Another questionable article by a highly acclaimed expert in Climate Change : Joe Romm

ClimateProgress has an excellent writer, and his name is Joe Romm, another highly acclaimed person, set out to prove Hansen wrong and to make sure that nuclear energy get's another unsubstantiated hit, whilst trying to sprinkle fairy dust over renewable energy.

Let's have a look at this highly estimable influencer of people.

Look at that! A PHD in physics from MIT. I presume that he is able to do some simple calculations. As always I'll start off by adding this little caveat, he has actual experience in Academia, I have none, all I will bring to the table is my limited brain capacity, some common sense and high-school understanding of mathematics, physics and chemistry.

What does Joe have to tell us?

"Why James Hansen is wrong about Nuclear Power"

Exciting! This is an interesting title, let's find out what James Hansen has to say about nuclear power?

""Climatologist James Hansen argued last month, “Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change.” He is wrong."

"They ignore the core issues: The nuclear power industry has essentially priced itself out of the market for new power plants because of its 1) negative learning curve and 2) inability to avoid massive delays and cost overruns in market economies."

The significant difference between you - Joe - and James Hansen, is that he actually cares about solving this issue and knows that it is TECHNOLOGICALLY feasible to do it using nuclear energy AND Renewable energy sources, but that each technology needs to be implemented in the smartest possible way. James Hansen understands the limitations of either technology, and since this is a technological challenge, his stance is in this is warranted. Joe, however, is going to question this technological feasibility by introducing questions about the economics of nuclear energy and the delays within nuclear energy, which are mostly caused by regulatory hurdles.

What do economics and regulations have to do with technological feasibility? Nothing.

Basically I have already refuted the entire article already, Joe is trying to build an elaborate non-sequitur to discredit James Hansen's suggestion that 115 NPP's might be required to supplant the fossil fuelled electricity generation.

Also note that this argument :

" renewable power, electricity storage, and energy efficiency — have seen steady, stunning price drops for a long time."

Is proposing solutions based on the wrong metrics, price drops are meaningless if you do not have the materials to do it. Furthermore the "energy efficiency" myth will be blown out of the water sooner rather than later. But hey, it's a nice buzzword to use, right?

Does Joe understand the necessity of decarbonization?

We do not have a minute to spare, which means that we cannot discount ANY non-GHG-emitting energy generator / capture-device. Even I accept that we should be building renewables, albeit for different reasons, and with different contexts.

Where it is true that the warming the planet has to be mitigated and as such we need to stop adding potent heat trapping gasses to the atmosphere, there is one even more dire possible outcome of our emissions and this is set to happen before 2050 : Ocean Acidification and the extinction of vital oceanic organisms that can cascade upward in the food chain, eventually hitting humanity, quite soon I might add.

I am one of those people who doesn't herald the COP21 accord as a victory over Anthropogenic Climate Change. In fact, I think the COP21 accord is yet another postponement of critical measures required to mitigate the immediate threat of Ocean Acidification, Sea Level Rise, Crop Failures, Diminishing Water Supplies and other dire effects of our activities.

So what are we doing here? Jacobson for instance loves to bash nuclear while peddling a 100% WWS dream with cherry picked facts and ignoring vital effects of our current 400PPM transgression. Oreskes follows in his wake by trying to play a nice weather woman and citing Jacobson. And now this clown has risen to the challenge.

I am inclined to start building a list of number-obfuscators, cherry pickers, climate-change populists (People who love to stand on stage, and that enjoy the attention their "cosy good news show" gives them).

I am not saying that Climate Change isn't real, but it seems to have given rise to a new sort of people that like to push an agenda while ignoring critical facts that should force them to alter their stance, particularly because they are academics. As soon as people start peddling nonsense in order to influence the public opinion against valid solutions offered against the most dire threat in our existence, I will step up to the plate... It is time this nonsense stops.

Here's the cardinal question I'm going to submit to you, Joe :

Do we want to step into the ring against a formidable prize fighter, knowing we're at full strength, or are we going to accept that we've crippled ourselves before we entered the fight - of life and death?

Here's my counter argument :

Since you are willing to cripple our ability to fight Greenhouse emissions and the effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change, I think you are an immoral human being and do not fully grasp the seriousness of the situation we're in.

"Why Joe Romm is wrong about Nuclear Power"

consider this graph shared by Joe :

First of all note the long lull in nuclear development, which basically runs from 1987 until 2004 after which shows a clear sign of revival, also note that Fukushima caused another drop, but soon after the nuclear industry started ramping up again.

That lull of 17 years had nothing to do with natural constraints imposed on nuclear energy. The only constraints that exist are these : Public acceptance (based on irrational fear) and economics. And you can clearly see it, because the causes are shown...

If economics are going to dictate what we do in order to ensure that the biosphere (of which we are a part, and depend on) doesn't get destroyed, we're going to lose. It is as simple as that. And there lies the true issue we need to resolve. Are we willing to let economics dictate the efficiency by which we tackle Anthropogenic Climate Change, or are we going to use science, reason and our technological fortitude to do it?

This is what the same graph looks like if you plot the averages and the baseline average.

This graph tells us that we can reasonably expect an addition of at least 14 NPP's per year, furthermore we have no reason to suspect that this technology is limited at least below the 42 NPP's per year. I therefore dare to assume to a reasonable degree of certainty that James Hansen's target of 115NPP's is not unreachable. The constraints are not by any means insurmountable.

Also note that these are not standardized concepts or designs. Many nuclear power plants in operation today had different design specifications, and it took the industry a long time to standardize designs.

