We’ve been having a field day, nay, a field year calling out politicians and regulators for their energy decisions. yet it’s easy to criticise and not so easy to offer solutions. I’ll be sharing mine in a 10-point plan, seeing as these are trendy right now, next Friday. What are your suggestions?
The IPCC data is fine- it is the massive overhyped/uninformed überreaction to the data they publish that is causing the problem. The only thing “Code Red” is Guterres’ collectivism.
"Only when governments around the world stop listening only to the IPCC and start listening to opposing views will a balanced consensus on the way forward emerge."
Exactly. This is, in fact, the point I try to make with everything I write. Stop for blessed second and THINK whether you have all the facts and all the data or just the ones that suit you. Then hear the other facts and the other data.
A few preliminary thoughts. Both process and substance are important. Regarding process: a sensible starting point might be a series of public discussions re the critical importance of focusing on SHARED values, vision and mission (current and future generations), mediated by professional discussion facilitators with input by nonpartisan professionals with domain expertise.. Guiding principles:
"My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
Oops, inadvertently omitted the first sentence of that portion of JFK's inaugural address, namely: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
I beg to differ. Values reflect our priorities; shared values reflect our collective priorities. They serve a critical role in the process by informing the consideration of and choice among policy alternatives. Attempting to jump from problems directly to solutions, without informed discussion and consideration of what we are attempting to achieve (and why), the relevant constraints, the degrees of freedom available, etc. is a fool's errand.
Step 1). Invent a Time Machine Step 2) go back 300 years to the beginning of the industrial revolution and try to convince everyone alive back not to do what seems like a really good idea at the time. ie, build a society completely dependent on fossil fuels. (Sorry if this seems like I am being flippant or disrespectful- we have a predicament here, which can be defined as a problem without a solution).
Thanks Irina - and sorry (really!) if it doesn’t seem like I’m taking your 10 point challenge seriously. In seriousness, do you read Doomberg Substack- he had a recent post on geothermal that was convincing. I’m just in a frustrated and sarcastic mood today
Geothermal is a bit player and always will be. It is at a reliable baseload energy source. But its practicality limits it for geographically blessed areas like Iceland. Even Iceland top geothermal on Earth mostly uses it for low grade building heat & hot water and still gets 69% of their electricity from conventional hydro. And geothermal paradise Hawaii gets 62% of its electricity from expensive diesel generation, 27% wind and only 10% geothermal.
I wouldn't have any respect for them if they push Geothermal as a solution to our energy woes. There is no way that will be a significant replacement of fossil. Geothermal heat flows are ~10,000X lower than the solar heat flux and even that is just too diffuse to be practical.
People thinking you can pump up the vast amounts super-heated water needed from tens of thousands of feet below ground are snake oil salesmen. Only areas that have active volcanism are viable candidates for geothermal energy. And even in those areas it can't compete with nuclear or hydro for clean domestic electricity. Debatable that it can even compete with advanced nuclear for heat energy.
And you're quite right to. They do research what they write in depth. I am quite a fan of geothermal but it does appear to have its limitations (see Bloomberg article below). Yet no source of energy is ideal, to be fair, so the richer the mix, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
That's totally fine, please don't worry about it. Nobody said anything about being serious all the time. :) I do read Doomberg, yes, but I've missed the geothermal post. Thanks!
“Hi, I’m from the future and you all really should not do the thing that will make you wealthy and comfortable beyond your wildest dreams” - yeah that should be well received 😂
It was because of the discovery of the energy in coal that gave Great Britain the ability to ban slavery in the early 1800s and the U.S. in the mid-1800s.
The U.S. North defeated the U.S. Confederacy in the US Civil War because of that one reason. The U.S. North was far more prosperous with their depending on NON-HUMAN sources of energy for their industries and agriculture. The US Confederacy was still dependent upon HUMAN sources of energy - i.e., slavery - for their industries and agriculture.
And it was because of the discovery of the energy of oil that gave the Western countries the ability and opportunity turn away from slavery and therefore become incredibly prosperous.
Ah, yes, Peak Oil raises its ugly head once again.
What about Peak Lithium or Peak Cobalt (the minerals used in Battery Vehicle batteries).
The batteries in Battery Vehicles need replacement every few years at $10K - $30K each because they won't hold a charge anymore. So the demand for lithium, cobalt, and all the other minerals used in batteries will sky-rocket over time.
One of the critical minerals used in manufacturing the steel in EVs is ... drum roll ... coal.
Speaking of limited resources, did you know that some government jurisdictions are realizing that they don't have sufficient electricity infrastructure to support the charging of EVs as they replace ICE vehicles? They're having to delay their Stalinesque "5-Year Plans" to ban ICE vehicles.
They'll have to increase that infrastructure substantially to accommodate more and more EVs. Therefore the cost of electricity will rise substantially, thus putting more and more people in the cold and dark.
This is going to be nightmare. It'll make Prohibition look like kindergarten.
To the best of my knowledge and beliefs, current US administration has no vision of energy mapping and fundamentals. US policies often contradict one another. International oil market fully realize that there’s hardly any spare capacity left within OPEC and allies and still insists on raising output. This is a dangerous game and no one realizes it in the WH.
The WH is essentially guided by economists of two varieties: 1) keynesians, who magically think the market solves everything - and if we throw enough money at holes in the ground then surely oil will come pouring forth 2) MMTers - who sound like a rabid keynesian who overdosed on bath salts
Modern Monetary Theory- boiled down in short, they think we can print an infinite amount of currency out of thin air without any consequences - hence the “out of mind like a maniac on bath salts” quip. By the way, the Biden White House is full of MMTers
Certainly the Biden WH has broken things; however, MMT is more of a description of how things work, with a weakly defined "prescriptive" part. If the latter part is mismanaged, inflation is definitely helped to infinity and beyond (yes, stealing a phrase).
There are far better explanations than my own feeble attempt... I recommend the following MacroTourist substack links, although they might exist behind a paywall:
I am not hopeful that a sensible plan could be put in place yet. It will require a big shift in the zeitgeist.
For example I recently had an argument with a coworker regarding batteries. He believes that there will be new and improved batteries that will eventually make battery powered commercial flights possible.
These sorts of beliefs are common among the electorate
Unfortunately we only have one periodic table and the chemists know those stuff. For every reactant atom in a battery you have 12 to 20 non reactant atoms. This is why batteries have low energy densities which is not good for air travel.
Right now I'm guessing recession will correct the current short term crisis.
I agree, recession will sort us out, the hard way. And yes, we need a major shift in thinking, which I don't see happening any time soon.
Battery-powered flights sound so nice and easy... if you don't know anything about batteries. It is the same with a lot of things that we, the general public, don't know much about.
Longer range electric jet hybrids with either a fuel cell or turbine generator should be much more fuel efficient than a comparable jet or prop aircraft.
