Why burn 3 million tons of coal when you can get the same power from 1 ton of depleted uranium in a fast breeder, of which we have millions of tons in storage? The iron law of fear and social control!
Excellent write up Robert. 🙏 There are many eye brow raising to holy shite facts throughout the article among them is
“The IEA recently estimated that about 800 million people around the world still have no access to electricity. The average resident of India (which has 1.4 billion inhabitants) consumes just 1,200 kilowatt-hours of juice per year. That’s about a third of the global average and a tenth of the U.S. average.”
There is no way on Earth to keep the current "civilization" running if we change to 100% renewable energy (excluding nuclear). We don't even have the materials in enough quantity to do it if we truly wanted!
So the choices for why the Secular Ruling Families & Billionaires are working so hard for this to happen are very simple:
1. They are counting on a huge global herd reduction
2. They are working to achieve a huge global herd reduction.
Robert, I’m so glad your substack is doing so well and attracting so many smart, technically savvy readers. It is a tribute to your research, scientific understanding and writing skill. The discussion of hydrogen in the comments is brilliant.
Just a thought…what if you did a podcast featuring engineers and scientists from your commenters? Might be like herding cats, but could be really interesting.
"It will have to be accomplished with nuclear energy, and lots of it. That will take time, sustained international commitment and cooperation, and hundreds of billions of dollars in new investment."
Unfortunately, in the West we have already squandered vastly more than such a conversion would have cost on useless wind and solar.
What a different world if Gore had proposed realistic solutions, like a nuclear build out, changes in tax/subsidy structure to move freight from trucks to rail, a program of electrifying rail, and a sharing/move of naval nuclear technology to commercial shipping.
Another excellent scientific article. Thanks for your insight. While there is a role for renewables, it’s a small role. Energy density, surface impact and consumer cost will always win the day.
What did that end up costing you? I've been considering the same here in Austin TX. It looks like the Generac is about $6000 (? memory could be wrong), but the permit and hook up might cost as much.
It was 14K by the time I was done, but install was literally half the cost, that surprised me. I have a Cummins, I would not recommend a Generac, way too many warranty issues and their customer support is bad. I recommend Kohler or Cummins, they are the best. No matter what you buy, get a 10 year parts + labor + travel extended warranty.
Thank you for the advice and the information. I really appreciate it. It's good to hear from someone who has actually gone through the process.
If I go forward I'll look at the Cummins and Kohler.
Permitting in Austin is so fraught, I suspect I'd have to install a new power line mast and completely replace my breaker box, just to get the permit to connect the thing to my house.
But, I also calculate that after the first 500 KWHrs in a month, it would actually be cheaper to run the generator continuously for all my electricity. Except that the things seem to be designed for small duty cycles. The Generacs I looked at seem to want an oil change every 200 hours (~ 1 week continous) of use.
Ah, thank you again. I did notice that Generac (example only because this is what I already looked at) had both air cooled units and water cooled units that seemed otherwise nearly identical in specs.
I was wondering what the difference is. It sounds like it's low duty cycle vs. continuous use capacity?
Yes, but for noise, look for sound attenuation in the generator housing. You are correct, the continuous rating is for "prime power" operation. Pay attention as Generac has 3600 rpm liquid cooled units
Very informative, Robert. Thank you. James Conca recently published a paper I would recommend to all of your readers, entitled: "How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples." It appeared in the Thursday, June 15 version of Nuclear Newswire. Here is a link, but it may be paywalled.
Hydrogen has a high energy density, much more so than fossil.
Hydrogen : 142 MJ/kg
Diesel/gas : 45-46 MJ/kg
Unfortunately, the energy to produce, compress, and liquify 1 kg of hydrogen is far greater than it's energy content, so huge subsidies would be needed to support that, just like the solar and wind fiascos, which are dependent on fossil anyway.
On the other hand:
Nuclear, E=mc^2, U-235, : 79,390,000 MJ/kg
Using nuclear to electrolyze water to produce liquid hydrogen is a far more sensible process.
The big difference is Hydrogen isn't an energy source, unlike Diesel (crude oil), coal, gas or uranium/thorium. Oil & gas being solar energy stored over aeons, and uranium & thorium being stored energy created by hypernovae and kilonovae.
Hydrogen is like electricity, a carrier of energy. And a very inferior carrier of energy. In essence these green agenda birdbrains are advocating hydrogen & electricity as energy carriers.
