David Archibald
One of the first things that the new administration can be expected to do will be to issue a report saying that global warming is nonsense. The last time that Trump was President, he met with Will Happer, the distinguished professor of physics at Princeton, prior to inauguration in order to get the report underway. Unfortunately the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, had his ear and suggested that Republican women wouldn’t take kindly to global warming being killed off. So no report was issued and the good Professor Happer went back to Princeton. Global warming is still with us due to the baleful influence of Jared Kushner. Eight years have been lost.
No government on the planet has issued a report saying that global warming is a fiction; neither has any university. Global warming is the chief religion of the globalists. It is their moral cover for killing and tormenting the rest of us. Without global warming to justify their rules on gas stoves, vacuum cleaners and washing machines, they would just be psychopaths.
That’s the past. The report can be expected soon after inauguration. And that in turn will leave a vacuum in terms of energy policy. Don’t worry about President Trump’s promise to cut energy prices by at least half in his first year. Oil rig numbers are in a downtrend at the current oil price. Nobody is going to dig or drill faster without the oil price going up. The only reason the price of natural gas is low at the moment is because the tight oil wells in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico are increasing the ratio of gas to oil produced. That is a bad sign, not a good sign, because it means that the rate of reservoir pressure decline is increasing, in turn meaning that the rate of oil production from each well will decline faster.
So what is the big picture on energy? First of all, we know what not to do and that is add more solar panels and wind turbines. Our grandchildren won’t inherit those things; their fate is to be landfill. Fortunately the big tech companies have broken the logjam on small nuclear reactors and a nuclear renaissance is underway. In theory the Federal Government should stand aside and let the market sort out what is the best nuclear technology.
But there are a couple of things the new Trump administration could do speed things up and reduce risk for commercial operators which will ultimately result in faster adoption of new technology with lower prices for consumers.
Firstly, we need a third phase of synfuels research in the US. The first phase, in the late 1940s in Pike County, Missouri, was a Bergius plant making synthetic oil from coal. German engineers helped get it operating. The second phase resulted in the building of the Great Plains Synfuels Plant in Beulah, North Dakota in 1984. Unfortunately, at the time it was thought that the US had a natural gas shortage more than an oil shortage so it was optimised on producing synthetic natural gas. This was as a result of the Natural Gas Act of 1938. Price restrictions on natural gas were finally lifted by 1993, providing an incentive to find natural gas which in turn lowered prices, impacting the Beulah plant’s profitability. The plant has recently been optimised to make nitrogen fertilisers.
As an aside on the subject of fertilisers, in 2021 the country of Sri Lanka, in a fit of eco-religious ecstasy, ran an experiment in which synthetic fertilisers were banned. Rice production fell 30%, tea production fell 20% and vegetable production fell up to 40%. The government was overthrown and starvation narrowly avoided.
Why we need a third phase of synfuels research is that there are signs that tight oil production looks like it is about to tip over into decline. Once the oil price goes through $110 per barrel, plants converting coal to synthetic liquid fuels should become profitable. But it would be better to use hydrogen produced by electrolysis with power from nuclear reactors rather than steam-reforming part of the process stream. That would make our coal reserves last longer. And it hasn’t been done before because it has been assumed that coal would always remain cheap. With the bogeyman of carbon dioxide killed off, converting coal to diesel and gasoline will be the next big thing. Anyone with a coal deposit will effectively own an oil deposit of the same energy content, less the cost of conversion.
The second big thing that the Trump administration could do is build one or more demonstration plants for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. At the moment the nuclear power industry in the US produces 2,000 tons per annum of spent nuclear fuel per annum, adding to the current pile of 90,000 tonnes. The current dominant nuclear technology worldwide is U235-burning light water reactors. Which is wasteful in the extreme. Under that technology, uranium as dug out of the ground is processed to enrich the U235 content from 0.7% to 3.5%. What is left over is 86% of the original uranium which is effectively discarded as depleted uranium, now 99.8% U238. The only thing it is used for is depleted uranium antitank rounds, even though weight for weight, if bred to plutonium it will produce the same amount of energy as U235.
