Respect to Brian for changing your mind. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Meanwhile the Biden regime is trying to force more electric vehicle adoption, even after demand has stalled. What is the best way to stop the continuing tyranny of unelected commissars pushing ESG social credit scores?
Government pushing Green isn't really about the environment, it's about the grift. In a post religious age, apocalyptic visions of putative disaster support it. Great collection of facts in the piece, but facts are irrelevant to the project of grifting.
The concept of electric trucks to haul the vast amount of freight the last 50-500 miles is conveniently overlooked. In most cities there is less than a week of food in the markets and in homes there may be less than a day's worth. A major power loss (through accident, nature , sabotage or failure) is going to be far more difficult to manage electric vehicles.
I’m not sure respect is in order here. Someone with 22 years experience in green tech is, and has been, fully aware that net zero cannot be achieved with current technology and is in no way feasible.
At best this is a baby step toward the refutation of the idea that renewables can replace fossil fuels without a massive disruption to developed economies.
This mea culpa, of sorts, means nothing when one is still wedded to the cult.
“ It’s true that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 likely increase the risk of climate-related floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and fires—events that could negatively affect people’s lives.”
There is no research remotely proving attribution of CO2 to weather events. Even the IPCC recognizes this. But the religious belief, that this is the case, will still lead to unreasonable demands being placed on society. The massive mal-investment, wholly inefficient use of resources and curtailing freedom of choice will still reside in this man’s reasoning, until the global warming scam is finally and fully realized for what it is.
Merely admitting the reality that renewables is a boondoggle, a process that took 22 years, shouldn’t come with an award.
I wonder what green aligned Ponzi scheme he will move onto next.
Thank you for pointing out that there is no science supporting the cult of net zero. CO2 is not a pollutant but is plant fertilizer. It is a scam perpetuated on the world for control and money laundering..
Net zero is possible, with nuclear energy & only with nuclear energy. A rather silly goal however. The goal should be replacing as much diesel fuel & electricity generation as rapidly as is economical with nuclear energy. Conserving oil & gas for the critical petrochemical industry, lubricants, jet fuel, fertilizer & polymers.
Realize we will need a 5X increase in primary energy to meet the rapidly growing demand of developing nations. There is no way fossil is capable of that, nor is renewables, not even renewables + fossil, not even close. Nuclear fission can supply that level of energy for at least 20 Myrs, using Earth land resources. Fusion until the sun consumes the Earth.
The goal should be the most efficient use of available resources to meet the growing demand.
I don’t disagree that nuclear power would meet this criteria, but when was the last time a nuclear power plant was permitted, much less commissioned? And build times, from planning to commissioning, runs to decades.
So if we’re going to go that route, we better get cracking.
In the meantime, there is no substitute for fossil fuels and renewables are no more than a vanity project.
As for net zero, what kind of fuzzy math must be applied to reconcile the input costs (in CO2) versus the realized results?
No, the building of big nuclear power plants has been commonly in 4yrs. That's without factory construction, which is easily done. Corruption is the only reason nuclear has not replaced almost all electricity generation. By 1974, until the nuclear blockade was instituted, the US was completing one NPP per month, at that rate all electricity generation in the US would've been nuclear by 2000.
And France, starting from scratch, achieved 88% of their domestic electricity production, 40% of their primary energy consumption in 20yrs with nuclear. So no, there is no physical problem to achieve that again, corruption is the only problem.
Yeah, say the owners of the USSA decided fracking was bad. And they banned it, using some phony regulator/regulations. 40yrs later after the industry was completely dead, no supply chain, no skilled personnel some genius politicians decides fracking is OK again. But keeps the same corrupt regulator that shutdown fracking in the first place. How long do you think it would take to get tight oil & shale gas up & running? You think shale gas would be selling for $3/mmbtu?
There is a foundational problem with nuclear energy ....... There's no room for the Hunter Biden types to earn massive fees working the back halls of Congress.
There are few better examples of the scams than the Billion + of taxpayer loans and vast additional tax credits that went into the ill fated Ivanpaugh solar project in California. It takes massive amounts of natural gas to carry the plant through the night or overcast conditions. The plant does provide workers with free food in the form of incinerated birds who happened to fly nearby.
Indeed, the goal should be human flourishing, which is the exact opposite of what our ruling elites have. Once you accept that though, there is a need for some real intelligence in establishing a viable energy strategy. And that is always impaired by vested interests who just want to make a quick buck, even if it leads to total economic collapse. Sadly, economic catastrophe is often a goal of some energy investment firms. Shortages = high prices = high profits.
I appreciate your comment and sentiment. I fear, in my haste, that I’ve failed to be clear in my response.
In the case of Mr. Gitt, he has been in the renewables business for 22 years and only now comes to the realization that it costs too much and won’t work. The flaws he finds are technical only, the reasoning behind it, in his mind, is still sound. Saving the world from CO2 is still a true and correct idea. The intention is still good.
But with investment drying up, supply chain issues and popular support waning for renewables, maybe renewables isn’t the way to go. But we can still save the world with nuclear. Plus, bringing in a project 7 years late with $17 billion in overruns doesn’t sound so bad. Of course, people will still have to get rid of their gas and wood appliances and drive electric vehicles for net zero to work. Just for a start.
I’m concerned that the zeal and lack of integrity that has been applied to the colossal waste in the renewables business, if applied to nuclear, will politicize, corrupt and destroy a necessary energy source, or bankrupt the citizenry.
If one still maintains an erroneous belief, such as CO2 causes harm via storms, what in their world view has changed? If the belief is to acted upon, the same tactics of fear and coercion must be applied towards the ultimate goal of saving those who do not wish to be saved.
Put in another context, this is akin to forced religious conversion.
