I also really enjoy all the "everything is sunlight" metaphors. Bill McKibben spoke about this recently, but this piece closed the loop for me. Coal = old fern sunlight, oil = old dinosaur sunlight, hydro = evaporation sunlight, wind = differential planet heating sunlight. Even uranium probably came from an exploding star somewhere.... :D
Have you guys considered how much more effective nuclear power will be on the grid and that solar does have a place but only off-grid where large capacity is not needed?
Check out the slide deck. Nuclear is slow to build, has both proliferation issues AND cannot be deployed in unstable countries, and costs way too much. If you agree that speed is of the essence then nuclear is too slow.
Where are you getting this bum info?... .... speed is of the essence?.. why?... we keep our existing capability and add reliable and capable nuclear and as we remove the red tape and come down the learning curve it gets less expensive.. any thing is better than rushed unreliable and uncapable and on balance more expensive renewables... China and India are adding plenty of them.. plenty of studies.. here are a few ...An Inconvenient Truth: Our climate policies cant save the environment. So what will? | Bjorn Lomborg
There is no learning curve with nuclear. Every unit is bespoke, hence the typical cost overruns to double projected. Quoting Lomborg tells me all I need to ignore you.
I am pro-nuclear (and virtually every other energy source) but he is correct. The nuclear industry needs a massive overhaul if it is to become cost-competitive. And before that, we need a massive overhaul of government regulation of nuclear power.
In the meantime, natural gas is a far more cost-effective energy source in North America.
About 4years from build start to grid connection for ABWR in Japan about 20years ago is proving you quite wrong. UAE project is also pretty good example of the opposite from what you said (first power plant in country). You don't need enormous "learning curve", but to judge if it is possible to get them one needs multi reactor project on one site and preferably few similar sites. Gish gallop of "issues" doesn't mean that "issues" don't have clear solutions or are serious problem.
Practical question- how many GW of solar and batteries, in for example Germany, is needed to be put on to replace(meaning switch off for good) 1GW of coal? What is the price of such system then?
Speed is of the essence because capital costs must be debt-financed. Interest rates blow up the cost of long expensive projects, unless interest rates are extremely low.
That is a poor reason for building a bad energy system.. I dont want my taxes wasted like that.. plus we have to keep on with the FF capability to support industry until we sort out a nuclear capability... forget W&S its a mugs game..
Cost needs to be the #1 consideration in building an energy system. And nuclear does not pass the test for the foreseeable future.
And the US energy system is not bad at all (if that is what you are implying). It is likely the best in human history. We just got off the focus on cost a bit for the last 60 years.
I am not suggesting that we should waste your taxes.
It is the underlying insincerity that makes advocacy like yours ineffective with people who take the climate and emissions problem seriously.
When combined with climate science denial like yours - CO2 Coalition 'science' good, IPCC bad says that clearly enough - we know your intention isn't doing emissions reductions better, it is about stopping the efforts that are currently underway, using renewables. It just looks like one plank of a broader platform of doubt, denial and delay opposition and obstruction.
Your rhetoric will resonate with pro fossil fuels climate science deniers - and for that audience that intrinsic insincerity (climate change not serious or urgent) looks less of a flaw than a feature, a way to assure pro fossil fuels climate science deniers that your promotion of nuclear isn't actually intended to displace fossil fuels.
Because climate science deniers don't care about emissions they will never lend nuclear the necessary commitment to follow through with the most expensive, most subsidy required, most government overruling free markets option as a way to address global warming. Voting for nuclear here is voting for pro fossil fuels climate science deniers who won't care if nuclear gets built or not. Oh too bad, have to keep using fossil fuels.
Nuclear is the bar held too high, to force everyone under, not lead us over.
You are correct the goal must be to halt all the wasteful efforts regarding NetZero as CO2 is far from a threat, and we can operate with modern fossil fuels while we wait for nuclear power to become available and avoid the colossal mistake of the green fantasy of W&S.
FFs will be with us for a long time as they are fundamental building blocks for a modern industrialized economy and necessary to allow other global economies to emerge.