Aviation changes INCREDIBLY SLOWLY. I am working on my pilots license now and the engine still has a carburetor...
The only real use for the electric stuff will be for small trainers. It is just energy/power density. The lillium project is interesting, but it literally has several billion miles to go before it gets to where it needs to be.
Plus the world has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in equipment and facilities that use JetA. A drop in replacement made from nuke or geothermal powered carbon capture is a much more feasible solution for aviation.
My colleagues used to think I was a crank when I would talk about how poorly the energy transition was going in reality. Now they are starting to listen and I think they are starting to see they they have been sold something rotten. So the zeitgeist is changing...
Irina, you have made a strong case. My observations indicate that the primary goal of US is "full spectrum dominance" via force projection, which can happen only with the use of high-density fossil fuels for the armaments and bases. The way to go is to get private access to oil and resources in Russian Federation and use these resources to power the military to dominate Eurasia with the installation of bases all the way up to Beijing. NATO is an agency to acquire energy resources for force projection. However, this is Wilsonian doctrine (1917) followed by the current US administration and perhaps one of the reasons the Ukraine/Russia conflict is of primary importance to the US than anything else. This fossil-fuel power global dominance goal is in direct conflict with the climate change and renewable initiative, which are meant to fool starry-eyed electorate while transferring their tax dollars to fake wind/solar/battery projects and Wall Street companies. Any thoughts????
Well, Big Oil did its best to do just that in Yeltsin times but then Putin came and the party was pretty much over, or at least it was no longer a party. There may be some soreness about it in certain U.S. political circles, I suppose. I have a lot of thoughts on that dominance theory your observations point to and none of them are positive. Politicians who claim their country has national interests on the territory of other countries make me nervous and uneasy.
Sorry guys but the EU Commission President and genius Ursula von der Leyen knows way more than all of you put together. She's the same one who had a nice video lecturing EU citizens on the need to wash your hands thoroughly, scrub between your fingers and under your fingernails to stop the spread of Covid, an airborne virus. On the Energy supply catastrophe she said governments need to stay focused on “a massive investment in renewables”. “We have to make sure that we use this crisis to move forward and not to have a backsliding on the dirty fossil fuels".
The Malthusian Bankster cartel are the real architects of this disastrous World Energy Crisis. i.e.:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is THE RIGHT MAJOR CRISIS and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager & International Banker, Sept. 23, 1994
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will.
If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
from David Rockefeller’s autobiography ‘Memoirs’
"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation "
John Holdren Obama Science Czar & Rockefeller minion
Regarding the Ukraine - Russia war and its predictable effects and the self-defeating disastrous Western sanctions. There is an old saying: "All Wars are Banker Wars".
Step 2) Solar hot water - the simplest solar - simply a box on a roof with a glass top and pipes filled with liquid running thru the box - in sunshine, the liquid gets HOT - voila, hot water. Very efficient, very inexpensive, very simple to build. We will use very little of energy/wealth generated in step 0 here. The buildout is essentially placing enough of these solar boxes on rooftops so that all hot water is generated this way.
Step 3) solar photovoltaic- this has its place BUT photovoltaic (PV) is complicated with a 3000 mile supply chain and massive open pit mines where huge diesel powered earth movers that rip the earth to get at the necessary rare earth minerals. A lot of diesel energy and a lot of runoff pollution- not to mention the shipping to a multi million dollar cleanroom PV manufacturing plant. Oh, and rare earth minerals are well named - they are RARE. As in limits. Oh, and there’s decay - PV panels last about 30 years. And location matters: Arizona good, Seattle not so good.
Comment 1). Baseload power. Think “Constant”. Current baseload is coal-fired power plants, oil or gas fired power plants, nuclear fission power plants, hydro dams. I veto coal/oil/gas for pollution, wars, sustainability (finite). I veto nuclear fission for bio-toxic waste that take 100,000 years to decay, also accidents, terrorism. Also uranium is finite. I veto hydro because we now are in wild drought/flood swings (see lake Powell and lake Mead in the US). Hydro can no longer really be counted on as constant. Also spawning fish were here first. So I vote for geothermal. It’s eternal- we just have to get better at drilling.
Comment 2). I don’t like windmills-at least the modern ones. The are aptly described as “Cuisinarts in the sky”. At the base of each windmill is a sad pile of dead birds. We can do better
PS: commercially viable nuclear fusion seems to me to be a pipe dream. Massive and complicated engineering marvels that need to get temperatures that reach 100 million degrees Celsius for fusion to take place (sounds ridiculous yet?), contained by a massive magnetic field and are notoriously difficult to control (the story writes itself: Chapter 1: “oops”. Chapter 2: KABOOM!!! Chapter 3: There goes the continent)
We humans need to be better stewards of the only living planet in known existence. Part of being a good steward is rejecting anything with a massive downside. I know geothermal will be a lot of work, but we don’t have to burn anything- the furnace already exists below our feet, and Mother Nature will gladly let us tap it - since all the other alternatives are explosive or long-term poisonous to the living planet (or kill birds (windmills) or kill spawning fish (hydro dams). So essentially geothermal plus roof-top Solar hot-water is the basis of my multi point plan that has the advantage of getting us in harmony with the living planet- instead of consuming it.
Many, myself included, have made fun of the wokester greenies and their plans. Let me clarify: I think they are correct in identifying a huge problem; it’s their solution that is half-baked and childish. Shutting down fossil fuel extraction now and putting all our chips on solar PV and windmills and expecting to seamlessly continue running modern societies in all their complexity is magical thinking that will kill millions (billions). This transformation will take decades and cost a fortune. We need to pump MORE fossil fuels (nature’s wealth) to pay for it. This will take an international “Manhattan Project” level of planning- please, no magical thinking. Let’s get this right - the future of humanity and the future of the living planet depends on it!
I think it is essential that the message "It will not be fast" is communicated clearly and widely. Alarmism and urgency helps no one. Plus, some believe we are already past the point of fixing everything so we might as well focus on adapting rather than anything else. We're good at adaptation, as Brendan Long noted in our interview.
Number one point - Ask your EU leaders to establish peace, negotiate, listen to Henry Kissinger's WEF speech. This is the elephant in the room before we can focus on peace-time initiatives such as energy and so on. Americans here love drama (love war) as it does not happen here....EU should take care of its citizens.
Not much that can be done in the short term, but lots that can sort out the long term structural issues in the next 10 years.
1) Stop digging the hole deeper. Immediately end renewable subsidies so that only projects that are economically viable move forward. Use the money saved to invest in technology that is actually feasible by the laws of thermodynamics instead.
2) Start fracking everywhere. Even the EU has plenty of good sites that could start up in a 2-5 year time horizon.
3) Decriminalize nuclear power and allow the innovators in the space to prototype and advance quickly.
