By Steve Goreham
Originally published in Communities Digital News.
The global energy outlook has changed radically in just six years. President Obama was elected in 2008 by voters who believed we were running out of oil and gas, that climate change needed to be halted, and that renewables were the energy source of the near future. But an unexpected transformation of energy markets and politics may instead make 2014 the year of peak renewables.
In December of 2007, former Vice President Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize for work on man-made climate change, leading an international crusade to halt global warming. In June, 2008 after securing a majority of primary delegates, candidate Barack Obama stated, “…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…” Climate activists looked to the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference as the next major step to control greenhouse gas emissions.
The price of crude oil hit $145 per barrel in June, 2008. The International Energy Agency and other organizations declared that we were at peak oil, forecasting a decline in global production. Many claimed that the world was running out of hydrocarbon energy.
Driven by the twin demons of global warming and peak oil, world governments clamored to support renewables. Twenty years of subsidies, tax-breaks, feed-in tariffs, and mandates resulted in an explosion of renewable energy installations. The Renewable Energy Index (RENIXX) of the world’s 30 top renewable energy companies soared to over 1,800.
Tens of thousands of wind turbine towers were installed, totaling more than 200,000 windmills worldwide by the end of 2012. Germany led the world with more than one million rooftop solar installations. Forty percent of the US corn crop was converted to ethanol vehicle fuel.
But at the same time, an unexpected energy revolution was underway. Using good old Yankee ingenuity, the US oil and gas industry discovered how to produce oil and natural gas from shale. With hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, vast quantities of hydrocarbon resources became available from shale fields in Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania.
From 2008 to 2013, US petroleum production soared 50 percent. US natural gas production rose 34 percent from a 2005 low. Russia, China, Ukraine, Turkey, and more than ten nations in Europe began issuing permits for hydraulic fracturing. The dragon of peak oil and gas was slain.
In 2009, the ideology of Climatism, the belief that humans were causing dangerous global warming, came under serious attack. In November, emails were released from top climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, an incident christened Climategate. The communications showed bias, manipulation of data, avoidance of freedom of information requests, and efforts to subvert the peer-review process, all to further the cause of man-made climate change.
One month later, the Copenhagen Climate Conference failed to agree on a successor climate treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. Failures at United Nations conferences at Cancun (2010), Durban (2011), Doha (2012), and Warsaw (2013) followed. Canada, Japan, Russia, and the United States announced that they would not participate in an extension of the Kyoto Protocol.
Major climate legislation faltered across the world. Cap and trade failed in Congress in 2009, with growing opposition from the Republican Party. The price of carbon permits in the European Emissions Trading System crashed in April 2013 when the European Union voted not to support the permit price. Australia elected Prime Minister Tony Abbott in the fall of 2013 on a platform of scrapping the nation’s carbon tax.
Europeans discovered that subsidy support for renewables was unsustainable. Subsidy obligations soared in Germany to over $140 billion and in Spain to over $34 billion by 2013. Renewable subsidies produced the world’s highest electricity rates in Denmark and Germany. Electricity and natural gas prices in Europe rose to double those of the United States.
Worried about bloated budgets, declining industrial competitiveness, and citizen backlash, European nations have been retreating from green energy for the last four years. Spain slashed solar subsidies in 2009 and photovoltaic sales fell 80 percent in a single year. Germany cut subsidies in 2011 and 2012 and the number of jobs in the German solar industry dropped by 50 percent. Renewable subsidy cuts in the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom added to the cascade. The RENIXX Renewable Energy Index fell below 200 in 2012, down 90 percent from the 2008 peak.
Once a climate change leader, Germany turned to coal after the 2012 decision to close nuclear power plants. Coal now provides more than 50 percent of Germany’s electricity and 23 new coal-fired power plants are planned. Global energy from coal has grown by 4.4 percent per year over the last ten years.
Spending on renewables is in decline. From a record $318 billion in 2011, world renewable energy spending fell to $280 billion in 2012 and then fell again to $254 billion in 2013, according to Bloomberg. The biggest drop occurred in Europe, where investment plummeted 41 percent last year. The 2013 expiration of the US Production Tax Credit for wind energy will continue the downward momentum.
