27 Comments

It would be interesting to see a composite graph showing rejections and injuries/deaths. Caithness Wind Farms has given up the ghost on that reporting, but Scotland Against Spin appears to have taken up the gauntlet.

Expand full comment

Why doesn't mainstream national media cover this story that midwesterners are rejecting wind farms?

Expand full comment

On Wednesday, the U.S. and U.K. governments announced their intent to triple installed nuclear power capacity globally by 2050. According to Bloomberg, the countries will issue a declaration on December 1 at the COP28

31 reactors/y for 26 years?!? Not SMRs mind you but bonafide genuine atom smashers of the 1000 MW+ variety. Not impossible but highly unlikely is my SWAG.

Expand full comment

It would be useful to see a plot comparing renewable site rejections to approvals. I suspect the latter curve would demonstrate a sharper rise. Personally, I am hopeful that the two curves will soon intersect, and we'll have more rejections than approvals.

I believe someone else made that very request earlier in this comment thread.

wind may be renewable, but it is not sustainable. when will the Administration and the green lobby figure that out? We do not have the raw materials to meet energy needs with wind if we are to meet the needs of growth in other sectors of the economy. It is simple physics - energy and power densities of wind and solar are three orders of magnitude smaller, meaning that to create equal amounts of energy, the resources required are three orders of magnitude greater. Further, because renewables require so many more resources, the capacities necessary for waste disposal are necessarily far greater.

It simply amazes me that the renewable proponents argue against nuclear because of its waste, yet conveniently ignore the potential waste streams of millions of turbine blades and solar panels, neither of which are recyclable. In 2050, we might have 150,000 metric tonnes of spent fuel, but over 2,000,000 metric tonnes of blade waste alone. How much land is needed to bury that crap? Wouldn't that land be better spent feeding 8 billion people?

Expand full comment

I cannot imagine that the less strident green lobbyists and champions will not pivot to voicing public support for nuclear in the near term. Media will inevitably follow, highlighting the (falsely) miraculous improvement in nuclear generation and a new paradigm of safety in small footprint reactors. From that should follow calls by Democrats to spend spend spend on subsidies...I mean cost offsets and quickening the approvals process by EPA, NRC and other agencies. I don't think this is an if scenario but a when. For once I'll happily support taxpayer dollars helping fund startups and plants in the US.

Expand full comment

Hello Robert, many thanks for your excellent journalism.

Expand full comment

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2023.02.06/main.svg

Count the rejections if you wish, even with those rejections wind and solar is growing exponentially, leaving boomer energy sources like coal and nuclear in the dirt.

Expand full comment

You realize it doesn’t matter how much garbage they install it all registers zero much of the time?

Because it’s garbage, useless, waste of money.

That’s all it will ever be, charts showing how much wealth was thrown away year by year

Expand full comment

God help us if pretend scientists continue to occupy positions of power within government and academia supporting your captured view. Plan on supporting your kids' future home economies from alll of that public debt.

And enjoy replacing coal mine tailings ponds with many many more of them to get the rare earth minerals and metals necessary for your solar and wind utopia.

Expand full comment

Bullshit. I don't see any exponential growth. I see scam artists and politically connected DemonRat/RINO/UNI-party grifters going full out to grab the massive subsidies before year end, under the economy destroying regiment of the unelected, Globalist, Malthusian, Davos Regime.

If you want real data, true data, that measures REAL ENERGY then look here:

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-statistics-data-browser?country=USA&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=TESbySource

See that skinny little yellow line, that's your Wind + Solar + Geothermal for the US. Some impressive that is. Damn near a $trillion for that!!!! The only big growth is in NG energy supply, which completely dwarfs your skimpy, little yellow line, still not exponential, but a substantial growth. Which proves wind & solar are just greenwashing for Natural Gas.

