The left only wants things that won’t work well on a large scale. And they still hate nuclear power. I am convinced they only want to tear down the current system.
LNG or propane is about as ‘clean’ as it’s gonna get.
It won’t work and it ain’t necessary. Case closed.
It’s all about the BTU’s and the cost per BTU!
Hydrogen isn't a fertilizer.
This guy doesn’t or refuses to grasp the basic reason humans need to move as rapidly as possible to forever energy sources. I will use small words there are 8 BILLION humans and climbing on this planet. There is more middle class in China than the whole population of North America, with India having a growing and similar number. Every one of them is demanding access to middle class EU or better energy consumption levels. Africa is another billion plus people all of them demanding energy as well.
It is mathematically impossible for all 8+ billion to live at even EU levels given our current energy systems. No you cannot drill baby drill , nor is coal going to work for anything longer than a few decades if all 8 billion are allowed to burn like drunken sailors.
Humans have been blessed with 400+ million years worth of fossil sunshine that we as a species well 5% of the population has burnt out half of that endowment in just under 200 years. Clearly that is not sustainable. It is the very definition of unsustainable. Do not let the very real issue of resource depletion and resource management be hijacked by the climate commies as co2 they are not the same. Climate commies see a means to take political power. That has nothing to do with a vastly overpopulated planet that doesn’t have the resources for anything longer than a few decades to support 6 billion let alone 8+ at EU levels of energy consumption.
What political leaders are afraid to admit the fact that in order too raise billions up in energy consumption the developed world has to use less a lot less so the other billions can use those sources it’s not AND it’s OR with our current energy systems. This is political suicide so the world powers the people really in charge the lens with actual money and power have all gotten into bed and go along with the co2 angle because it is a very effective means to limit developed world consumption while shifting those to the other billions. This was don’t to avoid nuclear war over resources that is what has decided.
The alternative is to use the blessings of fossil sunshine to move to energy that multiply those by 100s up too thousands of times the initial energy investment. Case in point natural gas you can burn it once via a turbine to the sky and it’s gone forever. The alternative is to take the same BTUs of natural gas and fire up a steel mill and concrete plant. You then use those materials which you invested one unit of fossil sunshine into and build a nuclear power plant with those. Then those one unit of fossil sunshine will over the next 80 YEARS make 24/7 power to the tune of nearly 2000 times the energy invested vs energy produced. So the choice is burn once and it’s gone forever or spend more and get 2000+ times back. Steel and concrete can be recycled so the EROI goes up not down in that case. Same natural gas can be used to refine Silicon for solar panels that will return 25 to 50 times as much energy invested in them 100+ in the Sahara, wind is 40 to 100 to one depending on the wind class. Humans must use our energy reserves to move as rapidly as possible to nuclear,geothermal,solar,wind and biomass or the crash and die off is going to be biblical when not if 8 billion burn out every last scrap of coal,oil and gas to the sky without the infrastructure to replace it.
The spend more part is the issue. Someone is going to have to fund the transition to forever energy sources and the boomers and late GenX just want to kick the can down the road while benefiting the most from all the already burnt fossil sunshine. Some generation/s is going to have to lower their standard of living until the transition is complete and then everyone benefits. Same for liquid hydrocarbons you can burn them once to the sky or use them to make chemicals ,fertilizer ,lubricants. 8 billion needs lots of food, chemicals and plastics.
There is a transition coming like it or not it will happen by choice with a good enough standard of living for 8+ billion or by force when the resources run low not out but low once that happens wars are inevitable they will be nuclear as the only way for a people of 350 + 500 million to take on 3 billion is with nukes. Great way to remove some eaters from the biosphere though. Doesn’t have to be that way we have more than enough resources left right now to massively build out nuclear power, with huge amounts of solar everywhere there is decent sunshine. The global North has huge wind fields there is no shortage of energy there is only the technical issue of capture and storage. Synthetic fuels or chemicals make sense. You can make ammonia from water and air plus electrons. Ammonia has three times as much hydrogen vs liquid H2 and it stores in metal tanks for years. Plus it’s already moved and used worldwide by the billions of pounds per year so it’s a widely handled chemical. Co2 can be pulled from the air there is a company that just got it down to $20 per tonne with bipolar cells and draino NaOH as the absorbent. Co2+ water plus electrons= methanol the base ingredient to thousands of chemicals ,plastics and even food there are yeast and bacteria that eat methanol into protein , starch,lipids or sugars aka food. Methanol stores in plastic tanks also for years. Cost is the hold up it’s coming down but it will likely never be as cheap as burning once to the sky the external costs are not accounted for in that case. So the transition that must happen will need to be either subsidized or taxed to shift the playing field. Yes people’s lifestyle will have to change that is just cold reality of allowing humans to overpopulate our home. To bring billions up the top 5% who use 80% of the world’s resources will have to reduce use until there is so much nuclear and other non combustion energy sources to then bring everyone up. The Sun hits earth’s landmass with a million times what humans use we only need a few percentages of surface area that includes roofs to give every one 12000 plus kWh per year or more. It’s never been a energy sources issue it always is a capture store and transport issue. Humans have the technology for all three of those.
France is a perfect example they build out one state financed design and they get 75% power from nukes. The US has sent 175 billion to Ukraine at a wholesale cost of 18 cents per kw and 1000 kw to the megawatt. We could have bought 972,222,222 megawatts worth of solar panels that’s 972,222 gigawatts or 972 one gigawatt reactors worth. Look at those numbers again that’s what we could have invested in our country. Even at a capacity factor of 25 percent that is between the long term average for Texas at 24.6 and California 28.4 on a yearly basis. @25% you still end up with 243 gigawatt years of power equal to 243 large nuclear plants. 243 gigawatt years of power is 2129 Twh....
Texas uses Electric Power: 365.1 TWh (10% total U.S.)
That’s just what we gave to Ukraine. Subsidy to the fossil fuels industry is 20 billion more per year in direct and tax subsidy.
What if we instead asked the Koreans to build us CANDU reactors they can build them for $2800kw in 60 months on time and on budget. 175 billion builds 62,500 megawatts worth of nukes. Those have 90% capacity factors over a year. 56.2 gigawatt years worth of power. That s 492.5 Twh. The takeaway is that solar is much cheaper than nukes but it’s not on demand nukes are that’s the trade off. If you had large demand that could be turned off and on at will like ammonia production cells or hydrogen electrolysis cells you turn the grid from demand oriented to supply orientated. That fundamentally changes the grid no more curtailment every electron is used that is made and you can massively over supply cheap solar and wind where it’s class 5 or better wind zones. Ammonia ,methanol and hydrogen store energy for later use it’s elegant. Have enough nukes to cover your cannot turn off loads like hospitals, residential ect.
The numbers get better if you just put solar in the desert capacity factors up and you are not using farmland. Every roof in the sunbelt should be covered in solar. That s millions of square meters of roofline. Make the grid supply based not demand based and the equation turns 180 degrees.