Today, wind and solar provide less than one percent of global energy. While these sources will continue to grow, it’s likely they will deliver only a tiny amount of the world’s energy for decades to come. Renewable energy output may have peaked, at least as a percentage of global energy production.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Roger – these spheres are installed on the sea floor at 400-750 meters (appx 1200 to 2300 feet) below the surface. You are correct, they must somehow be vented to the surface – a huge challenge in itself … however it will require a deep diving submersible and expensive airlock/dock. That is considerably more difficult than descending in a mine shaft at atmospheric pressure.
No Roger, you left out the most important part – MIT tells us the spheres are $12 million each – and they tell us it would take 1,000 of them to provide the equivalent of 2 hours of energy from a typical conventional power plant. That comes out to $12 BILLION dollars in initial capital costs to provide the equivalent of 2 hours of power from a typical SINGLE conventional power plant.
You claim you can double the capacity of the sphere storage by increasing from 25 to 32 meters across at a cost of 30% more … which would be 1,000 spheres, 100 feet across for a cost of $15.6 billion … and you would then have appx 4 hours of storage from a typical SINGLE conventional power plant.
The cost to build a SINGLE conventional high tech Natural Gas power plant, which would provide power FULL TIME – not just 4 hours worth – is a FRACTION of the costs of these 1,000 supersized spheres.
Then there is the massive logistical nightmare – 75 to 100 foot concrete spheres – 1,000 of them, have to be manufactured, somehow transported to the sea, then transported ON the sea and each individually sunk in 1200 to 2300 feet of water. Compared to building ONE SINGLE conventional Nat Gas power plant.
C’mon Roger, I’m really trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, and be respectful of your positions, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see they do not remotely make sense.
I do quire agree that wind turbines and solar panels have serious disadvantages. Solar panels are useless at night, that reduces efficiency by 50%. Wind turbines are useless when wind velocitiy is below the required minimum, but they ‘rock around the clock’, and there are places where the wind very rarely ceases. And these technologies are helpful in areas where there is no conventional power grid available, e.g developing countries, islands etc. There the need of electricity isn’t that high as it is in Europe or Northern America. Yet the problem of how to store the energy harvested remains unsolved. May hydrogenium in connection with fuel cells help? Goyi or gogi has no solution yet and I do not expect the copycats suddenly coming out of the rice field with some groundbreaking technology. So it is us to carry on with research, because within its natural limitations, wind turbines and solar panels will contribute to the wealth of third-world-countries. Growing wealth means diminishing the increase of the population, thus creating more wealth for a decreasing population and earns some profit as well.
So I think that for this technologysubsidies and research are vital, unless we want to leave that technology to others and see them earning undeserved windfall profits (pun intended).
It is a shame that Exxon’s CEO Tillerson becomes some sort of killer when his strong opposition to fracking in his vicinity leads to unnecessary delays. He renders a very bad service indeed to his company and fracking itself.
See
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-usa-fracking-tillerson-idUSBREA1P24O20140226
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/02/22/exxon-ceo-profits-huge-as-americas-largest-natural-gas-producer-but-frack-it-in-his-own-backyard-and-he-sues/
It is quite interesting that my denouncers above accept MIT’s cost of $12 million per sphere, but will not accept the other aspects of the system.
It is also interesting that my denouncers refuse to read carefully, as the MIT article at no time says ” two hours”. The article says “several hours”.
It is even more interesting that my denouncers missed the entire point about offshore wind having average annual capacity factors, CF, of 40 to 50 percent. The significance of that 40-50 percent is that the power plants on a grid also have about the same CF. Therefore, for my detractors to deride wind power is senseless.
To A. Scott, I agree that gas-fired CCGT plants are far better than nuclear. I have written about this for many years. Several objective studies confirm, as does industry experience. Wind power, as I wrote above, puts nuclear power out of business. Nuclear plants cannot compete with gas or wind turbines.
