Agreed! We searched the US EIA data until our eyeballs bled (look at Little Green Guys eyeballs, closely...!).
For more than a decade, EIA posted direct comparisons. After 2016, seems the format changed and we can't find a good direct comparison after 2016. If we could've put our fingers on it, we would have.
If you know where to get the direct comparisons, we'll update the graph with an Editor's note.
Finally, thank you, for:
1) the comment and suggestion. we're new and trying hard to improve. we truly welcome every critique.
2) the other
- The Editor
p.s. lots of engineers here. 4 members of our team are engineers, geologists, or geophysicists (environmental site investigation/remediation, across multiple industries)
thank you for a prompt responsive answer. I too, am an engineer (retired) and will see what I can find. In the meantime, I am new to your site (word of mouth referral) and impressed with your writing. please keep up the good work.
We like hydro projects, but b/c environmentalists hate it, we don't allow it to be counted in "renewables" and note that in many areas (e.g. GA) it makes up the bulk of what is counted as "renewable" generation.
It's never been about 'climate.' It's about depopulation, and growing numbers understand this. If all of humanity were living in caves and mud huts while cooking with manure, the fanatics would still not be happy as manure comes from cows and and they want cattle to go the way of the Dodo bird.
Truly excellent and persuasive piece. My first read on your stack. The motivations behind this clearly delusional approach to “green energy” are clear to me, the desire to deprive the population of adequate and reasonably priced energy sources in order to produce the scarcity necessary to promote depopulation.
Listened to an UnHerd interview with RFK Jr. today. Good interview but the guy is as anti nuclear power as they come. Just thought I would point this out.
Exactly. Not even nuclear. Doesn't solve 100% of transportation, industrial heat, isn't smart in some locale geophysically (or political stability?), has inherent risk and potential for catastrophic risk. We don't portray it as a magic bullet.
We just know wind, solar, biofuels, biomass, geothermal, etc. have sweet spots and limitations, risk/rewards, cost/benefits, too.
Pretty much everything you said is nonsense or cherry picking to paint a heavily biased impression.
The reason nuclear is being suppressed by the establishment is they know very well that if it is unchained, plentiful cheap energy will be ubiquitous throughout the entire World, and power a new technological renaissance, an end to poverty, an end to scarcity. Since the uber-wealthy establishment are rent-seeking Malthusian Psychopaths, that is the last thing on Earth they want. Kissinger's comment: "To control the Energy Supply, is to control the Nation" 100% represents their attitude to energy. They need scarce, controlled energy supplies to beat down upstart independent nations into submission.
Factory produced Small Modular Reactors could and should be manufactured by the 10's of thousands, coming off of Assembly Lines like Teslas, except per unit mass, they are far simpler than Teslas, far less sensors, far less control points, far less information processing, far more safe, far less copper per ton of steel, far less rare earths, and even considerably less generation per ton of steel than a Tesla. And the cost comparatively would put SMRs at well under a $1,000 per kw. No energy source on this planet could compete with that, not even close. And unlimited energy, essentially forever. That's why the corrupt Ruling Class despise Nuclear power so much and promote & finance assholes like this:
former director of the Club-of-Rome, Dennis Meadows:
" Depopulation: "I Hope It Can Occur In a Civil Manner"
"The World can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion"
" I know in one way or another it's going to come back down so i don't hope to avoid that, I hope that it can occur in a civil way "
(i.e. Plandemic and deadly forced vaccines, energy & food poverty):
" Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it. "
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
" The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet. "
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
" Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. "
Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
" 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
Interesting how they promote the extermination of most of humanity with glee but constantly bemoan how Nuclear Power is so unsafe. "There might be another Fukushima" = Zero Deaths.
Holdren we have a special place for. Helped Julian Simon choose the metals for The Bet. Failure rewarded with White House Science Advisor Role. Classic.
Everything I said is based on my personal experience in the field. I understand there are pressing issues and you have concerns, but reviewing OPEX and recognizing limitations is necessary. If you could illustrate what statement is "nonsense" I would be happy to clarify your confusion.
And to your point about SMRs... they're not ready. Nuclear technology is required to stage through regulatory safety certification processes before it can go into operation. SMRs are still at the evaluation stage.
I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada there was a pilot project to install a trial SMR at one of the Chalk River Lab sites.
Last I remember they were vetting 4 different vendors in a conceptual design process (looks like they picked BWRX). I think the end goal was 2028/2029 for commercial production, but those dates are always ambitious.