Now we do have standardized designs and there are developments that ensure ship- / plane-building style construction plants for Small Modular Reactors and Molten Salt Reactors. This last technology has been proven to work in the 1960's during the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. Currently there are four notable start-ups working on designing new MSR's. Also consider the fact that TU-Delft (a highly esteemed technical University in the Netherlands) is now also working on MSR Technology. Your own Alma Mater (MIT) has dedicated time and money to MSR technology and is the origin of one of the most promising start-ups (Transatomic Power) in MSR technology. The MSR movement is growing, the interest is growing, there are credible designs, there is investment money.

Also consider this graph which is a projection by the IEA and NEA based on a What-if scenario :

What conclusion can we derive from this chart? It shows us that we would NEED to grow from approximately 400 GW in 2012 to ~900GW of nameplate capacity in 2050, in order to keep track of the 2 degrees scenario. That's adding roughly 500 GW in 40 years, 12.5 GW each year. That's roughly ten AP1000 reactors. Hardly exiting. That's 105 short of Hansen's figure. But it is also four units below the baseline average, and 32 below the first production spike of 1976.

This is not taking into account the efforts and potentiality of the start-ups.

This gives me confidence, that nuclear energy will remain growing up until the 6600 TWh by the 2050's

Note the positive correlation between share of capacity installed and share of electricity generated.
Also note that it shows a negative curve for Europe and a positive curves for India and China.

Let's extrapolate these figures though, because context matters, as you know I always translate into annual generation figures. Let's do this for the following metrics :

Wind : Annual addition 50GW / Capacity Factor 30
Solar : Annual addition 50 GW / Capacity Factor 20
Nuclear : Annual addition 12,5 GW / Capacity Factor 90

These graphs are not stacked on top of one and other, they are placed in front of each other in order to compare the possible, yet linear, growth lines.

As you can see, even with a significant lesser number in annual added capacity, Nuclear remains ahead of the technologies until at least 2030. By then it is reasonable to suspect that Generation IV MSR's have been thoroughly tested and become commercially available.

Mark Z Jacobson suggests that we can run the world on 110.000 TWh of electricity generation.  (Omitting cumulative upkeep & replacements, emerging economies, growing population, increased water troubles and the need for carbon capture and sequestration). Let's put some additional context in this picture :

Note the discrepancy between the growth required and the additions of nuclear, wind and solar...
If the EIA is correct in it's predictions, 110.000 TWh will not cut it, at all. Which basically means that a call for increased nuclear development is warranted, since given the current scenarios we will still have massive emissions.

Current electricity consumption is around 20.000 TWh, so IF we could keep current projected growth rates, we might be able to nearly reach that mark, however all technologies are faced with replacement requirements as well. Where NPP's have a lifespan of 60 years, wind turbines and solar panels have a functional lifespan of 15 to 25 years.

Note that current growth rates are completely and utterly unable to achieve the task that Jacobson requires of his technologies. Also note that for this to happen some fairy dust needs to be sprinkled on renewable energies, making them grow exponentially. The sad thing is that there's always a limit to exponential growth, especially when placed in the domain of the real world, and not in nebulous issues like money & economics.

By this token WWS / RE is required to grow by 3.100 TWh annually. Omitting cumulative upkeep & replacements which start to occur at the 15 year mark and will grow exponentially from thereon. The current growth-rate of Renewable energy is about 220 TWh, which Is about 2.900 TWh short of Jacobson's own requirement.

Also note that it is unrealistic to presume that energy demand is going to drop, simply consider this graph from the IAEA : Link to original 

The implications of this concrete expectation is that we cannot discount any technology, regardless of the problems it faces. Especially if those problems are non-technical hurdles. There are no insurmountable technological difficulties in the Nuclear Energy Industry. So why the adamant push against it?

Projections of BP, the EIA and other organizations support the growing and not declining energy demand forecasts. They expect the energy consumption to grow to 240.000 TWh by the 2050's. Obviously converting from thermal energy to electricity provides some efficiency, it is not always as efficient, so it is safe to bet that we'll still be needing more energy than we currently consume. Even if we would introduce BEV's, Solar Heat, Electrical cooking, etc. etc.

Joe then wants to ridicule Sweden's and France's progress and dismiss it as meaningless. Here Joe again assumes something without backing it up.

"” the IEA and NEA explain what level of capacity additions would be required in the 2 degrees Celsius scenario: “In order for nuclear to reach its deployment targets under the 2D scenario, annual connection rates should increase from 5 GW in 2014 to well over 20 GW during the coming decade.” That means returning to a nuclear build rate previously achieved for only one decade — 20 gigawatts per year during the 1980s."

20 Gigawatts of annual nuclear additions equal 158 TWh of annual additions, which basically equals 50 Gigawatts of annual wind additions (which we currently have). So what's your point, Joe?

"The IEA and NEA themselves note that “such rapid growth will only be possible” if several actions take place including vendors demonstrating “the ability to build on time and to budget, and to reduce the costs of new designs.” Also, both governments and the industry need to maintain and improve safety. If such advances do occur, then new nuclear plants could provide a moderate amount of the needed new carbon-free power for the 2°C scenario."

Do you suppose that the nuclear energy industry has been standing still, do you presume that they won't get over these issues? But Joe takes it one step further :

"Seriously. Apparently they don’t think it relevant to let you know that Sweden has precisely … wait for it … 10 operational nuclear reactors! Yes, the fact that Sweden connected 10 reactors to the grid over a period of 15 years is somehow evidence the world could build “115 reactors per year to 2050.”`

Have you any idea how stupid this remark is? Sweden has about 10 million inhabitants, which means that it builds 1 reactor per million inhabitants per 15 years. We're not done yet though, Joe ramps up his stupidity and also takes France into account, thank you for that...

