Latest rejections in Kansas, Ohio, and Iowa illustrate ongoing backlash against Big Wind and Big Solar; SMR developer X-energy struggles; former Aussie prime minister talks geopolitics
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Re your first item, this on Whitmer is remarkable: https://pluribusnews.com/news-and-events/michigan-enacts-climate-package-aims-for-carbon-free-energy-by-2040/
Why doesn't mainstream national media cover this story that midwesterners are rejecting wind farms?
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.
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?
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.
Hello Robert, many thanks for your excellent journalism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At least gas is moving forward despite setbacks https://opsb.ohio.gov/news/opsbextendsconstructiontimeframefornaturalgas-firedpowerplant+inlucascounty
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?
Great journalism Robert!
This pretty much sums up how difficult energy is...