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.
These guys want to process SNF directly by molten salt tech to extract the Plutonium and use it as startup fuel for thorium MSRs. Technically the authorities wouldn't allow high purity plutonium to be used as reactor fuel because they don't allow traffic in potential weapons grade isotopes, but in this case the fuel is directly combined with thorium as fuel for their reactors. And U-235 doesn't work as well as Pu-239/240/241, so that shows how high value SNF can be:
COPENHAGEN ATOMICS MOLTEN SALT REACTORS: $5T spent on factory built molten salt reactors like these:
Energy Future Unveiled! THORIUM Molten Salt Reactors, Copenhagen Atomics:
Plutonium in spent fuel is not potential weapons material. Weapons-grade plutonium is 93% Pu-239. Spent fuel is typically 54% Pu-239. Brits operated a reactor in an easily-detected nonstandard way -- primarily short fuel residence times -- and obtained 63% Pu-239. They made a device and got a fizzle instead of a boom. They said "We will not bother to try that again." Read "Plentiful Energy" available on paper from Amazon, or http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Plentiful_Energy.pdf, where Dr. Chang has generously given me permission to post it.
I'm well aware of that but you try telling that to the NRC. The wealthy anti-nuclear NGOs always claim reactor grade plutonium is "weapons usable". Copenhagen Atomics know very well. They will have a hard time getting approval by regulators in the West so they are focusing on Developing Nations, as is Thorconpower. Such is the sad state of affairs in the West. These regulators like the NRC are more responsible for climate change than any other entity, and they need to be held to account. Hypocrites.
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.
Craig your assertion about the West not helping development in Africa is very inaccurate.
Recent small examples of how far off : The AMERICAN Association of Petroleum Geologists AAPG just awarded this years Outstanding Leadership Award to Nosa Omorodon. One of the Most recent Departments Heads at the Boone Pickens School of Geology OSU (Oklahoma State University) was African. A little research would go a long way. Many substantial examples can be seen with the stroke of the Keyboard.
More substantial facts can be gleaned by the fact that 70% of Central Africa has no electricity. We could have helped them out way before now. It is racism that makes us think it is tough luck for them because we don't want them polluting. It's a political problem, and a lack of help problem. Good for Boone Pickens. He was a good man. But where is the governments of nations, mainly the US. China will help them and turn them into an ally. Nancy Pelosi said “Africa wants to modernize and develop,” but countries there need to choose between powering that development with cheap, but destructive, coal and gas or with sustainable, clean energy." That is the attitude of the elites have in this country. They would rather see people starve rather than let them use oil and gas. It is nuts. As if they could create an industrial awakening with solar panels.
The most substantive facts are demonstrated by lease blocks bid and purchased by US / Western Entities (the funds going directly to the associated African countries involved). These ventures are joint and professionals like those mentioned earlier are part of the exploration and development teams. All assistance isn’t charity as we all benefit from these activities and want to feed our families. The millions sometimes billions spent on non-productive blocks iare still productive for the given country and the experience of the African organizations involved benefits onshore domestic development in that country.
A personal example would be charity work done with African prenatal hospital units. Working with different groups in the U.S. we supplied equipment and energy sources for use there. When the Medical and administrative authorities were approached about the project, their one request was “Please don’t send solar or wind power sources, send diesel / ICE generators, something we can count on because are dealing with human life not abstract concerns of man-made CO2.
Another example is friends sponsoring young students from the African continent while they study in peace in the U,S.
As far as Nancy Pelosi goes, I can’t think of anything she ever said that represents my view.
She doesn’t represent the view or morals of most Americans.
I don’t accept the U.S. hasn’t aided and doesn’t continue to aid Africas development.
Your mileage may very, but my personal experience shows otherwise.