And what about the nation best known for its reliance on nuclear power? According to the online database of the International Atomic Energy Agency, France has 58 operational reactors, which took the country more than two decades to connect to the grid! That would be a rate of under three per year.

France has 66 million inhabitants (back then there were less French, but hey, 66 million get's the message across, right?), it has 58 reactors which means that there are 0.9 million French per Reactor, given a period of 20 years they build 1 reactor per 1.1 million inhabitants per 2.9 years.

Suppose this build rate (the French one) could be achieved globally?

We would be building 6.634 reactors in 2.9 years, that would be about 2.200 reactors per year. Now sure build-speeds will vary all over the globe, but suppose that each country in the world will start building one reactor each three years from now until 2050, we would have electricity to spare. China and India start building dozens, though, so they offset the micro-countries that do not need NPP's, but would be perfectly content with some wind turbines and solar panels and some batteries.

The build-rate per capita, per unit, per year is the metric you should focus upon. Just that two countries have done it, and done it according to their standards, within a meaningful time, doesn't mean that that's the maximum build-rate of the world. Nor is it a fact to ridicule, if it did anything, it was exposing your own blatant narrow-minded vision.

What if Scotland wanted to fully decarbonize using Nuclear Power? According to this article it would require FOUR AP1000 reactors, and they would have electricity to spare... And that for a country with 5.5 million inhabitants.

Do you now recognize the stupidity of your argument, Joe?

The limitations set on RE are in the use of rare-earth materials, that have not been stockpiled, and of which production rates are constantly under pressure, whereas nuclear energy can easily continue functioning based on the amount of spent-fuel alone.

Did Mark Z Jacobson consider the cumulative upkeep and replacements for wind for instance? What would he have to say about the grey areas of these graphs provided by Actinideage ?

As we all know, Wind Turbines have a limited lifespan, it's generally between 15 and 20 years. Some people claim that they can run for 25 to 30 years but this is rather risky. Metal Fatigue, increased maintenance etc. render the functional lifespans of these energy capturing devices rather short. The same applies to Solar Panels, the problem with Photo voltaic panels is chemistry. PV panels degrade and there's no stopping it. Which means that they also need to be replaced within a fairly limited timeframe.

And these are not the only issues with WWS / RE, but I think we've reached the end of this already long and exhaustive article.

Conclusion

It is still not a matter of choosing winners and losers, it is now a matter of ramping up production capacity to such an extend that we can A. supplant Coal, Gas and Oil and B. that we have enough to increase prosperity, increase fresh water availability and perhaps even most importantly : start with Carbon Capture and permanent sequestration in Basalt.

In the long run it will be nuclear power that will come out on top and become the dominant energy source on Earth. It is not that hard to see happening. All the possible potential is there, it outstrips any form of renewable energy by light years... Even though we are currently using - touted as dangerous - Generation II reactors to create energy, we may only conclude that the track record of this industry has been excellent. There is no evidence to suggest that Chernobyl (an archaic and illegal design) and or Fukushima will have any long term lasting effects. In fact consider the wild-life refuge the Pripyat Area has become, consider for instance one of the largest herds of rare wild horses that roam there, or the countless of wild boars, wolves, owls and other wild-life that show no harm from the increased radiation levels at some point.

Even though the AP1000 design has been plagued by some delays, we may expect that once the last issues have been ironed out, the build time and costs of this design will drop, and the time it will take to construct these will drop. Why? Because it is inherent in it's standardized design and production scheme.

Also note that the nuclear industry is not stagnant, research and development - like in the RE industry - is ongoing. The revival of the MSR, the introduction of the PBR and many other designs will ensure that the curve on nuclear additions will rise. Why? Because these designs all cater to the notion that nuclear power plants have to become 1. Cheaper 2. Safer 3. More efficient 4. Proliferation resistant 5. easier to operate.


Do you, Joe, really think that the nuclear industry is blind? Or ignorant? It surely seems so, and there are some other RE acolytes out there that have the same naïve and simplistic way of thinking. The only you thing you people are doing is seeking out the most pernicious facts and try to demonize a technology that has the potential to keep us out of trouble.

Again I'll reiterate my list of upcoming and new champions for the Nuclear Renaissance :

Thorcon power
Flibe Energy
Terrestrial Energy
Transatomic Power

And Bill Gates's

Terrapower

The main thing we need to keep in mind is that wind and solar respectively require 22 to 36 times more materials to get build than contemporary Gen II reactors. And I am quite honest, if there are countries that want to build Gen II, they may pick the safest and most successful design and start building. But I am quite confident that aforementioned companies will revolutionize the Nuclear Industry within the coming decade. Don't worry, in the meanwhile at least four or five dozen reactors will have been built. But when Thorcon or Terrestrial hits the market, we'll be building them like airplanes...

The most specious argument of all is the feasibility argument, the argument that by reducing costs for RE, it will be possible to save the planet by mass implementation. This argument forgoes all the requirements that need to be met beforehand. Those are not negligible, those are true and set in stone. We're talking about resource limitations, manufacturing limitations, cumulative upkeep & replacements, recycling requirements, transportation requirements, required denudation of pristine lands, etc. etc. If we weigh these metrics, we firstly conclude that there are set limitations against RE in general and also see that the growth curve will be too limited. This strengthens James Hansen's case for 115 NPP's added annually, or at least the target thereof. Even if we only build 20 or 30 or 40 each year, it will mitigate our GHG emissions considerably. Note that the material investments of solar and wind dwarf those of nuclear (Generation II reactors).

