Robert we have a new player at least to me, on the ant-gas band wagon. I just learned about gasleaks.org. This one is funded by the Rockefellers, not much different than Bloomberg. Just another uber rich family trying to control the pesents fot their own gain.
Are you effing kidding me, you ahole. We lost how many brave American soldiers putting down Hilter and Mussolini. How many Jews were slaughtered just because they were Jews by these monsters? You useless piece of shit to 3ven suggest that such a thing should EVER happen again. For the sake of memory of the Greatest Generation, Robert please ban that piece of excreatment!
And you won't get one, if you meant mob murder as opposed to a fascist regime, my blast still fits. Promoting mob violence is not an improvement on your statement. GEEZ
Planet raping is the proper reference for renewables.
The only way humans cause the "sixth extinction" is if we try to implement a fully renewable powered society.
If you read and understand about power density and mineral requirements, the only way we power the earth with renewables/storage is strip mining the entire place, and covering all remaining wild areas.
Right here on this substack robert has two pieces on that which he calls the iron law power density.
Don't matter how much you dislike physics, physics wins.
And you aren't some "random dude on the internet saying stuff that isn't credible".
Why are you even here then? Substack is for those willing and able to think. Robert lays out everything, physics is undefeated, he is `100% correct on that.
Fossil fuel company executives get rich providing a massively in demand product, withdrawl of which would lead to the death of billions.
I work in the electrical industry so I understand what Robert is saying even as you clearly don’t.
Meanwhile, unless you are 100% off all forms of hydrocarbons as of this moment I expect you to show us your commitment and step your carbon off the planet.
As one of the largest thermal coal exporters out of the US (primarily to Japan), I have to say that this is an excellent article! Thanks for the wake-up call Robert, I enjoy your work.
I'm sure that with the $500m Bloomy is giving away, this benefactor will be able to fund ways to solve all of these challenges NERC describes. Money solves all problems, right? After reading about his private jets, I'll never feel guilty about my carbon output!
There has never been an energy transition that took place in less than 100 years. It doesn’t matter how much money is thrown at it. The technologies must be developed, tested and deployed. The transition that Bloomberg and his ilk desire is even more complicated as the technology is not ready and they want to transition the electric grid, a vast and complicated machine
There is no environmental case for shutting down natural gas power plants. If you want to radically reduce US carbon emissions in a cost-effective way, we should replace coal plants with Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT). It would be a fraction of the cost of solar/wind subsidies.
Ugh. Elites really know how to live! One note, Bloomberg's jets release 200 times more CO2 than the average American's entire consumption, not their equivalent flying around the globe. Assuming the rest of Bloomberg's ridiculous lifestyle allies with his private jet use, he is far more responsible for CO2 emissions than just from his plane use.
Since there is wide disagreement on the effects of CO2 on the climate, I'm not terribly concerned about his emissions. But I definitely care that his rank ignorance, authoritarian motives, paternalism and sheer ego will effect the plight of average Americans while he pollutes the country with his money and power. Bloomberg is the poster child for Tom Sowell's prognosticators about the left wanting absolute power over what they view to be plebs. And as someone who will never have to give a shi* about paying a bill in his life, Bloomberg can afford to be an idiot until he shuffles off his mortal coil.
Here's one possible motivation for this solar-wind (but not nuclear) push. Both wind and solar require much more land than any other source. The longer the distance you transmit electricity, the less of it you receive. So pushing solar-wind, is a strategy to confiscate vast tracts of land close to population centers, usually farmland, creating an effective urban growth boundary.
Bloomberg's on-line publication has been consistently anti-nuclear and pro-wind/solar and on the sly, pro-gas for the last fifteen years. It has been obvious to anyone who paid even a tiny bit of attention to the articles that get published.
This is the first time I've seen him flaunt his evil so blatantly and directly, but it's been there for everyone to see for more than a decade.
My simple analysis indicates that to replace hydrocarbons in the transportation and electric power sectors by 2035, we would need 4,600,000 square kilometers of land, and 540,000 MMT of steel. In terms of "ramping rates," this amounts to losing the entire state of Montana each year, every year between now and 2035. We would need 36 percent of the annual output from US steel mills each year, every year.
Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean that we should do a thing. When will someone come along and inject some sanity into the "renewables are our savior" argument? The idea that renewables, that is solar and wind, can meet America's energy needs is equivalent to believing in the the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.
Do the math. It's really pretty simply. Obviously, you have no clue as to the scale necessary to produce your "renewables are our savior" dogma. I may be off by a factor of two or three, due to differing assumptions on capacity factor or unit material values, but not by a factor of 10! And many others agree with that math.
And there is absolutely zero reason for ad hominem. That is a tactic of the weak-minded and has no place in reasonable discussions. If you question me, question my numbers not my resume. Like I said, do the math. Start with data from the Energy Information Administration. If you can't do that math, then kindly refrain from offering opinions.
No, the numbers are from any anatomical source. They are from the US Energy Administration, which showed in 2021 79 percent of America's energy is produced by fossil fuels. Just how are you going to replace 79 quads of energy with windmills, solar farms, and battery technology that doesn't exist and, at the scale needed, is at least a decade or more away from application?
If you weren't so lazy and could actually do math, you would see that you would need about 7,500 GW of new wind, or 10,400 GW of new solar to generate that much energy. That's 277 GW per year to meet the Administration's goal. Between 2010 and 2020, the US installed about 8 GW per year of wind. Please explain to me how we are magically going to increase our ramping rate on wind by a factor of 35 in the next few months, particularly when it takes at least a year to permit a wind farm of 50 MW or greater. Those numbers for solar aren't much different, (385 GW per year needed to meet goal, compared to 10 MW of historic production). You may dispute the values of my analysis ad infinitum, but their point isn't the accuracy of the decimal but rather the direction in which we are pointed. Trillions of dollars have been gifted to the renewable energy companies, that have so far produced less than five percent of the US energy consumed over the past six years. That does not present a picture of hope for my future.
We've been using fossil fuels since roughly 1700, but wind power has been around for several thousand years. Efficiencies may have improved, but processes haven't. The same can be said for solar. I think your "1/4 time" estimate for completely renewable processes is absurd.
Wind turbine blades are NOT recyclable, nor are solar panels. Turbine blades lose their efficiencies after 10 to 15 years, and the waste ends up in county landfills. Because of their toxicity, solar panel waste must go to licensed hazardous waste landfills. Battery technology is similarly toxic. Because of their poor energy density, wind and solar generate waste in volumes of 10 times or more than nuclear. Because of their poor power density, materials needed to construct wind and solar facilities are 10 times or more greater than a natural gas or nuclear plant. It's always amazed me that anyone would suggest or believe that the world's flimsiest fluid [air] could be harvested for energy by the engineer's least efficient convertor – a propeller.
The myth of a 100 percent renewable and recyclable energy economy is physically impossible at this time, and has no realistic chance of becoming so in the near or distant future. There is no such thing as a perfectly elastic system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that there will be some waste in any process.
And to be precise, name-calling or falsely attributing my sources are ad hominem. You make those attacks because you cannot challenge the facts and results of power and energy density. You have the right to challenge my interpretation of the data, but energy and power density are principles of physics, not political rhetoric, and simply cannot be refuted.
“Michael Bloomberg needs to start drawing a clear and disclosed line between his private interests and public activities.”
Anonymous Heins
My book has citations from more than 300 sources. Did you read any of it?
Robert, probably the first time I have seen the left admit green won't cut it. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/26/permitting-natural-gas-fights-threaten-grids-future-takeaways-from-politicos-grid-reliability-event-00123644
Robert we have a new player at least to me, on the ant-gas band wagon. I just learned about gasleaks.org. This one is funded by the Rockefellers, not much different than Bloomberg. Just another uber rich family trying to control the pesents fot their own gain.
Eventually it will come down to us or them.
I vote us.
Time for a Mussolini moment.