4) Build out advanced nuclear ships that are essentially floating hydrogen/ammonia refineries which can be used to power ships or turbines and used as fertilizer.
5) Heavily medicate all the greens and hook them up to the metaverse so they get out of the way and let us do these things to make their lives better and reduce emissions and pollution at the same time.
True to your username. :) The fifth point might not be necessary, if Facebook advertises the metaverse well enough. A lot of people will go willingly and that's quite sad, really.
A lot of interesting ideas here. Good discussion. No matter what we do, people need to eat and find a way to get to work each day until some of these ideas are ready for prime time. Why don’t we stop demonizing traditional energy sources, produce them as efficiently and cleanly as we can, as we look forward to the day these new ideas are ready to deploy.
1) REDUCE taxes for shale players if they reach certain levels of production
2) FORGET abt raising taxes for these companies
3) let the prices run. Nothing better than higher prices to cure high prices.
4) REDUCE taxes for those who save energy and/or TAX those who waste energy
These might give a temporary relief.
Today we are btw a rock and a hard place. There’s not enough clean energy neither enough fossil fuel. We have to save where it’s possible and incentivize fossil production (at least temporarily in the short run) because otherwise, prices will go even higher and many people will suffer more and more. Maybe that could help to soften the transition to clean.
Today, there’s no way back for fossil. There’s nothing that could be done to bring fossil back as society wants to continue heading towards clean energy. It’s hard to put money in a business that is abt to end in the future like fossil fuel and thus, prices naturally goes higher.
We sort of messed things up when decided to go clean when it’s not even close to being economically viable yet. We lost investments (and thus production) in fossil before what we expected.
Lets hope the transition finds its way quicker. Today, clean is not efficient. This video is very interesting. https://youtu.be/Jz75yScqPpQ
Good video and you will note at the end they admit the truth, that nuclear is far superior to either fossil or renewables and quite capable of replacing both, essentially forever. That's why the Overlords of Davos despise nuclear power so much. Nuclear energy = plentiful energy = the end of poverty and oppression. Energy security for EVERY nation on Earth. That just sends the Bankster Psychopath Parasites into a frenzy of rage. Can't be allowed.
Agree. Nuclear is a very good source of energy. Baseload source, zero ghg emission, high efficiency, short period of maintenance per year, small required volume of fuel (uranium) compared to other sources and so on. Unfortunately the world is not very keen to it due to the large disasters we had in the past. Today, the only place that is betting big is China. They are constructing lots of new reactors. We have two issues: 1) takes long time to construct new reactor (and money) and 2) society doesn’t like it. So, for now, it is hard to think that nuclear could become the solution to the crisis in the near term, unfortunately. Nuclear also faced other issues. Governments subsided renewables, making it very competitive and in an unregulated market (2/3 is unreg. in the US if I am not wrong), renewables dispatch before nuclear. Also, Fukushima disaster raised security standards, making it more expensive to produce nuclear energy. So, from 2011 on, the nuclear industry was destroyed. Supply chains were gone. Countries that wants to build new reactors (foak - first of a kind), face large costs because these reactors are tailored made. Lately, the world has been investing in small reactors, which might bring more safety and reduced costs via mass production. Bill Gates is also a big fan of nuclear. I hope some day nuclear could fill this energy gap. For now, I think we will have to rest on fossil. Either oil gas coal.. It looks more realistic..
By renewables you mean wind & solar. Which are not competitive. Not even close. To see what REAL WORLD wind & solar costs, look at:
There is a linear price relationship between wind/solar grid penetration and price of electricity by Ken Gregory, P.Eng, graph Euro/kwh by country 2019: Conclusion: European Wind Plus Solar Cost 6 Times Other Electrical Sources
Even if wind turbines and solar cells were free they would still be impractical sources of electricity except for odd niche applications like areas on diesel generation or off-grid homes. The cost of intermittency and seasonality is just plain extreme.
You've just bought into the deliberate fear porn and disinformation expounded by the Ruling Cult of Malthusian Davos creeps. Believe me if they removed the roadblocks that they deliberately have put in front of nuclear and stop financing a hundred or so rabidly anti-nuclear ENGO's to the tune of $billions/yr, nuclear would rapidly expand to pretty much overwhelm all other energy supplies. Just the energy content of the current World's stock of depleted uranium and spent nuclear fuel has a value of $2500 trillion @ an oil price of $100/bbl. Enough to supply total World energy for over 300yrs. Without the deliberate nuclear boycott we would have factories turning out high temperature, compact molten salt and liquid sodium reactors by the tens of thousands.
Nuclear: 0.04 (including Chernobyl = a military reactor, illegal for commercial nuclear power)
Fukushima zero deaths, TMI zero deaths, Chernobyl ~250 deaths (including long term cancer deaths). Vs 12 million deaths per year from fossil/biomass emissions. 100's of thousands in coal mining deaths. 200 thousand in one hydro dam failure. Germany has killed ~100,000 Europeans by shutting down its NPP's, that were replaced by the dirtiest lignite.
Irina, you are right, it's easy to criticise... when our leaders have proved so incompetent at managing energy. Some suggestions;
Exploite all easily accessible fossil fuels (FF) - shale gas for starters
Roll back all green subsidies (as far contractually possible) and immediately stop all future uncontracted ones
Cancel Net Zero targets
Actively discourage Evil Socialist Greed (ESG), perhaps going as far as to offer some incentive to invest in FF companies
Repeal the Climate Change Act
Confirm to oil and gas companies that long term investments will be safe
Limit Govt sponsored research into Climate Change
Start to educate the public on the benefits associated with fossil fuels and marginally more atmospheric CO2
Immediately cease any planned closures of coal fired power stations and look to bring back in service recently decommissioned plants - some labour education and training will be required as many staff have been lost.
The ideologues for all the technologies to work together. I don’t hold out any hope of that happening though.
At the moment the loudest voices are for shutting down anything to do with fossil fuels of any kind and building field upon field of “renewables”. Mind you, I don’t think any of those proponents understand what renewable means, nor that they would have to give up plastic clothing, cars, many household goods, cooking food etc etc.
OK EVs may turn out to be good, but not tomorrow.
Recognise that there is no silver bullet;
allow all the technologies to work together;
Do what we can do today and get the scientists working on what we can do next year, in 5 years, in 30 years.
Prioritise technologies on EROI, effect on the natural world, food production systems eg. land area used, land clearing or putting facilities on arable land should get negative marks.
It goes without saying that all this should include making electricity (and waste heat) via nuclear energy.
Also prioritise on the effects on national security / energy security (>90% of PV panels come from one supplier), In Australia all diesel on which our targets source of national income relies, come from outside, but we are the world’s 2cnd or third biggest supplier of U, but no nuclear power!!??
And so on.