Because Jacobsen, Oreskes, and now Romm try to push the 100% WWS scheme, I will deem it justified to strip them of their titles and ranks and no longer consider them academics. Why? Because they are people who omit vital facts that render their fantasy not only dangerous but - in the end - also catastrophic.


"Hero of the environment"? MY ASS!!!!

Not only are Joe and his ilk misinforming the general public, I submit to you that they are endangering our existence by discarding one of the most potent forces in the fight against anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other elements that are hazardous.

Highway to Dystopia is now available on Amazon

Earlier this year I started writing about some serious issues that kept clouding my mind. I was concerned about Anthropogenic Climate Change and how it all tied together with our consumption patterns, politics, religion, and technology. So I embarked on a quest for knowledge and understanding. This is not the book of an expect claiming to have all the knowledge, no... This is a book contrived by a concerned higher primate, living on that pale blue dot we call Earth.

People will accuse me of fear-mongering, or painting the future using an apocalyptic brush, that's ok. I don't mind being a whistle blower. I suspect that my tiny whistle may not even reach the pitch of those environmentalists who have the big bucks and push an ideology that more often than not contradicts itself.

This book addresses "taboos" from Religion to Nuclear Energy, expect to be surprised. Nothing is sacrosanct. Everything will be discussed, how offensive or scary it might be. The truth can only be found by overstepping the invisible lines of social Pravda mechanics.

An inquest into a variety of topics has led me to insights that helped me form conclusions that are unpopular, to hell with it... Things have to change. "Nothing in life is to be feared, only understood" as the wise and extremely intelligent Madame Curie shared with us.

Highway to Dystopia is available on Amazon.com

Paperback : http://amzn.com/1516899369
Kindle : http://amzn.com/B014WNAVJK

I've put together an appendix of listening, viewing and reading recommendations, which by itself is a treasure of information and leads to renewed insights.

The age of solar is upon us? We have to stop deluding ourselves

It amazes me how baseless many articles are about energy matters. Most of them focus on the costs of energy, as if that is a measure of feasibility. If you have been reading this blog you know I disagree with this notion. Mathematical feasibility is the only arbiter of whether something is possible or not.

Why do I criticize these articles? Because they are deluding a lot of people... These articles do not paint a realistic picture and make people expect that we actually can save the world on renewables only. Wind Turbines and Solar Panels enjoy a great following of people who like them and rightfully so, during operation there aren't any carbon emissions. However many people don't get the full picture, there's no insight into how these means of energy capture come to be, the amount of maintenance and service, the scale of decommissioning, etc. etc. etc.

Now the reality is this : Anthropogenic Climate Change is real...

 

• Water is diminishing all over the world
• Irrigation capacities - diminishing
• Desertification - increasing
• Crop failure - increasing
• Wildfires - increasing
• Dying trees and vegetation - increasing
• Hydrological cycle (i.e. the atmospheric water engine i.e. water vapour, rain, snow, etc.) - diminishing
• Due to the growing uncertainties of the water and food availability we will see this
• Increased unrest i.e. Arabic Springs, Civil Wars (Syria & Iraq & The Ukraine)
• Failing nation states
• Increased crime - people going after water and food, and monetizing them on the black market.
• Great corporations having trouble supplying goods - first big indicators...

These are all just the tip of the iceberg, as if the food and water crises themselves aren't pressing enough we also have to contend with :

• Sea-level rise
• Ocean Acidification

And eventually

• Mass extinctions.

This is the context that roams around in my head, why would I be critical of renewable energy? Because it isn't a solution to our problems... We are diverting our attention from real and possible solutions to issues that will never be sufficient in any way shape or form.

Today I will do another "green bash" routine. Not because I like it, but because it is necessary. If we as a species want to survive on this beautiful planet of ours, we need to start using our brains. We need to start asking questions, we need to start building models in our heads and start making sense of them, see if we can make them reality or not.

And that's precisely what articles like this do not do. I'll leave all the economic hogwash for what it is, but am going to respond to this :


At the moment, wind can be cheaper than PV. But its cost is falling much more slowly than PV. If current trends continue, PV will cut below wind within three years and the difference will then continue to widen.

Falter now, and only fossil fuels will benefit

Or perhaps not. The foolish policy changes of the UK government may be mirrored around the world. It is the sheer volume of PV being installed that is crashing the price of solar. We need this hell-for-leather growth to continue for a few more years, supported where necessary by tax and regulatory support.

Although PV is almost certainly cheaper than any other technology in the Middle East, much of the Indian subcontinent, parts of Africa and Latin America, large rich countries need to play their part in keeping global demand for panels surging.

If a few more countries act precipitately like the UK, which during the first quarter of this year was probably accounting for 20% of global panel sales but now almost zero, then the rate of PV price decline will inevitably tail off.

This is in nobody's interest - except the fossil fuel companies.

Continuing on the course we're on increase or decrease PV installation is either way playing into the hands of the fossil fuel companies. There's something you clearly do not understand. We consume about 650 quadrillion BTu of energy each year. We use 21.000 TWh of electricity each year. Electricity use is about 10% of the sum total energy use.

Of all the energy generation less than 5% is non-fossil... We always tend to focus on electricity but omit : cars, planes, ships, trains, trucks, mining, agriculture, food production, manufacturing, etc. etc. etc.

So basically we're throwing spit balls at an elephant at this moment. Adding 1 TWH a pop per utility scale PV plant doesn't solve our issues.