The west needs to use the most reliable lowest cost and abundant form of energy to reshore its industries to ensure we recover our prosperity using FFs followed by nuclear… W&S don’t even come close to being useful and is more of a dangerous distraction…. Ask the nations that embraced that approach and are now paying far more for energy than needed.
We have strong facts to support that we don’t have a climate emergency on this planet..... more on this is you want..
So why don’t you alarmists find some other religion to follow or go hug a tree or something while we get on with taking care of our citizens needs..
The doubt, deny, delay crowd are the ones so overwhelmed with alarmist (false) fears of economic and societal doom by addressing emissions that they seek to politicise climate science to make it appear to go away – in a grand conspiracy of accountability avoidance. The whole issue only appears to be ‘leftist’ because those who lean right have not engaged with it honestly or applied due diligence or acknowledged any overarching duties of care. Framing it as for-by-about ‘green’ activism ‘gotten out of hand’ instead of the consistent top level science based advice makes the politics of opposing accountability avoidance about opposing green activism instead of about their own enduring opposition to addressing it.
Accountability avoidance as government policy looks like corruption to me. I am not impressed that you prefer that to facing up to it.
With friends like you – climate science denier/renewable energy denier - nuclear doesn’t need anti-nuclear ‘green’ opposition to be set aside as a principle emissions solution. Not that it is a task nuclear is well suited to. Something that modern power companies at least seem to understand.
I think the pro-fossil fuels opponents of climate accountability and emissions reductions targets are confident nuclear will always be more expensive than fossil fuels, cannot scale up, requires unacceptable levels of government subsidy and energy market interventions/regulation and therefore presents no long term threat to fossil fuels. And not having serious policies for using nuclear can be blamed on others. So not even accountable for their own choices.
I think I was very clear that we are not in denial as to be in denial would be to not listen to facts on a matter, but as you well know, but wont admit, the science remains unsettled with no climate impact issues and poor models reinforcing a strong position that we don’t need to mitigate any climate (or energy sources) and only need focused adaption. And we should use the lowest cost most reliable and most abundant energy sources to support our economies for the benefit of our citizens. Many governments both in power and soon to be.. will be taking this position…… so get over it.
If nuclear is a better longer term solution and many of us believe it is… then it will be adopted if it fulfills the cost/ reliability/ abundance performance model.
All your other comments are what I call emotional politics and should be disregarded.
I attended the webinar today (superbly narrated by Daan Walters) and a great Q&A. Suggest to watch it, should be online on Sept 17. One caveat raised in the presentation comes on slide 105, The electrification imperative: Many countries are building out renewables fast but are not yet transforming their economies towards massive electrification, except China. It takes both channels to come together for maximum effect.
This is great stuff; I can’t wait to dive into the data-rich parts.
Just one comment on #4, “Energy is all about efficiency”: The part we care about is not what everyone cares most about, although the compulsions I’m talking about here are unconscious and thus denied when mentioned. Fossil and fissile fuels are attractive to some because the burning of things and smashing of atoms symbolically represent and manifest the domination of nature. Those in charge are mostly there because they’re addicted to power and control as a compensation for the lack of it that they feel personally, and felt as infants and children. (See neurologist George Lakoff’s work for related ideas: Don’t Think of an Elephant, archived Rockridge Inst. web pages, etc.)
The far right now ruling much of the world has taken that to an extreme; addicted to domination and sadism, which is obviously a problem for all of us, them included.
While I agree that automated processes will help convert information into actionable knowledge for improving energy management and the transitions needed to more efficient methods, my experience has shown that management knowledge about how to implement the transition is just as important as the technical knowledge.
The energy co-ordinator (or whoever is designated as the energy guru) is typically relegated to the bottom rungs of the operational structure. An executive level energy champion needs to lead the electrotech revolution via an integrated approach to identify clean energy transition objectives.
This requires a systems approach to energy management which identifies how to involve the whole organization.
While not everybody accepts ISO standards, ISO50001 is the best framework I know to create a transition to a clean energy management system. AI would only be an agent in this scenario - not the leader of the process.
