21 Comments

Bob. The metrics in this summary are difficult to imagine. It is also a reason, politicians around the world, do not do math except for the size of campaign contribution.

Expand full comment

“There is no question, however, that once a country gains wealth it cannot sustain it without electricity. When the electricity disappears, the wealth goes with it.”

See; Germany

Expand full comment

They are getting what they deserve. Fortunately the German love affair with the Green Party nutbars is coming to an end. Unfortunately in the German proportional representation system the nutbars have wielded political power far beyond their actual support, managing to weasel their way into the ruling coalition.

Expand full comment

“The electricity sector matters to climate change efforts because it is the single biggest source of global CO2 emissions.”

A nice hypothesis with no proof.

To date all co2 emissions have been a net benefit, especially if it has increased the earths temp a bit, the earth is still way too cold.

And the trolls can spare me the utterly ridiculous “hottest month in 125,000 years” nonsense.

Expand full comment

As usual, Robert provides a clear and non-political look at the actual problems. Robert, keep an eye on Eavor dotcom.

Expand full comment

Great work, Robert.

Expand full comment

Excellent summary. Robert didn't have the space to point out that Michael Shellenberger, one of the ARC cofounders, wrote about the relationship between energy (not just electricity) and poverty in "Apocalypse Never: Why Environmentalism Hurts Us All."

Something that neither Robert nor Michael noted is that prosperity reduces fertility, so if you're worried about overpopulation, you should be gung-ho for energy. Last year, Japan had twice as many deaths as births. For the first time in its history, it's accepting legal permanent resident immigrants, mostly from China and Korea, on one condition: They must become farmers. European fertiliuty, including European Russia, is below replacement. But for immigration the United States would be below replacement.

Beyond land-use conflicts, there are inescapable physical reasons that the world's electrical system cannot run on renewables alone. In https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf, Simon Michaux shows that the ell-electric all-renewable program promoted by the IEA would require five times more copper, ten times more nickel, 26 times more cobalt, ... than are known to exist in forms that can be exploited (and my estimates are more pessimistic). In the United States alone, the cost for batteries to provide firm power, assuming 100% charge-discharge efficiency, and not counting installation, would be more than four times total GDP every year. Pumped-storage would require 8,200 of Australia's Snowy 2.0 projects; we currently have forty. Analysis of data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission shows that, statistically, Kansas is indeed as flat as a pancake. Towing rocks up mountains or abandoned mine shafts would require about 15 million devices. "Green Hydrogen" has end-to-end efficiency below 22%, and hydrogen poses intractable storage and safety problems (synthetic fuels make more sense).... If we must abandon coal and natural gas (and that's a big IF) then nuclear power is the only alternative.

Read a preprint of my new book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" at http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Whence-Energy.html

Expand full comment

Excellent book! Thanks for providing it for public benefit.

Expand full comment

It will be published on Amazon in hard, soft, and Kindle, for those whom I can't reach in fora like this.

Expand full comment

I couldn't be more pleased for you, Mr. Bryce, than to hear you've been thus honoured by the ARC group.

Expand full comment

Loved it! More, please.

Expand full comment

Content worth the understanding of truth, our most rare journalism, a fresh approach to contemplating tomorrow!

Expand full comment

excellent read, thank you

Expand full comment

ThorConPower.com/Power has a chart showing how electricity consumption must double for the developing nations to approach the lifestyle of Europe. See https://thorconpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/20211110GeoffWorleEnergy4.png

Bryce's 4,000 kWh/year corresponds to average power of 456 watts per capita. China is already at 629 watts.

Expand full comment

Good chart, thanks for posting. So they are showing that the needs of Developing Nations will require at least doubling global electricity generation. That will mean a 5-fold increase in World Primary energy consumption. And even more in order to supply non-electricity energy for their increasing demand, i.e. for transportation, heat, agriculture, chemical industry, road & other infrastructure projects, mining. There is no conceivable way that there are enough economical fossil fuels to achieve that. And believing Wind & Solar can do even a small fraction is a ludicrous pipe dream.

And those in the West who delude themselves into believing a nice, comfortable business-as-usual policy will happily carry us into the next century, are in for a rude awakening. The Developing Nations increasing demand will push up the price of all fossil fuels forcing severe economy destroying curtailments in energy consumption in Western nations.

As ThorCon Power has demonstrated, and many others, nuclear can indeed achieve that level of energy production, indefinitely. So once again we are left with the necessity of a major shift to nuclear energy, which still is being deliberately blockaded, in spite of the fake rhetoric we are hearing lately.

Our politicians and their bosses really need a good collective slap on the head.

Expand full comment

The “waist” heat from thermal power plants can have secondary uses and solar panels in parking lots can provide shade for cars. However I can’t think of any secondary uses for wind turbines. I don’t live near wind turbines however I believe that “wind turbine syndrome” is real given that it affects animals as well as humans. Wind and solar are both intermittent, but at least solar is more predictable.

Expand full comment

That's a good reason why BP & the EIA are full of shite where they multiply wind & solar primary energy x2.5 to supposedly make them equivalent to thermal electricity generators. And multiply nuclear by 0.8X to make it less significant in their phony numbers which are unfortunately commonly used by outfits like ourworldindata. Thermal plants have waste heat which has many applications and is often used for cogeneration applications i.e. building, hot water or greenhouse heat, desalination.

Expand full comment

Those huge bird-killing monsters are far from the only wind-based alternative. ‘Nuf said for now.

Expand full comment

looking forward to the next installment . Recently read " A Question of Power" . Great book .

Yesterday I received a request via mail to "Earn Income from Excess Land " by leasing or selling my property for the development of solar power. Laughable, considering where I live [ rural NH ] but frightening to think that the promise of "attractive lease payments for 20 years or more " or an outright purchase at "competitive market price might tempt folk into falling for this much as people once assumed selling mineral rights for fracking would insure untold wealth for generations to come.

A small percentage of my acreage is open to the southwest. I would not relish the idea of it being covered in solar panels . FYI the soliciting company is Ameresco AMRC on the NYSE

Expand full comment

What you need in rural New Hampshire is not something that requires high-voltage lines to send power where it’s needed, anyway. As you say, how insulting that you would be asked to desecrate your land to “feed” the city-dwellers.

Expand full comment

It makes a lot more sense to just locate SMRs close to the load centers and forget the ugly, polluting, material intensive, dangerous long distance transmission lines. And they got to be the penultimate in grifters installing solar power in New Hampshire, a very poor location.

Expand full comment