With governments managing this transition we cannot expect 60% over runs, canada shows the way where the Transmountain expansion taken over by the government was 500% over budget, at least.
These people also calculate based on current costs but we have already seen dramatic inflation in electrical apparatus which is only going to get worse.
Good piece. I hadn't seen environMENTAL until just today, but I had read Smil's report on the impossibilities of net zero. Reality and physics will prevail eventually, but not until great economies like Germany commit economic suicide and lesser economies like Sri Lanka fail from naively adopting green policies pushed by the globalists. I loved "neo-Malthusian eco-statist dressed up as an altruist" but might add "suffering from anti-human psychosis" to the litany. One has to be fundamentally anti-human and psychotic to believe that spending a couple of hundred trillion dollars and accepting ever reducing standards of living and increasing privation is the answer to warmer weather. I am more in line with Buckminster Fuller's notion of ephemeralization (doing more with less) and human innovation as the way to deal with warmer weather while continually advancing human health, well being and standards of living. Stone age man figured out how to adapt from mile thick sheets of ice to great lakes in under 10,000 years. Bronze age Bedouins and Innuits figured out how to live in harsh desert conditions and the arctic respectively. The Dutch figured out how to live below sea level using 12th century tech. The handheld device that you may be reading this comment on has more computing power than all of the computers on earth in 1968 when we put a man on the moon while using about 1 watt of electricity compared to tens of megawatts to run the computers of 1968. I think we can figure it out, and the planet will be just fine in any case. Keep up the good work.
"... anticipates nearly 2/3rd of the growth in new nuclear power generation is expected to come in the Asia Pacific region." So do we at ThorCon. Here's the high growth situation for Indonesia. https://thorconpower.com/docs/AsiaTimes29Nov2023.pdf
Only those who are completely ignorant or willfully blind believe the “net-zero” can be achieved by 2050. The people pushing for that goal are primarily grifters and/or those that seek to have authority over others. A well written article.
Having only written a few pieces for industry publications within our respective specialties in the environmental space, we're out of our element writing. So that's helpful feedback and we're grateful for the compliment!
In financial markets we are seeing a broad decline in “clean energy” investments, and a walk back of the absolutely insane concept of “ESG” investing. (It’s one thing to just make a pledge. Multi trillion dollar funds were putting peoples’ money into it.)
I think this is all part of a broader movement toward reality.
Rates are higher. Our money is more expensive. Major powers are becoming hostile toward one another. This is no time for fairytales and dreams.
For some on “team green” their brains are scrambled. They will never give it up. But the average person is getting sick of this nonsense.
With AI data centers’ energy demands I would not be surprised to soon see tech company PR teams do a 180 and become fossil fuel advocates…
It's already happening. They were at CERAWeek (S&P's annual energy conference) in Houston this year. They're already starting to try to pin down long-term power purchase agreements for nat gas and even nuclear powered electricity.
They will not be deprived of electricity to feed their AI machines. You and I might, but they won't!
We might all be in for this "nuisance" effect soon. But there won't be any moving away from it. Not really. It's going to affect any place connected to the grid.
It is unfortunate that techno-optimism has become an insult, because amazing things have and can occur in 25 years. We need more optimism, grounded in reality, because the technology does exist and has been proven.
Nuclear could deliver net zero by 2050 (or near enough), with small and efficient reactors that are affordable and could be mass produced and deployed anywhere. Yet that requires choosing the right technology and fuel cycle, which would allow their production and fueling with no substantial increase in any mining, and with no enrichment. After eliminating the many obscene inefficiencies compounded by today's reactors, nuclear can shine with exceptional efficiency and essentially unconstrained potential for rapid scaling.
SMRs have basically demonstrated what physics tells us: that the Small and efficient are impossible with solid-fueled reactors, but they are achievable in thorium-fueled molten salt breeders. Sadly, our US DOE gifted the crown jewel of our nuclear program to China in 2011, while misrepresenting it to congress. Most in the nuclear sector also see expensive and proprietary solid fuel forms as an opportunity for perpetual profits, but they are anathema to the cheap power we need for (all of) humanity to prosper.