AI’s ability to greatly accelerate to accelerate the renewable energy transition is greatly underestimated. Compressing R&D timelines of everything from material discovery to battery chemistry to meaningfully reducing permitting and regulatory timelines has so much benefit that it is hard to quantify. That’s before we get to robotics and other ways where installation and construction itself could increasingly see large productivity improvements that slash costs and timelines — something that we’ll also increasingly see over the next 10 years.
I am very skeptical that we are actually moving towards an energy transition with renewable energy replacing fossil fuels. Until now human history has gradually moved towards denser energy, (wood > coal > petroleum/natural gas/nuclear/hydro), but wind and solar are significantly lower energy density.
My guess is that fossil fuels/nuclear/hydro will continue to grow or at worst remain stable in raw totals, but wind and solar will grow in geographies where they offer advantages.
I am fine calling it a Green Energy Transition, as long as that goes with the caveat that it is just adding on another layer onto existing energy sources.
Why ?… why don’t I trust the UN?...Because they have consistently lied to us all on many subjects to suite their own agenda…. but mostly they have lied about climate change…..
They have a huge gulf between what the IPCC science says and what the policy recommendations says… and the UN leadership drives unnecessary alarmism that makes no sense.
We don’t have a climate emergency on this planet… we have no climate impact metrics that indicate we have any issues and all the climate models overpredict the outcome and should be disregarded. Also, NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
From an energy point of view… we need to maintain our use of FFs and only slowly evolve to nuclear and avoid the unreliable and costly W&S at all costs.
Here is a article that shows where we are headed..
The Great Climate Science RESET. - by Nigel Southway
I review material from all sources and check it out before I distrust... Mostly I don’t see CO2 Coalition being bad at providing good data... I don’t see them as a nefarious oil business lobby group as some do..
Most of the data they use is from central sources... but they do draw different conclusions :-)... and mostly correct ones.. we have plenty of media that do a great spin job to keep the emergency narrative going.
Puzzled over the apparent lack of attention to energy return on energy invested for solar panels manufacture and such like. Or is it hidden under 'efficiency'?
The eROI figures are known and they should make everyone happy. There is an issue with ROI: not a lot of profit to be made in manufacturing or installation. Check out their slide #104: (text from the slide)
$100 goes to the maker of the panels, and the margin if they are lucky is 5% or $5
Installer: $20. An installer will charge you $200 and make a margin of around $20
User: $500. The user gets 0.7 MWh a year of electricity for 30 years, and will save around $500
EROI figures for solar and wind are not impressive at all. Make solar and wind last shorter than assumed(lets say hale destruction, salt corrosion), put solar PV in Germany instead of Spain and EROI tanks to where it is waste of resources. It is not enough to have "head over water" and EROI>1, it must be sharply high- 2digits at least. You can tamper with ROI with subsidies, mandates, taxes etc, but that is not sustainable idea that ought to take us to "decarbonised" world.
Great piece! I love Ember too. They had a piece over the summer about the cost of light that I loved https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/the-long-march-of-electrification/
I also really enjoy all the "everything is sunlight" metaphors. Bill McKibben spoke about this recently, but this piece closed the loop for me. Coal = old fern sunlight, oil = old dinosaur sunlight, hydro = evaporation sunlight, wind = differential planet heating sunlight. Even uranium probably came from an exploding star somewhere.... :D
Have you guys considered how much more effective nuclear power will be on the grid and that solar does have a place but only off-grid where large capacity is not needed?
Check out the slide deck. Nuclear is slow to build, has both proliferation issues AND cannot be deployed in unstable countries, and costs way too much. If you agree that speed is of the essence then nuclear is too slow.
Where are you getting this bum info?... .... speed is of the essence?.. why?... we keep our existing capability and add reliable and capable nuclear and as we remove the red tape and come down the learning curve it gets less expensive.. any thing is better than rushed unreliable and uncapable and on balance more expensive renewables... China and India are adding plenty of them.. plenty of studies.. here are a few ...An Inconvenient Truth: Our climate policies cant save the environment. So what will? | Bjorn Lomborg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN_ARfPY9rY
WATCH: Gerard Holland lays out the staggering cost of renewable energy at ARC Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRhNOv1Uo4M&t=4s
There is no learning curve with nuclear. Every unit is bespoke, hence the typical cost overruns to double projected. Quoting Lomborg tells me all I need to ignore you.