Finally, it is also quite interesting that my detractors howl about renewable subsidies but are silent on subsidies for nuclear power plants. Yet another double standard.
It’s incredible to me that “alternative” energies that are being touted today were marked for extinction by the free market decades and centuries ago. When these events are examined in hindsight, it is proven that the market was exactly right, time and time again.
I am totally against subsidies for these or any energy, not only because of the absolute waste involved, but also for the fact that constant competition will keep energy technologies on the cutting edge. If the greenies and horse drawn people want “clean” technologies, they should be jumping on the capitalism wagon right now. The future holds the key to their wishes, not backward thinking tyrants or stupid bureaucrats with fists full of cash strong armed from people that can ill-afford another Solindra (sp?…who cares?).
If we need examples of capitalism’s success ask yourself who saved the whales? John D. Rockerfeller. Who lifted more people out of poverty than Sister Theresa? How about Henry Ford, Bill Gates, or any of the millions of small medium and large business owners. The ills of humanity get solved by millions of people working in their own self interest, and that’s what will give us new and better ways of producing and using energy. The next time somebody tells us that burying 2000 balls in the ocean will help solve our energy “woes”, the correct answer to this person is, “put your money where your mouth is.” We just cannot afford to fund pie-in-the-sky schemes. BTW, they all are, until proven to work.
Roger Sowell says:
March 3, 2014 at 8:05 am
It is quite interesting that my denouncers above accept MIT’s cost of $12 million per sphere, but will not accept the other aspects of the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can have all the other “aspects” of the system you want Roger, the capex dramatically exceeds the value obtained. As for your whining about subsidies to nuclear, no one ever said otherwise. Quit whining and stick the facts and you may gain some respectability back. Frankly you have along way to go.
Succinct. Well done.
Which governments besides the US are strategically planning on a net decline in GWhrs in electrical power generation from coal?
The UK. But the threshold of brownouts looks like it is beginning to grab the attention of Westminster. I doubt it will be in time to prevent the train wreck.
With the election of the Abbott government, coal will be on the rise in AUS.
Who else? New Zealand?
Roger, do you believe the MIT study is either 100% right or 100% wrong?
@Tucci78 at 10:14 pm
Petr Beckmann and Heinlein in one post. +3 for synergy.
I still have several years of his pink sheets.
As I recall, his subscription price at one time was $16/yr… or 4 silver quarters.
Glad you mentioned Tucci, Mr. Rasey, for I forgot to say to him:
Welcome back (after a few months absence from WUWT), Dr. Tucci!
And, I JUST HAVE TO SAY THIS (I think this nearly every time I read your name):
(to the tune of “Figaro”)
Tuccico, tuccico, tuuuuuuu-ci-co! #(:))
*********************************
btw, everyone, we really ought to encourage Mr. Sowell, for he is doing the nuclear power industry a favor: he is doing a SPLENDID job of proving that only a nut could be against it.
Several WUWT readers have commented on the problem of conventional backup power generation, for situations in which the wind doesn’t blow, and where the sun don’t shine. A. Scott hinted at the net efficiency issue. I’d like to follow up on that.
For the sake of simplicity, I’m only looking at coal-fired power plants and natural gas-fired turbines in the conventional category. Again, for the sake of simplicity, suppose that coal-fired plants provide 100% backup for BASE LOAD when the renewables are FULLY online. Again, for the sake of simplicity, I’m only looking at wind and solar in the renewables category. My analysis also applies when hydro power is a small part of the mix.
Here are two scenarios when natural gas-fired turbines are called into action:
1. Base Load, when the renewables are either down, or operating at less than full capacity;
2. PEAK LOAD.
When we integrate renewables into a conventional power generation system, the immediate result is less coal use and more natural gas use.
The good news: Gas-fired turbines are much more dispatchable than coal-fired power plants.
The bad news: Gas fired turbines — even when they’re not continuosly ramping — are LESS energy efficient than coal fired power plants, continuously operating in their ‘sweet spot’ for energy efficiency.