For the 14% of the uranium that makes it into fuel rods, only one thirtieth of that is burnt to produce energy. Which means that of the original mined uranium, a mere 0.4% is used to produce power. This process, which has been going on for decades, is incredibly wasteful. It is like killing cattle and only eating the tongue.
It has been assumed that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is expensive, more expensive than mining uranium at a yellowcake price up to perhaps $250/lb. But what SpaceX has shown private operators can replace some government monopolies for 10% of the latter’s operating costs. The solution may be as simple as putting the spent nuclear fuel through a molten salt reactor, producing power while separating out the actinides. We won’t know until we start and the important thing is to start early in 2025.
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
MIT spinout TransAtomic put out a detailed molten salt reactor engineering plan that would use as fuel the ‘spent’ uranium from conventional reactors. Got no traction then. Wrote about it in essay Going Nuclear in ebook Blowing Smoke. I archived the TransAtomic paper if anyone wants a copy and cannot locate it on the web.
The latest TransAtomic press release is dated January 30, 2017.
Coincidentally, assets of Fulcrum Bioenergy (syncrude from municipal waste) are being auctioned today.
https://ethanolproducer.com/articles/assets-of-fulcrum-sierra-biofuels-fulcrum-bioenergy-to-be-sold-via-bankruptcy-auction
This idea is even more idiotic than FT plants sucking in fracked gas – the amounts coming out of biowaste generated synfuels is so small that the capital cost repayment burden is even worse.
Fresh out of college, I worked for Exxon from ’78 to ’80 in their Baytown TX refinery. Nearby the demonstration plant for the “Donor Solvent Process” for converting coal to liquid fuels was being completed and started up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_donor_solvent_process
When will the economics make sense? No one knows. But the eventual tightening of oil extraction is no reason to abandon liquid hydrocarbon fuels for transport, agriculture, process heating, etc. The energy density, reliability, convenient storage, and ease of refueling cannot be matched. You might come close with CNG or LNG for certain uses.
The sooner we abandon the “CO2 causes climate harm” scare the better. Ditch ALL of the “carbon accounting” nonsense in the corporate world. That would save a bundle just by itself.
I wrote about this rather extensively in Ebook Gaia’s Limits. The peak of conventional oil production was in 2007, about as predicted when using a correct gamma function rather than Hubbert’s incorrect 1956 logistics function. My asymetrical gamma function fit was based on North Slope and North Sea. The peak of conventional plus unconventional (tar sands, fracked shale oil) is about now. But because of the gamma function, the decline will be slow for several decades, with a very long tail thereafter.
Converting coal to liquid fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet) apparently becomes economic somewhere between $120 and $150/bbl depending on process details and based on current pilot line information—so we won’t run out of essential liquid fuels for several centuries.
I recently read that Russians claimed that there are 500,000 million metric tons of oil in the British sector of Antarctica. Is this for real? If it is, we have nothing to worry about.
Because the UK government will ban drilling for that too?
I can’t wait for winter to come. Hopefully, Mother Nature will slap sense into Mad Ed and crazy greenie wackos.
Dunno how the Russians would know the geology of the British sector—under a mile of ice.
Search “oil in antarctica” There is interesting info on this. In addition to oil there is lots of natural gas. There is basin in the ocean that might have 135 billion barrels of oil
Again, you can get a market share in future technologies, or lead the US into irrelevance
(Warning: PDF file, may download on your Computer)
The Cleantech Revolution
It’s exponential, disruptive, and now
https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/07/RMI-Cleantech-Revolution-pdf-1.pdf
Beside that, trump is not going to win without a coup.
To get a market share in future technologies, you must first predict the future. I don’t trust my senator to predict future technology.
Plus failure aversion when spending other people’s (children’s?) money against their will.
After pick-a-number straight years of peacetime deficit spending, I wonder what taxes are for.
For partially reducing inflation.
“To get a market share in future technologies, you must first predict the future.”
You don’t have to predict the future. You just have to come up with something in the present that actually works better than what works now. (It’s cheaper, it works better, it’s more reliable, etc.)
Renewables fail every test except in a few niche applications.
There is no “existential threat” from Man’s CO2. It’s nuts for Government to force people to adopt what is more expensive, doesn’t work better, is not more reliable, etc.
(Unless Governments’ goal is more power, as in authority, for those in “power”.