Since Crude Oil, Coal, Gas & Uranium/thorium and Hydro are already stored energy, the energy storage problem is minimal. Wind & solar offer no energy storage so that becomes a giant handicap to that form of energy.
In any case if you want to store energy, apart from the already available oil, gas, coal, uranium/thorium & hydro, the best storage medium is methanol. Far superior to hydrogen and far more energy dense and lower cost than batteries. To make green methanol you can use nuclear hydrogen plus some green carbon source, but you would do that in large scale plants and unlike hydrogen, you can use existing pipeline infrastructure to transport the methanol to consumers.
Oxidizing hydrogen gas is similiar to oxidizing hydrocarbons in that it releases heat and byproducts (see Hindenberg), so I would consider it an energy source.
The Gibbs's Free Energy of hydrogen oxidation is quite negative and thus downhill and spontaneous like hydrocarbons.
You can also stooge a few electrons and drive a circuit along the way of you wish.
But yes, it ain't dinosaur juice or algae sludge just lying in the earth ready to get sucked out and refined and burned!
Yes indeed, H2 combustion is similar to HC combustion, as such it is a similar type of fuel for carnot cycle heat engines and also chemical processes.
The big difference is there isn't free H2 around to harvest as an energy source. You have to use large amounts of energy to create it. It does take energy to harvest coal, petroleum, gas & uranium/thorium. But they provide far more energy than that requires. So EROI is quite high, with uranium/thorium over 2000:1 is quite doable. Using H2 with wind/solar as a source, pushes the EROI into the low single digits, which make wind/solar/H2 a net loss to the economy.
We are seeing already how much cost and trouble hydrogen is in the SLS failed launch attempts. And recently a hydrogen leak caused a giant explosion which destroyed a new ULA rocket & damaged the launch pad:
It also caused many long delays in Space Shuttle launches.
It is the leakiest gas and preventing those leaks even in a $30B, 25yr rocket program has proven overwhelming.
For rockets to orbit, H2 is has the highest energy/mass. Every kg of fuel saved is an extra kg of mass to orbit. That was worth $54k for the Space Shuttle and $2720 for the Falcon 9. That's one big advantage for fuel for rockets, worth +$3k/kg mass saved. And yet both Musk and Bezos chose Methane over H2 for their new rocket engines. It's just not worth it, even in expensive rockets to deal with H2 and all its problems.
I'm a petroleum engineer and have worked in Midland (Permian Basin) for 26 years. We have been using CO2 injection into oil reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) since the 1970's. In the early 2000's, I can remember meetings and discussions around using methane to generate hydrogen to power the (then) new fuel cell technology for transportation. This is before the shale boom, and at the time the US was importing more and more crude as well as natural gas. It only made sense if nuclear power was used as the energy source to create the hydrogen, and the resulting CO2 byproduct was injected into oil reservoirs to increase oil production. The idea didn't gain much traction since the net energy loss in the process would guarantee bankrupting any company that tried it. Plus, the hydrogen molecule is so small that it will permeate most materials including steel, so an entire new delivery system would be required to get it to market. Leaking hydrogen might be an issue (Hindenburg?).
Now, thanks to green subsidies, the idea has returned. Billions will be spent studying the idea, and I bet it will never gain traction for the same reasons.
Hydrogen has a number issues well beyond the production aspect. There is zero infrastructure logistics distribution system, then consumers aren't there at all. Modular nuclear in theory solves this issue however, thanks to the Hillary, Russia is the main source of enriched fuel for nuclear plants. Need to move DC meetings into the heartland, and them make each one of them work a farm job for 2 yrs, forget law school and trying something useful like engineering where physics and thermo have to be honored.
Great Work Robert - thanks for the shout out to Nuclear
Why burn 3 million tons of coal when you can get the same power from 1 ton of depleted uranium in a fast breeder, of which we have millions of tons in storage? The iron law of fear and social control!
Excellent write up Robert. 🙏 There are many eye brow raising to holy shite facts throughout the article among them is
“The IEA recently estimated that about 800 million people around the world still have no access to electricity. The average resident of India (which has 1.4 billion inhabitants) consumes just 1,200 kilowatt-hours of juice per year. That’s about a third of the global average and a tenth of the U.S. average.”
Great article. Thoughtful, balanced, fact-based and informed discussion of the issues. Thank you Robert.
There is no way on Earth to keep the current "civilization" running if we change to 100% renewable energy (excluding nuclear). We don't even have the materials in enough quantity to do it if we truly wanted!