This means that at the times when gas turbines come into play in an integrated system, the fossil fuel power generation is LESS energy-efficient than it would be in a rationally-designed conventional set-up.
In an integrated system, there’s a very real question about the EROEI of that system. Skeptic Larry is speculating that this EROEI is slightly less than 1. In other words, my educated guess is that integrating renewables into a heretofore conventional power generation system DECREASES the energy-efficiency of the entire system.
If I’m correct about this, then the two most-talked-about renewables have precious little to do with conserving finite supplies of fossil fuels, and everything to do with driving working-class people into ‘energy poverty’, thereby promoting Greenie misanthropic Schadenfreude.
The EROEI issue is an open question — even when we ignore the total energy invested in constructing the solar and wind facilities, and in mining and transporting the raw materials that go into those facilities. Does anyone have good raw data that we can feed into the limited EROEI calculation that I’m proposing?
Silly, strawman arguments, picking the tiniest of nits … show the weakness of your position. We accept their construction costs because that is what they say it costs … we reject the other aspects, in large part because of what THEY tell us it will cost, but more importantly because the plan – the construction difficulties and the results – are not viable
False. Some offshore may reach into the 40% range but average offshore wind capacities are far below that – for the UK the average is 33%
http://www.lorc.dk/offshore-wind-farms-map/statistics/production/capacity-factor
There are a myriad of other significant issues, not the least of which is that wind turbine installed costs have increased fairly dramatically over time – NOT decreased as supporters claimed would occur.
The biggest issue in the pie in the sky MIT plan is the deepwater technology largely does not exist. The MIT plan proposes 400 to 750 meter – 1200 to 2200 feet – water depths. This would require floating platforms. Currently just 0.1% of installed offshore wind are on floating platforms … out of all offshore wind currently installed just TWO projects are on floating platforms – one in Norway in 200 meters of water and one in Portugal in 45 meters of water. Nearly 75% of all offshore wind is installed on monopile (pilings) platforms.
There is NO currently viable platform that would work for the MIT design – no platform that can support massive wind turbines installed in 1200 to 2200 feet water depths.
And another highly important point – to get the 40% range capacity factors requires wind turbines in the 4 MW size range – huge turbines, twice as large as typical land based ones. Using smaller turbines means lower capacity factors.
Last it is ridiculous to claim that “power plants on the grid” have similar “40-50%” capacity factors. That shows a complete failure to understand what you are talking about. There is a huge difference between operational capacity factors and due to demand, and capacity factors constricted by availability as with wind and solar.
Coal, NatGas, Nuclear, oil, and most large scale hydro CAN operate at a functional capacity factor of 90+% … lower capacity factors listed for these plants reflect the cost vs demand, and availability of cheaper (ie: nuclear) power. Capacity factors for wind and solar reflect the max actual operating capacity based on availability of “fuel” – wind or sunshine. A conventional plant can operate nearly full time if demand is there. Wind or Solar generation can only operate when sun or wind is available.
Perhaps that’s because it is NOT a double standard for people that actually understand … the US Dept of Energy and Institute for Energy Research shows us the average subsidy per megawatt hour of power generated:
Per Megawatt hour of Power generated (2011):
Coal, Oil and Gas – each got just $0.64,
Hydro – just $0.82
Nuclear – $3.14
Wind – a massive $56.29
Solar – a gigantic $775.64
Total Subsidies:
Coal, Oil and Gas – $1.843 billion – 17.5% of subsidies
Hydro – $215 million – 2.0%
Nuclear – $2.499 billion – 23.8%
Wind – $4.986 billion – 47.4%
Solar – $0.968 billion – 9.2%
Power capacity:
Coal, Oil and Gas – 785,983 MW – 77.6% of total
Hydro – 78,652 MW – 7.8% of total
Nuclear – 101,419 MW – 10% of total
Wind – 45,676 MW – 4.5% of total
Solar – 1,524 MW – 0.1% of total
WIND provides just 4.5% of our electricity yet received nearly 50% of the total subsidies. SOLAR provides just 0.1% of our power, yet is receiving massive subsidies – $775 per MWh of power generated.
