BRICS and Nukes and LNG – the energy transition few are expecting


 Terry Etam

Sometimes I hear people going on about how rapidly the world is changing. “The pace is unbelievable, who can keep up…” Most times I roll my eyes a fair bit, a good 80 degrees I’d say. Obviously things are changing, but a new app that helps order pizza or a tool that writes an essay for us instead of doing the hard work ourselves is not that revolutionary given the context of the last century (in case you ever wonder, there will always be enough f-bombs and crappy analogies around here so that you’ll know ChatGPT is not present in this column). Our grandparents or great grandparents – now that’s change. Imagine growing up with no power, no plumbing, no autos… and then finding yourself in an old folks home with a cell phone the kids gave you to master and those old people are thinking “wow I used to have to go outside to take a crap” (see what I mean?) And now, there’s an app actually called Poop Map that the kids love (?). That is real change in one’s lifetime.

In the energy world, we are told relentlessly that an energy transition is underway, and that the rate of change is dizzying and unprecedented. To a certain extent that is true, and new technologies are being developed that might be quite revolutionary – assuming we can integrate them in anything resembling a cost effective manner.

But while we’re facing the blinding light show that is the media hype over the energy transition many want – wind and solar and battery tech and Tesla -, spellbound and hypnotized by the spectacle (because our ethnocentricity and lemming-media limits exposure to anything else), behind our backs 7 billion people are putting together their own show that will dwarf ours. And brave souls here in the west are making enormous progress in a direction that a lot of people don’t want to see.

Here’s a quick rundown of some of the bigger components that are largely met with unease, hostility, or shouting, and yet they are the future.

The first is the global rise of LNG as a fuel of choice for the coming decades. Country after country is signing LNG supply deals for 20 years or even more, contracts which are supporting the construction of infrastructure at either end – terminals to load LNG onto ships, and receiving terminals to distribute it to energy-starved countries. The US is expected to go from exporting zero LNG a decade ago towards exports of up to 30 billion cubic feet per day by the end of the decade, and the list of consuming nations is long and desperate to get what they can.

Emissions-wise, this makes total sense, because for much of the developing world the choice is coal, LNG, or nothing. Offers of endless solar fields are not amusing when the population wants refrigerators and air conditioners, at a minimum. But these developing countries must face the juggernaut of policy emanating from the west that does not want them to develop hydrocarbons of any sort. What to do? 

And that brings us to BRICS, one of the big developing geopolitical entities that is being forced into existence. 

Ten or fifteen years ago, a group of countries – Brazil, Russia, India China, and South Africa – formed what should have been BRICSA but for whatever reason they settled on BRICS. The original group took shape only as a method of attracting investment by highlighting opportunities, but over time it morphed into a more concrete organization, with their governments meeting regularly to develop policies that would benefit all members.

All well and good, however one would think – particularly here in the west – that the BRICS organization would be somewhat on its back heels and hiding behind a shrub with Russia being one of the key members. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been the biggest, worst setback to global peace in a long time.

It was with some surprise then that stories appeared in the news earlier this year about how multiple countries were looking to join BRICS. Bloomberg ran a story in April 2023 outlining 19 countries that submitted bids for membership.

In a startling sign of some of that change people talk about, the number of BRICS applicants reading for the hazing rituals has grown to a shocking 41 countries. The original BRICS group had about 3.2 billion citizens; the new applicants will add another 1.7 billion bringing the total BRICS population – if all join – to almost 5 billion people.

Compare this total to ‘the west’s’ population; if one includes philosophical teammates like Japan and Australia in the count along with western Europe, the US and Canada gives a population of under 1 billion. 

The rush to join BRICS is from everywhere. South America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia… even Mexico. The group is holding a summit in August with plans to potentially introduce a new currency.

This group is willing to join with the west’s pariah, Russia, because it sees a path towards defining its own future, and you can bet that energy is a large part of that. Why should 5 billion people take orders from the west with regards to what is and what is not allowable in terms of energy development? 