For such “intellectual” elites, they only need “We the People” to get the power.
After that they only need us to keep “The Farm House” well stocked.
(Animal Farm reference.)
Poor luser .. there has already been a coup… that is how the Dems got the Kamal.
That there is that mindless generic propaganda pap from the low-end RMI morons that has inserted itself into you tiny little mind.
Once the Kamal gets its nose under the tent…..
Guardian of the Narrative.
In future technologies? You mean those not invented yet? What is the failure rate of not making it to market? 😉
Shuttup, greasy troller.
“That’s the past. The report can be expected soon after inauguration.”
Weird line in an article predicting the future. Out of context but I had a “what thu” moment.
Likewise. It would be nice if it happened, but I’m not holding my breath.
“The last time that Trump was President, he met with Will Happer, the distinguished professor of physics at Princeton, prior to inauguration in order to get the report underway.” ARCHIBALD
That statement is a lie
Happer has never denied global warming, In fact he predicts more global warming in the future. Only a fool would deny the global warming since 1975. Happer is no fool.
The statement about Jared Kushner is also a lie. The true story is below
The cheerleading for synfuels is claptrap
Free market capitalism would be no government mandates or subsidies, so that private industry was free to choose the best sources of power for their customers. The author apparently does not believe in free market capitalism. He wants the government to push synfuels.
He thinks HE has a better path for everyone else, perhaps biased by prior connections with the oil industry
Trump has never made an intelligent statement on climate science … but he instinctively did not like the Paris Accord voluntary agreement. He once said climate change was a Chinese hoax.
The first thing Trump needs to do if he is not cheated out of a victory again, is to stop calling CO2 a pollutant. He failed to get that done in his first four years as President.
According to a landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision, the EPA is authorized to consider carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, meaning they can regulate it as such; essentially allowing the EPA to “call CO2 a pollutant.
In October 2024, the Supreme Court, with three Trump justices, allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to move ahead with its plans to limit carbon emissions by power plants.
2017:
Under former President Barack Obama, the United States helped craft the Paris climate conference, a landmark international accord designed to curb carbon emissions that are the main cause of climate change. But as a candidate, Trump threatened to withdraw the United States from what he has called a “bad deal,” arguing the accord would kill off jobs through its voluntary goals for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
It’s unclear how Trump will come down on the issue, but for his inner circle, the battle lines are drawn. On one side are Trump’s daughter Ivanka, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who are lobbying the president to keep the United States in the deal, several sources tell FP. On the other side of the argument: White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, both of whom reject climate change science.
“Straightforward calculations … show that eliminating U.S. CO2 emissions by the year 2050 would avoid a temperature increase of 0.0084 degrees Celsius,” states a brief paper authored by Drs. Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Happer, Princeton University; and William A. van Wijngaarden, York University, Toronto. On the Fahrenheit scale, the value of averted warming is 0.015 degrees.
In short, the amount of warming averted by eliminating CO2 emissions in the United States would be too small to measure. The paper bolsters the position of those who argue that a changing climate is the product of natural forces, that human-induced carbon dioxide emissions can have only a minuscule effect on global temperature, and that CO2 is a valuable plant food and not a pollutant.
Eliminating US CO2 emissions by 2050?
That’s a green dreamer’s fantasy land
The US, and about 19 other nations, are not likely to eliminate CO2 emissions from their electric utilities by 2050. Electricity is typically only 20% to 25% of primary energy consumption.
The other 175 nations could not care less about CO2
The probability of te rise of atmospheric CO2stopping its 150 year rise by 2050 is near zero.
Happer has a low estimate of the ECS of CO2 but even doubling or tripling his estimate would not make much difference.
More CO2 in the atmosphere means more life on our planet.
How the F*%^$$&(^ can anyone claim to know what will be going on in 2050?
And where’s my flying car that respected science magazines were assuming 50 years ago!?
The Paris climate collective never got ratified as a Treaty did it?
Paris Accord is voluntary with no punishments for meeting arbitrary targets. Kushner ad Ivanka wanted to remain in for political reasons — they didn’t care about global warming. The US electric utility transition from coal to natural gas had made us the only nation meeting the Paris targets at that time.
So a totally irrelevant entity to the USA.
What’s the problem with Trump dumping it??