Now down to the nitty gritty, the real feasibility issues. Suppose we can eliminate 10.000 TWh worth of Coal-Fired Energy generation by supplanting all these coal-fired power plants with PV. Utility scale is in this case the golden standard.

Currently the Topaz PV plant is the biggest PV plant in the world, and has a track record that we can count on, we can expect it to produce about 1 TWh annually. It is rated at 500 Megawatt, it utilizes 9 million CdTe PV Panels (CdTe stands for Cadmium Tellurium). Now Cadmium and Tellurium themselves pose some problems because sourcing them is quite hard, there's a limited supply. But I'm going to focus on Copper, Aluminium, Steel and Concrete.

I use this as my go-to document, I am constantly searching for newer ones, so if you have any (also for wind & nuclear) I would love to have them!!!

Life cycle assessment of utility-scale CDTE PV Balance of systems

 

There's some interesting numbers in here that we can use to derive some conclusions. I'll reiterate...

I wonder what the concrete footprint of the Topaz 550MW / 9 million PV panels energy plant is : 300.000 cubic yards of concrete are required to create a base for 9 million PV panels. 551.000 metric tons of concrete.

Non zinc coated steel, zinc coated steel, aluminum, copper, concrete and wood.
 
The PV panels are .72m2 there are 9 million of them : so there's 6.480.000 m2 of panels.

• 405.000 Kg non zinc coated steel
• 869.616 Kg aluminum for mounting
• 242.352 Kg aluminum for cabling
• 5.701.104 Kg Copper for cabling

Now those are some impressive figures, we'll go and multiply it with 10.000 now because that's the number of utility scale PV plants we need to supplant coal-fired energy generation. I mean that's what we're trying to do right?

Panels : 90.000.000.000 / 90 Billion CdTe panels
Concrete : 5.510.000.000 T / 5.5 Billion Metric Tons
Non Zinc Coated Steel : 4.050.000.000 KG / 4 Billion KG
Aluminium for Mounting : 8.696.160.000 KG / 8.7 Billion KG
Aluminium for Cabling : 2.423.520.000 KG / 2.4 Billion KG
Copper for Cabling : 57.011.040.000 KG / 57 Billion KG

Now we're adding 50GW's worth of PV capacity each year and this figure is rising. Suppose this 50GW's consists of 125 Watt panels on average, we'll be pumping out 400.000.000 (400 million) panels each year. By this reckoning it would take us 225 years to complete the 10.000 TWh required to supplant coal-fired power plants... By that time we would have already run out of coal twice...
This is taking it through from a 10.000 TWh problem. Our problem isn't 10, it isn't 20 or 30.000 TWh. It is 850 Quadrillion BTu which in a one for one conversion is 250.000 TWh...

And I omit intermittency, backup generation, etc. which compounds the problem even more, forcing us to go into an almost infinite regress of materials lost and effort wasted.

Something to chew on during the night.

There are numerous other issues to address, the availability of tellurium, the toxicity of Cadmium-Chloride. These calculations can also be done in terms of wind-turbines, I'm still seeking for documents telling me the exact figures required per MW of wind turbine generation. I dare to predict that wind turbines will be even more concrete and steel intensive than PV. And finally I would like to make a comparison, adding Generation III AP-1000 reactors, Generation IV MSR & Pebble Bed designs and possibly something like ITER.

Why? Because we finally have to rid ourselves from the notion that PV and Wind are going to be the cornerstone of a sustainable civilization of people on Earth.

And the really harsh conclusion of this article is that yes, you are right... The fossil fuel companies are winning... But not because we are setting incentives for PV panels on a decline, but because we've been hoodwinked into believing that a technology like PV would be able to do it in the first place, and the massive hysteria that ensues. Millions of people are now voicing their concerns about Anthropogenic Climate Change and BELIEVE that renewable energy sources like PV can make a difference, but PV can't make a difference and there's a substantial mathematical basis to make such a claim.

Providing non-evidence to hoodwink people into believing that renewables will be able to "defeat" fossil fuels is not only fooling them, it is also fooling yourself.

To name an age "anything" it should dominate... Solar is never going to dominate electricity capture and therefore one cannot speak about "the age of solar" is upon us, nor will it ever be.

Chasms, rifts, divides - the ideological dichotomies that need to be broken

Climate Change is a fact, even though there are still forces that try to convince people that it is in dispute, it's not!

Why am I writing this article? I am an Atheist, Anti-Theist, Social Democrat, ACC-accepting, Avid Tree hugger, Anti Renewable, Pro Nuclear, pro space exploration activist. This literally means that a lot of people hate my guts. Or misunderstand the choices that I make.

Let's have a look at the oppositions in my worldview :

• Nuclear advocates are very often concentrated in the conservative/republican camp
• As a social democrat I seem to get in the political camp of people like Bernie Sanders
• As an ACC-Accepting person I almost always land in the liberal/central/left camp
• My great scepticism about renewable energy draws the ire of conservationists in particular
• Being an Atheist and Anti-Theist doesn't sit well with most of the right
• Being a liberal/progressive/socialist almost always gets me into debates, where I have to account for my support for a central-left worldview, while in that area there aren't a lot of nuclear supporters, as a matter of fact there are a lot of anti-nukes in this ballpark

This is the world of strange dichotomies. I feel like I'm constantly juggling eggs and none of them may fall, otherwise they will break. What I want to break is the narrative! Why? Because this polarisation isn't going to help us forward, as a matter of fact it is deepening chasms and rifts, it is postponing consensus and keeping us from do what is right. Political and ideological idiosyncrasies are really unfathomable to me. Let's look at my ideological worldview, I adhere to the narrative of Bernie Sanders, he's a frontrunner for a Democratic Socialism model, he is also working actively for the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee, a nuclear reactor. Now here's the contradiction, I love the guy for his message, but I have a hard time accepting his views completely because it looks like he is against nuclear energy.

