I listened to the Podcasts by Monsta with Gail Tverberg and RE.
I just heard both parts. It is refreshing that she knows that nuclear doesn't have much future in the USA but that , "well people will just have to live with higher cancer rates near used fuel rod assembly storage sites" seems a bit calloused. This is the same person that moments later says you have to be "careful" with renewables because making them on a large scale is extremely polluting.

Apparently she considers the status quo energy wise acceptable. I don't agree.
Gail's "wisdom":
1) Renewables are not a game changer.
2) Fossil fuels will ALWAYS be the MAIN ENERGY SOURCE.
3) Pollution from fossil fuels and nuclear is ACCEPTABLE.
4) Pollution from making Renewables is NOT acceptable (rare earths BAD, several billion ICEs from mining to refining to smelting to manufacturing GOOD

).
5) Pollution from Coal is part of the status quo and we are going to use MORE coal as natural gas prices rise (It's all about price, not pollution

).
6) Energy from local resources is nice but the BIG, LARGE, CENTRALIZED POWER GRID WILL ALWAYS REQUIRE FOSSIL FUELS.


At any rate, I salute Monsta and RE for interviewing her. She sounded friendly, self assured and honest.
I do agree with her take on the financial debt triggers that exacerbate the energy situation.
I disagree with most of what she said about renewables and fossil fuels.
I find it illogical that she voices concerns about pollution generated to create renewables infrastructure and is silent about the pollution NOW BEING GENERATED to manufacture and service BILLIONS of internal combustion engines. An objective person would do an apples to apples comparison.
With this in mind I asked myself the follwing question, "How much energy is used to manufacture the ICE in the USA? Is it more or less than is required for an equivalent amount of electric motors/generators to run an equivalent amount of cars?
It HAS to be much less for renewables because:
A) Electric motors are about 1/5 as big as an ICE for the same amount of power (less metal to mine).
B) The ICE metals must, unlike wind generators and electric motors, be high temperature alloys as well (require higher temperatures to make).
After both types of motors hit the road, the fact that electric motors are 70% efficient and the ICE is only 18 to 20% efficient would result in a 20 or 30% energy use REDUCTION for the SAME amount of EVs on the road as ICEs now.
Still pondering these thoughts, I decided to check the weight, horsepower and equivalent kW EV of a few popular cars.
2013 Model Year:
362 hp (270 kW) Tesla base Model S 4,647 lbs.
300 hp BMW 535i xDrive Sedan 4,233 lbs.
110 hp (80 kW) Nissan Leaf 3,291 lbs.
175 hp Ford fusion S 4dr Front-wheel Drive Sedan 3,427 lbs.Is it realistic to imagine a world of Model S and Leaf cars instead of BMW 535i and Ford Fusion ICE cars?The following data is a bit dated (1996-2000) but it is accurate and useful for energy comparisons.
Energy used in manufacturing the Internal Combustion Engine versus Renewables.
The energy intensity involved in internal combustion engines production is comparable in energy intensity to the motor vehicle parts and accessories industry.
This industry is comprised 294 establishments and 250 companies according to the 1996 Census.
54% of manufacturers employ less than 20 people.
26.5% of the total employ 100 or more employees.
− Average employment is 198 people per establishment.
− Median employment is 17 people per establishment.
Market power is very concentrated within the top level of this oligopoly, despite the large
numbers of small companies.
In 1996 the segment,
Purchased 2,292 million kWh of electricity ( 2.292 TWh) at cost of $93.4 million. In the same year, the cost of purchased fuels was $28.8 million (equivalent to 0.707 TWh).
2.292 + 0.707 = 2.998 TWh (Since it can be assumed that, 4 years later a bit more electricity was used, I have rounded off to 3 TWh for the year 2000).
Averaged 0.31kWh per dollar of value added. This is about the same as that calculated for
the fabricated metal industry (0.33kWh/$VA).
http://www.energy.ca.gov/process/pubs/sic3519_internalcombeng.pdfTotal electrical energy consumption USA in the year 2000:
Purchased 3,365,000 million kWh of electricity ( 3,365 TWh).
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=81 SO, of the 3,365 TWh of electricity consumed in the year 2000, about 3 TWh was consumed to manufacture Internal Combustion Engines (ICE). Since the servicing industry is COMPARABLE to the manufacturing industry of the ICE, a total of approximately 6 TWh is used for ICE manufacturing and servicing industry energy expenditure.
That is about 2/10 of 1% of all electricity consumed just to manufacture and provide replacement parts for the ICE.
It may not seem like a lot but 6 TERAWATT hours is 6 BILLION Kilowatt hours. Is this figured in Professor Hall's EROEI for GASOLINE? NOPE!
But why should it, you might ask? Because gasoline is rather USELESS if you don't burn it in an ICE!