Often "absolutely certain" is based more on the individual's economic or political interests. It is laughable that the folks headed for Dravos fly about 500 jets halfway around the world rather than climbing on an airline that requires about 1/50th of the amount of fuel per passenger mile. Or Pelosi frequently taking a large jet across the country as the sole passenger to spend a couple days in Napa.
The green energy advocates conveniently ignore the reality that most everything from the extraction and refining of rare earth materials to the fabrication of parts from Africa to China is powered by a vast and ever increasing number of coal powered plants with little attention paid to environmental issues. In 2022 China was starting an average of 2 coal fired plants each week and that did not include those in foreign lands. They are probably some of the dirtiest coal plants in the world.
After he invested the Internet, ole Al loved to lecture people about ice cores... but in retrospect he looks like Churchill compared to John "botox" Kerry
Elect Trump. Pay attention to the Sinclair quote and know that alternate energy is a ‘raid the US Treasury’ scheme. There is no upper limit of a $trillion. There’s no stopping of the losses unless alternate energy is abandoned.
unfortunately you are preaching to the choir as I suspect the bulk of Public subs figured all of this out years ago. some minor problems in your otherwise excellent article -- "It’s true that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 likely increase the risk of climate-related floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and fires" -- no it is not true. and, the "someone" who blew up the pipeline...you can find him at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in DC...sometimes. most of the time he's at his beach house. goes by "brandon".
Biden was shocked and dismayed when he found out CIA blew up the pipeline... well if they told him... BTW, there's a reasonable likelihood Biden's INT crew is monitoring this site to "get us back on message."
To be a member of our globalist Brahmin Left "I'm wealthy and credentialed so bow down to my wisdom and authority" ruling class in good standing there are a few requirements, one of which is: thou shalt never doubt the climate change Net Zero narrative. Here once again we are in the realm of theological dogma and very far from fact-based empiricism (or responsible political stewardship).
All the smart people know, along with their infallible children whose hearts have a passionate yearning for Justice, that the WORLD IS ON FIRE!! and we must pull the plug on modern civilization if we all don't want to die. Only evil capitalists disagree (they say while clinging to their devices and other luxury goods.)
There are 2 other truths here: the desire to have a sacred cause, to join a moral crusade and be an enlightened benefactor of humanity who helps "save the planet" (LOL), precedes the actual cause or issue, and since the 1960s moral revolution, "the environment" is a popular way for our secular nobility to launder their soiled souls in public;
also, no matter how ugly things get, the people who are inflicting their doomed fantasies on us will NEVER experience any of the consequences or take any responsibility. They all will have generators and/or second homes or planes to take them elsewhere, and all the politicians responsible will have long since escaped on golden parachutes.
In the modern West, wealth and status and moral superiority are privatized, while chaos and misery are socialized.
"the desire to have a sacred cause, to join a moral crusade and be an enlightened benefactor of humanity who helps "save the planet" (LOL), precedes the actual cause"
I'm not sure if it's a symptom or a cause, but did you notice in the last 25 years how popular/important it became to be "passionate". It didn't seem to matter what one was passionate about, but being passionate was a sign of a good, interesting and attractive person. When characters in TV and film talk about their prospective love interest, "passionate" was always one of the descriptions.
Be passionate about the stupidist cause on the planet, but you better be passionate about something or you were lacking as a person....
"Passionate" eventually joined my rank of overused adjectives I never want to see again.
I guess this is all part of the therapeutic turn the West has embraced since the 60s, where the "authentic Self" takes the place of a Self embedded in community, faith, family etc, and where we create and display these supposedly "authentic" Selves through "passion" and "commitment" to some cause or other.
I've read about this in the context of Britain pre- and post-Princess Diana, where the stiff upper lip was supplanted by public emoting, or really the interior life being made exterior, so it can be better exhibited, marketed and monetized.
The suspension of disbelief is the one consistency in the Left’s mindset in regard to their actions. And this suspension of disbelief allows for the rejection of the law of unintended consequences and denial of the results of their actions. It requires that intellectual integrity be abandoned.
And I find this suspension of disbelief common throughout the myriad woke agendas. It allows for the coexistence of fantastical , false and directly contradictory ideas under a single banner. It what makes the UNs, WEFs and Democratic Party’s (short list) platforms look like forty miles of bad road, but still be accepted.
The “sacred causes” are but an attempt to create meaning in Iives otherwise filled with luxury, spare time and anxiety and it is very seductive.
It's not just the Democrats (of which, in my family, I'm the pebble in the shoe)... having recently spent time in Scotland, Ireland, UK, and Nordics it seems to me that the "far right" European countries are a lot more open to free speech than the enlightened "democratic" censors. Proud of my Irish cousins for rebuking their crazy governmental overreach last week.
— The “sacred causes” are but an attempt to create meaning in Iives otherwise filled with luxury, spare time and anxiety—couldn’t agree more with this.
Wealth is both a shield from consequences and a control lever on who decides and what they decide. Been reading about how a Super PAC, Majority Forward, linked to Chuck Schumer has spent millions on GOP primary candidates who are easier to beat. We need intensive training in ethics for our wealthiest who are much too focused on themselves and theirs. This will be implemented immediately following porcine aviation.
Interesting you bring that up. Both primate-whisperer Jane Goodall and feminist icon Gloria Steinem stated in the past year that we need a substantial global population reduction (except in Marin County)
Lately I’ve watched some interesting YouTube videos by engineering types that installed solar on their homes and tracked all their expenses and power generation. I was struck by two things, the overall cost (well over $100k) and the total tax “incentives” - in the range of $40k-50k, and that’s not including the net metering etc. It’s hard to imagine the government handing over that order of magnitude of money to an individual for any other consumer choice. It’s also a massive wealth transfer to a largely upper middle class group, usually of a particular political persuasion. At the same time my own state (which has huge solar incentives) is trying to steal a chunk of a modest inheritance from my mother’s premature death. My opinion on this goes without saying. I’m not against renewables but I’m against financing my neighbor’s home improvement choices while meth zombies wander the streets.