So far, the only authorities capable of doing that seem to be autocratic ones like China or the Arab nations, where a plan that runs over a single term of democratic government is not a problem like it is in the US democrazy. (I’m Australian and our parliaments are elected for 3 year terms). So don’t hold your breath on getting anything done that will move us forward.
One more: pass a law that the grid has to be upgraded to handle the electricity BEFORE more windmills are erected. There are too many turbines that cannot be utilized in optimal wind conditions, but they keep on building more!
"How do we overcome the energy crisis?" - The best solutions always come from free and independent-minded individuals with no interference from governments or corporate-monopoly influence. Centralized planning is what got us in our situation. Centralized planning is a technocratic construct. I am a proponent of decentralized, more local independent actions without interference from governments.
Henry Ford had it right when he first came out with his cars. His vision was that the cars could run on alcohol and they were designed that way. There was no infrastructure of gas stations, but most of America was agriculturally based and homemade alcohol was prolific. At the time, kerosene for lamps was the Rockefeller stronghold - not gasoline. However, Rockefeller seized the opportunity by financing the protests which led to prohibition of alcohol. When alcohol was banned during the government's prohibition, then Rockefeller made gasoline the dominated fuel.
...and of course, Rockefeller along with other powerful and rich men also secretly planned (Nov 1910) how to control the U.S. money supply, and by 1913 their Federal Reserve Act was implemented by Congress.
Politicians need to back off theory a bit and state their goals.
Instead of pushing blindly for wind and solar as the solution, they should really start asking what they’re after.
They could list out things like reducing CO2 emissions as quick as possible, or energy independence, or lower economic impact, or more greenspace (wilderness). Then run these through industry experts and engineers and compare different solutions that exist today. Don’t leave anything out - nuclear, fracking, LNG, offshore wind, offshore oil.
They’ll probably be surprised by finding out how wasteful it is to convert NG to LNG and import from halfway across the globe, or import solar panels from China for a grid that’s not equipped to handle them. Maybe the could start to realize that nuclear power has very few drawbacks, or that fracking for NG can be done safely as a bridge solution, or that alternate solutions to EV’s, such as hybrid vehicles and hydrogen powered cars, can have some advantages.
I didn't expect all the negativity around nuclear power here, but there it is. If we are going to maintain the current population of the planet and have it possibly continue to grow (not that I am rooting for that but...), the future lies in moving toward more energy dense solutions, not more diffuse ones. The EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) for nuclear power is about 75 to 1. The next closest is hydro at about 35 to 1. Coal and gas plants are at about 30 to 1 and wind and solar are 4 or 5 to 1. As inputs become scarcer, a 75 to 1 return is far superior and sustainable compared to a 5 to 1 return.
Steam is all that is emitted from a nuclear fission plant, along with some radioactive, spent nuclear fuel rods which are stored in casks and monitored. The total amount of high level nuclear spent fuel in the U.S. after sixty years of production would fit on one football field stacked about thirty feet high. That's it. How big a problem is that really? And new nuclear technologies in development will be able to use these spent rods as fuel as they retain something like 70% of their energy generation potential.
Lets compare the carbon footprint per kilowatt hour generated. For coal it is 870 grams per kilowatt hour, gas is 464 grams, coal with carbon sequestration is 156 grams, solar panels produce 48 grams per kilowatt hour, wind produce 14 grams and nuclear just 12. This is considering the materials that go into producing the generating system and its operation.
Nuclear is without question the safest form of energy generation. Look at any study of deaths per terra-watt hour and nuclear is hands down the safest, even safer than wind and solar. Deaths per terr-watt hour from coal are 120, oil is 99.5, gas is 72, offshore wind is 8.5, onshore wind is 1.8, solar is- 0.2 and nuclear (including all deaths from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima) just 0.01. Hands down, not even comparable really, the safest form of electricity production that we have.
Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly. A solar array of similar generation capacity takes seventy-five times more land, a wind farm of similar capacity takes 360 times more land. Wind farms kill thousands of migratory birds annually. Commercial size solar arrays blanket desert floors and hillsides, robbing the use of that land area from the animals that might live there, desert tortoises for example. How environmentally friendly is that?
Nuclear has the highest capacity utilization factor by far at something like 94%, meaning that a 1 gigawatt plant can produce steadily at 94% of it's rated capacity - a.k.a. base load energy. These are the capacity utilization metrics for other forms of electricity production: natural gas - 57%, coal - 47%, hydro - 39%, wind - 35% and solar - 25%. Which means for example that if you want one gig of power to the grid from solar you need to install 4 gigs of generation capacity and then come up with some enormous kind of storage system. Now you are using WAY more land, 300x, and way more input materials. That solar array is going to last for maybe thirty years and have degraded performance in the second half. And then all those panels enter the waste stream and we dig up a bunch more minerals with diesel power, bake the silica at 2000 degrees Celsius in coal-fired furnaces several times in the manufacturing process, and start all over again. They are often called "replaceables" as opposed to renewable for that reason. A nuke plant can run for seventy-five years with regular maintenance.
I think all the negativity is misguided.
I am down for geothermal, but the technology isn't their yet. We have had fully operational nuclear for decades but it has suffered from lack of funding, scare-mongering and hyper regulation driving up costs. Had we invested the same amount into nuclear that we have into wind and solar over the last ten years we would have largely solved our carbon emission problem by now and could be looking at more ways to use electricity in the economy.
As for fuel consumption, cafe standards seem like a pretty simple way to reduce consumption that wouldn't require a complete rebuild of existing infrastructure, hugely mineral and carbon intensive. We had vehicles that could get 40 to 50 mpg fifty years ago.
The IPCC data is fine- it is the massive overhyped/uninformed überreaction to the data they publish that is causing the problem. The only thing “Code Red” is Guterres’ collectivism.
"Only when governments around the world stop listening only to the IPCC and start listening to opposing views will a balanced consensus on the way forward emerge."
Exactly. This is, in fact, the point I try to make with everything I write. Stop for blessed second and THINK whether you have all the facts and all the data or just the ones that suit you. Then hear the other facts and the other data.
A few preliminary thoughts. Both process and substance are important. Regarding process: a sensible starting point might be a series of public discussions re the critical importance of focusing on SHARED values, vision and mission (current and future generations), mediated by professional discussion facilitators with input by nonpartisan professionals with domain expertise.. Guiding principles:
"My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
Oops, inadvertently omitted the first sentence of that portion of JFK's inaugural address, namely: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Talking about the problems is always a good start. Talking about values to people who don't know how to pay their electricity bill might boomerang.
I beg to differ. Values reflect our priorities; shared values reflect our collective priorities. They serve a critical role in the process by informing the consideration of and choice among policy alternatives. Attempting to jump from problems directly to solutions, without informed discussion and consideration of what we are attempting to achieve (and why), the relevant constraints, the degrees of freedom available, etc. is a fool's errand.