Western stances on energy are absolutely bizarre, and from the other side of the developmental wall, must be at best perplexing and at most infuriating. Activists groups from Europe and the US push to prevent development of the East African Oil Pipeline, while Canada builds one, President Biden urges American producers to drill more, and Europeans build LNG terminals and burn coal. 29dk2902l

The most bizarre western energy antics however seem to revolve around nuclear energy, another piece of the energy puzzle that appears to be poised for rapid and significant growth even while the west ties itself into knots as to whether or not nuclear energy should be allowed. 

In ‘the west’, or westernized society, nuclear is generally a dirty word. The potential devastation of a bad nuclear accident is seared in every brain. We all know the words Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima…not as tourist destinations but as locations of bad nuclear juju. 

Germany and Belgium recently shut down a number of perfectly good nuclear reactors for some sort of ‘environmental reasons’ at the same time other countries in Europe, such as the Netherlands, rush to build new ones within a hundred miles of where the old ones were shut down. California and New York State shut down nuclear reactors, and then just the other day Ontario announced a massive new nuclear power development.

Ontario’s nuclear announcement is huge. Actually, there were two announcements, both huge. On July 5, the province announced plans to construct new nuclear capability at the existing Bruce Power site, adding 4,800 MW of power capability, enough to power 4.8 million homes. 

Two days later, Ontario announced plans to build three small modular reactors (SMR) at the Darlington site, adding a further 1,200 MW of capacity. 

Ontario went through a phase of green madness some 15 years ago, pledging to go all-renewable or some such, and it was a disaster. Now, the province is showing leadership in meeting climate goals with true baseload, reliable power, the exact sort of thing renewables can’t do.

Ontario isn’t alone; many governments around the world are brushing aside the nuclear naysayers (of which there are many, including Greenpeace). Nothing is perfect, but in a world that is apparently willing to go carbon-free or die trying, nuclear is the clearest long-range plan.

Ontario is also pushing the frontier with SMRs, a very important development. If these small reactors become widespread, the market would be enormous – they are quicker and cheaper to construct, and (appear to) make economic sense at small scale. Proponents have flagged, for example, that SMRs could be used in the oil sands to generate steam and replace a lot of natural gas combustion.

The US military is taking it one step further. The Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska is looking to pilot a micro-reactor. Per their website, “…Micro-reactors are a simple and compact form of nuclear reactor capable of producing between 1-20 megawatts (MW) of carbon free electricity.” Another US government website notes: “These compact reactors will be small enough to transport by truck and could help solve energy challenges in a number of areas, ranging from remote commercial or residential locations to military bases.”

The nuclear part is an oddity that fits in to the picture in the weirdest of ways. Nuclear power is the only real option for zero emissions power at a scale large enough to meet the world’s needs. In yet another geopolitical curiosity, the west has tied itself into knots over nuclear energy; one camp sees it as a threat to mankind, the other camp seeing it as energy’s salvation in a world that wants lower emissions. One recent study showed that 57 percent of global systemically important banks explicitly exclude nuclear power from financing considerations.”

These might seem like disparate energy threads, and in some way they are. But what is becoming clear when one adds them together is the following. 

The rapidly growing BRICS group is looking to forge its own path as a way to counter the influence of the west and/or have a more active voice in ‘how they should be developing’. 

One of the key developments for much of the world is the rise in LNG, which is happening against a backdrop of very powerful western voices that do not want that to happen. 

Beyond that, we are seeing nuclear power on the ascendence in a number of forms – large reactor development (Netherlands, Ontario), small modular reactors (Ontario announcement 2), and even micro-reactors (US military base). These nuclear developments are happening against a backdrop of animosity, negative media coverage (the two CBC stories linked above devote half the space to nuclear opponents), and ferocious lobbying by certain renewables interests, the exact sort of thing those renewable interests accuse oil/gas industry participants of doing.

Well, I’m an oil/gas industry participant, and this trajectory is, to me, inevitable. First, people in charge of actually making things work will start to assume control, on a global basis. That will mean the rise of LNG over the coming decades as the shortest, easiest path to decarbonize (as the US has proved; they have been more successful than most nations in cutting emissions by switching from coal to natural gas).

Next, because energy demand never ceases to stop growing, as the cheapest and easiest-to-extract natural gas reserves are developed, nuclear power will grow in stature to provide the reliable baseload power the world needs in huge and growing quantities. 