This is an excellent cogent and coherent essay by someone who knows the numbers and has lived the consequences of his own advocacy. This process of coming to knowledge can also be said to be a "red-pilling".
I don't think the casual statement on hurricanes is supported by data/research that conclude that. The obvious fact is Netzero is a terrible idea, subsides are a scam, and nobody talks about carbon capture.
"Subsidies are a scam," and yet, according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel handouts hit a global high of $1 trillion in 2022 – the same year Big Oil pulled in a record $4 trillion of income. It appears US taxpayers contributed about $20billion of that. You can't have it both ways. I'm a firm supporter of nuclear - we've come a very long way in safety. Of course, it's only as good as the engineers, contractors and construction workers. Given what we've observed in Boeing's catastrophic cost-cutting, ignoring engineers & workers, and their focus on profits over safety, I'm not sure who to entrust with such undertakings. Lastly, forgive me for being a bit suspicious of the author's intent - jumping ship from "renewables" to nuclear. Has the teat run out on renewable?
The IEA “subsidies” is wishful fantasy thinking about supposed “future damages” from burning fossil fuels to which they apply a massive nonsensical number today and call it a subsidy.
That you fall for it speaks about you and no one else.
It is straightforward. In order to show that fossil fuels are subsidized even more than renewables, they assign horrendous future damages to burning fossil fuels and then list these fanciful made up numbers as subsides for fossil fuel production today.
Its all made up, make believe.
As of today, fossil fuels are a net negative, all good
Actually, the subsidies for renewables were magnitudes greater. I actually READ the piece. It wasn't a damn headline, and your stoop to malign my intelligence is unnecessary. Are you a fossil fuel scientist? Is it untrue that the fossil fuel industry has known for a good 50 years what their production would do to the environment? Jeezuz: can we have rationality & discussion instead of blatant partisanship? I get enough of that BS from our money-grubbing politicians. I expect more from (at least some of) the participants here on Substack. Although I an often, sadly, disappointed.
You readily admit that “… the subsidies for renewables were magnitudes greater.” and … “fossil fuel industry has known for a good 50 years what their production would do to the environment…”, but I see no consideration given to benefits derived from the money.
The harnessing of fossil fuels has lifted billions from poverty. Renewables has sent an ever growing subset of those lifted by fossil fuels back to poverty, while lifting few.
Imagine the state of any aspect of a modern economy less fossil fuels. Farming, transportation, heating, manufacturing, etc., in that world Malthus would have certainly been right.
Not to mention, the population demanded access to this form of energy from the producers.
It is quite the opposite with renewables, where government and special interests are making demands of the populace.
Subsidies go hand in hand with production, so of course you're going to get record high subsidies at the same time energy costs, production, and income are also high. I agree, reducing subsidies is necessary (and will be for Nuclear, probably with a larger price tag), but you're grasping at headlines - including about Boeing (and Airbus - don't fool yourself, they're doing the same thing.)
Do we so quickly forget that there used to be fatal commercial aviation incidents several times a year - just 10 years ago? Now it's so rare that a single survivable incident consumes the news cycle for months on end.
All energy sources have risk. Hyping nuclear risk is showing a total lack of knowledge of how nuclear fission reactors work. You are presenting Fear Porn, not rational argument. The simple, inescapable fact is nuclear power is vastly safer than ANY other form of energy on a rational deaths/twh generated metric. And similarly vastly safer & environmentally friendly when looking at emissions/twh generated. What alternative to nuclear would you suggest?
"I was wrong. It took twenty years of working in the energy industry promoting these technologies to realize they don’t solve climate problems." Wow. That is not an easy statement to make when you've put your soul into the renewables industry. I am impressed and congratulate you for your intellectual honesty. I suggest you have one more hurdle to jump: realize that the only "climate problem" human beings have is how to protect ourselves from an inherently hostile climate, that CO2 is not a "pollutant" and therefore not a threat to humans, and that we need more, not less, clean carbon-based energy to thrive.
There is no one more laughable than a radical GAIA environmentalist waxing on about Mother Earth nourishing and protecting all her creations.
Mother Nature is a cast iron bitch serial killer that has wiped out 99% of all species that have ever existed and she has tried to do us in many times.
I remain convince that to the climate/insane our worst sin is somewhat taming her and thriving.
No, that is false. Human life can carry the progeny of Earth's incredible biota treasure to other worlds. A 100 billion world's in our galaxy, we only know of one with life. It is our duty to rectify that absurdity and save the incredible fluke that is this Earth life from certain destruction, from various astronomical events.
The basis of most of my novels, is that this is a copy Earth, one of millions of copy Earths in a copy Milky Way. That makes it easier to run variations, basically doing The Garden of Forking Paths by Borges.
BTW, In all my stories where people are able to leave the Solar System, they need to develop a true Space Drive. We are going nowhere with rockets.
Watch this segment starting at:
Eric Weinstein - Why Can No One Agree On The Truth Anymore?
Fusion or anti-matter will get us to nearby stars in adequate time. You would need generation ships. And now we know there are a lot of interstellar Worlds that can be used as stepping stones to nearby stars. Also there are smaller probes sending self-replicating machines and life bombs to other Worlds called Panspermia. A sun based gravitational lens telescope could detect Worlds suitable for life bombs for a 100 light years or so.
That is pure "Space Cadet" narrative. It is always fun when I stumble across it. That is what helps drive Story, by writing against it. That's why the segment with Eric Weinstein is so important to understand.
Mother Earth, GAIA if you like, needs us humans, in large numbers, with advanced technology, and high energy lifestyles, needs us badly.