Step 1). Invent a Time Machine Step 2) go back 300 years to the beginning of the industrial revolution and try to convince everyone alive back not to do what seems like a really good idea at the time. ie, build a society completely dependent on fossil fuels. (Sorry if this seems like I am being flippant or disrespectful- we have a predicament here, which can be defined as a problem without a solution).
If someone invents a time machine that someone will become very rich. And probably very dead very quickly.
Flippancy is allowed on Fridays. 😊
Thanks Irina - and sorry (really!) if it doesn’t seem like I’m taking your 10 point challenge seriously. In seriousness, do you read Doomberg Substack- he had a recent post on geothermal that was convincing. I’m just in a frustrated and sarcastic mood today
Doomberg Geothermal article: https://doomberg.substack.com/p/chasing-an-energy-moonshot?r=d61rc&utm_medium=ios
Geothermal is a bit player and always will be. It is at a reliable baseload energy source. But its practicality limits it for geographically blessed areas like Iceland. Even Iceland top geothermal on Earth mostly uses it for low grade building heat & hot water and still gets 69% of their electricity from conventional hydro. And geothermal paradise Hawaii gets 62% of its electricity from expensive diesel generation, 27% wind and only 10% geothermal.
I hear you - I’m on the fence - the Doomberg crew argue otherwise, and I have a lot of respect for them.
I wouldn't have any respect for them if they push Geothermal as a solution to our energy woes. There is no way that will be a significant replacement of fossil. Geothermal heat flows are ~10,000X lower than the solar heat flux and even that is just too diffuse to be practical.
People thinking you can pump up the vast amounts super-heated water needed from tens of thousands of feet below ground are snake oil salesmen. Only areas that have active volcanism are viable candidates for geothermal energy. And even in those areas it can't compete with nuclear or hydro for clean domestic electricity. Debatable that it can even compete with advanced nuclear for heat energy.
And you're quite right to. They do research what they write in depth. I am quite a fan of geothermal but it does appear to have its limitations (see Bloomberg article below). Yet no source of energy is ideal, to be fair, so the richer the mix, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-10/geothermal-powerhouse-iceland-struggles-with-lack-of-electricity
That's totally fine, please don't worry about it. Nobody said anything about being serious all the time. :) I do read Doomberg, yes, but I've missed the geothermal post. Thanks!
“Hi, I’m from the future and you all really should not do the thing that will make you wealthy and comfortable beyond your wildest dreams” - yeah that should be well received 😂
Malthus would be proud of you.
It was because of the discovery of the energy in coal that gave Great Britain the ability to ban slavery in the early 1800s and the U.S. in the mid-1800s.
The U.S. North defeated the U.S. Confederacy in the US Civil War because of that one reason. The U.S. North was far more prosperous with their depending on NON-HUMAN sources of energy for their industries and agriculture. The US Confederacy was still dependent upon HUMAN sources of energy - i.e., slavery - for their industries and agriculture.
And it was because of the discovery of the energy of oil that gave the Western countries the ability and opportunity turn away from slavery and therefore become incredibly prosperous.
I hear you - makes me wonder what happens as we really start to run low of fossil fuels (ie return of slavery and all its horrors)
Ah, yes, Peak Oil raises its ugly head once again.
What about Peak Lithium or Peak Cobalt (the minerals used in Battery Vehicle batteries).
The batteries in Battery Vehicles need replacement every few years at $10K - $30K each because they won't hold a charge anymore. So the demand for lithium, cobalt, and all the other minerals used in batteries will sky-rocket over time.
One of the critical minerals used in manufacturing the steel in EVs is ... drum roll ... coal.
Speaking of limited resources, did you know that some government jurisdictions are realizing that they don't have sufficient electricity infrastructure to support the charging of EVs as they replace ICE vehicles? They're having to delay their Stalinesque "5-Year Plans" to ban ICE vehicles.
They'll have to increase that infrastructure substantially to accommodate more and more EVs. Therefore the cost of electricity will rise substantially, thus putting more and more people in the cold and dark.
This is going to be nightmare. It'll make Prohibition look like kindergarten.
To the best of my knowledge and beliefs, current US administration has no vision of energy mapping and fundamentals. US policies often contradict one another. International oil market fully realize that there’s hardly any spare capacity left within OPEC and allies and still insists on raising output. This is a dangerous game and no one realizes it in the WH.
The WH is essentially guided by economists of two varieties: 1) keynesians, who magically think the market solves everything - and if we throw enough money at holes in the ground then surely oil will come pouring forth 2) MMTers - who sound like a rabid keynesian who overdosed on bath salts
What are MMTers?
Modern Monetary Theory- boiled down in short, they think we can print an infinite amount of currency out of thin air without any consequences - hence the “out of mind like a maniac on bath salts” quip. By the way, the Biden White House is full of MMTers
Fancy name for fancy money-printers, I see. Thanks!
Certainly the Biden WH has broken things; however, MMT is more of a description of how things work, with a weakly defined "prescriptive" part. If the latter part is mismanaged, inflation is definitely helped to infinity and beyond (yes, stealing a phrase).
There are far better explanations than my own feeble attempt... I recommend the following MacroTourist substack links, although they might exist behind a paywall:
https://posts.themacrotourist.com/p/practitioners-guide-to-mmt-part-1
https://posts.themacrotourist.com/p/practioners-guide-to-mmt-part-2
I am not hopeful that a sensible plan could be put in place yet. It will require a big shift in the zeitgeist.
For example I recently had an argument with a coworker regarding batteries. He believes that there will be new and improved batteries that will eventually make battery powered commercial flights possible.
These sorts of beliefs are common among the electorate
Unfortunately we only have one periodic table and the chemists know those stuff. For every reactant atom in a battery you have 12 to 20 non reactant atoms. This is why batteries have low energy densities which is not good for air travel.
Right now I'm guessing recession will correct the current short term crisis.
I agree, recession will sort us out, the hard way. And yes, we need a major shift in thinking, which I don't see happening any time soon.
Battery-powered flights sound so nice and easy... if you don't know anything about batteries. It is the same with a lot of things that we, the general public, don't know much about.
Batteries will work for short commuter flights, especially with VTOL. Check out the Lillium electric jet, Aircraft Development Update:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ73PftBfFg
Longer range electric jet hybrids with either a fuel cell or turbine generator should be much more fuel efficient than a comparable jet or prop aircraft.
Aviation changes INCREDIBLY SLOWLY. I am working on my pilots license now and the engine still has a carburetor...
The only real use for the electric stuff will be for small trainers. It is just energy/power density. The lillium project is interesting, but it literally has several billion miles to go before it gets to where it needs to be.
Plus the world has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in equipment and facilities that use JetA. A drop in replacement made from nuke or geothermal powered carbon capture is a much more feasible solution for aviation.
My colleagues used to think I was a crank when I would talk about how poorly the energy transition was going in reality. Now they are starting to listen and I think they are starting to see they they have been sold something rotten. So the zeitgeist is changing...