Has Gail Tverberg considered the pollution from 6 TWh of fossil fuel utility power plant electricity when she compares the manufacture of ELECTRIC MOTORS/GENERATORS with the ICE? I don't know. I've never heard her say anything about it. And as to Gail's concern about RARE EARTH MAGNETS, they have several applications UNRELATED to WIND GENERATORS. Is she concerned about them too in regard to "pollution from mining and producing" them?
Here's the list from Wikipeda:
computer hard drives
wind turbine generators
audio speakers / headphones
bicycle dynamos
fishing reel brakes
permanent magnet motors in cordless tools
high-performance AC servo motors
traction motors and integrated starter-generators in hybrid and electric vehicles
self-powered flashlights, employing rare earth magnets for generating electricity in a shaking motion
industrial uses such as maintaining product purity, equipment protection, and quality control
Linear motors (used in Mag-lev trains, etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_magnet In summary, there is NO VALID REASON, based on excess pollution and/or energy required to manufacture and service renewables, to AVOID replacing the ICE infrastructure because the ICE infrastructure uses MORE energy and puts out MORE pollution for the SAME amount of ENERGY RETURN.
So if an EQUIVALENT sized EV transportation system requires about 50-60% LESS energy to manufacture AND run than the fossil fuel based transportation system, WHY HAVEN'T WE SWITCHED TO IT?
Because vested interests don't want us too. The propaganda and foot dragging is quite imaginative out there.
But when the apples to apples comparison is done, fossil fuels and the ICE mobile pollution spewing pig is more costly BOTH in terms of pollution AND energy to manufacture and maintain. Big Oil DOES NOT want YOU to know that.

And all this happens before EITHER the electric motor or the ICE leave the manufacturing plant! Next you've got an electric motor that is 70% efficient compared with an ICE that is 20% efficient.
Furthermore, the ICE CANNOT utilize BRAKING energy to recapture some of the energy expended during acceleration; the electric motor, because it is a GENERATOR as well, recaptures electricity during braking for more range and SIMULTANEOUSLY extends the life of the disk brakes.
Which leaves us with the "battery or gasoline as energy storage" issue.Which has more range and which is safer? Most ICE cars have more range now but the trade off is explosive gasoline tanks in a crash and air pollution. In addition, it's dangerous to have a large store of gasoline at your home for your ICE so you HAVE TO drive hundreds of miles a year just to get gasoline.
An EV can basically get electricity to recharge ANYWHERE there is an electrical outlet. Furthermore, battery manufacture and maintenece is NOT as horribly polluting as the refining, distribution and burning of gasoline.
What about crashes with a giant battery pack on board. Isn't that dangerous?

NOPE!
In December 2011, Nissan reported, as an indication of the Leaf safety performance, that none of the around two dozen Leafs that were destroyed during the March 2011 tsunami caught fire and their batteries remained intact.[101] As of December 2011, no fires after a crash have been reported in the U.S. associated with the Leaf or other plug-in electric cars available in the market.[102]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_LeafSo, even though I respect her credentials, I am convinced that Gail Tverberg is biased in favor of fossil fuels and against renewables simply because she hasn't done an objective comparison of the two.
If she had NO CREDENTIALS, then I would chalk it up to ignorance. Sorry, she is NOT ignorant. She is an intelligent energy expert and an actuary; she is quite conscious and aware of what she is saying and why she is saying it.
The ICE infrastructure is FAR more polluting and energy intensive than an equivalent renewable energy infrastructure would be. The energy expended each and every year to manufacture ICEs is there for everyone to see but TOTALLY IGNORED by those, like Gail, that claim that manufacturing renewables is "too energy intensive and polluting".
And as to Renewables not being able to "self propagate" because they allegedly require a fossil fuel infrastructure, I say that statement is downright embarrasing for an energy expert. Energy is ENERGY! It doesn't have a "name tag" on it that says it will "work" this way but not that way.
Gail knows darned good and well the USA CAN produce its 3 or 4 thousand TWh of annual electricity from renewables IF the infrastructure gets built. And several million EVs would FLATTEN the energy use to avoid costly spikes because the EVs would be either charging or functioning as storage at night for excess wind energy. Not to mention their availability as emergency POLLUTION FREE power plants after a power outage from a strong storm.
Where was she when nuclear power plants were being built to claim they would be too polluting?
Where is she TODAY when she talks easily about building a REFINERY (for God's sake!) in North Dakota if there is enough oil there? Oh, but she's there to warn us to be "careful" about the pollution from rare earth magnets used to build wind generators.

My conclusion is that Gail DOES NOT want the bread and butter of The Oil Drum people to VANISH because of the overwhelming superiority of clean renewable energy and low temperature operating electric motors and generators all over the planet. She's fighting for HER TEAM. She is NOT an objective party and has a VESTED INTEREST in defending fossil fuels.
If she claims otherwise, have her show her ENTIRE STOCK PORTFOLIO and IRA and all sources of income. If she refuses to do so, then you KNOW where she stands. Have a nice day.
Full disclosure. I have ZERO stocks of ANY kind and I'm retired FAA. I don't get a nickel from any Renewable energy company to write this or any fringe benefit or whatever. NOTHING - ZIP!
MY TEAM is the BIOSPHERE! I wish more energy experts would join it. 