As far as your sentiment on trying to impose an “energy transition” revolution on Africa, we are in agreement. That is Energy Colonialism, delusional, and ridiculous. We also agree on world influence. Energy deficient countries will develop all forms of useable energy (I believe most sensible countries whether energy defiant or energy independent will eventually). The driving force will be economic feasibility. Trillions spent to subsidize inefficient sources will end. The question is if it takes an economic disaster here or will we start being sensible and economically responsible before that point ? No doubt China will fill the voids while developing all sources without restrictions and without the good stewardship that our system can provide through self correcting capitalist means.
Thanks for your very informative response. I hope you are right about the outcomes. You are giving me hope. Keep up the good work! How can citizens help?
Roberts's article goes a long way in sharpening peoples understanding. I'm in the scientific evidence group that human's effect on the climate in the form of CO2 generation is totally insignificant. Since other counties developing and developed will not suspend primary energy use, we need to help minimize pollution (CO2 isn't pollution) and be good stewards. This includes stopping child labor destroying rain forest (CO2 reduction machines) strip-mining rare-earth minerals for EVs and other limited use hazardous battery devices. Pointing out politicizing Nobel Prizes for inaccurate books and uneducated children's diatribes might slow the irrational mental disturbance of young people. Supporting hysteria while banishing Critically Peer reviewed Science means there is a real problem with the Scientific method we used to use. Introducing Milankovitch Cycles in discussions along with the thousands of factors that actually effect the natural changing climate will help those that listen to reason. Others will be unphased with facts, press on. We need to get a hold of our own financial house with responsible energy policy and independence to show good stewardship before it collapses. As a person who spent years flying into the LA Basin on nasty smoggy days decades ago, I can firmly attest we have the ability to clean up our act with sensible policy. If we can find enough responsible representatives with an understanding of energy sources that stand on their own without massive ineffective subsidies it will be a good start. We will help other more when we help ourselves. Anyone without sound energy policy running for office doesn't get a vote.
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
These guys want to process SNF directly by molten salt tech to extract the Plutonium and use it as startup fuel for thorium MSRs. Technically the authorities wouldn't allow high purity plutonium to be used as reactor fuel because they don't allow traffic in potential weapons grade isotopes, but in this case the fuel is directly combined with thorium as fuel for their reactors. And U-235 doesn't work as well as Pu-239/240/241, so that shows how high value SNF can be:
COPENHAGEN ATOMICS MOLTEN SALT REACTORS: $5T spent on factory built molten salt reactors like these:
Energy Future Unveiled! THORIUM Molten Salt Reactors, Copenhagen Atomics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27IntvWo4mo
Plutonium in spent fuel is not potential weapons material. Weapons-grade plutonium is 93% Pu-239. Spent fuel is typically 54% Pu-239. Brits operated a reactor in an easily-detected nonstandard way -- primarily short fuel residence times -- and obtained 63% Pu-239. They made a device and got a fizzle instead of a boom. They said "We will not bother to try that again." Read "Plentiful Energy" available on paper from Amazon, or http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Plentiful_Energy.pdf, where Dr. Chang has generously given me permission to post it.
I'm well aware of that but you try telling that to the NRC. The wealthy anti-nuclear NGOs always claim reactor grade plutonium is "weapons usable". Copenhagen Atomics know very well. They will have a hard time getting approval by regulators in the West so they are focusing on Developing Nations, as is Thorconpower. Such is the sad state of affairs in the West. These regulators like the NRC are more responsible for climate change than any other entity, and they need to be held to account. Hypocrites.
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.
Read Mike Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never: Why Environmentalism Hurts Us All." He describes the causes and effects of energy poverty in detail.
I have it! Should be mandatory reading for the millions of kids who have been pushed into climate anxiety and depression.
Probably the saddest thing in all of this. The climate howlers have driven kids to actual mental Illness due to climate anxiety. Special place in hell
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
They identify climate change as the number one problem? I thought it was white supremacy! That’s what our president says.
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.
What is the religious mythology of which you speak? The west won’t help Africa develop oil and gas. True racism. They need electricity.
Craig your assertion about the West not helping development in Africa is very inaccurate.