Bull. They've been built since 1954 in nuclear subs, completed start to finish from scratch in 2 yrs. Hundreds in ships & subs built. Many different types also. Like they did Shippingport, first power reactor, 60MWe completed in 3yrs by 1957. And they even operated it as a thorium breeder reactor. And China & Russia both have production SMRs generating commercial power. How come you don't know that?
"Nuclear technology is required to stage through regulatory safety certification processes before it can go into operation"
So? That's true of thousands of different tech in operation today. The Airbus 380, which is basically a flying deliverable nuclear bomb equivalent, without any emergency stop capability, with 900 lives in an immediate death situation, an incredibly complicated machine that makes ANY SMR look like a piper cub in a tech difficulty comparison. It's first test flight was 4/27/2005, failed the critical wing load test 2/14/2006, engineers modified the design and it was certified in by both EASA & FAA for 853 passengers 3/26/2006. There is no reason on Earth that commercial SMRs can't be done just as quickly as Sub & ship reactors are (which actually run on VERY DANGEROUS weapons grade uranium), with no giant containment, out at sea, exposed to deadly ordnance.
And at the same time nobody in our government gives the slightest god damn about extraordinarily dangerous gain-of-function experiments on deadly pathogens, in hundreds of labs around the World, including in War Zones. This after we know for an absolute fact that Covid was a lab leaked GOF virus. Continues with reckless abandon.
I was nuclear engineer that resigned because of mandates. My "propaganda" isn't killing millions of people every year. I'm referring to actual regulatory, operational and engineering challenges in the nuclear sector. There is a difference between idealism and reality.
Since you're so enthusiastic then I suggest YOU fill the now permanent vacancies in the industry and vouch to make positive change. Best of luck and I hope you find the right opportunities.
Think it's reasonable to say all three of us here are on the proper side of reality vs. the idealism all three of us would like to redirect. Here's a prediction: we'll have more GW scale like Vogtle AND we'll have SMRs. The agencies in N. America will likely slow walk the SMRs more/drive the cost up more than realistically necessary. And, they'll make AP1000s and such take longer and cost more, too.
But, its probably we all 3 agree that the energy density that makes both no brainers in the long run makes the faux solutions with limited application like wind/solar/biofuels over sooner or later. (but not soon enough).
p.s. we like the spirited debate and hoped to cause this with our work. so don't take these comments the wrong way.
Yes, that kind No-Can-Doo propaganda is the main factor causing millions to die of fossil & biomass pollution needlessly and economic deprivation even more needlessly while allowing the ruling psychos to use that propaganda to foist their deadly Malthusian agenda down our throats.
I've already spent a lifetime in industry, over 40yrs, I'm a little old to start a new career.
There is clearly a post-modern neo-Malthusian element within this Green Luxury Belief pathology. And that element figured out that by controlling energy, they could achieve that which couldn't be achieved at the ballot box (esp. after it collapsed in 1991 before, it co-opted the environmental movement).
Thank you for your excellent essay. As an intervenor in the public interest before federal, state, and local regulatory bodies, Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP dot org) we have seen a persistent pattern where fossil fuel interests spend lavishly on public relations to attempt to convince the public that out-of-state coal-fired generation is environmentally beneficial for Californians. A significant fraction of California's approximately 100 teraWatt-hours of annual energy imports are powered by coal - including the power hidden behind a California-specific euphemism "unspecified power." CGNP infers that fossil-fuel interests are also funding environmental organizations (in name only) to continue advocating for out-of-state coal - and against nuclear power. The parallels to the German Energiewende are very clear. During the past decade of environmental advocacy, CGNP and its allies have started to gain traction against this harmful corporate-funded propaganda.
We watch the ISO's using the "imports" catch all category and we wonder how to get that detailed data. In your case, some of that coal-fired capacity has to be coming from ID, WY, maybe NV I'd guess. Is it all coal or is some of it gas?
Here's more detailed data from the California Energy Commission. "Unspecified" typically means coal-fired power imports. California legislation allows exporters of unspecified power to *artificially* decrease their emissions to the level of a modern combined-cycle power plant. The scheme is very opaque - I would not be surprised if a few palms were greased in the process. Southwest imports include the LADWP 1,900 MW Intermountain Coal-Fired Power Plant near Delta, Utah. I believe that much of the northwest unspecified imports are from Berkshire Hathaway Energy's PacifiCorp subsidiary which operates many coal-fired power plants. See CGNP's April 5, 2022 Capitol Weekly OpEd HTTPS://TINYURL.COM/DCPP-VERSUS-COAL for additional background details.