Right, who cares what Kushner and Ivanka think?
Richard Greene is sometimes hard to listen to, be he is correct that staying in the Paris Accord would have political advantages, sort of like the way China is ‘in’, makes bold promises for the future, and yet nothing dramatically changes. PR stunt.
However, most people want honesty not political greenwashing BS.
In the long run, coming out with a concise, documented, easy to understand proof of how CO2 and Climate Change™ are not at all a threat to anyone and staying on that message would be great for everyone.
One could also make the case that working from ” the inside “, going along the the green idiot nations and trying to steer the green Titanic to safer areas would be the best especially since political opinions have become dogma. However that’s like countries in the past trying to get along with Nazi or Communist states, eventually you get infected, not that you cure them.
Will Happer himself told me what went on.
“The last time that Trump was President, he met with Will Happer, the distinguished professor of physics at Princeton, prior to inauguration in order to get the report underway.” ARCHIBALD
That statement is a lie.
How do you know? Archibald says he heard of the meeting from Happer. How do you know he is not only wrong in saying there was such a meeting, but deliberately lying about it? You are claiming that not only was there not such a meeting, but that Archibald knows there was not.
You don’t know any such thing. You are just making stuff up. Stop it!
Its is RG’s coping mechanism for his jealousy.
He know he is an insignificant, scientifically ill-informed, egotistical twit…
.. and that there is nothing he can do about that..
So he lashes out any one better than him… which is most people.
He has produce zero evidence that the statement is incorrect, instead went of on his own ignorant meandering word-salad.
—-
“Trump has never made an intelligent statement on climate science”
This coming from RG is the height of irony… look in the mirror, dickie-boi !!
White House prepares to scrutinize intelligence agencies’ finding that climate change threatens national securityWaPo 2019 https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-readies-panel-to-assess-if-climate-change-poses-a-national-security-threat/2019/02/19/ccc8b29e-3396-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html
He was to put forward arguments to counter that CO2 from fossil fuels was responsible for the warming.
I can’t wait for the pussy hat marches and the people in white scientists lab coat marches….it will be awesome watching their collective heads explode.
The statement that he met with Trump is a lie? There is no AGW denial even inferred in the quoted text.
The environmental movement really has become a fanatical cult. I could say Climate Change™ is garbage, and mean not that climate in general doesn’t change or that human can’t effect it at all, but mean that the political movement and its apocalyptic claims are BS. But one gets attacked by true believers and woke possessed media on any comment, and they twist the words and take it out of context, on purpose.
They don’t care about the truth or the planet – only power.
Another massive Greene TDS Bloviation (skipped, unread).
You confuse. Did anyone in the original statement say that Will Happer was other than a skeptical scientist?
Unfortunately the graphic at the lead is misleading. A single shovel at a minesite uses on on order of 5 MW(e). To supply the needs of a medium sized mine (4 shovels and a plant) would probably require 60-100 MW. If diesel use is curtailed and trolley systems need to be installed to electrify the trucks ( figure a fleet of 20-30 operating at a time for the theoretical mine above) would each draw between 2.5 and 5 MW(e) depending on their size.
Maybe a ski resort would have been better for the graphic? This detracts nothing from the quality of the article, but I suspect that few consider just how much energy is consumed by industrial activities.
Which graphic are you writing about? The one here shows different sizes of nuclear reactors, nothing to do with mining. Maybe this article has been updated or are you referring to some other article linked to in this one?
So many things wrong with the above article that one hardly knows where to begin:
1. Assumption that Donald Trump will be the next US President.
2. Assumption that the next administration in the US will “issue a report saying that global warming is nonsense”.
3. The statement “Global warming is the chief religion of the globalists.” In fact, global warming is clearly in evidence scientifically starting about 12,000 years ago, and is the expected result of the Earth entering an interglacial period that should last 20,000–30,000 years based on the warm portions of the last ten or so 100,000 year-periods associated with glacial-interglacial cycles of Earth’s climate. Without semi-regular periods of global warming, Earth would have remained continuously in “ice house” conditions associated with the current Quaternary Ice Age that began about 2 million years ago.