Let's look at the antagonistic nature of the narrative : An article on Powerline
I came across this article because a prominent writer and person for the Molten Salt Reactor sector shared it on his Facebook-wall. Now let's break it down...

"The article went on to describe in some detail what a serious low- or no-carbon energy transformation would require, and it makes for sobering reading for all the folks who believe energy unicorns are behind every tree wind farm and solar panel."

I have no difficulty with this statement except for it being rather strident and there is no substantiation for his own claim. We'll continue and read this :

"By the way, doesn’t anyone else notice that the “Apollo Project” analogy is really stupid? After all, sending people to the moon hasn’t turned out to be a very “sustainable” proposition.

More evidence that the liberal learning curve, like Tom Friedman’s prose, is flat.

P.S. There is one very abundant and scalable energy source that is cheaper than coal right now in the U.S.: Natural gas. Environmentalists used to be for it before they were against it."

The sentence indicated in red is precisely what nerves me to the bone. This kind of "us versus them" speak is exactly what we have to defeat. Now I will be frank, I write polemics about energy matters. I am used to be strident, but I don't do it from an ideological or political viewpoint. I address the issue from a pragmatic standpoint. What needs to be done, regardless of your background, whether you are Republican, Democrat, Independent, Liberal, Left, Communist, Marxist, Right Wing, Nazi, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist... We have to do what is necessary, regardless of color, creed, sexual orientation or whatever.

Let's talk necessity...

Anthropogenic Climate Change precipitates a couple of troublesome / unambiguous events :

• Increased droughts
• Less but more intense precipitation
• Rising sea-levels
• More "Sandy-like" Hurricanes and subsequent floodings

Let's ignore potential exterminations. Here are a couple of things that will be happening if we do not stop the burning of fossil fuels.

• Diminishing water supplies i.e. Water scarcity
• Crop Famine i.e. Wheat, Soy, Rice, Vegetables, Fruit
• Deteriorating meat production

We've  seen this happen in Russia, The US, and Asia already. We may expect these events to become more frequent. Each time the supply of a commodity like wheat diminishes, because of a great drought or other circumstances, we see instability grow in the World. We, the wealthy countries, will experience some lag in this regard because we have the money and can get the commodity because we can pay for it. Other less fortunate communities in poorer countries aren't as fortunate, hunger starts to spread.

Eventually the diminishing availability of wheat and other food commodities is going to destabilize the world. We will see more discontent, upheaval and eventually civil wars. It is quite simple, people who are thirsty and hungry have to take care of themselves. We have to take into consideration that this is going to happen more frequently in the future.

What else are we going to see? Hundreds of thousands of deaths due to heat waves, simply because people die from dehydration, strokes, cardiac arrests, etc.

There are two significant drivers in Anthropogenic Climate Change :

• The burning of fossil fuels
• Deforestation

What do we need to do?

The first thing is rather easy, stop deforestation and start a massive scaled reforestation. Something which could easily be done from a democratic socialist viewpoint. This is clearly a service that the government can provide : Clean air, habitat for animals, natural carbon capture and a lot of jobs with decent wages. This will help many people secure a meaningful job and a good way to contribute to the future of humanity.

Secondly I wonder if it Is really worth it to squabble over petty ideological differences, while world stability is at risk, while we face possible wars or even extinction. I don't give a rats ass which side you're on. We have to break the current narrative, we have to do the right things. This means that we have to kill the rat race, change the paradigms. Acknowledge that energy demand is going to grow extremely. Acknowledge that a great burden will shift, the burden on fossil fuels will shift to electrical generation eventually.

Add to this the increased demand for water desalination, these are things that aren't factored in when you're addressing energy from a pure conservationist viewpoint. Now this is not meant as an antagonising remark, this is meant as an eye opener. Out energy problems are HUGE, we are so far gone, we have to start a return to a sustainable future. No one is going to turn of the lights, no one is going to shut down the water. But for this to continue, Quadrillions of BTu's worth of energy are required. Renewables are not capable of delivering these.

Accepting this truth is going to force us look at more ways of electricity generation, other than the traditional renewables for instance. A perfect energy mix would look like this : Nuclear fusion, Nuclear Fission, Hydro power, Geo thermal, Wind, and Solar.

Dispense with the nonsense such as energy storage, hydrogen and especially biomass. Biomass is actually accelerating deforestation and should be stopped immediately.

The left will argue that nuclear energy is too expensive, unsafe and has waste issues. All of these issues will be addressed by the new MSR movement. Renewables on the other hand aren't popular on the right. But I wonder whether this is being fuelled by the fossil fuel corporations or simply because it's antagonistic in nature, in opposition to the left.

I don't care... We are in dire need of nuclear, simply because of it's capacity for kicking fossil fuel out of the picture. I don't take any ideological view on energy, a pragmatic view is what we should employ. I simply want to see the fastest and most effective means to kick fossil fuels out of the picture being implemented. We have to... Whether you are right-wing, centrist or left-wing. We do not have the luxury to make this an ideological issue.

WE HAVE TO STOP CUTTING DOWN TREES AND BURNING FOSSIL FUELS .