Alongside this path will most likely be developments in hydrogen and batteries and other peripherals that fill the gaps that the main building blocks can’t meet. There is always the possibility that there will be a major technological breakthrough in one of these energy system components, but we can’t plan on that. We have to go with what is proven.

That’s the energy transition that appears most inevitable. 

Energy conversations should be positive and, most of all, grounded in reality. Life depends on it. Find out more in  “The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity” at, or Thanks!

Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here.

For more on fossil fuels go to our ClimateTV channel and select fossil fuel from the topic menu.

4.9 27 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 18, 2023 2:37 am

 the media hype is wall to wall and unceasing.

“Western stances on energy are absolutely bizarre, and from the other side of the developmental wall, must be at best perplexing and at most infuriating.”

I won’t write how people like me feel about it on this side of the developmental wall. Too many expletives required to do it justice. We get our input from people calling themselves things like “professor of energy and climate governance”. Climate governance??? In “political” ecology and environmental policy, climate governance is the diplomacy, mechanisms and response measures “aimed at steering social systems towards….. Net Zero.

In today’s Climate Crisis Daily – we have an interesting spin pushing wind farms.

“Project Collette, a £3bn proposal for a windfarm off the Cumbrian coast to be part-owned by the local community – instigated by the Green Finance Community Hub in collaboration with the engineering firm Arup and community energy specialists Energy4All – and with the potential to power nearby industry. If Cumbrians could stand on the sandstone cliffs and look out at wind turbines they owned, and that had provided jobs for local people, that might just build the political support and engagement that is so vital to reaching our climate targets?”

Bribery is hardly new. And it doesn’t always work.

What about (rainbow coloured) Hydrogen?

“UK poised to drop plans to replace home gas boilers with hydrogen alternatives
Energy secretary indicates cooling of government aspirations as concerns grow over costs, safety and efficiency”

The UK hasn’t had much of a summer – a couple of warm days in June – but they’ve tried their level best to frighten people nonetheless.

“These highs are in line with what climate models predicted, says Prof Richard Betts, climate scientist at the Met Office and University of Exeter.

“We should not be at all surprised with the high global temperatures,” he says. “This is all a stark reminder of what we’ve known for a long time, and we will see ever more extremes until we stop building up more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

When we think about how hot it is, we tend to think about the air temperature, because that’s what we experience in our daily lives.”

For the UK for the next week to ten days at least they are forecasting temperatures between 18C and 23C. Last weekend saw a surge in people going to southern Europe, Turkey and Egypt to escape the drab non-barbecue English summer.

Fear not, our man Justin Stop Oil Rowlatt is in Spain to suffer on our behalf….

“It is hot. Very hot. And temperatures show no signs of easing.”

Have a Pimms, Justin, and Richard…. don’t lie.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  strativarius
July 18, 2023 3:00 am

While GB News runs this story…..
“””Hated Ulez-style traffic zones to be introduced across entire country – ‘Criminalising driving!’

Quite interesting really, they are blocking housing developments with these things – couldn’t possibly be someone anyone doing a spot of Nimbyism combined with Property Speculation by any chance

So, linking that with China, what about this (not so) little gem…

“””Evergrande: Crisis-hit Chinese property giant reveals $81bn loss

<paging Joe Brandon> Brandon Brandon, are you (all) there?
Just bung them a few cluster bombs = job’ll be sorted in no time at all and no innocent civilians will feel a thing.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 18, 2023 3:09 am

As the article stated, “Western stances on energy are absolutely bizarre”

Especially on the transport front.

The other day I stumbled onto something; the media isn’t reporting lithium ion battery fires….

Gregory Woods
Reply to  strativarius
July 18, 2023 3:33 am


Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 18, 2023 3:55 am

You want a link to something that wasn’t reported.


Reply to  strativarius
July 18, 2023 4:08 am

 the climate crackpots panic about things that are not happening … so why can’t we have a link to something that wasn’t reported.

Reply to  1saveenergy
July 18, 2023 4:27 am

Mainly because – and this is the situation as I write – there is no link to give…..

