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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
You did notice that chart is titled “planned” not completed, right?
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
Well said
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.
Enough with the name calling.
We get it.
You’re angry.
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.
They can’t even connect more than a fraction of those proposed projects.
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...