Eclectic writing - a daily dose of prose

Let's see if I can tap into a healthy dose of prose, why do you think the OP is "eclectic writing"? It's because I have a wide variety of subjects that dwell inside my cranium. That thick skull of mine seems to be filled with a thick swirling soup of thoughts, a diabolic machine, gears a-turning...

Anthropogenic Climate Change as depressing as it might be, the outlook of a cataclysmic yet anti-climactic ending of a lot of species spurs me on a quest to find solutions. Really Mathijs, are you telling me that you, an un-acclaimed an uncertified nobody, thinks about worldly solutions? Yes I do... Why? Because they occupy my mind, because I care about my family, especially my children. I love nature and the idea that we are destroying it, while we ourselves are dependent on it, makes me very angry. I also think a lot about worldly solutions because I think that humanity should be doing cool stuff right now. You know conducting experiments at the LHC, building ITER, trying to make sense of nature, helping one and other, having a good time, performing in the arts, engage in sports, go into space... We make up or own meaning, this is very important, because other than being, life has no meaning.

The fight against "ACC" is a fight of life and death. Basically I don't like the notion that we are precipitating extinctions, cataclysms and Armageddon. The Arctic Death Spiral, a phrase coined by several climate experts, is the single most dangerous threat to life existing on Earth. Once this spiral reaches zero, we're bound to set off the most potent bomb ever to be seen on Earth, the bomb of in permafrost sequestered methane. Now I'm quite clear about our chances to avert this catastrophe, I avidly advocate the most efficient solution, we need heavy hitters and plenty of them. Just try to imagine the stupefying amount of energy we use on a daily basis, this amount is going to grow... No matter how much energy conservation we would apply.

Think about the transition from combustible transportation to battery electric vehicles, think about massive desalination efforts, about implementing a state of the art nuclear innovation industry, seriously mitigating the use of single use containers, learning how to capture heat from computing, try to become more provident with meat, massive reforestation, you name it...

Parallel to building the "heavy hitting" energy fail safe we have to acknowledge the harm we do to nature, the vast nullification of forests and other types of land. We have to start reversing these destructive processes. Axes, saws and chainsaws have to be laid aside, decommissioned if you will. Trees keep our air breathable, trees are an important part of the carbon- and hydrological cycle. Deforestation has to be reversed and reversed significantly. I think it is a very worth-while practice, it is far more valuable than many of us care to admit. We desperately need more trees, not less.

While we worry about "ACC" there is a multitude of different issues that have to be addressed as well. Let's have a look at the "humanistic" arm of the galactic thought-swirls in my head. I am not really a humanist, I don't think we're really that special amongst all the other wonderful species that inhabit the Earth but there are some elements which are. I think we are developing a lifestyle that is not good for humans in general. I would like to build a civilization in which we maximize human prosperity, happiness and fulfilment. A completely secular society with no bounds in expression, a society in which there's ample opportunity for everyone, there's great [religion free] education for everyone and top-notch medical care for everyone. Most importantly to implement the Jean-Luc Picard future, The star trek future, this future :

"The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity. Actually, we're all like yourself and Dr. Cochrane."

Think about it, we're all here on this beautiful blue sphere suspended somewhere in the Orion Spur of the Milky Way, an utterly insignificant yet beautiful planet, ours, the Earth. While we are here we work arduously to do what? Earn money? Have a great time? I'm afraid this is the reality for the most of us... We are captured in the mundane earthly squabbles of existence, of geopolitics, of capitalism, money drudgery, wage slavery and insignificance... You're caught in a rat race.

What would you really like to do? I know what I want to do, I want to make a profound difference! Think about it...

Have a nice day!

The challenge of a life time : kicking coal...

Let's break down the necessity for the human species to change its "energy habits".

It begins with the premise that all resources in the world are finite, yes even the sun. And secondly, our survival depends on it. Now many people are still under the impression that Anthropogenic Climate Change isn't happening, NEWSFLASH it really is happening!!!

What are the implications in middle-term and long-term? (in escalating order)

• Increased heat waves
• Changes in precipitation from more gradual large volume to less volume torrential rains
• This precipitates an unbalance in fresh water source replenishment and leads to depletion (see California, Texas, Nevada)
• Increased water poverty
• Crop famine
• plant and tree life dying due to water scarcity or insect plagues
• All this dying flora will release methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
• Ocean temperature is rising, this causes changes in the pyramid of marine life.
• Eventually plankton fails to adapt to these rising temperatures and start dying
  
  OR
• Plankton will die because of the increasing acidity levels in the oceans
• An extinction of plankton would mean an extinction of almost the entire marine life pyramid
  
  And
• An extinction of plankton would very severely harm the biosphere's capacity to capture carbon and redistribute it as biomass, coupled with the die-off of land based fauna this will mean an uncontrolled rise in global temperatures, vastly exceeding the 4 degrees as predicted by several fossil fuel companies.
  
  And now for the grand finale!!!
• The is quite certain that the arctic region holds somewhere between 100 and a 1000 GIGAtons of sequestered Methane. The current amount of methane in the atmosphere is roughly 5 gigatons. This means that if by some "accident" the methane from the Arctic gets released, we're probably "in for it". If this "methane-bomb" explodes all the aforementioned effects will speed up exponentially and 90+% of all life on Earth will cease to exist. This is a certainty...

It is that "simple" we are facing dire consequences if we do not mitigate our carbon emissions and start trying to reverse the collapse, which is already happening...