4. The statement “Fortunately the big tech companies have broken the logjam on small nuclear reactors and a nuclear renaissance is underway.” is simply BS. To author David Archibald, please list the number and locations of SMRs that are currently producing commercial-scale electricity anywhere in the world . . . and please list those that will be built and licensed to operate in the US in the next ten years. Has there even been a proof-of-concept commercial scale SMR power plant demonstrated anywhere in the US to-date? . . . I think not.
5. The statement “But what SpaceX has shown private operators can replace some government monopolies for 10% of the latter’s operating costs” is farcical . . . the US government has never had a monopoly on space launches, and has ALWAYS relied on commercial companies to provide the hardware it uses to launch payloads into space. What SpaceX has really shown is that a wealthy individual can contribute his/her money, in combination with continued Government funding and technology assistance, to reduce the cost of access to space, but nowhere near a 90% reduction of such cost.
I agree with your first four points but you are mistaken about SpaceX. They have achieved a 90% reduction in costs, no thanks to the government (other than providing a commercial service), and further reductions appear imminent.
The cost per kg of payload launched varies widely due to the location of the launch site, final orbit of the payload (LEO, MEO, GEO, lunar, interplanetary, equatorial, polar, etc), the mass category of payload (smallsat, medium, large, largest), the number of payloads deployed per launch, custom requirements (interface adapters, LV power supply to payload, security measures, required cleanliness levels, etc), market supply and demand fluctuations, and contract negotiations (e.g., single versus multiple launches of the same payload). Also, there are economies of scales with larger launch vehicles and greater use of the maximum payload capacity of a larger payload shroud vs those parameters for a smaller launches, given the more-or-less fixed costs of launching any single vehicle from the same launch site (the infrastructure cost amortization, the launch crew labor, the vehicle tracking,TLM and data handling, and the range safety-related costs). These varying cost and requirements makes supplier pricing comparisons, on a per kg payload basis, problematic.
However, notwithstanding the above, a Web search reveals the following approximate pricing comparisons for commercial “heavy-lift” class launchers (defined here as able to put 15,000 kg or more payload into LEO) of payload put into low-earth orbit (LEO):
Falcon 9 (22,800 kg to LEO): ~$2,700/kg
Falcon 9 Heavy (38,000+ kg to LEO): ~$1,500/kg
Ariane 5 (21,000 kg to LEO): ~$8,500/kg
So, based on the closest comparison of payload mass put into LEO, the Falcon 9 cost/kg payload was 2,700/8,500 = 32% that of Ariane 5, equivalent to a 68% reduction in cost and nowhere near a 90% reduction in cost.
You #3 explanation is strange. The west is marching towards nut zero. I consider the collective west globalists…do you?
No.
Number 3 clearly refers to human caused global warming.
Number 4 refers to the very recent deals inked by “big tech” (Microsoft, Google, and Amazon) to power their data centers and AI with electricity provided by nuclear. Google and Amazon are using SMRs; Microsoft is restarting an old nuclear plant.
There have been commercial SMRs in the US (e.g., Peach Bottom Unit 1). Fort St Vrain, in Colorado, was just slightly larger than the current definition of an SMR.
China has built and started its first commercial-scale SMR (google HTR-PM), which went into commercial operation last year. Expect China to build many more of them.
Huh? . . . I specifically referred to the most recent global warming period starting about 12,000 years ago, and to prior episodes of global warming going back “ten or so 100,000 year-periods”. I DO NOT believe humans caused any of those events, by using fossil fuels or in any other manner.
I carefully note your use of the present tense. Please inform me and other WUWT readers of exactly where those currently active SMRs are located and who operates them. 😳
No, there have been NO commercial SMRs in the US . . . that is, SMRs producing power for sale commercially.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peach_Bottom_Nuclear_Generating_Station :
“Peach Bottom Unit 1 was an experimental helium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor. It operated from 1966 to 1974.”
(my bold emphasis added)
Moreover, according to https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/us-opens-applications-900-million-small-nuclear-reactors-2024-10-16/ , dated October 16, 2024:
“But no U.S. commercial SMR has been built yet.”
(again, my bold emphasis added)
Facts matter.
“Global warming is the chief religion of the globalists.”
Why do you and other “true believers” of the green cult always pretend that those of us seeking and standing up for the truth are denying climate change when it is obvious we are complaining about Climate Change™, the totalitarian political movement that is lying and scheming to get power and money?