Irina, you have made a strong case. My observations indicate that the primary goal of US is "full spectrum dominance" via force projection, which can happen only with the use of high-density fossil fuels for the armaments and bases. The way to go is to get private access to oil and resources in Russian Federation and use these resources to power the military to dominate Eurasia with the installation of bases all the way up to Beijing. NATO is an agency to acquire energy resources for force projection. However, this is Wilsonian doctrine (1917) followed by the current US administration and perhaps one of the reasons the Ukraine/Russia conflict is of primary importance to the US than anything else. This fossil-fuel power global dominance goal is in direct conflict with the climate change and renewable initiative, which are meant to fool starry-eyed electorate while transferring their tax dollars to fake wind/solar/battery projects and Wall Street companies. Any thoughts????
Well, Big Oil did its best to do just that in Yeltsin times but then Putin came and the party was pretty much over, or at least it was no longer a party. There may be some soreness about it in certain U.S. political circles, I suppose. I have a lot of thoughts on that dominance theory your observations point to and none of them are positive. Politicians who claim their country has national interests on the territory of other countries make me nervous and uneasy.
Drill, baby, drill.
Yes, by the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) that is true.
Sorry guys but the EU Commission President and genius Ursula von der Leyen knows way more than all of you put together. She's the same one who had a nice video lecturing EU citizens on the need to wash your hands thoroughly, scrub between your fingers and under your fingernails to stop the spread of Covid, an airborne virus. On the Energy supply catastrophe she said governments need to stay focused on “a massive investment in renewables”. “We have to make sure that we use this crisis to move forward and not to have a backsliding on the dirty fossil fuels".
Mine is shorter...
Get rid of the WEF and defund the UN.
That would solve a truckload of global energy problems.
The Malthusian Bankster cartel are the real architects of this disastrous World Energy Crisis. i.e.:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is THE RIGHT MAJOR CRISIS and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager & International Banker, Sept. 23, 1994
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will.
If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
from David Rockefeller’s autobiography ‘Memoirs’
"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation "
John Holdren Obama Science Czar & Rockefeller minion
Regarding the Ukraine - Russia war and its predictable effects and the self-defeating disastrous Western sanctions. There is an old saying: "All Wars are Banker Wars".
The solution has been clear for decades. But, it does not fit the globalist narrative.
Irina, in all seriousness, here is my multi point plan:
Step 0) pump MORE oil&gas, lots more, with the excess designated for the steps/buildouts below:
Step 1) baseload power (see far below for comment about baseload power) my proposal is Geothermal.
We will use a lot of the excess energy (wealth) generated from step 0 to buildout the geothermal baseload power network
For a good article on geothermal, please see the Doomberg piece: https://doomberg.substack.com/p/chasing-an-energy-moonshot?r=d61rc&utm_medium=ios
Step 2) Solar hot water - the simplest solar - simply a box on a roof with a glass top and pipes filled with liquid running thru the box - in sunshine, the liquid gets HOT - voila, hot water. Very efficient, very inexpensive, very simple to build. We will use very little of energy/wealth generated in step 0 here. The buildout is essentially placing enough of these solar boxes on rooftops so that all hot water is generated this way.
Step 3) solar photovoltaic- this has its place BUT photovoltaic (PV) is complicated with a 3000 mile supply chain and massive open pit mines where huge diesel powered earth movers that rip the earth to get at the necessary rare earth minerals. A lot of diesel energy and a lot of runoff pollution- not to mention the shipping to a multi million dollar cleanroom PV manufacturing plant. Oh, and rare earth minerals are well named - they are RARE. As in limits. Oh, and there’s decay - PV panels last about 30 years. And location matters: Arizona good, Seattle not so good.
Comment 1). Baseload power. Think “Constant”. Current baseload is coal-fired power plants, oil or gas fired power plants, nuclear fission power plants, hydro dams. I veto coal/oil/gas for pollution, wars, sustainability (finite). I veto nuclear fission for bio-toxic waste that take 100,000 years to decay, also accidents, terrorism. Also uranium is finite. I veto hydro because we now are in wild drought/flood swings (see lake Powell and lake Mead in the US). Hydro can no longer really be counted on as constant. Also spawning fish were here first. So I vote for geothermal. It’s eternal- we just have to get better at drilling.
Comment 2). I don’t like windmills-at least the modern ones. The are aptly described as “Cuisinarts in the sky”. At the base of each windmill is a sad pile of dead birds. We can do better
Some maybes: tidal?
PS: commercially viable nuclear fusion seems to me to be a pipe dream. Massive and complicated engineering marvels that need to get temperatures that reach 100 million degrees Celsius for fusion to take place (sounds ridiculous yet?), contained by a massive magnetic field and are notoriously difficult to control (the story writes itself: Chapter 1: “oops”. Chapter 2: KABOOM!!! Chapter 3: There goes the continent)
Part 2, Chapter 1: Once upon a time there used to be a planet...
We humans need to be better stewards of the only living planet in known existence. Part of being a good steward is rejecting anything with a massive downside. I know geothermal will be a lot of work, but we don’t have to burn anything- the furnace already exists below our feet, and Mother Nature will gladly let us tap it - since all the other alternatives are explosive or long-term poisonous to the living planet (or kill birds (windmills) or kill spawning fish (hydro dams). So essentially geothermal plus roof-top Solar hot-water is the basis of my multi point plan that has the advantage of getting us in harmony with the living planet- instead of consuming it.
Many, myself included, have made fun of the wokester greenies and their plans. Let me clarify: I think they are correct in identifying a huge problem; it’s their solution that is half-baked and childish. Shutting down fossil fuel extraction now and putting all our chips on solar PV and windmills and expecting to seamlessly continue running modern societies in all their complexity is magical thinking that will kill millions (billions). This transformation will take decades and cost a fortune. We need to pump MORE fossil fuels (nature’s wealth) to pay for it. This will take an international “Manhattan Project” level of planning- please, no magical thinking. Let’s get this right - the future of humanity and the future of the living planet depends on it!
I think it is essential that the message "It will not be fast" is communicated clearly and widely. Alarmism and urgency helps no one. Plus, some believe we are already past the point of fixing everything so we might as well focus on adapting rather than anything else. We're good at adaptation, as Brendan Long noted in our interview.
Number one point - Ask your EU leaders to establish peace, negotiate, listen to Henry Kissinger's WEF speech. This is the elephant in the room before we can focus on peace-time initiatives such as energy and so on. Americans here love drama (love war) as it does not happen here....EU should take care of its citizens.
Not much that can be done in the short term, but lots that can sort out the long term structural issues in the next 10 years.
1) Stop digging the hole deeper. Immediately end renewable subsidies so that only projects that are economically viable move forward. Use the money saved to invest in technology that is actually feasible by the laws of thermodynamics instead.
