[crystal_revenge]

That entire talk didn't once mention the phrase "energy density" which is the real reason we rely so heavily on hydrocarbons.

Additionally this talk makes the usual mistake of conflating "electricity" with "energy". While the US does have fairly high percentage of energy in the form of electricity it's still only around 33% of the US energy needs.

And still we see that "green energy" only supplements not replaces our other energy needs. We've seen tremendous EV adoption and yet US oil consumption is on an upward trend and nearing pre-pandemic highs [0].

It's wild that there are multiple, very serious global conflicts heating up over control of oil and people still believe we're just a few more years away from a purely green energy world with no evidence to suggest that's a remotely reasonable belief.

0. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10324

[ceejayoz]

> It's wild that there are multiple, very serious global conflicts heating up over control of oil…

That's what happens when the "Leader of the Free World" is 79 with dementia with memories of the 1970s oil crisis.

We're not likely to get useful oil out of Venezuela, and any we do get isn't gonna be cost-competitive against solar.

[irishcoffee]

Military vehicles that take oil-derived fuel take diesel, not hydrocarbons. The oil in Venezuela serves that purpose nicely.

No, I am not condoning anything here, just pointing something out.

[ceejayoz]

There’s plenty of diesel available to us that doesn’t require stabilizing an authoritarian Central American nation and rebuilding their oil industry first.

[irishcoffee]

> We're not likely to get useful oil out of Venezuela, and any we do get isn't gonna be cost-competitive against solar.

I was responding to that bit. It isn't accurate.

I also said I don't condone it. Ignoring facts isn't helpful for anyone.

Edit for ratelimiting:

> You think it's likely that the US will manage to create a stable enough government in Venezuela for foreign investment to be successful? What in the history of American regime change efforts gives you this idea?

No. I was simply saying the oil is useful in the military-industrial complex, and it does have value. I've said this twice already. I cannot say if this value will be realized, and for the third time, I don't condone it.

[ceejayoz]

> I was responding to that bit. It isn't accurate.

You think it's likely that the US will manage to create a stable enough government in Venezuela for foreign investment to be successful? What in the history of American regime change efforts gives you this idea?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/05/venezuelan-...

> The gamble is a long game, with no guarantee of success. Returning Venezuela’s crude production to 3m barrels of oil a day would require 16 years of work and investment totalling $185bn (£137bn), according to figures from Rystad Energy, a global consultancy.

> At least $30-35bn of international capital would need to be committed in the next two to three years to make this scenario plausible, Rystad said. “This could only be financed by international oil companies, which will consider investments in Venezuela only if they have full confidence in the stability of the country’s systems and its investment climate for international oil and gas players,” it added.

[telotortium]

I think Venezuela and Iran are more about restricting the oil to China in case of a conflict rather than providing energy for the US, although getting ahead of an anticipated demand increase from AI data centers is probably a contributing motivation.

[ceejayoz]

I don't think interdicting Venezuelan oil in a US/China conflict would be too much of a challenge for the US, given... geography. It certainly doesn't require us to control the country or its oil industry.

[bryanlarsen]

> That entire talk didn't once mention the phrase "energy density" which is the real reason we rely so heavily on hydrocarbons.

For planes. For no other major use of hydrocarbons is it the primary concern.

[jandrese]

Transatlantic shipping also. Planes require highly refined fuel though, while ships can burn most anything flammable, even really crappy biofuels. Hardly anything is worse than heavy fuel oil.

[bryanlarsen]

Different types of density. Transatlantic shipping cares primarily about volumetric density, air travel cares primarily about gravimetric density.

So we can both be correct since OP was not specific. :)

[Kye]

He has a whole video[0] on the difference between energy and electricity, so he understands it. Maybe there's some disconnect between the video and your interpretation.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOK5xkFijPc

[ryeats]

Arguably that's honestly worse since he knew and was disingenuous in order to push a perspective that isn't valid.

[iso1631]

He talks about transport and heating

That doesn't leave much left when you look at the energy flow once you remove domestic, commercial and transportation usage and replace it with electricity. A tiny amount left for plane s(and reducing per flight as planes get more efficent and battery planes start coming to market), and industrial gas usage.

https://www.energyvanguard.com/attachment/llnl-us-energy-flo...

[NoLinkToMe]

Yeah I watched this a week or so ago and had a similar issue.

I'm super optimistic about green energy and in favor of expanding it.

But also acutely aware it's barely putting a dent on energy use despite year-on-year record levels of capacity install (>90% of new capacity is green), which far exceeds expert expectations every single year. Non-renewables keep growing, forecasts and ambitions were cut by the Trump admin, and it is expected that the latest economic revolution's (AI) main bottleneck is going to be energy by the end of the year.

We have essentially blown past the paris accord thresholds (we've seen months of +1.5c temperature, which was the limit we envisioned in 2015) and despite renewables far exceeding expectations, they completely fell short of what is necessary pre-2023. Post-2023 you have Trump derailing renewables wherever he can and AI increasing demand even further.

It really looks pretty hopeless and frankly it's sad that there is no real conversation about this, which seems to be an existential question for the generation living in 2100 and beyond.

You're also now getting to the point that adding new capacity is increasing the amount of renewable energy that is being curtailed (i.e. thrown away), meaning while renewables get cheaper over time, the rate of things getting cheaper will slow down as renewables must be increasingly paired with storage investments (which are also getting cheaper but introduce additional cost).

For example, sunny Cyprus curtailed 13%, 29% and 49% (!!) of its solar generation in 2023 to 2025 respectively. Yes last year half of the solar power that was produced, was thrown away, because of a lack of demand-supply balancing. Cyprus is uniquely poorly positioned (high solar potential, small country with a single small timezone, no interconnectors to offload surplus to other countries, no storage facilities etc) but it's still a sign of things to come. Further generation will increasingly need to be paired with significant storage, or it's partially wasted.