Wow…It’s very clear that you are biased and not interested in the truth or you have not reacted the way you did....
Here is a bit of a check list about W&S versus Nuclear …
All the nations moving toward W&S are experiencing the most expensive energy costs
Certainly in North America, Nuclear installs require no expensive imports from China
Nuclear will use far less real estate
Nuclear is far more sustainable for the environment.
Nuclear can immediately join the existing grid
Solar may have a purpose off grid only as supplemental local power
Wind farms are expensive and unreliable compared to nuclear
Many western nations have ran the numbers and have or are moving on nuclear.. US and Canada and France and they enjoy lower energy costs.
We need reliable affordable and abundant energy for our prosperity and W&S is NOT that.
Just too much data to support any other decision than Nuclear.
Europe's going bust over Net-Zero (and the rest of the world doesn't care) | Paul Marshall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j7jU3cwDQw
An Inconvenient Truth: Our climate policies cant save the environment. So what will? | Bjorn Lomborg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN_ARfPY9rY
WATCH: Gerard Holland lays out the staggering cost of renewable energy at ARC Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRhNOv1Uo4M&t=4s
Australia’s net zero scheme won’t work
http://www.nigelsouthway.org/storage/01JXSMEHD3DMQZXM1BF2KM7SN3.pdf
I am pro-nuclear (and virtually every other energy source) but he is correct. The nuclear industry needs a massive overhaul if it is to become cost-competitive. And before that, we need a massive overhaul of government regulation of nuclear power.
In the meantime, natural gas is a far more cost-effective energy source in North America.
Agreed ... but its something we can fix and should... we need to learn from other nations that have not put the brakes on it for the last 20 years/.
About 4years from build start to grid connection for ABWR in Japan about 20years ago is proving you quite wrong. UAE project is also pretty good example of the opposite from what you said (first power plant in country). You don't need enormous "learning curve", but to judge if it is possible to get them one needs multi reactor project on one site and preferably few similar sites. Gish gallop of "issues" doesn't mean that "issues" don't have clear solutions or are serious problem.
Practical question- how many GW of solar and batteries, in for example Germany, is needed to be put on to replace(meaning switch off for good) 1GW of coal? What is the price of such system then?
Speed is of the essence because capital costs must be debt-financed. Interest rates blow up the cost of long expensive projects, unless interest rates are extremely low.
That is a poor reason for building a bad energy system.. I dont want my taxes wasted like that.. plus we have to keep on with the FF capability to support industry until we sort out a nuclear capability... forget W&S its a mugs game..
Cost is a poor reason?
Seriously?
Cost needs to be the #1 consideration in building an energy system. And nuclear does not pass the test for the foreseeable future.
And the US energy system is not bad at all (if that is what you are implying). It is likely the best in human history. We just got off the focus on cost a bit for the last 60 years.
I am not suggesting that we should waste your taxes.
It is the underlying insincerity that makes advocacy like yours ineffective with people who take the climate and emissions problem seriously.
When combined with climate science denial like yours - CO2 Coalition 'science' good, IPCC bad says that clearly enough - we know your intention isn't doing emissions reductions better, it is about stopping the efforts that are currently underway, using renewables. It just looks like one plank of a broader platform of doubt, denial and delay opposition and obstruction.
Your rhetoric will resonate with pro fossil fuels climate science deniers - and for that audience that intrinsic insincerity (climate change not serious or urgent) looks less of a flaw than a feature, a way to assure pro fossil fuels climate science deniers that your promotion of nuclear isn't actually intended to displace fossil fuels.
Because climate science deniers don't care about emissions they will never lend nuclear the necessary commitment to follow through with the most expensive, most subsidy required, most government overruling free markets option as a way to address global warming. Voting for nuclear here is voting for pro fossil fuels climate science deniers who won't care if nuclear gets built or not. Oh too bad, have to keep using fossil fuels.
Nuclear is the bar held too high, to force everyone under, not lead us over.