Bryan A
Reply to  strativarius
July 18, 2023 6:24 am

I think it is a question of a possible link to where you “Stumbled On” the information

Reply to  Bryan A
July 18, 2023 6:32 am

It is something that happened nearby. That’s how.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 18, 2023 6:30 am

2 days ago – one of many – imagine that in a multi storey car park, or in your garage at home

Reply to  Energywise
July 18, 2023 6:33 am

Some cannot be glossed over.

Reply to  strativarius
July 20, 2023 11:37 am

The US NTSB compiles data on vehicle fires. Not that I trust any Government agency, but not sure why they would skew this data so severely:

  • Hybrid vehicles: 3,474 fires per 100K sales
  • Gas vehicles: 1,529 fires per 100K sales
  • Electric vehicles: 25 fires per 100K sales

This does not indicate a higher risk of fire with an EV. I also realize that 1) gas vehicles on the road here in Reno data back to the ’50s. I couldn’t say that all those engine rebuilds were done competently.

I don’t own an EV. I have a diesel pickup, and after looking at the current offerings, I wouldn’t have one at a fraction of the current price. My wife and I have to cross rough terrain (no pavement, steep grades) to get to our home, which is subject to temperature extremes (the mountains near Reno, NV). While there are a lot of EVs in the area, none are near us, although a few neighbors tried them (all Teslas). All were traded after a few MONTHS for ICE vehicles. Had nothing to do with fires – just poor performance against the weather and terrain we face.

But maybe you weren’t reading about EVs, but rather phone/laptop batteries?

Reply to  strativarius
July 18, 2023 4:42 am

“These highs are in line with what climate models predicted, says Prof Richard Betts, climate scientist at the Met Office and University of Exeter.

That’s because the climate models predict every type of weather, all the time, somewhere

Reply to  Redge
July 18, 2023 4:54 am

Especially under RCP8.5

Gregory Woods
July 18, 2023 3:27 am

“Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam” – I am not certain that his analysis is very insightful. He seems to believe that CO2 is still a bad gas.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 18, 2023 3:43 am

Unfortunately there are many who keep going about climate change and talk verbally, produce a lot of CO2.. Bad for the climate so they say, but they add to it.

H2S in closed room when one expels it is also a bad gas..
Horrible thought.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 18, 2023 5:02 am

Does he? Sounds more like he knows nations have decided to cut back on emissions and noting that switching from coal to natural gas and nuclear can do that. Doesn’t mean he’s anti ff. Maybe he’ll respond to your comment.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 18, 2023 5:43 am

Terry writes this in his article: “Nothing is perfect, but in a world that is apparently willing to go carbon-free or die trying, nuclear is the clearest long-range plan.”

That doesn’t strike me as Terry believing CO2 is a bad gas. He appears to me to be ridiculing the concept somewhat.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 18, 2023 9:04 am

To me it’s a bit like
If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly:
Macbeth on the killing of Duncan.
If we’re going to do it then it’s best to get it done quickly

Reply to  Gregory Woods
July 18, 2023 6:36 am

Some people who believe climate change is entirely natural, still buy into the whole CO2 is evil and must be lowered narrative – feet in both camps

Ron Long
July 18, 2023 3:45 am

The report from Terry Etam seems to indicate a reasonable mix of current and future demands divides itself into Nuclear for electricity and LNG for transportation. Enter BRICS with the same idea, but they are a consortium of bad or questionable actors, and one has to wonder, if it is so obvious how come the “west” can’t see this? Or is the “west” being bought off by the BRICS interests? Wouldn’t it be fascinating if Joe Biden would confess everything? The next USA election might well be a tipping point, and this time in a good way.

Richard Page
Reply to  Ron Long
July 18, 2023 5:35 am

India is a ‘bad or questionable actor’? China and Russia may be but the rest of the BRICS nations, in comparison, are less so than, say, the USA, EU or UK in that. Time to stop labelling any country that doesn’t toe the same line as those in the West as ‘enemies’, ‘bad actors’ etc. China and Russia have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, but are we pure enough to cast the first stones at other BRICS nations?

Ron Long
Reply to  Richard Page
July 18, 2023 7:53 am

India is buying crude from Russia, refining it, and selling it internationally against the embargo. They are also entering into other agreements with Russia, allow them to continue their terrorist invasion of Ukraine.

