There just wouldn't be all this nonsense if there had been good energy decisions years ago. As in more nuclear. Now hysteria has taken over and the transfer of wealth is of more importance than actual energy. There is no transition as yet - only an addition in my opinion of an inferior energy source of wind, solar and batteries. We have gained nothing, but lost billions of dollars to accomplish what?
I agree with you. But there is indeed a transition, and it's not a good one. Industrial activity is being transferred from western nations to much more polluting sources producing products in China and India. This results in increased global pollution.
This is very true - I was not looking at that aspect. What also worries me is the pollution it will cause on site where solar, wind and batteries are deployed. I already know of land that has been polluted by wind turbine blade issues when they have fallen. On one blade alone people are loosing up to 200+ acres of land due to fiberglass contamination. That land will not be able to be grazed again without complete removal of the top layer of soil.
There is another, much worse aspect. All nuclear plants are required to have financing for decommissioning. This means eventual restoration to greenfield status if so required.
That is NOT the case for wind. Decommissioning for wind means only removal of the salvageable metal parts and burial of the turbine blades. The concrete foundation remains in place permanently. This is an obvious problem made particularly acute for marine installations of wind turbines. The adverse impact on marine life and ecosystems has never been assessed or analyzed. Whatever the impact it will not be zero.
The first big nuclear reactor was a breeder - the B Reactor at Hanford - which rapidly transmuted ordinary (cheap, plentiful) Uranium to breed the Plutonium used in the Trinity test and Fat Man bomb which exploded over Nagasaki. If that doesn't qualify as the textbook case for "useful for military purposes", nothing does.
One point about hydro to add, if I could. I live in Winnipeg, MB Canada. Most of our electricity comes hydro (over 95%). The dams are about 1000kms from where most of the electricity is consumed. We had to pay $5.3 billion for a new long distance HVDC transmission line, big money for 1.4 million people. Here is a list of the top seven HVDC transmission line distances in the world, from 1400 to 2500 kms. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305820/longest-power-transmission-lines-worldwide/ I do wonder if, for long distance HVDC transmission lines, the amount of concrete, steel, aluminium, etc and the amount of land that needs to be cleared are factored into lifecycle CO2 emissions, raw material requirements and cost estimates of hydro dams.
You should also add the myth of needed (rapid) decarbonization of emissions. The “science” re CO2 alarmism is now rapidly being discredited. NetZero is mostly a politically-based wealth transfer scheme in response to faulty / biased IPCC efforts. (Folks forget that the IPCC is an intergovernmental body of the U.N.)
Classing carbon as a pollutant is probably the stupidest thing our species has done in several thousand years. One day this era will be called the Age of the High IQ Moron.
Excellent article, Zion. Please insure the political leadership in Spain sees your article in light of the massive April 28, 2025 Iberian Peninsula blackout.
I think the implication that Biomass is a huge contributor to generational capacity is misleading. I regularly check the UK National Grid status and biomass is usually the smallest contributor.
It was hoped that biomass would be a useful source of power. In practice it turns out to be problematic. Once Drax reaches the end of its life, it won’t be replaced.
When Ontario was phasing out and shutting down all its coal-fired plants it allowed one to remain open. This was the tiny coal-fired unit at Atikokan. It was only 205 MW, and it was converted to burning wood-chips like Drax. This was mostly because of its location in NW Ontario, and local fuel supply was relatively plentiful. The original coal-fired plant was built in 1985. It will certainly not be replaced in the years to come when it needs extensive refurbishment.
Interesting post but it leaves out the most important misconception, there is no such thing as energy transition, only energy addition.
Most people approach the subject on a very limited local base, not a complete system view. For instance, you mention hydro as being “clean” because once it is built it doesn’t spew out any fumes. But what about the concrete and other coal and oil based energy inputs that went into building the dam and infrastructure in the first place? And assuming we want to reduce atmospheric CO2 and other gases, what about the loss of vegetation and the increase in methane emissions?
Also, it is clear that solar panels are nothing more than energy sinks with extremely high coal based inputs in China and fleeting unreliable “clean” outputs in Germany, or Spain, or wherever. And let’s not get started on windmills which are a total disaster.
Your strongest point is the eulogy of nuclear which is by far the most dense, reliable and “clean” energy source we have available today and for the foreseeable future.
This is a very good article with just a few comments from me.
Section 5 – ignoring Germany. The German Energiewende has produced the result of de-industrializing Germany. More and more of consumer and industrial goods are being produced in places like China or India with a huge proportion of the energy required for production coming from coal power. The German denuclearization has resulted in putting Germans out of work, increasing imports, and increasing coal consumed elsewhere. The global result of Energiewende has been a net increase in CO2 emissions.
