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.
Many in our industry have been enthusiastic about GW scale (AP-1000's) and MW scale SMRs for many years. The NRC? Too slow. Applying old GW scale framework to advanced reactors. Has to change.
"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.
I think the Russian wheat scientist story was an example of how destructive can be blind adherence to idealogy in the face of clear evidence against. I don't believe that the point made in the piece was that "concern over climate change is a mistake". It was that the "blind adherence to" green ideology was a mistake. This was the premise and there was lots of evidence "attached".
You called environmentalism a religion or cult, which also gives the impression that you do not regard anything said by environmentalists to be true or worthwhile. The name of your blog is also environMENTAL, which implies that environmentalists are insane. So if this is not the message you were trying to convey, I apologize for misunderstanding.
So you believe climate change is real but think the solutions are worse than the effects of climate change, is that your argument?
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.
I guess it was the 'blind adherence to “green” (environmental) ideology and divorced from the laws of physics and economics.' Many thought it would work and convinced pols and the public, or at least a large part of those. Many continue to beleive it even as it has becomes obvious that its not feasible. There is a lot of political inertia and that takes time and effort to overcome. I do believe it will happen and SMRs will become a big part of the change. One thing I have noticed too is that the majority of minds do not seem to be particularly pragmatic so this makes the problem more difficult to overcome.
2nd best run on sentence we've seen since (MIT climate scientist) Richard Lindzen's prediction some years ago:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
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?
Several entities convert Dutch TTF to US$/mmBTU. CME is one: https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/natural-gas/dutch-ttf-natural-gas-usd-mmbtu-icis-heren-front-month.html
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.
Not to mention the resource (metals) requirements and diesel and bunker fuel needed to extract and transport them.
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.
Many in our industry have been enthusiastic about GW scale (AP-1000's) and MW scale SMRs for many years. The NRC? Too slow. Applying old GW scale framework to advanced reactors. Has to change.
"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.
Temp is only up 1C. CO2 is only up 200 ppm. I don’t see an issue.
I think the Russian wheat scientist story was an example of how destructive can be blind adherence to idealogy in the face of clear evidence against. I don't believe that the point made in the piece was that "concern over climate change is a mistake". It was that the "blind adherence to" green ideology was a mistake. This was the premise and there was lots of evidence "attached".
Correct.
You called environmentalism a religion or cult, which also gives the impression that you do not regard anything said by environmentalists to be true or worthwhile. The name of your blog is also environMENTAL, which implies that environmentalists are insane. So if this is not the message you were trying to convey, I apologize for misunderstanding.
So you believe climate change is real but think the solutions are worse than the effects of climate change, is that your argument?
If by "solutions" you mean limiting sources to wind, solar, utility scale batteries, EVs, geothermal, and biomass, then yes. That is correct.
I'm not sure to whom you are directing this comment. I did not say religion or cult and I do not have a blog called environMENTAL.
There are no negative effects
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.
GW scale and MW scale SMRs both have positives and negatives. But we do not see any path to "zero carbon" without them.
What’s wrong with building larger plants?
I guess it was the 'blind adherence to “green” (environmental) ideology and divorced from the laws of physics and economics.' Many thought it would work and convinced pols and the public, or at least a large part of those. Many continue to beleive it even as it has becomes obvious that its not feasible. There is a lot of political inertia and that takes time and effort to overcome. I do believe it will happen and SMRs will become a big part of the change. One thing I have noticed too is that the majority of minds do not seem to be particularly pragmatic so this makes the problem more difficult to overcome.
Your last statement applies to the "leaders" making these decisions not just the electorate.
Yes, more importantly so in fact.
2nd best run on sentence we've seen since (MIT climate scientist) Richard Lindzen's prediction some years ago:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”