) requires energy.
The graph you yourself provided shows an increase in our population way after peak oil was meant to have run out - but of course that hasn't occurred to you.
Peak oil represents the peak in terms of EROEI, not when supply will run out. And the economies of the west are staked, all in as regards gasoline. Hence the resource wars in the Middle East. Population increase rates will slow at first (net population increasing but not as quickly), but there will be a tipping point where food becomes cost prohibitive for first the poor, then others further up the socioeconomic food chain.
The thread is about increasing GDP not about Energy Ratios
Yes. And the two things are intricately linked. The modern economy is backed by oil. In the past was gold, or other precious materials - labour, gems, water, food, etc..
Oil-Dollars are what underwrites currency trading. That Spiegel gif of the global financial markets shows the hugely inflated speculation on currency derivatives.
When you talk about modern economics without addressing the currency value underwriting that supports the whole house of cards, you are not discussing reality.
Now, for the sake of argument: Oil is infinate and renewable - then the economy will continue to ebb and flow, but follow a general upward trend. other limiting factors will eventually slow and halt growth.
But if it is not, then what will replace the Oil-Standard? The economy will not continue to grow if confidence on its supply and availability reduces.
Indefinite growth is a physical fallacy - we are limited by the confines of the sand box in which we play.
Until we invent magic free energy beans, then we are discussing when, not if, growth will stop.