You quote past climate – well if the past has been warmer and colder than now, without any help from human activity, how does that support your cultish beliefs that a few degrees of warming will be a catastrophe? The past century of warming has been nothing short than a gift to humanity and no where in the past have we been more prosperous and healthy, even if you only focus on the ‘global south’.
Sorry to upset your apple cart, but:
a) I am not a ” ‘true believer’ of the green cult“,
b) AFAIK, none of my actions are characterized by the term “always” . . . I am not that perfect,
c) Quite simply, I do not “pretend” . . . never have, and never intend to do so. How about you?
Good grief!. . . however did you arrive at a conclusion that I ever stated or believed such a thing??? A review of every single comment I have ever made on WUWT will clearly show that I HAVE NEVER made any such assertion!
As far as your remote, armchair psychoanalysis goes, it’s back to introductory classes for you. In the meantime, I can only gently suggest you look up the meaning of the logical fallacy in debate that is known as the “straw man argument”.
The US has much more coal (300 years supply) than oil and gas combined.
In 300 years maybe fusion will arrive.
How long will this coal last when it has to substitute oil and gas in the future? With rising energy demand?
Malthusian nightmares have been around since 1798. You’re a little late predicting the future that never happened. That’s what happens when people ignore innovation.
Like renewables.
Just because something is new doesn’t prove it’s innovative.
Wind and solar are backward innovation. they DOES NOT meet the requirements of reliable electricity supply.
Like your intellect.. zero steps forward.. 3 steps back
Windmills are 12th century tech.
Solar panels are 19th century tech.
You have a strange definition of “innovation”
There is nothing “renewable” about them. They consume resources that cannot be easily repurposed and require support by conventional means for an energy contribution that is not suitable for purpose in anything but a marginal role. They are “innovations” that can only be appreciated by Rube Goldberg.
It could last forever.
If only we knew how long “forever” was.
So many questions, Grasshopper.
And resources are explored to an agreed drilling density to proven (or have a high probability of, or “we think it is likely that from this we can infer…”) how much is there for future use. With coal, until you hit a fault or formation change, the coal keeps going. And it doesn’t flow around much within porous formations like oil and gas can.
If we look at geological limits instead of “currently drilled” then the amount of coal in the US is probably closer to 2000 years supply at current prices. Part of why I say this is that Canada is getting a lot of coal out of the Rocky Mountains, the the US has just scratched the surface there. When the price starts rising dur to scarcity then more will become available.
Thorium Liquid Salts Cooled Reactors can provide abundant cheap safe electric power. A startup company is recycling used asphalt shingles into fuels.
. . . and a company yet-to-be-founded will be making cold-fusion powered automobiles and refrigerators.
I believe it’s called “Mr. Fusion”. A guy named Doc Brown was promoting it for automotive use.
It only powered the flux capacitor. The car’s engine still ran on gas.
Are you sure? Even the hover, flying mode? Actually sorry now I remember the scene with them running out of gas… and they have a nuclear reactor in the back!
Plot hole!
It is a catastrophe when pragmatism takes the place of truth. Let us pray that Trump gets re-elected and gets Happer’d views on man made global warming myths once again into the public domain.
By :”global warming is a fiction” I hope you mean that as shorthand for “global warming is not a significant problem and does not justify expensive policies that kill reliable energy.”
There is a teeny, weeny bit of warming from CO2. Which will be lost in the noise of the system.
What has been interesting in recent years is the rise of the physicists. It seems now that as soon as someone is given the Nobel Prize for Physics, they come out and say that global warming is nonsense. As good scientists, they are offended that science is being traduced in this manner.
It’s been great that they finally found the courage to speak out against the CO2 nonsense, now that they have some protection that the Nobel gives them financially and to their reputation and career.
Green eco-nazis won’t let one used simplified language and will attack at any openings to protect their cult.
Might be easier to say that the past warming has been great for the planet, natural or not, and the few extra degrees predicted in obviously flawed models will be a bonus, and are not enough to justify hysteria and a doomsday cult.