2) Start fracking everywhere. Even the EU has plenty of good sites that could start up in a 2-5 year time horizon.
3) Decriminalize nuclear power and allow the innovators in the space to prototype and advance quickly.
4) Build out advanced nuclear ships that are essentially floating hydrogen/ammonia refineries which can be used to power ships or turbines and used as fertilizer.
https://www.lucidcatalyst.com/hydrogen-report
5) Heavily medicate all the greens and hook them up to the metaverse so they get out of the way and let us do these things to make their lives better and reduce emissions and pollution at the same time.
True to your username. :) The fifth point might not be necessary, if Facebook advertises the metaverse well enough. A lot of people will go willingly and that's quite sad, really.
It was Friday after all, so I had to put something silly in the proposal...
A lot of interesting ideas here. Good discussion. No matter what we do, people need to eat and find a way to get to work each day until some of these ideas are ready for prime time. Why don’t we stop demonizing traditional energy sources, produce them as efficiently and cleanly as we can, as we look forward to the day these new ideas are ready to deploy.
Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. And simple. I like simple things.
Hi. Let me put some thoughts.
1) REDUCE taxes for shale players if they reach certain levels of production
2) FORGET abt raising taxes for these companies
3) let the prices run. Nothing better than higher prices to cure high prices.
4) REDUCE taxes for those who save energy and/or TAX those who waste energy
These might give a temporary relief.
Today we are btw a rock and a hard place. There’s not enough clean energy neither enough fossil fuel. We have to save where it’s possible and incentivize fossil production (at least temporarily in the short run) because otherwise, prices will go even higher and many people will suffer more and more. Maybe that could help to soften the transition to clean.
Today, there’s no way back for fossil. There’s nothing that could be done to bring fossil back as society wants to continue heading towards clean energy. It’s hard to put money in a business that is abt to end in the future like fossil fuel and thus, prices naturally goes higher.
We sort of messed things up when decided to go clean when it’s not even close to being economically viable yet. We lost investments (and thus production) in fossil before what we expected.
Lets hope the transition finds its way quicker. Today, clean is not efficient. This video is very interesting. https://youtu.be/Jz75yScqPpQ
Good luck for everyone
Good video and you will note at the end they admit the truth, that nuclear is far superior to either fossil or renewables and quite capable of replacing both, essentially forever. That's why the Overlords of Davos despise nuclear power so much. Nuclear energy = plentiful energy = the end of poverty and oppression. Energy security for EVERY nation on Earth. That just sends the Bankster Psychopath Parasites into a frenzy of rage. Can't be allowed.
Agree. Nuclear is a very good source of energy. Baseload source, zero ghg emission, high efficiency, short period of maintenance per year, small required volume of fuel (uranium) compared to other sources and so on. Unfortunately the world is not very keen to it due to the large disasters we had in the past. Today, the only place that is betting big is China. They are constructing lots of new reactors. We have two issues: 1) takes long time to construct new reactor (and money) and 2) society doesn’t like it. So, for now, it is hard to think that nuclear could become the solution to the crisis in the near term, unfortunately. Nuclear also faced other issues. Governments subsided renewables, making it very competitive and in an unregulated market (2/3 is unreg. in the US if I am not wrong), renewables dispatch before nuclear. Also, Fukushima disaster raised security standards, making it more expensive to produce nuclear energy. So, from 2011 on, the nuclear industry was destroyed. Supply chains were gone. Countries that wants to build new reactors (foak - first of a kind), face large costs because these reactors are tailored made. Lately, the world has been investing in small reactors, which might bring more safety and reduced costs via mass production. Bill Gates is also a big fan of nuclear. I hope some day nuclear could fill this energy gap. For now, I think we will have to rest on fossil. Either oil gas coal.. It looks more realistic..
By renewables you mean wind & solar. Which are not competitive. Not even close. To see what REAL WORLD wind & solar costs, look at:
There is a linear price relationship between wind/solar grid penetration and price of electricity by Ken Gregory, P.Eng, graph Euro/kwh by country 2019: Conclusion: European Wind Plus Solar Cost 6 Times Other Electrical Sources
friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=2550
Even if wind turbines and solar cells were free they would still be impractical sources of electricity except for odd niche applications like areas on diesel generation or off-grid homes. The cost of intermittency and seasonality is just plain extreme.
You've just bought into the deliberate fear porn and disinformation expounded by the Ruling Cult of Malthusian Davos creeps. Believe me if they removed the roadblocks that they deliberately have put in front of nuclear and stop financing a hundred or so rabidly anti-nuclear ENGO's to the tune of $billions/yr, nuclear would rapidly expand to pretty much overwhelm all other energy supplies. Just the energy content of the current World's stock of depleted uranium and spent nuclear fuel has a value of $2500 trillion @ an oil price of $100/bbl. Enough to supply total World energy for over 300yrs. Without the deliberate nuclear boycott we would have factories turning out high temperature, compact molten salt and liquid sodium reactors by the tens of thousands.
Like these:
https://www.elysiumindustries.com/
https://thorconpower.com/
https://www.moltexenergy.com/
https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/molten-chloride-fast-reactor-technology/
https://natriumpower.com/
https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/technology/advantage/
Deaths per TWh:
Coal: 161
Oil: 36
Biomass: 12
NG: 4
Hydro: 1.4
Wind: 0.15
Nuclear: 0.04 (including Chernobyl = a military reactor, illegal for commercial nuclear power)
Fukushima zero deaths, TMI zero deaths, Chernobyl ~250 deaths (including long term cancer deaths). Vs 12 million deaths per year from fossil/biomass emissions. 100's of thousands in coal mining deaths. 200 thousand in one hydro dam failure. Germany has killed ~100,000 Europeans by shutting down its NPP's, that were replaced by the dirtiest lignite.
https://environmentalprogress.org/complete-case-for-nuclear
https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear
Irina, you are right, it's easy to criticise... when our leaders have proved so incompetent at managing energy. Some suggestions;
Exploite all easily accessible fossil fuels (FF) - shale gas for starters
Roll back all green subsidies (as far contractually possible) and immediately stop all future uncontracted ones
Cancel Net Zero targets
Actively discourage Evil Socialist Greed (ESG), perhaps going as far as to offer some incentive to invest in FF companies
Repeal the Climate Change Act
Confirm to oil and gas companies that long term investments will be safe
Limit Govt sponsored research into Climate Change
Start to educate the public on the benefits associated with fossil fuels and marginally more atmospheric CO2
Immediately cease any planned closures of coal fired power stations and look to bring back in service recently decommissioned plants - some labour education and training will be required as many staff have been lost.
Roll our more nuclear - probably SMR
Education is part of my plan, too.
The ideologues for all the technologies to work together. I don’t hold out any hope of that happening though.