Are you effing kidding me, you ahole. We lost how many brave American soldiers putting down Hilter and Mussolini. How many Jews were slaughtered just because they were Jews by these monsters? You useless piece of shit to 3ven suggest that such a thing should EVER happen again. For the sake of memory of the Greatest Generation, Robert please ban that piece of excreatment!
Wow
Just wow
Never have seen such a stupid comment and language from a supposed human.
Clearly you should read more to understand what a mussolini moment is, which is ending up strung up from the city walls with piano wire.
Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to have the manners or class to apologize after that comment.
Maybe Robert should ban you as I’m pretty sure he can read.
And you won't get one, if you meant mob murder as opposed to a fascist regime, my blast still fits. Promoting mob violence is not an improvement on your statement. GEEZ
Still can’t read
Please don’t comment again
Got no time for jokes.
Planet raping is the proper reference for renewables.
The only way humans cause the "sixth extinction" is if we try to implement a fully renewable powered society.
If you read and understand about power density and mineral requirements, the only way we power the earth with renewables/storage is strip mining the entire place, and covering all remaining wild areas.
Right here on this substack robert has two pieces on that which he calls the iron law power density.
Don't matter how much you dislike physics, physics wins.
Go read those, then come back.
Or don't, i don't particularly care.
And you aren't some "random dude on the internet saying stuff that isn't credible".
Why are you even here then? Substack is for those willing and able to think. Robert lays out everything, physics is undefeated, he is `100% correct on that.
Fossil fuel company executives get rich providing a massively in demand product, withdrawl of which would lead to the death of billions.
Your not one of those "Exxon knew" types are you?
Another awesome social Justice warrior.
I see them all the time.
I work in the electrical industry so I understand what Robert is saying even as you clearly don’t.
Meanwhile, unless you are 100% off all forms of hydrocarbons as of this moment I expect you to show us your commitment and step your carbon off the planet.
As one of the largest thermal coal exporters out of the US (primarily to Japan), I have to say that this is an excellent article! Thanks for the wake-up call Robert, I enjoy your work.
I'm sure that with the $500m Bloomy is giving away, this benefactor will be able to fund ways to solve all of these challenges NERC describes. Money solves all problems, right? After reading about his private jets, I'll never feel guilty about my carbon output!
Well this is grim. Imagine how much fun he would have been as president.
There has never been an energy transition that took place in less than 100 years. It doesn’t matter how much money is thrown at it. The technologies must be developed, tested and deployed. The transition that Bloomberg and his ilk desire is even more complicated as the technology is not ready and they want to transition the electric grid, a vast and complicated machine
A comment that does not address the issue with any reason or facts to believe Mayor Mike’s plan will work.
There is no environmental case for shutting down natural gas power plants. If you want to radically reduce US carbon emissions in a cost-effective way, we should replace coal plants with Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT). It would be a fraction of the cost of solar/wind subsidies.
Ugh. Elites really know how to live! One note, Bloomberg's jets release 200 times more CO2 than the average American's entire consumption, not their equivalent flying around the globe. Assuming the rest of Bloomberg's ridiculous lifestyle allies with his private jet use, he is far more responsible for CO2 emissions than just from his plane use.
Since there is wide disagreement on the effects of CO2 on the climate, I'm not terribly concerned about his emissions. But I definitely care that his rank ignorance, authoritarian motives, paternalism and sheer ego will effect the plight of average Americans while he pollutes the country with his money and power. Bloomberg is the poster child for Tom Sowell's prognosticators about the left wanting absolute power over what they view to be plebs. And as someone who will never have to give a shi* about paying a bill in his life, Bloomberg can afford to be an idiot until he shuffles off his mortal coil.
Here's one possible motivation for this solar-wind (but not nuclear) push. Both wind and solar require much more land than any other source. The longer the distance you transmit electricity, the less of it you receive. So pushing solar-wind, is a strategy to confiscate vast tracts of land close to population centers, usually farmland, creating an effective urban growth boundary.
This all at a time when they demand that we all give up fossil fuels for our vehicles, cooking and heating and replace it with electricity.