Do you REALLY want to make a big deal out of subsidies?
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/xls/existing_gen_units_2011.xls
And lest look at the actual costs of production for various energy types.
U.S. average levelized costs (2011 $/megawatthour) for plants entering service in 2018
Conventional Coal $100.10
Advanced Coal $123.00
Advanced Coal with CCS $135.50
Natural Gas-fired
Conventional Combined Cycle $67.10
Advanced Combined Cycle $65.60
Advanced CC with CCS $93.40
Conventional Combustion Turbine $130.30
Advanced Combustion Turbine $104.60
Advanced Nuclear $108.40
Geothermal $89.60
Biomass $111.00
Wind $86.60
Wind-Offshore $221.50
Solar PV1 $144.30
Solar Thermal $261.50
Hydro $90.30
Want to tell us again what a great deal offshore wind is Roger?
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm
‘Levelized cost is … a summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies. It represents the per-kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle. Key inputs to calculating levelized costs include overnight capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type.’
For a REALISTIC and detailed review of offshore wind:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdf
Larry … exactly correct … but there is more to it. Taking away demand from base load operations causes the BASE LOAD plant to become less efficient as well.
And then there is the emissions side. Everyone says solar and wind are so “green” – that they reduce emissions. And on paper this seems to make sense. However, Germany has seen emissions INCREASE – appx 1.5% annually – since they made their massive change to solar. This at same time the EU on the whole has seen a DECREASE in emissions of a similar amount.
The shift from efficient and cleaner base load power to dirtier and less efficient peaking load plants, for the 75+% of the time solar is not available, has more than offset an emissions gain.
And for Germany their electric costs have skyrocketed in same period – to the point they are at risk of losing a competitive position in their manufacturing sectors. Not to mention making electricity unaffordable for over 500,000 lower income citizens.
@ur momisugly A. Scott, wrong on all counts. So, nuclear subsidies = GOOD, per you, and renewable subsidies = BAD, per you. Nice logic, there.
Care to try again on levelized costs? California Energy Commission has quite different numbers.
As for emissions skyrocketing due to renewables, utterly false. NREL has a 2013 study that completely debunks that falsehood. By the way, Iowa had approximately 25 percent of its total power generated by windturbines in 2012 (14,000 GWh out of 56,600 GWh). If emissions went up as you claim, the EPA would be all over them for this. They didn’t and EPA didn’t.
http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2013/3299.html
To all my detractors, fellas, you just cannot win. Wind power will be installed offshore, primarily along the East Coast and eventually along the West Coast. Storage will be provided either as MIT described, or possibly by more economic means. Operating experience will drive down the costs. The benefits to all will be enormous. This is (in contrast to CAGW) truly simple physics. I posted a link earlier to the Maryland offshore wind program. Other coastal states (MA and RI) have similar programs.
“In February 2011, former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu unveiled a coordinated strategic plan to accelerate the development of offshore wind resources. As part of the ‘Smart from the Start’ program for expediting commercial-scale wind energy on the federal OCS that was announced in November 2010, DOI has identified Wind Energy Areas to spur responsible development of this abundant renewable resource. These efforts are part of a series of Administration actions to speed renewable energy development offshore by improving coordination with state, local and federal partners.
The Wind Energy Area offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts covers about 164,750 acres and is located 9.2 nautical miles south of the Rhode Island coastline. BOEM will auction the area as two leases, referred to as the North Lease Area (Lease OCS-A0486) and the South Lease Area (Lease OCS-A0487). The North Lease Area consists of about 97,500 acres and the South Lease Area covers about 67,250 acres.
According to a report recently released by the Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the North Lease Area has the potential for installed capacity of 1,955 megawatts (MW), and the South Lease Area, 1,440 MW.” from JULY, 2013 press release.
Bitching about it on WUWT will not stop it.
Have a good day.
Roger Sowell;
To all my detractors, fellas, you just cannot win.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. Yes, the policies promoted by crony capitalists and smooth talking lawyers will absolutely win in the short term. But not because of the facts. Only because of a combination of smooth talking paid activists, a gullible pubic, and useful idiots.