Richard Page
Reply to  Ron Long
July 18, 2023 8:13 am

China, India, EU, Turkiye, UAE, South Korea, Slovakia, Hungary, Belgium, Japan, Spain, Singapore, Brazil, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bulgaria, Italy, Malaysia and Czech Republic are all buying fossil fuels directly from Russia. If the USA is still trading with ANY of these countries then they are indirectly supporting the invasion of Ukraine.
I repeat, who are you to call many of these countries ‘bad actors’?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
July 18, 2023 5:46 am

“if it is so obvious how come the “west” can’t see this?”

Trump sees it. He called BRICS a very serious threat to the United States, and he pledged to do something about it, if elected.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 18, 2023 6:50 am

BRICS is, as Trump stated, a serious threat to the US energy dominance and, by extension, to the US economy. It will be interesting as to where that leaves the UK after ratifying the Trans Pacific Partnership deal.

Right-Handed Shark
July 18, 2023 5:12 am

“Alongside this path will most likely be developments in hydrogen and batteries and other peripherals that fill the gaps that the main building blocks can’t meet. There is always the possibility that there will be a major technological breakthrough in one of these energy system components, but we can’t plan on that. We have to go with what is proven.”

What is proven:

Hydrogen takes twice as much energy to produce than it provides.
Hydrogen is difficult to store and transport, escapes from the merest crack and past threads in valves, plugs etc. and makes pipework brittle.
Hydrogen burns with an invisible flame in daylight and does not need a spark to ignite.

In short, you ain’t pumping that stuff into my house.

Batteries are at the limit of known physics, and there are not enough of the minerals in known reserves to fill the world’s needs* now, let alone in the future when replacements will be required.

Other peripherals? Be specific. Unicorn manure? Fairy dust? Zero point energy? Hitherto unknown fantasies?

*There is no need for any of this garbage.

Tom Abbott
July 18, 2023 5:32 am

From the article: “One of the key developments for much of the world is the rise in LNG, which is happening against a backdrop of very powerful western voices that do not want that to happen. ‘

If Trump is elected, he said he was going all-out to supercharge the oil and gas industries. He wants to make the U.S. “Energy-Dominant”.

I wonder how that would figure into the BRICS calculations?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 18, 2023 7:44 am

I would rather no country was energy dominant. I would much prefer healthy competition without the west bombing the sh*t out of the competition.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2023 4:43 am

I would love to see Trump bring the profits down for Putin and Saudi Arabia by increasing the oil and gas output of the U.S. Less money for them = Less Troublemaking.

July 18, 2023 5:57 am

In the UK, right now, wind is generating 1% of grid demand (0.45GW from a total installed nameplate of 28GW)
Gas generation is 44% (13.7GW)
We need a gas transition to nuclear, it is the only way

Reply to  Energywise
July 18, 2023 7:45 am

That was the plan until the mysteriously funded greens came along.

Richard Page
Reply to  HotScot
July 18, 2023 8:16 am

No real mystery – rich elites protecting their subsidy-mining investments.

Reply to  Richard Page
July 18, 2023 8:29 am

The problem is, what they spawned. Innumerable subversive minority groups undermining the social fabric of numerous countries.

Richard Page
Reply to  HotScot
July 18, 2023 9:36 am

Like many sponsors of terrorist organisations in the past and present, they can’t control the ideaology and are losing control of their creations.

Ronald Stein
July 18, 2023 6:08 am

The “energy conundrum” is:

  • Wind turbines and solar panels can only generate intermittent electricity. They cannot manufacture any products for society.
  • Crude Oil on the other hand is virtually useless, unless it’s manufactured (refineries) into oil derivatives that are the basis of more than 6,000 products in our daily lives that did not exist before the 1900’s, and the fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of more than 50,000 jets moving people and products, and more than 50,000 merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space program.

In summary: renewables only generate electricity, while oil is the basis of all the products in today’s society.
Ridding the world of oil will eliminate wind turbines, solar panels, and EV’s as ALL their part and components are made from oil!