This is not true. Natural gas trades at negative price at the well head in the Permian basin. It is a waste product from oil production that costs oil companies to handle it. Natural gas already has a developed technology to hydrogen production, and is the cheapest source of hydrogen for every use.
Natural gas can easily be produced from coal and from waste streams, and has the advantage of also being used to provide coke for carbon.
Meanwhile there are well developed processes for producing synthetic fuels, plastics, and lubricants from natural gas, and proven processes for producing ammonia fertilizers from the same feedstocks.
We don’t need a third phase of synthetic fuel research, what is needed is a concentrated period of development and exploitation of natural gas. We’ve got much better uses for the output from nuclear reactors.
Will the production profile of natural gas be a peak or a plateau? More likely a peak with production falling at much the same rate it rose at. This will be wrenching for those who set themselves up on the basis that cheap natural gas will be forever.
Leaving aside the politics (and the Dems), I think much of the dilemma faced by commentators lies in their incomplete grasp of all sides of the problem. I found this essay very illuminating: https://fusion4freedom.com/understanding-e-mc2/
The role of nuclear is to rapidly flatten the fuel-usage /demand curve and thereby extend the used-by date out along the time-axis. With this scenario, peak-oil, peak-gas and peak coal in either volumes or $$ -terms is impossible to predict – could be a generation away.
All Trump has to do is to get on with it – stop the wars, gather good people around him, drill baby drill, get jobs back on-shore, and unleash Elon Musk.
Only 3 more sleeps, all the best,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch,com.au
Not sure, Bill….Trump’s policies on trade are draconian to say the least. Just as an example, during USMC trade negotiations he temporarily put 30% tarriffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, forest products, aircraft as a negotiating tactic. Canadians have since dropped 9 places in world per capita income, unemployment doubled, the Cdn dollar dropped 20% on world markets. On the plus side he approved the Keystone XL pipeline, but failed to overcome the environmental lobby pushback. I don’t think he can go to the well any more than he has already.
Mexico fared worse. There is a reason thousands cross the border in search of a living.
Thanks DMacKenzie,
Canada’s policies related to energy and agriculture are draconian also – and unpopular and failing. So whether it was the trade deal or not is hard to determine. Australian policies on energy, agriculture immigration … are also failing fast. For similar reasons, Britain and Germany have already failed.
I have been following the US election, not via the MSM (which is failing too), but by listening to (skipping through) entire performances at rallies. That he can draw huge crowds and speak without a teleprompter for up to 2-hours is itself encouraging.
I find it interesting (and counter-intuitive) that tax-cuts actually increase the tax-take, a completely different story to other nations, where excessive spending requires excessive taxation, which of course reduces jobs, changes the structure of the economy and also reduces the tax-take. It is common sense if you think about it. As lack of tariffs export jobs, and high immigration reduces GDP/taxpayer, tariffs and controlled immigration are part of the solution,
In addition, with his policies, Trump can collapse the Paris thing without saying he is doing it – the savings would be huge!
All the best, and good luck America
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Natural gas is not the same as petroleum. Peak cheap oil is a myth that has nothing to do with methane. Natural gas is a natural by-product of both mineral and biological processes. It will be around for as long as the carbon cycle continues.
But even if it wasn’t all that, the electrolysis of hydrogen via electrolysis wastes energy, and the industrial production of methane from electricity would result in a more efficient and better product for storage of energy and handling.
Even given all that, if some future humans wanted to have “natural” methane, it is one of the most plentiful materials in the solar system.
Abiotic methane production in olivine: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1907871116
Abiotic methane production in dolomite with olivine inclusions: https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-024-00609-y
Olivine catalysts for methane production: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926337307004444
Olivine is just one mineral that can produce methane gas. Carbon-rich material (including bio char) can be combined with water or ammonia to produce methane in industrial and in some natural conditions.
Methane from geologic subduction: Massive production of abiotic methane during subduction evidenced in metamorphosed ophicarbonates from the Italian Alpsditto: https://phys.org/news/2022-11-largest-source-abiotic-methane-gas.html
Methane from landfills: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926337307004444
Syngas from waste: https://green.org/2024/01/30/gasification-converting-biomass-and-waste-into-syngas/
Syngas from biomass and waste streams: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-0391/1/1/11
Methane from termites: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.218.4572.563
For nearly a century, coal and petroleum “town gas” was used in the U.S. and UK, using much the same techniques as outlined in the syngas articles, above. These plants were closed when safer and cleaner natural gas became both cheaper and more easily transported. These are well-known technologies that only require modern development and exploitation to be viable.