Section 6 – sidelining nuclear. France and Sweden had no choice but to build nuclear power. By the 1950s, France and Belgium were running out of coal in the Franco-Belgian coalfield. It was a choice of either building lots of nuclear power supply or doing without electricity. Same thing applies to Sweden. That country had no domestic fossil fuel of any kind, coal or natural gas. Again, it was a forced choice: build nuclear power or do without electricity.
Section 7 – the grid isn’t magic. The recent collapse of the power grid in Spain and Portugal demonstrated the hazard of relying on wind and solar. Wind/solar cannot supply reactive power. Thus when these two become the predominant source of electricity, the grid is at risk of complete collapse because of a drop in frequency.
Darlington South Carolina is located on the sandy Atlantic coastal plain, the site of ancient beaches. There is no coal nearby, the nearby Pee Dee River is unsuitable for hydroelectric power. There is no iron ore nearby. Yet NUCOR Steel now the largest steel producer in the US built its first steel mill there. The mill began construction in 1968. Why then? Why there? Junk cars are part of the reason another part of the reason is a fellow named H B Robinson, an executive with Carolina Power and Light, now a part of Duke Energy. 1966 Robinson announced CP&L was building a nuclear power station in Darlington County. The plant, named for Robinson, began operating in 1971. NUCOR produces steel for building products from junk cars and plentiful electric power. NUCOR expanded from there, building other mills and acquiring others to become what it is today. The plant also produced good paying jobs.
Using CO2 per person is nonsense. By this metric Australia with 1% of global emissions is ranked above China. The atmosphere doesn’t look at where or who it comes from, just how much there is. If Australia slid into the Pacific tomorrow, the atmosphere wouldn’t notice
There just wouldn't be all this nonsense if there had been good energy decisions years ago. As in more nuclear. Now hysteria has taken over and the transfer of wealth is of more importance than actual energy. There is no transition as yet - only an addition in my opinion of an inferior energy source of wind, solar and batteries. We have gained nothing, but lost billions of dollars to accomplish what?
Love the post - very much straight talk.
I agree with you. But there is indeed a transition, and it's not a good one. Industrial activity is being transferred from western nations to much more polluting sources producing products in China and India. This results in increased global pollution.
This is very true - I was not looking at that aspect. What also worries me is the pollution it will cause on site where solar, wind and batteries are deployed. I already know of land that has been polluted by wind turbine blade issues when they have fallen. On one blade alone people are loosing up to 200+ acres of land due to fiberglass contamination. That land will not be able to be grazed again without complete removal of the top layer of soil.
There is another, much worse aspect. All nuclear plants are required to have financing for decommissioning. This means eventual restoration to greenfield status if so required.
That is NOT the case for wind. Decommissioning for wind means only removal of the salvageable metal parts and burial of the turbine blades. The concrete foundation remains in place permanently. This is an obvious problem made particularly acute for marine installations of wind turbines. The adverse impact on marine life and ecosystems has never been assessed or analyzed. Whatever the impact it will not be zero.
Nuclear is effectively renewable when done with breeder reactors. The only real trouble is that other thing Plutonium is good for.
Most plutonium is not useful for weapons use. Military applications of plutionium require pure Pu-239.
The first big nuclear reactor was a breeder - the B Reactor at Hanford - which rapidly transmuted ordinary (cheap, plentiful) Uranium to breed the Plutonium used in the Trinity test and Fat Man bomb which exploded over Nagasaki. If that doesn't qualify as the textbook case for "useful for military purposes", nothing does.
Reactor grade plutonium is a blend of all of the isotopes of plutonium. Reactor grade plutonium is not useful for explosive purposes.
Excellent comments. Its amazing that a lot of even supposed 'energy experts' make the basic mistakes you outline.
One point about hydro to add, if I could. I live in Winnipeg, MB Canada. Most of our electricity comes hydro (over 95%). The dams are about 1000kms from where most of the electricity is consumed. We had to pay $5.3 billion for a new long distance HVDC transmission line, big money for 1.4 million people. Here is a list of the top seven HVDC transmission line distances in the world, from 1400 to 2500 kms. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305820/longest-power-transmission-lines-worldwide/ I do wonder if, for long distance HVDC transmission lines, the amount of concrete, steel, aluminium, etc and the amount of land that needs to be cleared are factored into lifecycle CO2 emissions, raw material requirements and cost estimates of hydro dams.