Now one the things that have a great influence on the climate are anthropogenic energy consumption patterns, mainly the consumption of fossil fuels, we burn them to create heat and motion. That's basically it! But the scale in which we do it is so vast that we're already seeing the cliff, we know there's an end to this route. We're going to reach the end of Coal around 2121 sounds quite specific doesn't it? This estimation can be found here. The end of oil is expected to be somewhere between 2050 and 2060, this estimation can be found here. And if this all isn't depressing enough, we will run out of Natural Gas as well, if current consumption rates continue we will run out somewhere between 2070 and 2080.

Let's face it, we are running out... If the world doesn't evict us before we have run out, we will run out there is no question about it. We have 100 years worth of coal burning left, 60 years of gas and 40 years of oil. This is no fable, this is the truth, any wingnut, any moron that is yelling that we need to be burning fossil fuels like crazy is out of his mind. But that was already clearly implied with the titles I used to describe them.

The demand for energy is going to increase, we have all sorts of drivers in this respect. Let's have a look at the growing economies and the developing countries. We [the west] are already energy hogs, we produce and consume energy at an alarmingly high rate and the "upcommers" want to do the same. They also want a life of plenty, prosperity, wealth. The demand for energy is still low in this regard, and yet the end of our energy sources in terms of fossil fuels are already in sight...

Let's have a look at the prime suspect, the culprit that is arguably one of the worst contributors to Anthropogenic Climate Change : Coal-burned power plants. There are about 2300 Coal-fired power plants in the world, an estimated 7000 individual "units". I guess that by "unit" they mean a furnace tied to a generator. Source : https://www.worldcoal.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions/

Now let's have a look at something from which I could find a complete record, the total energy generation in the world in 2012 : 22.668 TWh. Source : http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2014.pdf

The fun bit is that 40.4% of this energy generation came from coal : 9158 TWh Let's assume this previously dictated number of 7000 generators was quite accurate in 2012 (give or take 500) : 1,308TWh (1308000 MWh) per Coal-fired generator. Now divide this number by 8766 hours gives a figure of 148MW per Coal-fired generator. They run 60% of the time which means that the total capacity of each of these generators on average is 250MW. This is roughly 750MW per Coal-fired energy plant, seems legit...

In total this would mean that there would be about 1.75 million MW/1750GW worth of coal-fired energy capacity in the world in the year 2012.

Why would I do this rather arduous math, I hate math!!! Well it's quite simple, I try to get a grasp of the scope of the problems we are facing here.

We want to supplant coal-fired energy, it's one of the most essential steps in aggressively mitigating our negative influence on the biosphere.

So I am going to look at two technologies in particular because that's where the discussions are leading me, wind's up first : An average 5MW wind turbine generates about 15340 MWh (0.01534 TWh) a year at a capacity factor of 35%. In order to fill up the 9158 TWh required to supplant every Coal-fired plant you need about 597.000 windmills. Filling up the 22.668 TWh gives us the stupefying amount of 1.48 million windmills every 20 years... This is only if we wanted to maintain business as it was in 2012 and only for the electricity portion of it.

The average Nuclear power plant is worth 862MW @ 90% of the time. This translates into 6800662 MWh / 6.8 TWh. We can supplant Coal fired electricity by building 1350 nuclear power plants... And somewhere in the range of 3300~3400 for the business as it was in 2012 for all electricity generation.

Now what seems more feasible to you? Acknowledge that there ARE 2300 coal-fired plants in the world, so supplanting them with a lesser number of nuclear power plants is absolutely possible and it can be done!

The problem is that energy demand is going to grow significantly, and we need heavy punchers to wack coal out of the equation. it will be unsurprising if the amount of energy required will grow with at least 15/30% within the next couple of decades. Let's soup things up with up by electrifying transportation, let's buy Tesla Model S shall we? Don't get me wrong!!! I think the Tesla Model S is an AMAZING car, I would like to own one very very badly. The electrification of the transport sector, the end of fossil fuels is going to shift the burden from fossil fuels to electricity generation.

Think about it, electrifying our transportation is going to take a shitload of electricity... This is going to make the demand for electricity going to grow waaaaaaay out of proportions. And yes, fossil fuels are running out, so we will be forced to do it... Want to stack up even more inefficiency in an already stressed energy sector? Add Hydrogen...  Nope, the hydrogen economy doesn't work, it is a ridiculous idea that is never going to work, ever...

How about strip mining? Do we want to get rid of it? Or at least mitigate it?

 

 

Then don't go for the most strip mine intensive process of them all... The less your energy density is, the more materials you are going to need, this is an absolute no-brainer which I can easily back up with math, but it's to cumbersome... I've run out of my "math juice" for the day...

 

And the great thing about nuclear energy is that it's basic fuels are ubiquitous! Not only can we do nuclear on Uranium and Thorium, but with SEA WATER as well! Yes Fusion is going to happen eventually...

The issue is : TIME IS RUNNING OUT!!! LET'S SETTLE THE DEBATE!!!

Recapturing carbon will be one of the things we seriously have to consider, we need to balance the CO2 levels back below the 350PPM mark. It can be done naturally and mechanically. I'm not particularly fond of the latter because it takes energy to do it. So I will settle for natural carbon capture, which is quite easy to achieve actually. Reverse "deforestation" I will call it. We need to reverse deforestation... Let's start giving back some area's to nature, you know let forests grow, help them a little bit by germinating your own tree seeds and such... Not that I'm a real tree-hugger, but I love the atmosphere we live in and trees play a pretty big role in keeping the air breathable...

Honest disclaimer : I am a nobody, don't cite me, I don't have any credentials or credibility, don't take my word for it, be very sceptical about my writings, go and look for the truth yourself. If you do, I'm quite certain that it will roughly coincide with what I've presented to you in this article.