What is the #1 goal of all life forms? Answer: Reproduction. Only us humans, with our industrial might can accomplish the reproduction of GAIA. It is easily within our power to bioform Mars, the progeny of GAIA, the greatest event in the history of Earth life since the Cambrian explosion. In actual fact our failure to achieve that, is the by far-and-away, the largest act of environmental destruction humanity has ever done, or likely will ever do.
The list of what we need is right on. I’m grateful to those dedicated to making it happen. But none of it can happen with Biden or any progressive in the White House. Bottom line.
I’ve always had natural skepticism about clean energy but believed in the positive intent. Now I wonder if the intent is to make people dependent, not make the world cleaner. If they limit our energy, they limit our mobility and other things, Then they have the power, literally and authoritatively
“It’s true that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 likely increase the risk of climate-related floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and fires—events that could negatively affect people’s lives.”
I stopped reading after that statement. There is excellent satellite data showing that the earth has been significantly greening over the last 20 years. I have seen no reliable data showing an increase in hurricanes,floods and fires. I’m glad he figured out that gas and nuclear isn’t so bad but he has a lot more to learn.
I had a problem with that statement also. Where is the evidence that CO2 is actually a "greenhouse gas"? There is more evidence that water vapor, such as emitted from volcanic eruptions, has much more effect on the climate than CO2, which is only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. CO2 is absorbed by green plants which convert it into oxygen via photosynthesis. The greening of the planet means that the plants are thriving and doing their job. We need oxygen to live, and the plants need CO2. I was top of my class in Biology in high school and this makes perfect sense to me. Why aren't the "climate scientists" trumpeting this loud and clear, while the "green energy" industry idiotically mows down forests to build wind and solar farms?
That is true, however, realize the rapidly growing energy demand in Developing Nations means we must quickly move to Nuclear energy or face economic collapse. Not to mention the rapidly growing demand for petrochemicals, fertilizer, lubricants, polymers and jet fuel is a priority use for petroleum & gas, not for energy. Nuclear will supply the energy. Happy coincidence, nuclear energy has the lowest emissions of ANY energy source, by far.
I think he wrote a very weak sentence. He starts with a definitive like “it’s true”, which intentionally perked our collective ears. But he then diluted it substantially with the words “likely” and “risk” such that the real meaning of what he wrote was basically people can think it but it doesn’t mean it will happen. To that end, I read it and moved on. The rest of his content was adequate and edifying and consumable for someone trying to climb the learning curve on the topic of the energy transition scam.
Lots of good points but the author is still wrong about green house gases causing climate change. It’s been debunked numerous times but it still hasn’t been accepted by enough people who have a voice, like this author. Too bad.
I couldn't have found this piece more incredibly useful and perfectly timed. As Germany slides into economic ruin, somehow no one but the U.K. gets it, and is moving to get more NG electricity plants online.
This is required reading for all - not just the "energy illiterate." Share this far and wide!
Excellent? No. Take this: "It’s true that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 likely increase the risk of climate-related floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and fires" No it is not true and has been debunked by infinitely smarter scientists than the author many times. Otherwise the article/piece is “pretty good.”
Thank you for this thoughtful piece. (I hope you don't lose all your friends.)
The threshold issue rests on what the great Thomas Sowell realized: There are no government solutions, only tradeoffs. So are we to immiserate millions of Western people and destroy more people in primitive countries on the off chance we will make life better for some other unknown people a thousand years from now? I vote no. And until the VIPs stop swanning across continents in their emission-spewing private jets, I will stand by that.
“It’s true that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 likely increase the risk of climate-related floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and fires”.
The genuflecting at the altar of climatism is the entire reason we are in this position in the first place. Absolute stupidity can simply be refuted.
Roger Pielkie Jr has several posts outlining the actual IPCC WG1 data that shows no climate emergency, most climate indicators show no variation outside natural variability and the few that do are only assumed to have a human cause.
If there are 15 indicators and 12 show no signal why must we assume the other three are our fault?
If it’s AGW shouldn’t all show a signal?
If it’s 1 in 5 isn’t it more likely to be other natural factors?
Isn’t that simply logical thought?
I like that Brian has clued in, just take it a little further.
Respect to Brian for changing your mind. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Meanwhile the Biden regime is trying to force more electric vehicle adoption, even after demand has stalled. What is the best way to stop the continuing tyranny of unelected commissars pushing ESG social credit scores?
Government pushing Green isn't really about the environment, it's about the grift. In a post religious age, apocalyptic visions of putative disaster support it. Great collection of facts in the piece, but facts are irrelevant to the project of grifting.
100%🎯🎯🎯
The concept of electric trucks to haul the vast amount of freight the last 50-500 miles is conveniently overlooked. In most cities there is less than a week of food in the markets and in homes there may be less than a day's worth. A major power loss (through accident, nature , sabotage or failure) is going to be far more difficult to manage electric vehicles.
I’m not sure respect is in order here. Someone with 22 years experience in green tech is, and has been, fully aware that net zero cannot be achieved with current technology and is in no way feasible.
At best this is a baby step toward the refutation of the idea that renewables can replace fossil fuels without a massive disruption to developed economies.
This mea culpa, of sorts, means nothing when one is still wedded to the cult.
“ It’s true that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 likely increase the risk of climate-related floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and fires—events that could negatively affect people’s lives.”
There is no research remotely proving attribution of CO2 to weather events. Even the IPCC recognizes this. But the religious belief, that this is the case, will still lead to unreasonable demands being placed on society. The massive mal-investment, wholly inefficient use of resources and curtailing freedom of choice will still reside in this man’s reasoning, until the global warming scam is finally and fully realized for what it is.
Merely admitting the reality that renewables is a boondoggle, a process that took 22 years, shouldn’t come with an award.
I wonder what green aligned Ponzi scheme he will move onto next.
But, in the end, I suppose it’s progress.
Thank you for pointing out that there is no science supporting the cult of net zero. CO2 is not a pollutant but is plant fertilizer. It is a scam perpetuated on the world for control and money laundering..
Thank you.
I find it amazing the effect propaganda has had on this most basic of scientific understanding.
Might as well ban oxygen.
Green Power - The process of eliminating taxpayer wealth through waste and transfer of wealth to the fixers and the fixed.
Net zero is possible, with nuclear energy & only with nuclear energy. A rather silly goal however. The goal should be replacing as much diesel fuel & electricity generation as rapidly as is economical with nuclear energy. Conserving oil & gas for the critical petrochemical industry, lubricants, jet fuel, fertilizer & polymers.
Realize we will need a 5X increase in primary energy to meet the rapidly growing demand of developing nations. There is no way fossil is capable of that, nor is renewables, not even renewables + fossil, not even close. Nuclear fission can supply that level of energy for at least 20 Myrs, using Earth land resources. Fusion until the sun consumes the Earth.
The goal should be the most efficient use of available resources to meet the growing demand.
I don’t disagree that nuclear power would meet this criteria, but when was the last time a nuclear power plant was permitted, much less commissioned? And build times, from planning to commissioning, runs to decades.
So if we’re going to go that route, we better get cracking.
In the meantime, there is no substitute for fossil fuels and renewables are no more than a vanity project.
As for net zero, what kind of fuzzy math must be applied to reconcile the input costs (in CO2) versus the realized results?
No, the building of big nuclear power plants has been commonly in 4yrs. That's without factory construction, which is easily done. Corruption is the only reason nuclear has not replaced almost all electricity generation. By 1974, until the nuclear blockade was instituted, the US was completing one NPP per month, at that rate all electricity generation in the US would've been nuclear by 2000.
And France, starting from scratch, achieved 88% of their domestic electricity production, 40% of their primary energy consumption in 20yrs with nuclear. So no, there is no physical problem to achieve that again, corruption is the only problem.
Corruption is certainly an issue. Regardless, that is the current state of things.
Our newest plant in Georgia was only 7 years late and $17 billion over budget.
A bit longer than 4 years…
Yeah, say the owners of the USSA decided fracking was bad. And they banned it, using some phony regulator/regulations. 40yrs later after the industry was completely dead, no supply chain, no skilled personnel some genius politicians decides fracking is OK again. But keeps the same corrupt regulator that shutdown fracking in the first place. How long do you think it would take to get tight oil & shale gas up & running? You think shale gas would be selling for $3/mmbtu?
One example of how corruption thwarted a good plan.
There is a foundational problem with nuclear energy ....... There's no room for the Hunter Biden types to earn massive fees working the back halls of Congress.
There are few better examples of the scams than the Billion + of taxpayer loans and vast additional tax credits that went into the ill fated Ivanpaugh solar project in California. It takes massive amounts of natural gas to carry the plant through the night or overcast conditions. The plant does provide workers with free food in the form of incinerated birds who happened to fly nearby.
The goal should be human flourishing which will not be achieved through restricting cheap reliable energy of any sort.
Indeed, the goal should be human flourishing, which is the exact opposite of what our ruling elites have. Once you accept that though, there is a need for some real intelligence in establishing a viable energy strategy. And that is always impaired by vested interests who just want to make a quick buck, even if it leads to total economic collapse. Sadly, economic catastrophe is often a goal of some energy investment firms. Shortages = high prices = high profits.
Yup, still brain washed
Whenever a sinner comes home, he deserves forgiveness. I think. I'm still considering the matter.
I appreciate your comment and sentiment. I fear, in my haste, that I’ve failed to be clear in my response.
In the case of Mr. Gitt, he has been in the renewables business for 22 years and only now comes to the realization that it costs too much and won’t work. The flaws he finds are technical only, the reasoning behind it, in his mind, is still sound. Saving the world from CO2 is still a true and correct idea. The intention is still good.
But with investment drying up, supply chain issues and popular support waning for renewables, maybe renewables isn’t the way to go. But we can still save the world with nuclear. Plus, bringing in a project 7 years late with $17 billion in overruns doesn’t sound so bad. Of course, people will still have to get rid of their gas and wood appliances and drive electric vehicles for net zero to work. Just for a start.
I’m concerned that the zeal and lack of integrity that has been applied to the colossal waste in the renewables business, if applied to nuclear, will politicize, corrupt and destroy a necessary energy source, or bankrupt the citizenry.
The underlying reasoning is the issue.
I guess the question is, does halfway home count?
If one still maintains an erroneous belief, such as CO2 causes harm via storms, what in their world view has changed? If the belief is to acted upon, the same tactics of fear and coercion must be applied towards the ultimate goal of saving those who do not wish to be saved.
Put in another context, this is akin to forced religious conversion.
I don't know. I've become increasingly frustrated with those who are absolutely certain of their own rectitude.
Often "absolutely certain" is based more on the individual's economic or political interests. It is laughable that the folks headed for Dravos fly about 500 jets halfway around the world rather than climbing on an airline that requires about 1/50th of the amount of fuel per passenger mile. Or Pelosi frequently taking a large jet across the country as the sole passenger to spend a couple days in Napa.
You may be right, I can’t decide.
Bravo
The green energy advocates conveniently ignore the reality that most everything from the extraction and refining of rare earth materials to the fabrication of parts from Africa to China is powered by a vast and ever increasing number of coal powered plants with little attention paid to environmental issues. In 2022 China was starting an average of 2 coal fired plants each week and that did not include those in foreign lands. They are probably some of the dirtiest coal plants in the world.
Thank you - you saved me from having to write this.
I think many of us lived through the Al Gore lectures, I guess some had short term memories
After he invested the Internet, ole Al loved to lecture people about ice cores... but in retrospect he looks like Churchill compared to John "botox" Kerry
Elect Trump. Pay attention to the Sinclair quote and know that alternate energy is a ‘raid the US Treasury’ scheme. There is no upper limit of a $trillion. There’s no stopping of the losses unless alternate energy is abandoned.
Also love the Sinclair quote, apropos
Tyranny is right
unfortunately you are preaching to the choir as I suspect the bulk of Public subs figured all of this out years ago. some minor problems in your otherwise excellent article -- "It’s true that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 likely increase the risk of climate-related floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and fires" -- no it is not true. and, the "someone" who blew up the pipeline...you can find him at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in DC...sometimes. most of the time he's at his beach house. goes by "brandon".
Michael Shellenberger led the way on substack.
Biden was shocked and dismayed when he found out CIA blew up the pipeline... well if they told him... BTW, there's a reasonable likelihood Biden's INT crew is monitoring this site to "get us back on message."
Doesn’t he also go by “Big Guy”?
BIGGER Guy
To be a member of our globalist Brahmin Left "I'm wealthy and credentialed so bow down to my wisdom and authority" ruling class in good standing there are a few requirements, one of which is: thou shalt never doubt the climate change Net Zero narrative. Here once again we are in the realm of theological dogma and very far from fact-based empiricism (or responsible political stewardship).
All the smart people know, along with their infallible children whose hearts have a passionate yearning for Justice, that the WORLD IS ON FIRE!! and we must pull the plug on modern civilization if we all don't want to die. Only evil capitalists disagree (they say while clinging to their devices and other luxury goods.)
There are 2 other truths here: the desire to have a sacred cause, to join a moral crusade and be an enlightened benefactor of humanity who helps "save the planet" (LOL), precedes the actual cause or issue, and since the 1960s moral revolution, "the environment" is a popular way for our secular nobility to launder their soiled souls in public;
also, no matter how ugly things get, the people who are inflicting their doomed fantasies on us will NEVER experience any of the consequences or take any responsibility. They all will have generators and/or second homes or planes to take them elsewhere, and all the politicians responsible will have long since escaped on golden parachutes.
In the modern West, wealth and status and moral superiority are privatized, while chaos and misery are socialized.
"the desire to have a sacred cause, to join a moral crusade and be an enlightened benefactor of humanity who helps "save the planet" (LOL), precedes the actual cause"
I'm not sure if it's a symptom or a cause, but did you notice in the last 25 years how popular/important it became to be "passionate". It didn't seem to matter what one was passionate about, but being passionate was a sign of a good, interesting and attractive person. When characters in TV and film talk about their prospective love interest, "passionate" was always one of the descriptions.
Be passionate about the stupidist cause on the planet, but you better be passionate about something or you were lacking as a person....
"Passionate" eventually joined my rank of overused adjectives I never want to see again.
I guess this is all part of the therapeutic turn the West has embraced since the 60s, where the "authentic Self" takes the place of a Self embedded in community, faith, family etc, and where we create and display these supposedly "authentic" Selves through "passion" and "commitment" to some cause or other.
I've read about this in the context of Britain pre- and post-Princess Diana, where the stiff upper lip was supplanted by public emoting, or really the interior life being made exterior, so it can be better exhibited, marketed and monetized.
I did not know that about Britain. Thank you, that is interesting. I also enjoyed your analysis in the first paragraph.
thanks!
The suspension of disbelief is the one consistency in the Left’s mindset in regard to their actions. And this suspension of disbelief allows for the rejection of the law of unintended consequences and denial of the results of their actions. It requires that intellectual integrity be abandoned.
And I find this suspension of disbelief common throughout the myriad woke agendas. It allows for the coexistence of fantastical , false and directly contradictory ideas under a single banner. It what makes the UNs, WEFs and Democratic Party’s (short list) platforms look like forty miles of bad road, but still be accepted.
The “sacred causes” are but an attempt to create meaning in Iives otherwise filled with luxury, spare time and anxiety and it is very seductive.
I couldn’t agree more with your last sentence.
It's not just the Democrats (of which, in my family, I'm the pebble in the shoe)... having recently spent time in Scotland, Ireland, UK, and Nordics it seems to me that the "far right" European countries are a lot more open to free speech than the enlightened "democratic" censors. Proud of my Irish cousins for rebuking their crazy governmental overreach last week.
thanks!
— The “sacred causes” are but an attempt to create meaning in Iives otherwise filled with luxury, spare time and anxiety—couldn’t agree more with this.
If I could afford Pelosi's $15/pint Jeni's ice cream perhaps I'd be enlightened too.
Dude, well written 👏
Thanks!
Wealth is both a shield from consequences and a control lever on who decides and what they decide. Been reading about how a Super PAC, Majority Forward, linked to Chuck Schumer has spent millions on GOP primary candidates who are easier to beat. We need intensive training in ethics for our wealthiest who are much too focused on themselves and theirs. This will be implemented immediately following porcine aviation.
Spot on.
thanks!
It’s obvious that the John Kerry’s , Al Gore’s and AOCs don’t care about the planet or the poor. They despise the poor.
Hence the AOC dress “ Tax the Rich “ not
“ Feed the Poor”
They want P.O.W.E.R. And climate change is their vehicle
As the Great Philosopher Mel Brooks said in History of the World - “fuck the poor”
I’m not the first to say this, but I believe they want the poor gone for the “ good of the planet “. You really canny get more twisted
Interesting you bring that up. Both primate-whisperer Jane Goodall and feminist icon Gloria Steinem stated in the past year that we need a substantial global population reduction (except in Marin County)
Yes & they’re willing to block our sun with Geoengineering that also puts poisons in the air. Geoengineering watch.org. “The Dimming”.
Lately I’ve watched some interesting YouTube videos by engineering types that installed solar on their homes and tracked all their expenses and power generation. I was struck by two things, the overall cost (well over $100k) and the total tax “incentives” - in the range of $40k-50k, and that’s not including the net metering etc. It’s hard to imagine the government handing over that order of magnitude of money to an individual for any other consumer choice. It’s also a massive wealth transfer to a largely upper middle class group, usually of a particular political persuasion. At the same time my own state (which has huge solar incentives) is trying to steal a chunk of a modest inheritance from my mother’s premature death. My opinion on this goes without saying. I’m not against renewables but I’m against financing my neighbor’s home improvement choices while meth zombies wander the streets.
This is an excellent cogent and coherent essay by someone who knows the numbers and has lived the consequences of his own advocacy. This process of coming to knowledge can also be said to be a "red-pilling".
I don't think the casual statement on hurricanes is supported by data/research that conclude that. The obvious fact is Netzero is a terrible idea, subsides are a scam, and nobody talks about carbon capture.
"Subsidies are a scam," and yet, according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel handouts hit a global high of $1 trillion in 2022 – the same year Big Oil pulled in a record $4 trillion of income. It appears US taxpayers contributed about $20billion of that. You can't have it both ways. I'm a firm supporter of nuclear - we've come a very long way in safety. Of course, it's only as good as the engineers, contractors and construction workers. Given what we've observed in Boeing's catastrophic cost-cutting, ignoring engineers & workers, and their focus on profits over safety, I'm not sure who to entrust with such undertakings. Lastly, forgive me for being a bit suspicious of the author's intent - jumping ship from "renewables" to nuclear. Has the teat run out on renewable?
Bullshit squared.
The IEA “subsidies” is wishful fantasy thinking about supposed “future damages” from burning fossil fuels to which they apply a massive nonsensical number today and call it a subsidy.
That you fall for it speaks about you and no one else.
Pat, can you further explain what you mean in your reply to MissAnneThrope? Thanks
It is straightforward. In order to show that fossil fuels are subsidized even more than renewables, they assign horrendous future damages to burning fossil fuels and then list these fanciful made up numbers as subsides for fossil fuel production today.
Its all made up, make believe.
As of today, fossil fuels are a net negative, all good
Actually, the subsidies for renewables were magnitudes greater. I actually READ the piece. It wasn't a damn headline, and your stoop to malign my intelligence is unnecessary. Are you a fossil fuel scientist? Is it untrue that the fossil fuel industry has known for a good 50 years what their production would do to the environment? Jeezuz: can we have rationality & discussion instead of blatant partisanship? I get enough of that BS from our money-grubbing politicians. I expect more from (at least some of) the participants here on Substack. Although I an often, sadly, disappointed.
I find your argument interesting.
You readily admit that “… the subsidies for renewables were magnitudes greater.” and … “fossil fuel industry has known for a good 50 years what their production would do to the environment…”, but I see no consideration given to benefits derived from the money.
The harnessing of fossil fuels has lifted billions from poverty. Renewables has sent an ever growing subset of those lifted by fossil fuels back to poverty, while lifting few.
Imagine the state of any aspect of a modern economy less fossil fuels. Farming, transportation, heating, manufacturing, etc., in that world Malthus would have certainly been right.
Not to mention, the population demanded access to this form of energy from the producers.
It is quite the opposite with renewables, where government and special interests are making demands of the populace.
Subsidies go hand in hand with production, so of course you're going to get record high subsidies at the same time energy costs, production, and income are also high. I agree, reducing subsidies is necessary (and will be for Nuclear, probably with a larger price tag), but you're grasping at headlines - including about Boeing (and Airbus - don't fool yourself, they're doing the same thing.)
Do we so quickly forget that there used to be fatal commercial aviation incidents several times a year - just 10 years ago? Now it's so rare that a single survivable incident consumes the news cycle for months on end.
All energy sources have risk. Hyping nuclear risk is showing a total lack of knowledge of how nuclear fission reactors work. You are presenting Fear Porn, not rational argument. The simple, inescapable fact is nuclear power is vastly safer than ANY other form of energy on a rational deaths/twh generated metric. And similarly vastly safer & environmentally friendly when looking at emissions/twh generated. What alternative to nuclear would you suggest?
"I was wrong. It took twenty years of working in the energy industry promoting these technologies to realize they don’t solve climate problems." Wow. That is not an easy statement to make when you've put your soul into the renewables industry. I am impressed and congratulate you for your intellectual honesty. I suggest you have one more hurdle to jump: realize that the only "climate problem" human beings have is how to protect ourselves from an inherently hostile climate, that CO2 is not a "pollutant" and therefore not a threat to humans, and that we need more, not less, clean carbon-based energy to thrive.
There is no one more laughable than a radical GAIA environmentalist waxing on about Mother Earth nourishing and protecting all her creations.
Mother Nature is a cast iron bitch serial killer that has wiped out 99% of all species that have ever existed and she has tried to do us in many times.
I remain convince that to the climate/insane our worst sin is somewhat taming her and thriving.
Drives them nuts.
As Jordan Peterson says… it would be a lot easier to love Mother Nature if she wasn’t constantly trying to kill us.
I’m sure I’ve butchered that but it was something to that effect and it was brilliant.
That's right.
The Earth is not Gaia, the nurturing Earth Mother, it is Medea, the mother that kills her own children.
The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive? (Science Essentials Book 23)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003E7FIHQ
I need to read the book again.
No, that is false. Human life can carry the progeny of Earth's incredible biota treasure to other worlds. A 100 billion world's in our galaxy, we only know of one with life. It is our duty to rectify that absurdity and save the incredible fluke that is this Earth life from certain destruction, from various astronomical events.
What about the heat death of the universe? Are we meant to save humanity from that?
That's a far more interesting question than you realize, but don't worry about the "heat death of the universe" for now.
The importance of that "question" is what drives so many great SF novels.
Thanks...
The basis of most of my novels, is that this is a copy Earth, one of millions of copy Earths in a copy Milky Way. That makes it easier to run variations, basically doing The Garden of Forking Paths by Borges.
BTW, In all my stories where people are able to leave the Solar System, they need to develop a true Space Drive. We are going nowhere with rockets.
Watch this segment starting at:
Eric Weinstein - Why Can No One Agree On The Truth Anymore?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJxBnSyH0T4&t=3812s
But I digress.
Fusion or anti-matter will get us to nearby stars in adequate time. You would need generation ships. And now we know there are a lot of interstellar Worlds that can be used as stepping stones to nearby stars. Also there are smaller probes sending self-replicating machines and life bombs to other Worlds called Panspermia. A sun based gravitational lens telescope could detect Worlds suitable for life bombs for a 100 light years or so.
Thanks...
That is pure "Space Cadet" narrative. It is always fun when I stumble across it. That is what helps drive Story, by writing against it. That's why the segment with Eric Weinstein is so important to understand.
Think something simple, like the movie Explorers.
Explorers original theatrical trailer (1985)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3PzxPzpaSQ
Explorers (film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorers_(film)
Or the novels by James Blish.
"Welcome to Mars" in the collection:
Flights of Eagles (NESFA's Choice)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1886778868
"Welcome to Mars" is probably the inspiration to "Explorers"(Sadly, no ebook available).
Then there is the classic:
Cities in Flight
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MXFHMJ7
Cities is all about the "Spindizzy".
Cities in Flight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_in_Flight#Spindizzy
This is all so fun.
Mother Earth, GAIA if you like, needs us humans, in large numbers, with advanced technology, and high energy lifestyles, needs us badly.
What is the #1 goal of all life forms? Answer: Reproduction. Only us humans, with our industrial might can accomplish the reproduction of GAIA. It is easily within our power to bioform Mars, the progeny of GAIA, the greatest event in the history of Earth life since the Cambrian explosion. In actual fact our failure to achieve that, is the by far-and-away, the largest act of environmental destruction humanity has ever done, or likely will ever do.
The list of what we need is right on. I’m grateful to those dedicated to making it happen. But none of it can happen with Biden or any progressive in the White House. Bottom line.
Spread the word, thus could not be more important for humanity.
I’ve always had natural skepticism about clean energy but believed in the positive intent. Now I wonder if the intent is to make people dependent, not make the world cleaner. If they limit our energy, they limit our mobility and other things, Then they have the power, literally and authoritatively
There is no more important indicator of prosperity or building block to upward mobility than access to affordable and reliable energy. HARD.STOP.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I’m not sure their intentions are good.
Good point!
“It’s true that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 likely increase the risk of climate-related floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and fires—events that could negatively affect people’s lives.”
I stopped reading after that statement. There is excellent satellite data showing that the earth has been significantly greening over the last 20 years. I have seen no reliable data showing an increase in hurricanes,floods and fires. I’m glad he figured out that gas and nuclear isn’t so bad but he has a lot more to learn.
I had a problem with that statement also. Where is the evidence that CO2 is actually a "greenhouse gas"? There is more evidence that water vapor, such as emitted from volcanic eruptions, has much more effect on the climate than CO2, which is only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. CO2 is absorbed by green plants which convert it into oxygen via photosynthesis. The greening of the planet means that the plants are thriving and doing their job. We need oxygen to live, and the plants need CO2. I was top of my class in Biology in high school and this makes perfect sense to me. Why aren't the "climate scientists" trumpeting this loud and clear, while the "green energy" industry idiotically mows down forests to build wind and solar farms?
That is true, however, realize the rapidly growing energy demand in Developing Nations means we must quickly move to Nuclear energy or face economic collapse. Not to mention the rapidly growing demand for petrochemicals, fertilizer, lubricants, polymers and jet fuel is a priority use for petroleum & gas, not for energy. Nuclear will supply the energy. Happy coincidence, nuclear energy has the lowest emissions of ANY energy source, by far.
I think he wrote a very weak sentence. He starts with a definitive like “it’s true”, which intentionally perked our collective ears. But he then diluted it substantially with the words “likely” and “risk” such that the real meaning of what he wrote was basically people can think it but it doesn’t mean it will happen. To that end, I read it and moved on. The rest of his content was adequate and edifying and consumable for someone trying to climb the learning curve on the topic of the energy transition scam.
Lots of good points but the author is still wrong about green house gases causing climate change. It’s been debunked numerous times but it still hasn’t been accepted by enough people who have a voice, like this author. Too bad.
I couldn't have found this piece more incredibly useful and perfectly timed. As Germany slides into economic ruin, somehow no one but the U.K. gets it, and is moving to get more NG electricity plants online.
This is required reading for all - not just the "energy illiterate." Share this far and wide!
Excellent? No. Take this: "It’s true that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 likely increase the risk of climate-related floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and fires" No it is not true and has been debunked by infinitely smarter scientists than the author many times. Otherwise the article/piece is “pretty good.”
Thank you for this thoughtful piece. (I hope you don't lose all your friends.)
The threshold issue rests on what the great Thomas Sowell realized: There are no government solutions, only tradeoffs. So are we to immiserate millions of Western people and destroy more people in primitive countries on the off chance we will make life better for some other unknown people a thousand years from now? I vote no. And until the VIPs stop swanning across continents in their emission-spewing private jets, I will stand by that.
“It’s true that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 likely increase the risk of climate-related floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and fires”.
The genuflecting at the altar of climatism is the entire reason we are in this position in the first place. Absolute stupidity can simply be refuted.
Roger Pielkie Jr has several posts outlining the actual IPCC WG1 data that shows no climate emergency, most climate indicators show no variation outside natural variability and the few that do are only assumed to have a human cause.
If there are 15 indicators and 12 show no signal why must we assume the other three are our fault?
If it’s AGW shouldn’t all show a signal?
If it’s 1 in 5 isn’t it more likely to be other natural factors?
Isn’t that simply logical thought?
I like that Brian has clued in, just take it a little further.
There is no climate emergency.
Repeat.