SMR may as well be read Straw Man Reactor, because the promoted technologies do nothing to deliver on the potential of nuclear. HALEU and TRISO will make nuclear fuel a substantial fraction of power cost, as with fossil energy plants, while making the waste non-recyclable.
Remember that electricity only accounts for ~20% or so of global primary energy demand. So if we could replace all electricity globally tomorrow with nuclear, we still have a very, very long way to replace FF's in terms of feedstock, industrial process heat, transportation, etc.
We like SMRs, and we like AP 1000s. We believe AP 1000s can be built in the West at a cost of around $3 billion/Gw, and built within 5-6 years. Call us crazy.
Speaking of the bartender, the stooge, and the Manhattan Project, Smil’s paper notes the same common category error. And, of course, gives figures to compare to the $275-$440 trillion over 26 years for “net zero by 2050”:
“ we have comprehensive data about the cost of those two endeavors and after converting them to 2022 money is they look, when seen from the spending perspective of the 2020s, like extraordinary bargains: the Manhattan Project (1943-1945) cost just $33 billion (in 2022 dollars), or 0.3% of GDP for those years, while the Apollo project (1961-1972) came in at $207 billion (in 2022 dollars) or 0.2% of GDP for those years”.
Well done, sir(s), well done. It constantly amazes me how the nut-zero crowd can look at the reality of their dream, and say with a Manhattan Project-like effort, we can do this (think AOC and her stooge, E.Markey. As our friend Doomberg points out, in the battle between platitudes and physics, physics remains undefeated.
We don't find a path under any policies except those which intentionally and rapidly de-grow western economies and reduce standards of living that gets to net zero by 2050. Even carbon taxes or trading won't do it, IMO.
Nice piece. I agree that the poor nations don’t have the money to pay for the stuff needed to attempt the transition. I don’t think the rich nations do either…but they think they do.
I don't care if all of these "transitions" were cost-free, they could not happen unless Elon begins mining and then transporting cobalt, copper, lithium, nickel, and a host of rare earth elements from Mars back home. Total fantasy that the ill-informed mopes of society accept without any appreciation for chemistry or physics. This just won't happen from "wishing it so".
I slightly disagree. You've heard of the "two-handed economist", you know that economics is a "social science", there are no laws in economics, I'm a retired economics/finance college instructor. Now Physics, THERE'S a cruel bitch! You can't say, "well, on the one hand, if you raise the pressure, everything else equal, the temperature rises, but on the other hand, if you raise the temperature, everything else equal, the pressure falls."
Nope, economics is whatever you want it to be (unfortunately), not so with the hard sciences!
Jennifer Granholm's "resume" from the DOE website:
"Prior to her nomination as Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm was elected Governor of Michigan, serving two terms from 2003 to 2011. After two terms as governor, Jennifer Granholm joined the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley as a Distinguished Professor of Practice in the Goldman School of Public Policy, focusing on the intersection of law, clean energy, manufacturing, policy, and industry. Secretary Granholm is an honors graduate of both the University of California, Berkeley and Harvard Law School."
Wow, so much experience in energy. I'm shocked at her lack of logical strategy and direction.
With governments managing this transition we cannot expect 60% over runs, canada shows the way where the Transmountain expansion taken over by the government was 500% over budget, at least.
These people also calculate based on current costs but we have already seen dramatic inflation in electrical apparatus which is only going to get worse.
Good piece. I hadn't seen environMENTAL until just today, but I had read Smil's report on the impossibilities of net zero. Reality and physics will prevail eventually, but not until great economies like Germany commit economic suicide and lesser economies like Sri Lanka fail from naively adopting green policies pushed by the globalists. I loved "neo-Malthusian eco-statist dressed up as an altruist" but might add "suffering from anti-human psychosis" to the litany. One has to be fundamentally anti-human and psychotic to believe that spending a couple of hundred trillion dollars and accepting ever reducing standards of living and increasing privation is the answer to warmer weather. I am more in line with Buckminster Fuller's notion of ephemeralization (doing more with less) and human innovation as the way to deal with warmer weather while continually advancing human health, well being and standards of living. Stone age man figured out how to adapt from mile thick sheets of ice to great lakes in under 10,000 years. Bronze age Bedouins and Innuits figured out how to live in harsh desert conditions and the arctic respectively. The Dutch figured out how to live below sea level using 12th century tech. The handheld device that you may be reading this comment on has more computing power than all of the computers on earth in 1968 when we put a man on the moon while using about 1 watt of electricity compared to tens of megawatts to run the computers of 1968. I think we can figure it out, and the planet will be just fine in any case. Keep up the good work.