Now look at the World. Keep in mind this is before the GIANT EXPANSION in coal consumption that has occurred in the past 2yrs, even in big wind/solar promoting Germany:

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-statistics-data-browser?country=WORLD&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=TESbySource

Here, we see the rapid growth in coal, oil & gas apart from the brief decline brought on by the criminal Plandemic economic strangulation your DemonRat Globalist owners foisted upon the World. Your wind/solar/geothermal yellow line remains insignificant. Like what idiot would claim that will "save the world". And the World spent over $5T for that tiny yellow line.

Expand full comment

Enough with the name calling.

We get it.

You’re angry.

Expand full comment

No you don't get it. If you did get it you would use rational argument instead of typical Neoliberal whining, victim claiming, projection and diversion. Me, not angry, just telling it like it is. Since you are unable to argue the point, I accept your admission of being incorrect.

Expand full comment

You did notice that chart is titled “planned” not completed, right?

Expand full comment

It’s unlikely he would understand your point, just as he won’t understand that the 18% of real power installed (gas and nuclear) in that chart, will provide more energy year over year than the other 82 of garbage power

Expand full comment

Well said

Expand full comment

In case he’s reading this, Solar has max 20% capacity factor which means that 64% Solar is actually only providing 12.7% power over the year, and that 12.7 when IT wants to not when we need it. I can park beside a solar field here in Alberta and watch the AESO page update every 30 seconds and see the facility output drop by 50% instantly as a cloud passes over.

Garbage power by definition.

It means that the 14% gas provides more useful power than the 64% solar.

$$$$

Another way to look at it by energy density is every human needs an entire city block of resources for their life time energy use with renewables but with nuclear I can hold it in my hand.

Expand full comment

As a chemist, my perspective is that there are strictly no such things as "sustainables" or "renewables" energy wise; but rather only changes in efficiency of man-made processes in our physical reality.

This is consistent with The Law's of Physics and Thermodynamics.

The only real "sustainable" is life on the planet earth in equilibrium with it's natural processes, all driven by the sun, without human intervention.

Expand full comment

Even that isn't sustainable, after 4.5B years of Earth life, there is only 500M years left (i.e. life is 90% done) until that increasing heat of the Sun causes evaporation of the oceans, runaway global warming due largely to increased water vapor, which will turn the Earth into the hellhole of the solar system. Much hotter than even Venus. A ball of molten lava.

Fortunately with an unlimited high energy civilization powered by unlimited nuclear energy we can vacate the Earth and move to the balmy climate of Mars. Or even move the Earth to a cooler orbit. All doable. Sorry Doomers.

Expand full comment

Is there also a database showing the total number of approved projects over the same timeline? It would be good to compare. Regardless, we can only hope that what we are witnessing is the beginning of the collapse of the not so green transition to unreliables. From EVs to cancelled off-shore wind projects along with what is now happening in rural US. Our enemies are ROFL at the lunacy of western woke "leaders" as they race to outdo each other in destroying their economies with this nonsense. IMO, the existential threat we face is the full implementation of the Inflation Acceleration Act and legislation in other western democracies looking to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. Our enemies are simply bidding their time until we so weaken ourselves to be effectively defenseless when they decide to take some decisive action.

Expand full comment

They can’t even connect more than a fraction of those proposed projects.

Expand full comment

USA government support for nuclear is miniscule in comparison to "renewables" such as wind and solar, which in reality have maybe 15-20 year lifetimes, before going to the landfill.

In the meantime, China and Russia are building out their nuclear infrastructure, all fed by oil and coal burning.

Expand full comment

Excellent piece.

Unrelated question: Early next year, FERC is going to finalize rules regarding the permitting / construction of new power lines. Are BIg Wind & Solar pushing hard for FERC to have sweeping dictatorial power to override state and local concerns?

Expand full comment

Undoubtedly. Notice they don't add the massive cost and environmental pollution/degradation and wildfires of that transmission expansion to the cost of wind/solar. Lazard refuses to include that in its LCOE calculations.

Expand full comment

Great journalism Robert!

Expand full comment

This pretty much sums up how difficult energy is...

Expand full comment