Laughable Roger … you repeatedly show you have little understanding of the topic.
Your quotes betray you.
Then you post a quote from two proven yahoo’s Ken Salazar and Steven Chu … which shows the silliness of your claims:
North lease area 97,500 acres … with potential installed capacity of 1,955 MW, and South Lease Area 67,250 acres … with potential installed capacity of 1,440 MW
A total of 165,000 acres and the total potential … the best case scenario … is 3,400 MW max installed capacity. For comparison the TOTAL installed offshore wind capacity WORLDWIDE is currently appx 5,200MW …
The closest offshore buoy to Maryland is Buoy 44009, located 12 nautical miles off the
coast of Delaware. The capacity factor for Buoy 44009 (assuming a REpower 5M turbine) is 0.3984 … 39.84% … not 50% as you claim.
Which means at BEST – even if ALL of the potential capacity is built, the net total power available would be appx 1,352 MW – the equivalent of one SINGLE existing power plant.
Put another way if ALL of the potential capacity is built, it will amount to the equivalent of appx THREE conventional power plants, but would only be avail a maximum 39% of the time … and would require fossil fueled conventional peaking load back up generation 60% of the time.
But hey, there IS that MIT “storage” technology that could provide “several” hours of storage. For this area – with 3,400 MW total, using the MIT program specs we’d be looking at 850 total 5 MW wind turbines, and 850 storage “spheres” … at a mere cost $10.2 billion for the spheres alone.
Just one little problem with your master plan for East Coast off shore wind domination Roger. The MIT storage spheres require 400 to 750 meter – 1200 to 2200 feet – water depths to work.
Just one problem Roger … the entire North and South Lease area is all from 100 to 130 feet deep … just 30 to 39 meters. Your beloved spheres not only won’t work, they will nearly stick OUT of the water in most of the lease area.
http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/13218.shtml
It would help if you bothered to provide a link if you want people to take you seriously.
That said I posted numbers directly from the US Energy Information Administration – which showed levelized costs across each energy generation type. I notice you didn’t bother to actually challenge any of the data I posted…
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm
And those levelized costs were nearly identical to those posted here at WUWT by David Middleton a year ago – interestingly that story was also about East Coast offshore wind …
Its worth a read to see the silliness of these proposals …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/12/marylands-wind-powered-welfare/
This study is also an excellent, detailed look at offshore wind
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdf
And for anyone who would like to read the MIT paper isntead of some press release:
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/67779/767585866.pdf?sequence=1
A. Scott;
Your beloved spheres not only won’t work, they will nearly stick OUT of the water in most of the lease area.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. You have a treasure load of facts and information at your command. Hat off to you sir.
Roger … just want to say I respect your comments, efforts and contributions on climate change and the like, but when it comes to this off shore wind topic, its hard to do the same … you just don’t make a supportable case
cnxtim says: @ur momisugly March 1, 2014 at 10:06 pm
**************
Box of Rocks replies @ur momisugly March 2, 2014 at 6:17 am
OBTW
Fracking in the USA has been around this part of the world since like the late 1940′s. The father of fracking just passed away a few weeks ago…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually Fracking has been around since just after the Civil War.
Colorado Wellington says: @March 2, 2014 at 12:38 am
I am sorry to contradict your intuition, my dear Lady Janice, but the renewable energy hockey stick math is robust. I did it on a spreadsheet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you used a COMPUTER so it has to be the golden truth!
J Martin says: @ur momisugly March 2, 2014 at 1:38 am
…. Meanwhile Germany and especially China are building new generation larger and significntly more efficient coal fired power stations. Worldwide overall energy generation by coal is increasing. A terrible waste of a valuable chemical resource.
Thorium is what we should be moving towards. If only all the money that has been wasted on so called renewables had been put into developing Thorium power. Appalling short sighted policies, that’s what politicians do best.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Spoken like a chemist. Thorium is the way to go and that is the direction the Chinese are headed after they stole the information from Oak Ridge (Computer was hacked a few years ago.)