Reply to  Ronald Stein
July 18, 2023 6:32 am

To your point, the first thing I notice with the just stop oil protesters is their oil derived polymer banners.

Reply to  Ronald Stein
July 18, 2023 6:38 am

Indeed wind turbines use a lot of oil internally in the drive chain gearboxes etc – without oil, they couldn’t be manufactured, or work

July 18, 2023 6:30 am


The Eielson AFB mini-nuke project is great. Perfect place and much less environmental group and NIMBY protest. It’s cold, cold there so a super location to wring out all the electric vehicle concepts.

Lotta places in western U.S. for the same due to same reasons.

Gums sends…

July 18, 2023 7:07 am
July 18, 2023 7:09 am

…..people in charge of actually making things work will start to assume control…..

gotta love that observation.

William Howard
July 18, 2023 7:18 am

would seem that if nuclear is ok to power submarines for decades, it should be good for other purposes as well – probably in the next century every home will have a small reactor that provides the needed energy

Reply to  William Howard
July 18, 2023 7:40 am

You really have to watch what you are doing with small installation nuclear. Soviets tried it. Some bad results.

Richard Page
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 18, 2023 8:18 am

Have we learned from their mistakes?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  William Howard
July 18, 2023 10:30 am

…probably in the next century every home will have a small reactor that provides the needed energy

That might have been a possibility until Hillary sold up to half our uranium deposits to Russia :<)

July 18, 2023 7:40 am

It’s not about ‘what kind’ of energy source is acceptable but all about crippling the West enough that the ROW can match their now reduced level of living standard.

July 18, 2023 7:47 am

It seems to me the Army shut down two small reactors in Alaska in the past 20 years, so what’s the big deal about the small reactor “revolution”?

Beta Blocker
July 18, 2023 8:15 am

The nuclear SMR supplier I’m watching most closely right now is Last Energy and its 20 MWe design.

This outfit has inked contracts for 34 of its 20 MWe SMR’s in the UK and in Poland, pending approval of their design by the UK’s and Poland’s nuclear regulators. These contracts total approximately 20 billion USD. More contracts are now in the works which would bring the total to 51 SMRs spread among eight European industrial customers.

Last Energy will own and operate the reactors and will supply behind-the-meter electricity to industrial customers under long term contracts. The nuclear fuel cycle will be Last Energy’s responsibility and will be managed according to current European standards, including management of spent nuclear fuel.

Except for its small size, nothing about the Last Energy SMR design is new. It is simply a conventional light water reactor made small so that everything needed to manufacture the reactor vessel and its supporting systems is readily available through the existing supply chain for other types of industrial equipment which are already subject to tight quality assurance standards.

Last Energy is a US firm, but it will not be selling its SMR’s in the United States. Attempting to do so would require NRC approval of its design and would also subject Last Energy to US export controls. The production versions of their SMR design will be manufactured in Europe.

Last Energy would have no problem meeting the NRC’s quality assurance standards for component fabrication and installation. The real problem with obtaining a license from the NRC is that numerous expensive design changes driven by LNT and ALARA considerations would be forced upon them — design changes which, in Last Energy’s opinion, would add nothing of value to the basic nuclear safety of their SMR. The only concession they’ve made to LNT and ALARA considerations is to place their SMR vessel underground.

Last Energy’s CEO thinks their first SMR could go into service in Europe in late 2026 if early regulatory approval were to be granted.

That claim might be a stretch. Or so I think. But on the other hand, the incentive for granting quick regulatory approval of what is essentially a very low-risk SMR design is much greater in Europe than it is in America. Let’s see what happens.

Kit P
Reply to  Beta Blocker
July 18, 2023 11:00 am


Beta Blocker
Reply to  Kit P
July 18, 2023 11:43 am

Let’s see a precise definition of the label ‘scam’ which is relevant within the context of this topic; i.e., the growing demand for nuclear energy in parts of Europe and elsewhere in the world.

Is Last Energy promoting a ‘scam’ because you believe all SMRs are inherently scams, regardless of who is promoting them, and for what purposes?

Or is it because you believe the firm is composed of fraudsters who will never deliver a working reactor according to the terms of the contracts they have signed?

Which one is it?