Your self righteousness shows through very well…
You are correct the goal must be to halt all the wasteful efforts regarding NetZero as CO2 is far from a threat, and we can operate with modern fossil fuels while we wait for nuclear power to become available and avoid the colossal mistake of the green fantasy of W&S.
FFs will be with us for a long time as they are fundamental building blocks for a modern industrialized economy and necessary to allow other global economies to emerge.
The west needs to use the most reliable lowest cost and abundant form of energy to reshore its industries to ensure we recover our prosperity using FFs followed by nuclear… W&S don’t even come close to being useful and is more of a dangerous distraction…. Ask the nations that embraced that approach and are now paying far more for energy than needed.
We have strong facts to support that we don’t have a climate emergency on this planet..... more on this is you want..
So why don’t you alarmists find some other religion to follow or go hug a tree or something while we get on with taking care of our citizens needs..
The doubt, deny, delay crowd are the ones so overwhelmed with alarmist (false) fears of economic and societal doom by addressing emissions that they seek to politicise climate science to make it appear to go away – in a grand conspiracy of accountability avoidance. The whole issue only appears to be ‘leftist’ because those who lean right have not engaged with it honestly or applied due diligence or acknowledged any overarching duties of care. Framing it as for-by-about ‘green’ activism ‘gotten out of hand’ instead of the consistent top level science based advice makes the politics of opposing accountability avoidance about opposing green activism instead of about their own enduring opposition to addressing it.
Accountability avoidance as government policy looks like corruption to me. I am not impressed that you prefer that to facing up to it.
With friends like you – climate science denier/renewable energy denier - nuclear doesn’t need anti-nuclear ‘green’ opposition to be set aside as a principle emissions solution. Not that it is a task nuclear is well suited to. Something that modern power companies at least seem to understand.
I think the pro-fossil fuels opponents of climate accountability and emissions reductions targets are confident nuclear will always be more expensive than fossil fuels, cannot scale up, requires unacceptable levels of government subsidy and energy market interventions/regulation and therefore presents no long term threat to fossil fuels. And not having serious policies for using nuclear can be blamed on others. So not even accountable for their own choices.
I think I was very clear that we are not in denial as to be in denial would be to not listen to facts on a matter, but as you well know, but wont admit, the science remains unsettled with no climate impact issues and poor models reinforcing a strong position that we don’t need to mitigate any climate (or energy sources) and only need focused adaption. And we should use the lowest cost most reliable and most abundant energy sources to support our economies for the benefit of our citizens. Many governments both in power and soon to be.. will be taking this position…… so get over it.
If nuclear is a better longer term solution and many of us believe it is… then it will be adopted if it fulfills the cost/ reliability/ abundance performance model.
All your other comments are what I call emotional politics and should be disregarded.
Excellent presentation of Ember's data showing the positive transition to clean electricity. I hope your message gets distributed widely.
I attended the webinar today (superbly narrated by Daan Walters) and a great Q&A. Suggest to watch it, should be online on Sept 17. One caveat raised in the presentation comes on slide 105, The electrification imperative: Many countries are building out renewables fast but are not yet transforming their economies towards massive electrification, except China. It takes both channels to come together for maximum effect.
This is great stuff; I can’t wait to dive into the data-rich parts.
Just one comment on #4, “Energy is all about efficiency”: The part we care about is not what everyone cares most about, although the compulsions I’m talking about here are unconscious and thus denied when mentioned. Fossil and fissile fuels are attractive to some because the burning of things and smashing of atoms symbolically represent and manifest the domination of nature. Those in charge are mostly there because they’re addicted to power and control as a compensation for the lack of it that they feel personally, and felt as infants and children. (See neurologist George Lakoff’s work for related ideas: Don’t Think of an Elephant, archived Rockridge Inst. web pages, etc.)
The far right now ruling much of the world has taken that to an extreme; addicted to domination and sadism, which is obviously a problem for all of us, them included.
Really good article! Figures were super descriptive and easy to follow
Brilliant, the image on point 3 is simple and completely delivers its message, loved it and all the points - fantastic 👍👏👏
While I agree that automated processes will help convert information into actionable knowledge for improving energy management and the transitions needed to more efficient methods, my experience has shown that management knowledge about how to implement the transition is just as important as the technical knowledge.