So the choices for why the Secular Ruling Families & Billionaires are working so hard for this to happen are very simple:
1. They are counting on a huge global herd reduction
2. They are working to achieve a huge global herd reduction.
Since they don't play chances...
Robert, do you have a reading list? I invariably hear suggestions on your podcast but have no way of writing these things down while driving…..
Robert, I’m so glad your substack is doing so well and attracting so many smart, technically savvy readers. It is a tribute to your research, scientific understanding and writing skill. The discussion of hydrogen in the comments is brilliant.
Just a thought…what if you did a podcast featuring engineers and scientists from your commenters? Might be like herding cats, but could be really interesting.
Thanks, Lee. And yes, the comments on H2 are really good. Re the podcast, let me think about that.
Tutti Frutti Hydrogen is my new favorite flavor!
I’m all for doing research into new tech, but let’s start with the laws of physics and thermodynamics first before we dump billions into projects...
"It will have to be accomplished with nuclear energy, and lots of it. That will take time, sustained international commitment and cooperation, and hundreds of billions of dollars in new investment."
Unfortunately, in the West we have already squandered vastly more than such a conversion would have cost on useless wind and solar.
What a different world if Gore had proposed realistic solutions, like a nuclear build out, changes in tax/subsidy structure to move freight from trucks to rail, a program of electrifying rail, and a sharing/move of naval nuclear technology to commercial shipping.
Another excellent scientific article. Thanks for your insight. While there is a role for renewables, it’s a small role. Energy density, surface impact and consumer cost will always win the day.
Granholm selling “hopium” (<-- fantastic word) and unfulfilled energy promises... a continuing series...
https://capitalresearch.org/article/bonkers-about-batteries-the-unauthorized-biography-of-jennifer-granholm/
I installed a home standby with auto-transfer, I will have power until they kill natural gas in Ohio.
What did that end up costing you? I've been considering the same here in Austin TX. It looks like the Generac is about $6000 (? memory could be wrong), but the permit and hook up might cost as much.
It was 14K by the time I was done, but install was literally half the cost, that surprised me. I have a Cummins, I would not recommend a Generac, way too many warranty issues and their customer support is bad. I recommend Kohler or Cummins, they are the best. No matter what you buy, get a 10 year parts + labor + travel extended warranty.
Thank you for the advice and the information. I really appreciate it. It's good to hear from someone who has actually gone through the process.
If I go forward I'll look at the Cummins and Kohler.
Permitting in Austin is so fraught, I suspect I'd have to install a new power line mast and completely replace my breaker box, just to get the permit to connect the thing to my house.
But, I also calculate that after the first 500 KWHrs in a month, it would actually be cheaper to run the generator continuously for all my electricity. Except that the things seem to be designed for small duty cycles. The Generacs I looked at seem to want an oil change every 200 hours (~ 1 week continous) of use.
If you want to run continuous, then you need to avoid the 3600 rpm units and the air cooled units. You need a nice water cooled 1800 rpm generator.
Ah, thank you again. I did notice that Generac (example only because this is what I already looked at) had both air cooled units and water cooled units that seemed otherwise nearly identical in specs.
I was wondering what the difference is. It sounds like it's low duty cycle vs. continuous use capacity?
Are the lower RPM generators also quieter?
Yes, but for noise, look for sound attenuation in the generator housing. You are correct, the continuous rating is for "prime power" operation. Pay attention as Generac has 3600 rpm liquid cooled units
Very informative, Robert. Thank you. James Conca recently published a paper I would recommend to all of your readers, entitled: "How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples." It appeared in the Thursday, June 15 version of Nuclear Newswire. Here is a link, but it may be paywalled.
https://www.ans.org/news/article-5024/how-to-compare-energy-sourcesapples-to-apples/
For what it's worth, I would recommend Dr. Conca as a guest on one of your up-coming podcasts.
Hydrogen has a high energy density, much more so than fossil.
Hydrogen : 142 MJ/kg
Diesel/gas : 45-46 MJ/kg
Unfortunately, the energy to produce, compress, and liquify 1 kg of hydrogen is far greater than it's energy content, so huge subsidies would be needed to support that, just like the solar and wind fiascos, which are dependent on fossil anyway.
On the other hand:
Nuclear, E=mc^2, U-235, : 79,390,000 MJ/kg
Using nuclear to electrolyze water to produce liquid hydrogen is a far more sensible process.
The big difference is Hydrogen isn't an energy source, unlike Diesel (crude oil), coal, gas or uranium/thorium. Oil & gas being solar energy stored over aeons, and uranium & thorium being stored energy created by hypernovae and kilonovae.