Curious George
Reply to  Beta Blocker
July 18, 2023 12:08 pm

The correct link is

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Curious George
July 18, 2023 4:43 pm

Thanks. The link got corrupted somehow.

July 18, 2023 9:27 am

From the post:” First, people in charge of actually making things work will start to assume control, on a global basis. That will mean the rise of LNG over the coming decades as the shortest, easiest path to decarbonize…”

If people who want to make “things work” get in charge then they will totally ignore any “path to decarbonize”.

LNG is a good idea on its own without the foolishness of decarbonizing.

John Pickens
July 18, 2023 9:39 am

“California and New York shut down nuclear reactors”
Lets not forget New Jersey

Kit P
July 18, 2023 11:44 am

Well, I’m an oil/gas industry participant, ….

Like all the others from the oil and gas industry does not have a clue about the power industry. Nothing new in this article.

Electric power is very important in daily life but it only takes a very few people to make it. As a result there is a a lot of BS about it.

Almost all new generation in terms of MWe is made by heating water and running steam through a turbine. If you can supply your new power plant with a mile long train of coal cars every day. That is how you do it. If you have waste natural gas from oil production that might be a good choice however the oil and gas industry does not seem to be able to keep the price low over the design life of the plant.

So why did China start building nukes? They could no longer produce enough slave labor coal.

That right China has to import coal from places where coal miners have safe working conditions and good wages. It gets there on ships protected by the US Navy.

So the the choice is to play nice and follow the rules dictated by the US Navy.

July 18, 2023 3:32 pm

God I hope Albo reads this.

July 18, 2023 4:00 pm

The Poop Map app is not the way old folks can find their way to an outhouse, but a guide to the makeshift latrines used by the homeless in San Francisco.

On a more serious note, building more LNG export terminals certainly makes sense. Burning natural gas emits about half the CO2 per unit energy as oil, and less than half that of coal. The most efficient way of transporting natural gas overland is by pipeline (it doesn’t have to be liquefied, which reduces the required compression power). Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is less efficient, due to the energy required to run refrigeration compressors, but it is a feasible means to ship natural gas over the oceans from where it is found to where it is needed.

Since Germany foolishly shut down many of their nuclear plants, and the natural gas pipeline from Russia was blown up, LNG from the United States will come in handy there next winter. It works much better than solar at high latitudes in cloudy weather.

Since the development of fracking in the Marcellus Shale formation in PA and OH, natural gas has become the USA’s most abundant energy resource. It also emits less real pollutants (nitrogen and sulfur oxides, and particulates) per unit energy than other fossil fuels, and hopefully cooler heads will prevail on our hugely popular (81 million votes???) president not to ban gas stoves.

It may not really be necessary to limit CO2 emissions, but for those who want that, the best way is natural gas in the short term, nuclear energy in the long term. We can leave the windmills to Don Quixote.

Gregg Eshelman
July 18, 2023 9:19 pm

I’m 52 years old. My mother was born in 1944. When we toured a replica of a building from one of the Japanese internment camps she said “This is nicer than the first house I lived in. It has electricity and indoor plumbing!”. Many of those Japanese families stayed in this area, they got sweet deals on farmland as compensation. But most of those farms have been sold off by their grandchildren. Used to be Japanese names on lots of fruit and vegetable boxes around here.

So much change in just one or two generations. When my parents were born (dad in 1938), electric lights, radios, and toasters were the height of technology. When I was born in 1971 we were just about to *stop* sending people to the Moon.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gregg Eshelman
July 19, 2023 4:56 am

Yes, and we don’t want to forget the Italians and Germans who were also locked up during World War II.

If we don’t mention that white people were also locked up during World War II, then some people might get the erroneous impression that locking up the Japanese was done for racist reasons, and we wouldn’t want that. All those groups were locked up for security reasons. Justified or not, it wasn’t because of racism.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 21, 2023 5:29 pm

We didn’t lock up every person of German or Italian descent living in 3 states. We only locked up a few percent of the Germans and Italians of foreign citizenship, and only when there were individual grounds for suspicion. But persons of Japanese descent were locked up just for living in California, Oregon, and Washington. There’s a huge difference there, and that difference was racism.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights