Please see Roger Pielke jr. Substack from this week contrasting what the IPPC says compared to the frantic rants of “environmentalists.” Amazing. Could be powerful medicine for children and teens.
David Malpas was fired as president of the World Bank for advocating this very policy, so sadly the poohbahs in charge of the world decarbonization are not about to go along with this very sensible policy!
Very good read. Yes, the US could completely get rid of all CO2 output but have virtually zero impact on the climate. But it would completely bankrupt us.
The prescription you outline is very cost effective, and is focused on:
1. North American energy security
2. Reliable energy
3. Affordable energy
4. Cutting out unnecessary bloat in bureaucracy.
It would require humility from the western governments. You have entire bureaucrat and academic institutions run on the belief that they are ‘messiahs’ and their job is to save humanity, which is the exact opposite of humility.
To do your strategy, government would have to recognize that they can’t effectively centrally plan the energy policy for the United States, much less the entire globe.
I Pencil is a simple essay that beautifully illustrates why the central planning will not work. I think it should be required reading for all students.
First, the specific policy steps described and suggested would be a great starting point IF this whole climate- carbon issue actually needs a solution. But…..
Second, I agree with “ In This Dimension” that the goal has nothing to do with climate or carbon-the book “Green Fraud” makes that point very clear. ”
If the green lobby were serious about climate, they'd be all-in on Gen-4 nukes - SMRs that are cheap, safe, scalable, green, carbon-less. That they are NOT all-in on Gen-4 nukes proves - beyond any doubt - that they are NOT serious. Which is exactly what the UN team have been telling us for a decade: This is not about the climate or the environment, but about destroying capitalism.
This is from 2015: At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
Congress should also revise the Nuclear Waste Act to allow at least part of its $43 billion to be used to reprocess spent fuel. We have 100,000 tonnes of spent fuel, increasing at the rate of about 1,800 tonnes per year, and 900,000 tonnes of depleted uranium. Both are future fuel in the right kind of reactors. Within the spent fuel and decommissioned weapons, we have about 1,125 tonnes of fissionables. They could start 110-140 GWe of new capacity, depending on the reactors' sizes (bigger reactors need less fissionables per GWe). Nobody has a better idea for the fissionables. At a 5% breeding rate, 1,700 GWe of nuclear capacity could be in place in about fifty years. Using the rule of thumb that fissioning one tonne of heavy metal produces one GWe-year of electricity, a million tonnes would power an all-electric all-nuclear 1.7 TWe American economy for more than 500 years without mining, milling, refining, enriching, or importing one gram of new uranium.
The best way to reprocess spent fuel is the pyroelectric process developed at Argonne and Idaho National Laboratories. They produced a proposal for a 400 tonne per year pilot plant that would have an operational cost of 0.05 cents per kWh, half what utilities paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund until courts decided they didn't need to continue paying because DoE had reneged on their legal responsibility to take custody of spent fuel.
This would solve the energy, "climate," and spent fuel problems at one stroke.
Thank You Mr. Bryce for all your work over the years, Power Hungry was where I fist became acquainted with your work, I've found nothing to show you wrong since that book came out. All this expense and C02 still has not been proven to be a pollutant. Still in the midst of a made up crisis that is costing Trillions for no results.
Great read, Robert! A safe bet is the fossil fuel industry, in conjunction with the "nonprofits" it funds will fight tooth-and nail against your common-sense recommendations. Why? Franchise protection over-rules common sense.
Most of us learn from our mistakes and failures. Paul Krugman is the exception.
Climate claque clucks 👍😂. If you could work cucks in there...
The 1 percent of working people who identify climate as the #1 threat are probably college professors, although it is a stretch to consider that “working”
Agree on nuclear, but we might have to learn the hard way
Bryce is a reliable source of rational, even-handed, fact-based information. This commentary is no exception. However, it will probably not move many True Believers, who find the New Green Religion easier to digest and heightening their sense of moral superiority.
A world of energy poverty and malnutrition (not unrelated?) cannot afford to entertain the religious mythology adhered to by the wealthiest members of the high-income countries. Those of us in the true "1%" of humanity, it seems to me, have a moral obligation to help the 99% develop effective solutions to *these* existential problems.
Please see Roger Pielke jr. Substack from this week contrasting what the IPPC says compared to the frantic rants of “environmentalists.” Amazing. Could be powerful medicine for children and teens.
The last paragraph says it all. Forward-thinking solutions in the right direction. If only we had sensible leaders…
David Malpas was fired as president of the World Bank for advocating this very policy, so sadly the poohbahs in charge of the world decarbonization are not about to go along with this very sensible policy!
Very good read. Yes, the US could completely get rid of all CO2 output but have virtually zero impact on the climate. But it would completely bankrupt us.
The prescription you outline is very cost effective, and is focused on:
1. North American energy security
2. Reliable energy
3. Affordable energy
4. Cutting out unnecessary bloat in bureaucracy.
It would require humility from the western governments. You have entire bureaucrat and academic institutions run on the belief that they are ‘messiahs’ and their job is to save humanity, which is the exact opposite of humility.
To do your strategy, government would have to recognize that they can’t effectively centrally plan the energy policy for the United States, much less the entire globe.
I Pencil is a simple essay that beautifully illustrates why the central planning will not work. I think it should be required reading for all students.
https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/
First, the specific policy steps described and suggested would be a great starting point IF this whole climate- carbon issue actually needs a solution. But…..
Second, I agree with “ In This Dimension” that the goal has nothing to do with climate or carbon-the book “Green Fraud” makes that point very clear. ”
If the green lobby were serious about climate, they'd be all-in on Gen-4 nukes - SMRs that are cheap, safe, scalable, green, carbon-less. That they are NOT all-in on Gen-4 nukes proves - beyond any doubt - that they are NOT serious. Which is exactly what the UN team have been telling us for a decade: This is not about the climate or the environment, but about destroying capitalism.
This is from 2015: At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
As usual, China is the winner.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2023/07/09/joe_bidens_climate_policies_weaken_the_us_and_strengthen_china_964705.html
Congress should also revise the Nuclear Waste Act to allow at least part of its $43 billion to be used to reprocess spent fuel. We have 100,000 tonnes of spent fuel, increasing at the rate of about 1,800 tonnes per year, and 900,000 tonnes of depleted uranium. Both are future fuel in the right kind of reactors. Within the spent fuel and decommissioned weapons, we have about 1,125 tonnes of fissionables. They could start 110-140 GWe of new capacity, depending on the reactors' sizes (bigger reactors need less fissionables per GWe). Nobody has a better idea for the fissionables. At a 5% breeding rate, 1,700 GWe of nuclear capacity could be in place in about fifty years. Using the rule of thumb that fissioning one tonne of heavy metal produces one GWe-year of electricity, a million tonnes would power an all-electric all-nuclear 1.7 TWe American economy for more than 500 years without mining, milling, refining, enriching, or importing one gram of new uranium.
The best way to reprocess spent fuel is the pyroelectric process developed at Argonne and Idaho National Laboratories. They produced a proposal for a 400 tonne per year pilot plant that would have an operational cost of 0.05 cents per kWh, half what utilities paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund until courts decided they didn't need to continue paying because DoE had reneged on their legal responsibility to take custody of spent fuel.
This would solve the energy, "climate," and spent fuel problems at one stroke.
http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/WhenceEnergy.pdf pages 33-39 and 50
Well said Robert.
"Wow, reality, what a concept." Robin Willams
This article is a home run. Full of logic and fact. Everyone should see this article.
Thank You Mr. Bryce for all your work over the years, Power Hungry was where I fist became acquainted with your work, I've found nothing to show you wrong since that book came out. All this expense and C02 still has not been proven to be a pollutant. Still in the midst of a made up crisis that is costing Trillions for no results.
Great read, Robert! A safe bet is the fossil fuel industry, in conjunction with the "nonprofits" it funds will fight tooth-and nail against your common-sense recommendations. Why? Franchise protection over-rules common sense.
Great piece Robert.
Most of us learn from our mistakes and failures. Paul Krugman is the exception.
Climate claque clucks 👍😂. If you could work cucks in there...
The 1 percent of working people who identify climate as the #1 threat are probably college professors, although it is a stretch to consider that “working”
Agree on nuclear, but we might have to learn the hard way
Bryce is a reliable source of rational, even-handed, fact-based information. This commentary is no exception. However, it will probably not move many True Believers, who find the New Green Religion easier to digest and heightening their sense of moral superiority.
A world of energy poverty and malnutrition (not unrelated?) cannot afford to entertain the religious mythology adhered to by the wealthiest members of the high-income countries. Those of us in the true "1%" of humanity, it seems to me, have a moral obligation to help the 99% develop effective solutions to *these* existential problems.