Brilliant analysis. My estimate for the UK energy transition is c£5trillion (range £3 - £12Tr). It is completely unaffordable, provides no climatic benefit whatsoever, will make us all poorer overall, will make energy massively more expensive (just look what happen between Sept 22 and Feb 23 before the invasion of Ukraine), give us less energy resilience and create more social disorder.
I often ask proponents of the transition roughly how many people (engineers and construction operatives) do they think it will take to deliver the transition. No one has given me anything like a reasonable answer.
This is pure hatred of Capitalism by the Environmental Cabal who drive this agenda. There are millions of Useful Idiots who think they are doing the right thing and the Cabal loves taking them for a ride. I also ask where is the example/trial of a net zero town/city/state/country and what does it look like? Again no answers. Look up El Herrio - they failed and dropped the tag line.
I agree the environmentalists went on a moral crusade to save the planet while taking for granted the prosperity they had enjoyed all their lives. They did not recognize how vital energy is to every aspect of their lifestyles. Now, suddenly, faced with energy shocks in both price and availability, we are learning. Germany is going back to coal. People are again talking nuclear. Maybe the planet can wait if we have to face being poor and cold! I think we should adapt with grace to being a bit more poor and cold for a while. Population will reduce hugely this decade, if only from natural demographic attrition--the boomers bowing out, but also from major global disruptions which end up meaning famine, sad to say. We are right now in temporary overshoot. That is going away this decade, so be patient, preserve knowledge, hang on as best you can, and things will get better.
We have spent $5 trillion on renewables and other climate change stuff. That is the low hanging fruit. The easy stuff is pretty much done and it will get much more expensive from here. There will never be enough lithium batteries. Replacing a 100 MW gas turbine with solar and storage will require a billion dollars and 5 square miles of land. Can’t happen. Won’t happen.
There’s nothing wrong with building larger nuclear plants.
SMRs have the potential to be “massed produced” making them cheaper and more quickly deployed. More SMRs on the grid can make the electrical grid more reliable and robust.
"The current global energy “crisis” is mostly the result of a similar scientific mistake, driven by blind
adherence to “green” (environmental) ideology
So what evidence do you have that concern over climate change is a mistake? You wrote a long story about some Russian wheat scientist, yet the very premise of your entire argument has no evidence attached.
If I have submitted this comment before then I apologize. However, it bears repeating. :)
A pragmatic mind might ask why anyone would want to spend billions and even trillions of dollars on wind and solar systems that are unavailable and undependable "most of the time". When has weather ever been "dependable"?
Even the most radical environmentalist wants electricity and energy to be instantly available and dependable when they flip the switch to turn their lights on.
The most effective way to restore energy independence and security would be to stop spending money on wind and solar (including subsidies) and spend that same money on developing commercially available small modular reactors (SMRs).
We have been using SMRs for nearly 70 years in our aircraft carriers and submarines. Can you imagine what may have been possible if we had focused our innovative genius on the commercialization of SMRs? By now, every American city could have been powered by clean, reliable, affordable, and abundant electrical power. Even heavy industry and manufacturing plants could have had their own small modular reactor.
Brilliant analysis. My estimate for the UK energy transition is c£5trillion (range £3 - £12Tr). It is completely unaffordable, provides no climatic benefit whatsoever, will make us all poorer overall, will make energy massively more expensive (just look what happen between Sept 22 and Feb 23 before the invasion of Ukraine), give us less energy resilience and create more social disorder.
I often ask proponents of the transition roughly how many people (engineers and construction operatives) do they think it will take to deliver the transition. No one has given me anything like a reasonable answer.
This is pure hatred of Capitalism by the Environmental Cabal who drive this agenda. There are millions of Useful Idiots who think they are doing the right thing and the Cabal loves taking them for a ride. I also ask where is the example/trial of a net zero town/city/state/country and what does it look like? Again no answers. Look up El Herrio - they failed and dropped the tag line.
Looking fwd to essays 2 and 3.
Dutch TTF units of measure and Henry Hub are quite different. Can someone educate me about a useful conversion method?
I agree the environmentalists went on a moral crusade to save the planet while taking for granted the prosperity they had enjoyed all their lives. They did not recognize how vital energy is to every aspect of their lifestyles. Now, suddenly, faced with energy shocks in both price and availability, we are learning. Germany is going back to coal. People are again talking nuclear. Maybe the planet can wait if we have to face being poor and cold! I think we should adapt with grace to being a bit more poor and cold for a while. Population will reduce hugely this decade, if only from natural demographic attrition--the boomers bowing out, but also from major global disruptions which end up meaning famine, sad to say. We are right now in temporary overshoot. That is going away this decade, so be patient, preserve knowledge, hang on as best you can, and things will get better.
We have spent $5 trillion on renewables and other climate change stuff. That is the low hanging fruit. The easy stuff is pretty much done and it will get much more expensive from here. There will never be enough lithium batteries. Replacing a 100 MW gas turbine with solar and storage will require a billion dollars and 5 square miles of land. Can’t happen. Won’t happen.
There’s nothing wrong with building larger nuclear plants.
SMRs have the potential to be “massed produced” making them cheaper and more quickly deployed. More SMRs on the grid can make the electrical grid more reliable and robust.
"The current global energy “crisis” is mostly the result of a similar scientific mistake, driven by blind
adherence to “green” (environmental) ideology
So what evidence do you have that concern over climate change is a mistake? You wrote a long story about some Russian wheat scientist, yet the very premise of your entire argument has no evidence attached.
If I have submitted this comment before then I apologize. However, it bears repeating. :)
A pragmatic mind might ask why anyone would want to spend billions and even trillions of dollars on wind and solar systems that are unavailable and undependable "most of the time". When has weather ever been "dependable"?
Even the most radical environmentalist wants electricity and energy to be instantly available and dependable when they flip the switch to turn their lights on.
The most effective way to restore energy independence and security would be to stop spending money on wind and solar (including subsidies) and spend that same money on developing commercially available small modular reactors (SMRs).
We have been using SMRs for nearly 70 years in our aircraft carriers and submarines. Can you imagine what may have been possible if we had focused our innovative genius on the commercialization of SMRs? By now, every American city could have been powered by clean, reliable, affordable, and abundant electrical power. Even heavy industry and manufacturing plants could have had their own small modular reactor.