At the moment the loudest voices are for shutting down anything to do with fossil fuels of any kind and building field upon field of “renewables”. Mind you, I don’t think any of those proponents understand what renewable means, nor that they would have to give up plastic clothing, cars, many household goods, cooking food etc etc.
OK EVs may turn out to be good, but not tomorrow.
Recognise that there is no silver bullet;
allow all the technologies to work together;
Do what we can do today and get the scientists working on what we can do next year, in 5 years, in 30 years.
Prioritise technologies on EROI, effect on the natural world, food production systems eg. land area used, land clearing or putting facilities on arable land should get negative marks.
It goes without saying that all this should include making electricity (and waste heat) via nuclear energy.
Also prioritise on the effects on national security / energy security (>90% of PV panels come from one supplier), In Australia all diesel on which our targets source of national income relies, come from outside, but we are the world’s 2cnd or third biggest supplier of U, but no nuclear power!!??
And so on.
So far, the only authorities capable of doing that seem to be autocratic ones like China or the Arab nations, where a plan that runs over a single term of democratic government is not a problem like it is in the US democrazy. (I’m Australian and our parliaments are elected for 3 year terms). So don’t hold your breath on getting anything done that will move us forward.
One more: pass a law that the grid has to be upgraded to handle the electricity BEFORE more windmills are erected. There are too many turbines that cannot be utilized in optimal wind conditions, but they keep on building more!
"How do we overcome the energy crisis?" - The best solutions always come from free and independent-minded individuals with no interference from governments or corporate-monopoly influence. Centralized planning is what got us in our situation. Centralized planning is a technocratic construct. I am a proponent of decentralized, more local independent actions without interference from governments.
Henry Ford had it right when he first came out with his cars. His vision was that the cars could run on alcohol and they were designed that way. There was no infrastructure of gas stations, but most of America was agriculturally based and homemade alcohol was prolific. At the time, kerosene for lamps was the Rockefeller stronghold - not gasoline. However, Rockefeller seized the opportunity by financing the protests which led to prohibition of alcohol. When alcohol was banned during the government's prohibition, then Rockefeller made gasoline the dominated fuel.
...and of course, Rockefeller along with other powerful and rich men also secretly planned (Nov 1910) how to control the U.S. money supply, and by 1913 their Federal Reserve Act was implemented by Congress.
Centralized dictated planning is not a solution…
5 Minute profound VIDEO - “Economics in One Image” - https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/economics-in-one-image:5
(see shownotes below video)
Yes, it is a tragedy and I think Eurasian land mass is the last frontier!
Politicians need to back off theory a bit and state their goals.
Instead of pushing blindly for wind and solar as the solution, they should really start asking what they’re after.
They could list out things like reducing CO2 emissions as quick as possible, or energy independence, or lower economic impact, or more greenspace (wilderness). Then run these through industry experts and engineers and compare different solutions that exist today. Don’t leave anything out - nuclear, fracking, LNG, offshore wind, offshore oil.
They’ll probably be surprised by finding out how wasteful it is to convert NG to LNG and import from halfway across the globe, or import solar panels from China for a grid that’s not equipped to handle them. Maybe the could start to realize that nuclear power has very few drawbacks, or that fracking for NG can be done safely as a bridge solution, or that alternate solutions to EV’s, such as hybrid vehicles and hydrogen powered cars, can have some advantages.
Wishful thinking, I know…
It's not that hard to do, either.
I didn't expect all the negativity around nuclear power here, but there it is. If we are going to maintain the current population of the planet and have it possibly continue to grow (not that I am rooting for that but...), the future lies in moving toward more energy dense solutions, not more diffuse ones. The EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) for nuclear power is about 75 to 1. The next closest is hydro at about 35 to 1. Coal and gas plants are at about 30 to 1 and wind and solar are 4 or 5 to 1. As inputs become scarcer, a 75 to 1 return is far superior and sustainable compared to a 5 to 1 return.
Steam is all that is emitted from a nuclear fission plant, along with some radioactive, spent nuclear fuel rods which are stored in casks and monitored. The total amount of high level nuclear spent fuel in the U.S. after sixty years of production would fit on one football field stacked about thirty feet high. That's it. How big a problem is that really? And new nuclear technologies in development will be able to use these spent rods as fuel as they retain something like 70% of their energy generation potential.
Lets compare the carbon footprint per kilowatt hour generated. For coal it is 870 grams per kilowatt hour, gas is 464 grams, coal with carbon sequestration is 156 grams, solar panels produce 48 grams per kilowatt hour, wind produce 14 grams and nuclear just 12. This is considering the materials that go into producing the generating system and its operation.
Nuclear is without question the safest form of energy generation. Look at any study of deaths per terra-watt hour and nuclear is hands down the safest, even safer than wind and solar. Deaths per terr-watt hour from coal are 120, oil is 99.5, gas is 72, offshore wind is 8.5, onshore wind is 1.8, solar is- 0.2 and nuclear (including all deaths from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima) just 0.01. Hands down, not even comparable really, the safest form of electricity production that we have.
Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly. A solar array of similar generation capacity takes seventy-five times more land, a wind farm of similar capacity takes 360 times more land. Wind farms kill thousands of migratory birds annually. Commercial size solar arrays blanket desert floors and hillsides, robbing the use of that land area from the animals that might live there, desert tortoises for example. How environmentally friendly is that?
Nuclear has the highest capacity utilization factor by far at something like 94%, meaning that a 1 gigawatt plant can produce steadily at 94% of it's rated capacity - a.k.a. base load energy. These are the capacity utilization metrics for other forms of electricity production: natural gas - 57%, coal - 47%, hydro - 39%, wind - 35% and solar - 25%. Which means for example that if you want one gig of power to the grid from solar you need to install 4 gigs of generation capacity and then come up with some enormous kind of storage system. Now you are using WAY more land, 300x, and way more input materials. That solar array is going to last for maybe thirty years and have degraded performance in the second half. And then all those panels enter the waste stream and we dig up a bunch more minerals with diesel power, bake the silica at 2000 degrees Celsius in coal-fired furnaces several times in the manufacturing process, and start all over again. They are often called "replaceables" as opposed to renewable for that reason. A nuke plant can run for seventy-five years with regular maintenance.
I think all the negativity is misguided.
I am down for geothermal, but the technology isn't their yet. We have had fully operational nuclear for decades but it has suffered from lack of funding, scare-mongering and hyper regulation driving up costs. Had we invested the same amount into nuclear that we have into wind and solar over the last ten years we would have largely solved our carbon emission problem by now and could be looking at more ways to use electricity in the economy.
As for fuel consumption, cafe standards seem like a pretty simple way to reduce consumption that wouldn't require a complete rebuild of existing infrastructure, hugely mineral and carbon intensive. We had vehicles that could get 40 to 50 mpg fifty years ago.