There is a reason that there is no mention of "nuclear" in the IRA.
"At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said. Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
What portion of the movement is simply ignorant but well intended, what portion is well intended and highly informed, and what portion is ill-informed and ill-intended and malevolent and co-opted the movement.
If there's good news on this front, we believe the ignorant will learn, the well informed who are wrong will change, and the malevolent can go sit in a virgin forest. With milk and puppies.
Well, they still have the choice of deindustrialization, like Obama's Science Czar & Rockefeller toadie, John Holdren:
" 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 "
EXCELLENT article. I plan to share with all the groups I belong to, who are fighting solar and wind in their rural areas.
My FIL was part of the design/build team on most all German nuclear plants, many of the French, UK plants in othe countries including the US. He also had a hand in the NS Savannah.
I was fortunate to spend many hours speaking to him about his work and nuclear energy in general before he passed away.
He told stories about his company being asked to bid on building Chernobyl (Russia's idea of containment was similar to a Morton Building) which they declined. He was also called in the middle of the night to go to TMI to figure out what happened. He was one of the first few to enter the facility. BTW he said there was no leakage, most controls functioned to shut down as they were supposed to but the humans on site, not so much (as I understand).
Based on his experience and knowledge, I suspect he would totally agree also.
"Galen Winsor makes a startling statement; he claims that the Three Mile Island event was no accident. He states that the GE three of Gregory C. Minor, Richard B. Hubbard, and Dale G. Bridenbaugh wrote the script.
This would sound incredibly far fetched without the almost impossibly coincidental timing of "The China Syndrome" still playing in movie theaters at the time of the accident, the unbelievable coincidence of a line in the movie about contaminating an area the size of Pennsylvania (the same state where TMI is located), and the still troubling unknown regarding how the feed pump isolation valves on the back-up feed water pump just happened to be shut (supposedly due to a "maintenance error") when the primary pump tripped off line.
Date/Time of initial criticality of TMI-II – March 28, 1978 @ 04:00:00
Date/time of accident (on plant computer) March 28, 1979 @ 04:00:00.037 (Note: the plant computer has a 3 millisecond cycle time to scan all points)
The main story in the Paxton Herald paper (A free paper that was mostly adds and a classified listing that you picked up to find/sell stuff but VERY anti-nuclear) that week and released before the accident, was about the major accident that was going to happen at TMI in the very near future.
Since my FIL is no longer alive (was 95 when he died) to refute the claims (as he easily could have) I can only tell you what he told me. I think he would have mentioned a conspiracy issue like that. He could have answered your pump question also. I suspect that man, if he was in the position he claims, would have known my FIL even though he didn't work for GE.
What I find interesting (after listening to the video) is this: it seems these guys had an axe to grind? "Mr. Minor, Richard B. Hubbard and Dale G. Bridenbaugh resigned from the division of G.E. that built nuclear reactors, saying that they believed nuclear power presented a profound threat to mankind." Wonder if they were fired/asked to leave?
Could be. He was diagnosed with Parkinson's at 90, so he had a long, productive life. He loved living in Germany while overseeing the building of the European plants.
Well, at the end of the day, the GOP has zero interest in supporting any non-fossil fuel options...including nuclear. That leaves the Democratic party whose razor-thin majority includes a senator whose fortune is built on coal mines.
It may be true that nuclear is the best option, but barring a global move to take drastic action, we will continue our path of warming the earth.
Given the fractured foreign and domestic state of affairs, I would expect the world to plummet far deeper into chaos before even considering a truly global response. I'm a pessimist, so I don't believe the world is capable of responding, absent a new easily implementable technology. We have only to look at the contentious, fractured response to the pandemic to see how badly the world responded, how fortunate we were that the virus wasn't more deadly and that MRNA technology was so quickly repurposed.
Well the GOP is much more supportive of Nuclear Power then the Democrats. The basic problem is the Oligarchy calling the shots in the Western World are Malthusians and ALL Malthusians have always had seething hatred of nuclear power since it destroys their scarcity dogma. Nuclear power supplying unlimited energy, essentially forever.