You should also add the myth of needed (rapid) decarbonization of emissions. The “science” re CO2 alarmism is now rapidly being discredited. NetZero is mostly a politically-based wealth transfer scheme in response to faulty / biased IPCC efforts. (Folks forget that the IPCC is an intergovernmental body of the U.N.)
WA Samuel, agreed. NetZero is a delusion that is impossible to achieve by any understanding of actual physics and chemistry.
Of course it's a wealth transfer scheme. Maurice Strong set up AGW to be such when UNFCCC was formed in the 1993 Rio conference.
Bullshit
Outstanding article!
Classing carbon as a pollutant is probably the stupidest thing our species has done in several thousand years. One day this era will be called the Age of the High IQ Moron.
Excellent article, Zion. Please insure the political leadership in Spain sees your article in light of the massive April 28, 2025 Iberian Peninsula blackout.
Great post - reposted to LinkedIn
I think the implication that Biomass is a huge contributor to generational capacity is misleading. I regularly check the UK National Grid status and biomass is usually the smallest contributor.
It was hoped that biomass would be a useful source of power. In practice it turns out to be problematic. Once Drax reaches the end of its life, it won’t be replaced.
When Ontario was phasing out and shutting down all its coal-fired plants it allowed one to remain open. This was the tiny coal-fired unit at Atikokan. It was only 205 MW, and it was converted to burning wood-chips like Drax. This was mostly because of its location in NW Ontario, and local fuel supply was relatively plentiful. The original coal-fired plant was built in 1985. It will certainly not be replaced in the years to come when it needs extensive refurbishment.
Interesting post but it leaves out the most important misconception, there is no such thing as energy transition, only energy addition.
Most people approach the subject on a very limited local base, not a complete system view. For instance, you mention hydro as being “clean” because once it is built it doesn’t spew out any fumes. But what about the concrete and other coal and oil based energy inputs that went into building the dam and infrastructure in the first place? And assuming we want to reduce atmospheric CO2 and other gases, what about the loss of vegetation and the increase in methane emissions?
Also, it is clear that solar panels are nothing more than energy sinks with extremely high coal based inputs in China and fleeting unreliable “clean” outputs in Germany, or Spain, or wherever. And let’s not get started on windmills which are a total disaster.
Your strongest point is the eulogy of nuclear which is by far the most dense, reliable and “clean” energy source we have available today and for the foreseeable future.
This is a very good article with just a few comments from me.
Section 5 – ignoring Germany. The German Energiewende has produced the result of de-industrializing Germany. More and more of consumer and industrial goods are being produced in places like China or India with a huge proportion of the energy required for production coming from coal power. The German denuclearization has resulted in putting Germans out of work, increasing imports, and increasing coal consumed elsewhere. The global result of Energiewende has been a net increase in CO2 emissions.
Section 6 – sidelining nuclear. France and Sweden had no choice but to build nuclear power. By the 1950s, France and Belgium were running out of coal in the Franco-Belgian coalfield. It was a choice of either building lots of nuclear power supply or doing without electricity. Same thing applies to Sweden. That country had no domestic fossil fuel of any kind, coal or natural gas. Again, it was a forced choice: build nuclear power or do without electricity.
Section 7 – the grid isn’t magic. The recent collapse of the power grid in Spain and Portugal demonstrated the hazard of relying on wind and solar. Wind/solar cannot supply reactive power. Thus when these two become the predominant source of electricity, the grid is at risk of complete collapse because of a drop in frequency.
Darlington South Carolina is located on the sandy Atlantic coastal plain, the site of ancient beaches. There is no coal nearby, the nearby Pee Dee River is unsuitable for hydroelectric power. There is no iron ore nearby. Yet NUCOR Steel now the largest steel producer in the US built its first steel mill there. The mill began construction in 1968. Why then? Why there? Junk cars are part of the reason another part of the reason is a fellow named H B Robinson, an executive with Carolina Power and Light, now a part of Duke Energy. 1966 Robinson announced CP&L was building a nuclear power station in Darlington County. The plant, named for Robinson, began operating in 1971. NUCOR produces steel for building products from junk cars and plentiful electric power. NUCOR expanded from there, building other mills and acquiring others to become what it is today. The plant also produced good paying jobs.
Using CO2 per person is nonsense. By this metric Australia with 1% of global emissions is ranked above China. The atmosphere doesn’t look at where or who it comes from, just how much there is. If Australia slid into the Pacific tomorrow, the atmosphere wouldn’t notice
Howard, what is interesting is that the only argument the troll has is crude insult.
Too true and not worth bothering to respond too, no point in engaging with trolls
The very trite and tired deserter's argument.