Net zero is and always will be a fools errand. CO2 means life!
"... anticipates nearly 2/3rd of the growth in new nuclear power generation is expected to come in the Asia Pacific region." So do we at ThorCon. Here's the high growth situation for Indonesia. https://thorconpower.com/docs/AsiaTimes29Nov2023.pdf
Unfortunately, we don't disagree.
A surprise to the upside (2/3 west, 1/3 Asia Pacific) would be met with cheers among the members of this team 25 years from now.
Only those who are completely ignorant or willfully blind believe the “net-zero” can be achieved by 2050. The people pushing for that goal are primarily grifters and/or those that seek to have authority over others. A well written article.
Thanks.
A small component know it can't be done but don't care. B/c to that group, it was never about actually achieving NZby2050.
Thank you for the Rocky Mountain of thought contained in this piece. Your work continues to be at the highest level.
Thank you.
Having only written a few pieces for industry publications within our respective specialties in the environmental space, we're out of our element writing. So that's helpful feedback and we're grateful for the compliment!
Loved "neo-Malthusiasn eco-statist" dressed up as an altruist. I might have to borrow that!
We are "open source", not proprietary, trying to help contribute to change.
Use, enjoy, spread, lather, rinse, repeat.
We enjoy your Substack.
Great work…
In financial markets we are seeing a broad decline in “clean energy” investments, and a walk back of the absolutely insane concept of “ESG” investing. (It’s one thing to just make a pledge. Multi trillion dollar funds were putting peoples’ money into it.)
I think this is all part of a broader movement toward reality.
Rates are higher. Our money is more expensive. Major powers are becoming hostile toward one another. This is no time for fairytales and dreams.
For some on “team green” their brains are scrambled. They will never give it up. But the average person is getting sick of this nonsense.
With AI data centers’ energy demands I would not be surprised to soon see tech company PR teams do a 180 and become fossil fuel advocates…
Thanks.
It's already happening. They were at CERAWeek (S&P's annual energy conference) in Houston this year. They're already starting to try to pin down long-term power purchase agreements for nat gas and even nuclear powered electricity.
They will not be deprived of electricity to feed their AI machines. You and I might, but they won't!
If you live anywhere near a SpaceX test facility, it's not uncommon for your house to shake every so often: https://www.reddit.com/r/Waco/comments/yx9eec/spacex_rumbles/
If you live near a crypto mining farm, you hear constant buzzing when you go outside: https://time.com/6590155/bitcoin-mining-noise-texas/
We might all be in for this "nuisance" effect soon. But there won't be any moving away from it. Not really. It's going to affect any place connected to the grid.
Time to get a generator I think!
Thinking similarly....
Great piece, I will source Smil's document. Thanks!
Please do. We encourage everyone to do so. It's stupendous. And highly readable.
It is unfortunate that techno-optimism has become an insult, because amazing things have and can occur in 25 years. We need more optimism, grounded in reality, because the technology does exist and has been proven.
Nuclear could deliver net zero by 2050 (or near enough), with small and efficient reactors that are affordable and could be mass produced and deployed anywhere. Yet that requires choosing the right technology and fuel cycle, which would allow their production and fueling with no substantial increase in any mining, and with no enrichment. After eliminating the many obscene inefficiencies compounded by today's reactors, nuclear can shine with exceptional efficiency and essentially unconstrained potential for rapid scaling.
SMRs have basically demonstrated what physics tells us: that the Small and efficient are impossible with solid-fueled reactors, but they are achievable in thorium-fueled molten salt breeders. Sadly, our US DOE gifted the crown jewel of our nuclear program to China in 2011, while misrepresenting it to congress. Most in the nuclear sector also see expensive and proprietary solid fuel forms as an opportunity for perpetual profits, but they are anathema to the cheap power we need for (all of) humanity to prosper.