Russia & China are demolishing Western Countries in Nuclear Power. Except for South Korea which has excellent reactors which they were offering to sell to Europe APR1400's for $3200/kw vs Westinghouse is quoting $4700/kw. Vs the AP1000's @ Vogtle @ $15000/kw and Britain's forced purchase of the French EPR @ $10100/kw @ Hinkley C. Westinghouse could not compete with Kepco's APR1400's so they sued them, using a fascist USA export law, forcing Poland to opt for the inferior and more expensive Westinghouse reactors. There is a lot of sleaze & corruption going on when it comes to Nuclear builds in Western countries. So bad is it that the cost of NPPs in the West are pretty much determined by the constant SF = The Sleaze Factor. Leaving the door wide open for China & Russia to overwhelm their competition everywhere except captive markets beholding to the USSA.
How Russia Controls the World's Nuclear Energy, AtomicBlender:
The coordinated response to the Plandemic was a prime example how centralized global authorities must be either devious & malicious or incredibly incompetent screwups. A perfect example of how NOT to tackle the Energy Problem. And the mRNA gene therapy is a proven failure which tragically have made their Plandemic more deadly and much longer lasting:
Why is everyone so afraid to talk about the elephant in the room? Steve Kirsch:
Look for the global move. American politicians won't want to be left out, nor will they enjoy answering questions about how other nations with fewer resources ($, technical expertise) are able to do so safely, quickly, and at much lower cost but the U.S. can't or shouldn't. (E.g. UAE and Barakah.)
What's amazing is that the NOAA climate models don't even account for natural climate variability (aka the Sun) in their models. I believe climate change is less about saving the planet, and more about controlling people through the smart grid:
Thanks for your thought..could you elaborate? I would say the aim is total extinction of humanity and the introduction of gene-edited cyborgs. There I said it (:
Fuel, electricity, consumption, industrialization, movement, nutrition...... (could go on....). And, the smart grid helps. So, we have no Nest or similar in our home. ;)
Your graphic of 2016 nuclear vs. renewables would be far better if updated to 2022 data.
Agreed! We searched the US EIA data until our eyeballs bled (look at Little Green Guys eyeballs, closely...!).
For more than a decade, EIA posted direct comparisons. After 2016, seems the format changed and we can't find a good direct comparison after 2016. If we could've put our fingers on it, we would have.
If you know where to get the direct comparisons, we'll update the graph with an Editor's note.
Finally, thank you, for:
1) the comment and suggestion. we're new and trying hard to improve. we truly welcome every critique.
2) the other
- The Editor
p.s. lots of engineers here. 4 members of our team are engineers, geologists, or geophysicists (environmental site investigation/remediation, across multiple industries)
Its likely they want to hide inconvenient data like they do with wildfire and other data.
If it doesn't support the narrative then it is disappeared.
thank you for a prompt responsive answer. I too, am an engineer (retired) and will see what I can find. In the meantime, I am new to your site (word of mouth referral) and impressed with your writing. please keep up the good work.
California also wants to get rid of all large hydroelectric plants. Hydroelectricity is also somehow bad for the environment.
We like hydro projects, but b/c environmentalists hate it, we don't allow it to be counted in "renewables" and note that in many areas (e.g. GA) it makes up the bulk of what is counted as "renewable" generation.
100%, they fight tooth and nail against new hydro but when posting stats about renewable generation they include it.
Because it is actually dispatchable to an extent wind and solar with never attain.
But if they had any logic or consistency they wouldn't be extremists.
It's never been about 'climate.' It's about depopulation, and growing numbers understand this. If all of humanity were living in caves and mud huts while cooking with manure, the fanatics would still not be happy as manure comes from cows and and they want cattle to go the way of the Dodo bird.
Truly excellent and persuasive piece. My first read on your stack. The motivations behind this clearly delusional approach to “green energy” are clear to me, the desire to deprive the population of adequate and reasonably priced energy sources in order to produce the scarcity necessary to promote depopulation.
You say depopulation, I say de-industrialization, let's call the whole thing off!
(h/t Ella....)
Listened to an UnHerd interview with RFK Jr. today. Good interview but the guy is as anti nuclear power as they come. Just thought I would point this out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY89a_zXi9s
Thx. We'll listen to that on the dog walk.
The transcript is now up as well.
https://unherd.com/2023/05/robert-kennedy-jr-america-needs-a-revolution/
There are a few caveats with nuclear.
New builds:
Require up to 10 years to commission.
Have a huge capital cost.