The energy co-ordinator (or whoever is designated as the energy guru) is typically relegated to the bottom rungs of the operational structure. An executive level energy champion needs to lead the electrotech revolution via an integrated approach to identify clean energy transition objectives.
This requires a systems approach to energy management which identifies how to involve the whole organization.
While not everybody accepts ISO standards, ISO50001 is the best framework I know to create a transition to a clean energy management system. AI would only be an agent in this scenario - not the leader of the process.
AI’s ability to greatly accelerate to accelerate the renewable energy transition is greatly underestimated. Compressing R&D timelines of everything from material discovery to battery chemistry to meaningfully reducing permitting and regulatory timelines has so much benefit that it is hard to quantify. That’s before we get to robotics and other ways where installation and construction itself could increasingly see large productivity improvements that slash costs and timelines — something that we’ll also increasingly see over the next 10 years.
I loved this. Thanks for sharing it.
Before we started using fossil fuels we were using the Sun’s energy in real time!
I am very skeptical that we are actually moving towards an energy transition with renewable energy replacing fossil fuels. Until now human history has gradually moved towards denser energy, (wood > coal > petroleum/natural gas/nuclear/hydro), but wind and solar are significantly lower energy density.
My guess is that fossil fuels/nuclear/hydro will continue to grow or at worst remain stable in raw totals, but wind and solar will grow in geographies where they offer advantages.
I am fine calling it a Green Energy Transition, as long as that goes with the caveat that it is just adding on another layer onto existing energy sources.
Way out of step with reality!!! https://co2coalition.substack.com/p/if-europe-pursues-artificial-intelligence?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1350984&post_id=173287831&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1jqijs&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
This co2 coalition - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition ????
I trust them more than the UN thats for sure
Why?
Why ?… why don’t I trust the UN?...Because they have consistently lied to us all on many subjects to suite their own agenda…. but mostly they have lied about climate change…..
They have a huge gulf between what the IPCC science says and what the policy recommendations says… and the UN leadership drives unnecessary alarmism that makes no sense.
We don’t have a climate emergency on this planet… we have no climate impact metrics that indicate we have any issues and all the climate models overpredict the outcome and should be disregarded. Also, NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
From an energy point of view… we need to maintain our use of FFs and only slowly evolve to nuclear and avoid the unreliable and costly W&S at all costs.
Here is a article that shows where we are headed..
The Great Climate Science RESET. - by Nigel Southway
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/the-great-climate-science-reset
Sorry. I wasn’t clear in my question. Why do you trust the “co2 coalition”?
I review material from all sources and check it out before I distrust... Mostly I don’t see CO2 Coalition being bad at providing good data... I don’t see them as a nefarious oil business lobby group as some do..
Most of the data they use is from central sources... but they do draw different conclusions :-)... and mostly correct ones.. we have plenty of media that do a great spin job to keep the emergency narrative going.
That assuming that artificial general intelligence doesn’t come along first and wipe it all out!
Puzzled over the apparent lack of attention to energy return on energy invested for solar panels manufacture and such like. Or is it hidden under 'efficiency'?
The eROI figures are known and they should make everyone happy. There is an issue with ROI: not a lot of profit to be made in manufacturing or installation. Check out their slide #104: (text from the slide)
$100 goes to the maker of the panels, and the margin if they are lucky is 5% or $5
Installer: $20. An installer will charge you $200 and make a margin of around $20
User: $500. The user gets 0.7 MWh a year of electricity for 30 years, and will save around $500
EROI figures for solar and wind are not impressive at all. Make solar and wind last shorter than assumed(lets say hale destruction, salt corrosion), put solar PV in Germany instead of Spain and EROI tanks to where it is waste of resources. It is not enough to have "head over water" and EROI>1, it must be sharply high- 2digits at least. You can tamper with ROI with subsidies, mandates, taxes etc, but that is not sustainable idea that ought to take us to "decarbonised" world.
The only pragmatic comment so far (replying to Nigel Southway).