Here in the US, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and the production of synfuels using nuclear as a source of process heat, will come in their own good time. But not before.
To attempt to accelerate a nuclear expansion above and beyond the process which is now underway, without a clear and pressing need to do so, will damage the prospects for a nuclear future rather than enhance them.
I appreciate your comments but I think it ignores the huge amount of damage the politicians and eco groups have done to the nuclear industry. It needs the politicians to now clean up the mess, get rid of the barriers, and in fact invest in more research and development to make up for the lack of progress of the past half century and to catch up with international rivals like China.
While I embrace David’s acceptance that nuclear is the future of electrical generation, I do not share his view that fossil fuels are reaching the end of their usefulness to humans. We need to move more and more to nuclear power for our generation of electricity. Not to mention nuclear is probably there for many of other functions. We need to take advantage of all fossil fuels as long as they give us what we need. That is a no brainer. When some forms of fossil fuels can no longer fulfill our needs the market will let us know long before the end. The market will also point us in the direction of alternatives. We don’t need naysayers telling us we are doomed.
You lost me when you framed the issue as “…saying that global warming is a fiction”. That misrepresents the reality of a warming world. The issue for Trump or any government is “saying that man’s contribution of the current warming is true but trivial.
Trump should say we need more plant food.
We need more, lots more, of articles like this. Hopefully it will lead to a rapid and large rise in nuclear power plants. We need lots of electricity to power the next big leap in civilisation.
This is a good read and relates to this whole discussion:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/paradigm-shift-here
Sorry, but the notion that “synfuels” is going to work is ludicrous – not least because the plants are already built or being built.
Fischer Tropsch is the actual process of making synthetic fuels. It is a World War 2 era process originally to convert coal to gasoline; using methane instead of coal just simplifies the first step.
But the problem is that the process is extremely complex and energy inefficient. We are talking 40% energy losses (tolerable given the massive $/BTU price differences of gas vs liquid hydrocarbons) and billions of dollars in capital and operating expenses (which is not tolerable).
The Texas FT plant cost $7B (for the Permian). Pennsylvania has basically alloted $6B for another (for the Marcellus) and Cerilon has announced it is building the first phase (of 3?) of another plant in North Dakota for $2.8B (For the Bakken).
What do you get for these billions? 30K to 100K barrels a day of gasoline/green diesel/”advanced synthetic oils” etc etc. Seems like a lot, but not really given that the US consumes 8+ million barrels of gasoline and a little less than another half of that in diesel.
No, if you want to spend money on research – spend it on figuring out how to get more of the 90% of hydrocarbons in the fracking reservoirs that present tech cannot pull out.
Interest look at the energy future. A bit of a reality check regarding nuclear power===>
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2023/07/31/the-first-us-nuclear-reactor-built-from-scratch-in-decades-enters-commercial-operation-in-georgia/
“Georgia Power Co. announced Monday that Unit 3 at Plant Vogtle, southeast of Augusta, has completed testing and is now in commercial operation, seven years late and $17 billion over budget.”
My personal view on the energy future is it will be an “all of the above situation”
Exxon recently hit a “trillion dollar oil patch” in Guyana.============>
https://fortune.com/2024/08/04/exxon-mobil-guyana-1-trillion-oil-bonanza-xom-stock-exploration-drilling/#:~:text=Finance%C2%B7Oil-,The%20untold%20story%20of%20how%20Exxon%20scored%20a%20%241%20trillion,that%2030%20rivals%20passed%20up&text=Exxon%20controls%20a%20block%20that,%241%20trillion%20at%20current%20prices.&text=Scott%20Dyksterhuis%20was%20convinced.
I am advised that spent fuel can be recycled into new fuel.
I read that Ukraine is doing that at one reactor (it has several nuclear power plants).
As for TheMouthX, I assume you are trying to draw a parallel to his eventual success with space launches. (His subsidized electric car business is not revolutionary.)
OPEC just announced increasing oil production to 5M barrels per day over the next few years.