Have significant regulatory barriers.
Safe and efficient operations require top human performance:
High quality technical and ethical staff must be in merit-based roles.
Staff must be willing and encouraged to have a questioning attitude and challenge authority.
Production limitations:
Only able to supply base-load.
Peak loading the turbine-generator effectively creates reactor transients.
Outages can last up to 18 months and error could potentially render a unit inoperable.
Every system has advantages and disadvantages....time, cost, risk, fuel, emissions.
Yeah it's a complex topic. No silver bullet unfortunately.
Exactly. Not even nuclear. Doesn't solve 100% of transportation, industrial heat, isn't smart in some locale geophysically (or political stability?), has inherent risk and potential for catastrophic risk. We don't portray it as a magic bullet.
We just know wind, solar, biofuels, biomass, geothermal, etc. have sweet spots and limitations, risk/rewards, cost/benefits, too.
Pretty much everything you said is nonsense or cherry picking to paint a heavily biased impression.
The reason nuclear is being suppressed by the establishment is they know very well that if it is unchained, plentiful cheap energy will be ubiquitous throughout the entire World, and power a new technological renaissance, an end to poverty, an end to scarcity. Since the uber-wealthy establishment are rent-seeking Malthusian Psychopaths, that is the last thing on Earth they want. Kissinger's comment: "To control the Energy Supply, is to control the Nation" 100% represents their attitude to energy. They need scarce, controlled energy supplies to beat down upstart independent nations into submission.
Factory produced Small Modular Reactors could and should be manufactured by the 10's of thousands, coming off of Assembly Lines like Teslas, except per unit mass, they are far simpler than Teslas, far less sensors, far less control points, far less information processing, far more safe, far less copper per ton of steel, far less rare earths, and even considerably less generation per ton of steel than a Tesla. And the cost comparatively would put SMRs at well under a $1,000 per kw. No energy source on this planet could compete with that, not even close. And unlimited energy, essentially forever. That's why the corrupt Ruling Class despise Nuclear power so much and promote & finance assholes like this:
former director of the Club-of-Rome, Dennis Meadows:
" Depopulation: "I Hope It Can Occur In a Civil Manner"
"The World can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion"
" I know in one way or another it's going to come back down so i don't hope to avoid that, I hope that it can occur in a civil way "
(i.e. Plandemic and deadly forced vaccines, energy & food poverty):
https://rumble.com/v14uz0z-depopulation-i-hope-it-can-occur-in-a-civil-manner-club-of-romes-dennis-mea.html
" Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it. "
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
" The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet. "
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
" Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. "
Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
" 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
Interesting how they promote the extermination of most of humanity with glee but constantly bemoan how Nuclear Power is so unsafe. "There might be another Fukushima" = Zero Deaths.
Holdren we have a special place for. Helped Julian Simon choose the metals for The Bet. Failure rewarded with White House Science Advisor Role. Classic.
Everything I said is based on my personal experience in the field. I understand there are pressing issues and you have concerns, but reviewing OPEX and recognizing limitations is necessary. If you could illustrate what statement is "nonsense" I would be happy to clarify your confusion.
And to your point about SMRs... they're not ready. Nuclear technology is required to stage through regulatory safety certification processes before it can go into operation. SMRs are still at the evaluation stage.
NuScale at INL. How long after that do you see them starting to slowly find purchase in the U.S.?
I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada there was a pilot project to install a trial SMR at one of the Chalk River Lab sites.
Last I remember they were vetting 4 different vendors in a conceptual design process (looks like they picked BWRX). I think the end goal was 2028/2029 for commercial production, but those dates are always ambitious.
This is what's on the operator's website.
https://www.opg.com/powering-ontario/our-generation/nuclear/darlington-nuclear/darlington-new-nuclear/
I got no confusion, you are confused.
Like " SMRs... they're not ready"
Bull. They've been built since 1954 in nuclear subs, completed start to finish from scratch in 2 yrs. Hundreds in ships & subs built. Many different types also. Like they did Shippingport, first power reactor, 60MWe completed in 3yrs by 1957. And they even operated it as a thorium breeder reactor. And China & Russia both have production SMRs generating commercial power. How come you don't know that?