Recent small examples of how far off : The AMERICAN Association of Petroleum Geologists AAPG just awarded this years Outstanding Leadership Award to Nosa Omorodon. One of the Most recent Departments Heads at the Boone Pickens School of Geology OSU (Oklahoma State University) was African. A little research would go a long way. Many substantial examples can be seen with the stroke of the Keyboard.
More substantial facts can be gleaned by the fact that 70% of Central Africa has no electricity. We could have helped them out way before now. It is racism that makes us think it is tough luck for them because we don't want them polluting. It's a political problem, and a lack of help problem. Good for Boone Pickens. He was a good man. But where is the governments of nations, mainly the US. China will help them and turn them into an ally. Nancy Pelosi said “Africa wants to modernize and develop,” but countries there need to choose between powering that development with cheap, but destructive, coal and gas or with sustainable, clean energy." That is the attitude of the elites have in this country. They would rather see people starve rather than let them use oil and gas. It is nuts. As if they could create an industrial awakening with solar panels.
Craig,
The most substantive facts are demonstrated by lease blocks bid and purchased by US / Western Entities (the funds going directly to the associated African countries involved). These ventures are joint and professionals like those mentioned earlier are part of the exploration and development teams. All assistance isn’t charity as we all benefit from these activities and want to feed our families. The millions sometimes billions spent on non-productive blocks iare still productive for the given country and the experience of the African organizations involved benefits onshore domestic development in that country.
A personal example would be charity work done with African prenatal hospital units. Working with different groups in the U.S. we supplied equipment and energy sources for use there. When the Medical and administrative authorities were approached about the project, their one request was “Please don’t send solar or wind power sources, send diesel / ICE generators, something we can count on because are dealing with human life not abstract concerns of man-made CO2.
Another example is friends sponsoring young students from the African continent while they study in peace in the U,S.
As far as Nancy Pelosi goes, I can’t think of anything she ever said that represents my view.
She doesn’t represent the view or morals of most Americans.
I don’t accept the U.S. hasn’t aided and doesn’t continue to aid Africas development.
Your mileage may very, but my personal experience shows otherwise.
As far as your sentiment on trying to impose an “energy transition” revolution on Africa, we are in agreement. That is Energy Colonialism, delusional, and ridiculous. We also agree on world influence. Energy deficient countries will develop all forms of useable energy (I believe most sensible countries whether energy defiant or energy independent will eventually). The driving force will be economic feasibility. Trillions spent to subsidize inefficient sources will end. The question is if it takes an economic disaster here or will we start being sensible and economically responsible before that point ? No doubt China will fill the voids while developing all sources without restrictions and without the good stewardship that our system can provide through self correcting capitalist means.
Thanks for your very informative response. I hope you are right about the outcomes. You are giving me hope. Keep up the good work! How can citizens help?
Roberts's article goes a long way in sharpening peoples understanding. I'm in the scientific evidence group that human's effect on the climate in the form of CO2 generation is totally insignificant. Since other counties developing and developed will not suspend primary energy use, we need to help minimize pollution (CO2 isn't pollution) and be good stewards. This includes stopping child labor destroying rain forest (CO2 reduction machines) strip-mining rare-earth minerals for EVs and other limited use hazardous battery devices. Pointing out politicizing Nobel Prizes for inaccurate books and uneducated children's diatribes might slow the irrational mental disturbance of young people. Supporting hysteria while banishing Critically Peer reviewed Science means there is a real problem with the Scientific method we used to use. Introducing Milankovitch Cycles in discussions along with the thousands of factors that actually effect the natural changing climate will help those that listen to reason. Others will be unphased with facts, press on. We need to get a hold of our own financial house with responsible energy policy and independence to show good stewardship before it collapses. As a person who spent years flying into the LA Basin on nasty smoggy days decades ago, I can firmly attest we have the ability to clean up our act with sensible policy. If we can find enough responsible representatives with an understanding of energy sources that stand on their own without massive ineffective subsidies it will be a good start. We will help other more when we help ourselves. Anyone without sound energy policy running for office doesn't get a vote.
Green Apocalypticism
Yes it is racist. It's anti all humanity.
Yes they do!