Hydrogen is like electricity, a carrier of energy. And a very inferior carrier of energy. In essence these green agenda birdbrains are advocating hydrogen & electricity as energy carriers.
Since Crude Oil, Coal, Gas & Uranium/thorium and Hydro are already stored energy, the energy storage problem is minimal. Wind & solar offer no energy storage so that becomes a giant handicap to that form of energy.
In any case if you want to store energy, apart from the already available oil, gas, coal, uranium/thorium & hydro, the best storage medium is methanol. Far superior to hydrogen and far more energy dense and lower cost than batteries. To make green methanol you can use nuclear hydrogen plus some green carbon source, but you would do that in large scale plants and unlike hydrogen, you can use existing pipeline infrastructure to transport the methanol to consumers.
Chief, I have to differ a bit here.
Oxidizing hydrogen gas is similiar to oxidizing hydrocarbons in that it releases heat and byproducts (see Hindenberg), so I would consider it an energy source.
The Gibbs's Free Energy of hydrogen oxidation is quite negative and thus downhill and spontaneous like hydrocarbons.
You can also stooge a few electrons and drive a circuit along the way of you wish.
But yes, it ain't dinosaur juice or algae sludge just lying in the earth ready to get sucked out and refined and burned!
Yes indeed, H2 combustion is similar to HC combustion, as such it is a similar type of fuel for carnot cycle heat engines and also chemical processes.
The big difference is there isn't free H2 around to harvest as an energy source. You have to use large amounts of energy to create it. It does take energy to harvest coal, petroleum, gas & uranium/thorium. But they provide far more energy than that requires. So EROI is quite high, with uranium/thorium over 2000:1 is quite doable. Using H2 with wind/solar as a source, pushes the EROI into the low single digits, which make wind/solar/H2 a net loss to the economy.
We are seeing already how much cost and trouble hydrogen is in the SLS failed launch attempts. And recently a hydrogen leak caused a giant explosion which destroyed a new ULA rocket & damaged the launch pad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCi5O1eXIhI
It also caused many long delays in Space Shuttle launches.
It is the leakiest gas and preventing those leaks even in a $30B, 25yr rocket program has proven overwhelming.
For rockets to orbit, H2 is has the highest energy/mass. Every kg of fuel saved is an extra kg of mass to orbit. That was worth $54k for the Space Shuttle and $2720 for the Falcon 9. That's one big advantage for fuel for rockets, worth +$3k/kg mass saved. And yet both Musk and Bezos chose Methane over H2 for their new rocket engines. It's just not worth it, even in expensive rockets to deal with H2 and all its problems.
Indeed!
You still end up with Hydrogen's storage and corrosion issues to solve, they're seldom discussed.
Agreed!
There are a plethora of issues with regards to storage and transport and use.
The little H2 guy will weasel its way through any tiny space as well (I am a chemist)
I will write about hydrogen soon on my satirical substack:
https://tucoschild.substack.com/
Looking forward to reading that post!
I'm a petroleum engineer and have worked in Midland (Permian Basin) for 26 years. We have been using CO2 injection into oil reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) since the 1970's. In the early 2000's, I can remember meetings and discussions around using methane to generate hydrogen to power the (then) new fuel cell technology for transportation. This is before the shale boom, and at the time the US was importing more and more crude as well as natural gas. It only made sense if nuclear power was used as the energy source to create the hydrogen, and the resulting CO2 byproduct was injected into oil reservoirs to increase oil production. The idea didn't gain much traction since the net energy loss in the process would guarantee bankrupting any company that tried it. Plus, the hydrogen molecule is so small that it will permeate most materials including steel, so an entire new delivery system would be required to get it to market. Leaking hydrogen might be an issue (Hindenburg?).
Now, thanks to green subsidies, the idea has returned. Billions will be spent studying the idea, and I bet it will never gain traction for the same reasons.
The laws of thermodynamics, materials and chemistry have had zero effect on energy policy in the last 20 years. Why start now?
Hydrogen has a number issues well beyond the production aspect. There is zero infrastructure logistics distribution system, then consumers aren't there at all. Modular nuclear in theory solves this issue however, thanks to the Hillary, Russia is the main source of enriched fuel for nuclear plants. Need to move DC meetings into the heartland, and them make each one of them work a farm job for 2 yrs, forget law school and trying something useful like engineering where physics and thermo have to be honored.