"Nuclear technology is required to stage through regulatory safety certification processes before it can go into operation"
So? That's true of thousands of different tech in operation today. The Airbus 380, which is basically a flying deliverable nuclear bomb equivalent, without any emergency stop capability, with 900 lives in an immediate death situation, an incredibly complicated machine that makes ANY SMR look like a piper cub in a tech difficulty comparison. It's first test flight was 4/27/2005, failed the critical wing load test 2/14/2006, engineers modified the design and it was certified in by both EASA & FAA for 853 passengers 3/26/2006. There is no reason on Earth that commercial SMRs can't be done just as quickly as Sub & ship reactors are (which actually run on VERY DANGEROUS weapons grade uranium), with no giant containment, out at sea, exposed to deadly ordnance.
And at the same time nobody in our government gives the slightest god damn about extraordinarily dangerous gain-of-function experiments on deadly pathogens, in hundreds of labs around the World, including in War Zones. This after we know for an absolute fact that Covid was a lab leaked GOF virus. Continues with reckless abandon.
Fauci, Media's COVID Natural Origin Psyop FALLS APART | Breaking Points
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEl8NKSqThg
Sorry, son, you are spouting dangerous propaganda, which is killing millions of people every year. You need to wise up.
Keep it civil, fellas. (Remember, neither of you are exactly advocating for utility scale solar plants in Nome, Alaska!)
Thx!
I was nuclear engineer that resigned because of mandates. My "propaganda" isn't killing millions of people every year. I'm referring to actual regulatory, operational and engineering challenges in the nuclear sector. There is a difference between idealism and reality.
Since you're so enthusiastic then I suggest YOU fill the now permanent vacancies in the industry and vouch to make positive change. Best of luck and I hope you find the right opportunities.
Think it's reasonable to say all three of us here are on the proper side of reality vs. the idealism all three of us would like to redirect. Here's a prediction: we'll have more GW scale like Vogtle AND we'll have SMRs. The agencies in N. America will likely slow walk the SMRs more/drive the cost up more than realistically necessary. And, they'll make AP1000s and such take longer and cost more, too.
But, its probably we all 3 agree that the energy density that makes both no brainers in the long run makes the faux solutions with limited application like wind/solar/biofuels over sooner or later. (but not soon enough).
p.s. we like the spirited debate and hoped to cause this with our work. so don't take these comments the wrong way.
Yes, that kind No-Can-Doo propaganda is the main factor causing millions to die of fossil & biomass pollution needlessly and economic deprivation even more needlessly while allowing the ruling psychos to use that propaganda to foist their deadly Malthusian agenda down our throats.
I've already spent a lifetime in industry, over 40yrs, I'm a little old to start a new career.
There is clearly a post-modern neo-Malthusian element within this Green Luxury Belief pathology. And that element figured out that by controlling energy, they could achieve that which couldn't be achieved at the ballot box (esp. after it collapsed in 1991 before, it co-opted the environmental movement).
That's a post unto itself.... coming soon.
Thank you for your excellent essay. As an intervenor in the public interest before federal, state, and local regulatory bodies, Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP dot org) we have seen a persistent pattern where fossil fuel interests spend lavishly on public relations to attempt to convince the public that out-of-state coal-fired generation is environmentally beneficial for Californians. A significant fraction of California's approximately 100 teraWatt-hours of annual energy imports are powered by coal - including the power hidden behind a California-specific euphemism "unspecified power." CGNP infers that fossil-fuel interests are also funding environmental organizations (in name only) to continue advocating for out-of-state coal - and against nuclear power. The parallels to the German Energiewende are very clear. During the past decade of environmental advocacy, CGNP and its allies have started to gain traction against this harmful corporate-funded propaganda.
California is also shutting down oil production and replacing Californian oil from other countries. California oil bad. Saudi Arabia oil good.
We watch the ISO's using the "imports" catch all category and we wonder how to get that detailed data. In your case, some of that coal-fired capacity has to be coming from ID, WY, maybe NV I'd guess. Is it all coal or is some of it gas?
Here's more detailed data from the California Energy Commission. "Unspecified" typically means coal-fired power imports. California legislation allows exporters of unspecified power to *artificially* decrease their emissions to the level of a modern combined-cycle power plant. The scheme is very opaque - I would not be surprised if a few palms were greased in the process. Southwest imports include the LADWP 1,900 MW Intermountain Coal-Fired Power Plant near Delta, Utah. I believe that much of the northwest unspecified imports are from Berkshire Hathaway Energy's PacifiCorp subsidiary which operates many coal-fired power plants. See CGNP's April 5, 2022 Capitol Weekly OpEd HTTPS://TINYURL.COM/DCPP-VERSUS-COAL for additional background details.