When you say they have a hidden agenda, they call you a conspiracy theorist.
Bloomberg's on-line publication has been consistently anti-nuclear and pro-wind/solar and on the sly, pro-gas for the last fifteen years. It has been obvious to anyone who paid even a tiny bit of attention to the articles that get published.
This is the first time I've seen him flaunt his evil so blatantly and directly, but it's been there for everyone to see for more than a decade.
My simple analysis indicates that to replace hydrocarbons in the transportation and electric power sectors by 2035, we would need 4,600,000 square kilometers of land, and 540,000 MMT of steel. In terms of "ramping rates," this amounts to losing the entire state of Montana each year, every year between now and 2035. We would need 36 percent of the annual output from US steel mills each year, every year.
Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean that we should do a thing. When will someone come along and inject some sanity into the "renewables are our savior" argument? The idea that renewables, that is solar and wind, can meet America's energy needs is equivalent to believing in the the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.
Do the math. It's really pretty simply. Obviously, you have no clue as to the scale necessary to produce your "renewables are our savior" dogma. I may be off by a factor of two or three, due to differing assumptions on capacity factor or unit material values, but not by a factor of 10! And many others agree with that math.
And there is absolutely zero reason for ad hominem. That is a tactic of the weak-minded and has no place in reasonable discussions. If you question me, question my numbers not my resume. Like I said, do the math. Start with data from the Energy Information Administration. If you can't do that math, then kindly refrain from offering opinions.
No, the numbers are from any anatomical source. They are from the US Energy Administration, which showed in 2021 79 percent of America's energy is produced by fossil fuels. Just how are you going to replace 79 quads of energy with windmills, solar farms, and battery technology that doesn't exist and, at the scale needed, is at least a decade or more away from application?
If you weren't so lazy and could actually do math, you would see that you would need about 7,500 GW of new wind, or 10,400 GW of new solar to generate that much energy. That's 277 GW per year to meet the Administration's goal. Between 2010 and 2020, the US installed about 8 GW per year of wind. Please explain to me how we are magically going to increase our ramping rate on wind by a factor of 35 in the next few months, particularly when it takes at least a year to permit a wind farm of 50 MW or greater. Those numbers for solar aren't much different, (385 GW per year needed to meet goal, compared to 10 MW of historic production). You may dispute the values of my analysis ad infinitum, but their point isn't the accuracy of the decimal but rather the direction in which we are pointed. Trillions of dollars have been gifted to the renewable energy companies, that have so far produced less than five percent of the US energy consumed over the past six years. That does not present a picture of hope for my future.
We've been using fossil fuels since roughly 1700, but wind power has been around for several thousand years. Efficiencies may have improved, but processes haven't. The same can be said for solar. I think your "1/4 time" estimate for completely renewable processes is absurd.
Wind turbine blades are NOT recyclable, nor are solar panels. Turbine blades lose their efficiencies after 10 to 15 years, and the waste ends up in county landfills. Because of their toxicity, solar panel waste must go to licensed hazardous waste landfills. Battery technology is similarly toxic. Because of their poor energy density, wind and solar generate waste in volumes of 10 times or more than nuclear. Because of their poor power density, materials needed to construct wind and solar facilities are 10 times or more greater than a natural gas or nuclear plant. It's always amazed me that anyone would suggest or believe that the world's flimsiest fluid [air] could be harvested for energy by the engineer's least efficient convertor – a propeller.
The myth of a 100 percent renewable and recyclable energy economy is physically impossible at this time, and has no realistic chance of becoming so in the near or distant future. There is no such thing as a perfectly elastic system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that there will be some waste in any process.
And to be precise, name-calling or falsely attributing my sources are ad hominem. You make those attacks because you cannot challenge the facts and results of power and energy density. You have the right to challenge my interpretation of the data, but energy and power density are principles of physics, not political rhetoric, and simply cannot be refuted.
Farming is easy. Just poke a seed in the ground. Creating a stable grid is easier. Said the mouth of the billionaire who knows nothing at all.
Yes, that was a good blooper, ended his presidential ambitions right there.