SMR may as well be read Straw Man Reactor, because the promoted technologies do nothing to deliver on the potential of nuclear. HALEU and TRISO will make nuclear fuel a substantial fraction of power cost, as with fossil energy plants, while making the waste non-recyclable.
Remember that electricity only accounts for ~20% or so of global primary energy demand. So if we could replace all electricity globally tomorrow with nuclear, we still have a very, very long way to replace FF's in terms of feedstock, industrial process heat, transportation, etc.
We like SMRs, and we like AP 1000s. We believe AP 1000s can be built in the West at a cost of around $3 billion/Gw, and built within 5-6 years. Call us crazy.
Thanks!
Speaking of the bartender, the stooge, and the Manhattan Project, Smil’s paper notes the same common category error. And, of course, gives figures to compare to the $275-$440 trillion over 26 years for “net zero by 2050”:
“ we have comprehensive data about the cost of those two endeavors and after converting them to 2022 money is they look, when seen from the spending perspective of the 2020s, like extraordinary bargains: the Manhattan Project (1943-1945) cost just $33 billion (in 2022 dollars), or 0.3% of GDP for those years, while the Apollo project (1961-1972) came in at $207 billion (in 2022 dollars) or 0.2% of GDP for those years”.
Well done, sir(s), well done. It constantly amazes me how the nut-zero crowd can look at the reality of their dream, and say with a Manhattan Project-like effort, we can do this (think AOC and her stooge, E.Markey. As our friend Doomberg points out, in the battle between platitudes and physics, physics remains undefeated.
It depends on the policies we adopt. I agree that the COP process, which totally ignores taxing net CO2 emissions, will not work.
We don't find a path under any policies except those which intentionally and rapidly de-grow western economies and reduce standards of living that gets to net zero by 2050. Even carbon taxes or trading won't do it, IMO.
I do not think that is is necessary to de-grow or reduce standards of living. The dead-weight loss of taxing net emissions is not that high.
Granted some of my optimism comes from assuming continued rapid technological progress in energy generation and storage and some hopes for CCS.
“Assuming” being the operative word of what you say.
Delusional is another better word.
Why so pessimistic? There has already been a lot of progress bringing down the cost of zero co2 energy generation and storage?
There has been tons of progress in hiding the true costs and gaslighting us on that, buried subsidies, selective regulation.
The hidden costs being greater than de-growth?
Nice piece. I agree that the poor nations don’t have the money to pay for the stuff needed to attempt the transition. I don’t think the rich nations do either…but they think they do.
Or, they're pretending to. For now.
Thanks!
Excellent piece (again) fello mentals!
I don't care if all of these "transitions" were cost-free, they could not happen unless Elon begins mining and then transporting cobalt, copper, lithium, nickel, and a host of rare earth elements from Mars back home. Total fantasy that the ill-informed mopes of society accept without any appreciation for chemistry or physics. This just won't happen from "wishing it so".
The laws of physics and economics do not yield to ideology!
I slightly disagree. You've heard of the "two-handed economist", you know that economics is a "social science", there are no laws in economics, I'm a retired economics/finance college instructor. Now Physics, THERE'S a cruel bitch! You can't say, "well, on the one hand, if you raise the pressure, everything else equal, the temperature rises, but on the other hand, if you raise the temperature, everything else equal, the pressure falls."
Nope, economics is whatever you want it to be (unfortunately), not so with the hard sciences!
Fair point!
Jennifer Granholm's "resume" from the DOE website:
"Prior to her nomination as Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm was elected Governor of Michigan, serving two terms from 2003 to 2011. After two terms as governor, Jennifer Granholm joined the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley as a Distinguished Professor of Practice in the Goldman School of Public Policy, focusing on the intersection of law, clean energy, manufacturing, policy, and industry. Secretary Granholm is an honors graduate of both the University of California, Berkeley and Harvard Law School."
Wow, so much experience in energy. I'm shocked at her lack of logical strategy and direction.
And at the "intersection of law, clean energy, manufacturing, policy, and industry" she's caused one big-assed train wreck!!!!!
Which puts her well ahead of Trudeau's & Germany's energy ministers. Dumb, Dumber & Dingbat.
I know, right?!?!
I wonder what Latin honors mean at Berkeley.
Or how it's particularly relevant to that job.