A 2009-2021 spreadsheet with explicit entries for coal (and unspecified power) imports is found here: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Total_System_Electric_Generation_2009-2021_ada.xlsx
For 2003, use this URL: https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/system_power/2003_gross_system_power.html
Repeat for each year to 2017 by changing the year shown in the URL.
Then, for 2018, 2019, and 2020
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation/2018
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation/2019
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation/2020
We have someone drafting energy policy who thinks they were “wearing a Geiger counter”?
Well, yeah, it kinda looks that way...
There is a reason that there is no mention of "nuclear" in the IRA.
"At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said. Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
There's no mention of "nuclear" in that, either.
What portion of the movement is simply ignorant but well intended, what portion is well intended and highly informed, and what portion is ill-informed and ill-intended and malevolent and co-opted the movement.
If there's good news on this front, we believe the ignorant will learn, the well informed who are wrong will change, and the malevolent can go sit in a virgin forest. With milk and puppies.
Why milk and puppies? Me thinks snakes and ants are far more suited to nature lovers.
We wish no ill. OK, maybe non-poisonous snakes. And no fire ants. (joking)
Thank you for this. Energy should not be political but here we are. Until Democrats decry renewables, they are not to be taken seriously.
It could be THE most political thing going the next 24-36 months.
It's likely that reality will eventually leave them no choice.
Well, they still have the choice of deindustrialization, like Obama's Science Czar & Rockefeller toadie, John Holdren:
" 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
He helped Paul Ehrlich choose the basket of metals for the bet with Julian Simon. The rest is history. Except he went on to fail upward.
Yes but does reality come before or after massive grid failures?
THAT, BD seems to be the $64K question.
We wouldn't predict. Except to say citizens of GA have a built in advantage over states relying on wind/solar now.
EXCELLENT article. I plan to share with all the groups I belong to, who are fighting solar and wind in their rural areas.
My FIL was part of the design/build team on most all German nuclear plants, many of the French, UK plants in othe countries including the US. He also had a hand in the NS Savannah.
I was fortunate to spend many hours speaking to him about his work and nuclear energy in general before he passed away.
He told stories about his company being asked to bid on building Chernobyl (Russia's idea of containment was similar to a Morton Building) which they declined. He was also called in the middle of the night to go to TMI to figure out what happened. He was one of the first few to enter the facility. BTW he said there was no leakage, most controls functioned to shut down as they were supposed to but the humans on site, not so much (as I understand).
Based on his experience and knowledge, I suspect he would totally agree also.
Watch this video and you may have a different view on TMI:
Galen Winsor, Was TMI a movie script?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5uXzM_azWI
"Galen Winsor makes a startling statement; he claims that the Three Mile Island event was no accident. He states that the GE three of Gregory C. Minor, Richard B. Hubbard, and Dale G. Bridenbaugh wrote the script.
This would sound incredibly far fetched without the almost impossibly coincidental timing of "The China Syndrome" still playing in movie theaters at the time of the accident, the unbelievable coincidence of a line in the movie about contaminating an area the size of Pennsylvania (the same state where TMI is located), and the still troubling unknown regarding how the feed pump isolation valves on the back-up feed water pump just happened to be shut (supposedly due to a "maintenance error") when the primary pump tripped off line.
IMHO - it is possible that Winsor is correct..."
Will check it out. Had heard this was out there but never viewed. Good catch. Thx
This is interesting:
"Rich Lentz says:
August 1, 2013 at 12:07 PM Other coincidences:
Date/Time of initial criticality of TMI-II – March 28, 1978 @ 04:00:00
Date/time of accident (on plant computer) March 28, 1979 @ 04:00:00.037 (Note: the plant computer has a 3 millisecond cycle time to scan all points)
The main story in the Paxton Herald paper (A free paper that was mostly adds and a classified listing that you picked up to find/sell stuff but VERY anti-nuclear) that week and released before the accident, was about the major accident that was going to happen at TMI in the very near future.
https://atomicinsights.com/was-three-mile-island-an-accident/
https://atomicinsights.com/three-mile-island-initiating-event-may-sabotage/
https://atomicinsights.com/sabotage-tmi-part-3/
After watching the video, I read through the whole thread. It's from 2013 and very interesting discussion by actual people who work in the industry.
Since my FIL is no longer alive (was 95 when he died) to refute the claims (as he easily could have) I can only tell you what he told me. I think he would have mentioned a conspiracy issue like that. He could have answered your pump question also. I suspect that man, if he was in the position he claims, would have known my FIL even though he didn't work for GE.
What I find interesting (after listening to the video) is this: it seems these guys had an axe to grind? "Mr. Minor, Richard B. Hubbard and Dale G. Bridenbaugh resigned from the division of G.E. that built nuclear reactors, saying that they believed nuclear power presented a profound threat to mankind." Wonder if they were fired/asked to leave?
95, ... sort of sounds like working in nuclear is life extending rather than life threatening.
Could be. He was diagnosed with Parkinson's at 90, so he had a long, productive life. He loved living in Germany while overseeing the building of the European plants.
Have a family member there. Tell her to try and not look at her electricity bill for too long. (35 cents/kwh, or worse)
Thanks. He's the kind of guy we could sit and talk to for hours.
Well, at the end of the day, the GOP has zero interest in supporting any non-fossil fuel options...including nuclear. That leaves the Democratic party whose razor-thin majority includes a senator whose fortune is built on coal mines.
It may be true that nuclear is the best option, but barring a global move to take drastic action, we will continue our path of warming the earth.
Given the fractured foreign and domestic state of affairs, I would expect the world to plummet far deeper into chaos before even considering a truly global response. I'm a pessimist, so I don't believe the world is capable of responding, absent a new easily implementable technology. We have only to look at the contentious, fractured response to the pandemic to see how badly the world responded, how fortunate we were that the virus wasn't more deadly and that MRNA technology was so quickly repurposed.
Well the GOP is much more supportive of Nuclear Power then the Democrats. The basic problem is the Oligarchy calling the shots in the Western World are Malthusians and ALL Malthusians have always had seething hatred of nuclear power since it destroys their scarcity dogma. Nuclear power supplying unlimited energy, essentially forever.
Russia & China are demolishing Western Countries in Nuclear Power. Except for South Korea which has excellent reactors which they were offering to sell to Europe APR1400's for $3200/kw vs Westinghouse is quoting $4700/kw. Vs the AP1000's @ Vogtle @ $15000/kw and Britain's forced purchase of the French EPR @ $10100/kw @ Hinkley C. Westinghouse could not compete with Kepco's APR1400's so they sued them, using a fascist USA export law, forcing Poland to opt for the inferior and more expensive Westinghouse reactors. There is a lot of sleaze & corruption going on when it comes to Nuclear builds in Western countries. So bad is it that the cost of NPPs in the West are pretty much determined by the constant SF = The Sleaze Factor. Leaving the door wide open for China & Russia to overwhelm their competition everywhere except captive markets beholding to the USSA.
How Russia Controls the World's Nuclear Energy, AtomicBlender:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvDbf1YyT4
The coordinated response to the Plandemic was a prime example how centralized global authorities must be either devious & malicious or incredibly incompetent screwups. A perfect example of how NOT to tackle the Energy Problem. And the mRNA gene therapy is a proven failure which tragically have made their Plandemic more deadly and much longer lasting:
Why is everyone so afraid to talk about the elephant in the room? Steve Kirsch:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VU30HapG_RV1wG8z4T4fcMnSf0Kujpbmvk6GKaOJQCM/edit#slide=id.geef9d65f14_0_0
Look for the global move. American politicians won't want to be left out, nor will they enjoy answering questions about how other nations with fewer resources ($, technical expertise) are able to do so safely, quickly, and at much lower cost but the U.S. can't or shouldn't. (E.g. UAE and Barakah.)
I'd like to believe this, and a decade ago it would have been true, but we can't even pass a clean bill to avoid a debt default.
Fair point!
What's amazing is that the NOAA climate models don't even account for natural climate variability (aka the Sun) in their models. I believe climate change is less about saving the planet, and more about controlling people through the smart grid:
https://romanshapoval.substack.com/p/5g-satellites-a-threat-to-all-life
We find it hard to argue with you belief, though we think "through the smart grid" is one of the tamer means of control in the bigger picture.
Thanks for your thought..could you elaborate? I would say the aim is total extinction of humanity and the introduction of gene-edited cyborgs. There I said it (:
Fuel, electricity, consumption, industrialization, movement, nutrition...... (could go on....). And, the smart grid helps. So, we have no Nest or similar in our home. ;)