This is the podcast version of the Sustain What discussion I just had with the relentless clean-energy optimist, investor and evangelist Michael Liebreich. Key sections are on the need to switch metrics for success from kilowatt/hours to energy services; the ethics of focusing decarbonization on the most carbonized nations; the potential for energy-hungry
Net zero types won't confront the fact that nuclear competes for resources with wind and solar. They compete for financing, minerals, electrical infrastructure and human expertise. Nuclear clearly uses less minerals and electric infrastructure. There's a decades old Scientific American graph and a new study by Seaver Wang of BTI that show this. Electrifying things competes with electric infrastructure for minerals and other resources.
Wind and solar are intermittent and use lots of land. It's easy to start adding wind and solar, but gets progressively more expensive to reach some elusive goal. With nuclear we have the empirical example of France building 50 some reactors and reaching 70-80% of electricity generation. There are unproven nuclear technologies that offer prospects for reducing the CO2 emissions from process heat. Nuclear should clearly be prioritized.
Andy -- Michael Liebreich is everything you list -- and you can add one more - a fraud in that he has decided to be "blind" to technology he doesn't understand or accept.
In the face of accepted 80 year old college textbook text / spreadsheets/ and visual graphs:
--- explaining "electrical resonance" and how it always develops over-unity electric output power - and
--- professional laboratory test results validating and documenting the fact that the:
--- "resonating tank circuit" always develops "over-unity power development".
he continues to preach his position - which besides being totally self-serving (for his "position" in Society - but also profiting financially from it) by denying what he doesn't understand - either by choice - specifically remaining ignorant - or by design.
Net zero types won't confront the fact that nuclear competes for resources with wind and solar. They compete for financing, minerals, electrical infrastructure and human expertise. Nuclear clearly uses less minerals and electric infrastructure. There's a decades old Scientific American graph and a new study by Seaver Wang of BTI that show this. Electrifying things competes with electric infrastructure for minerals and other resources.
Wind and solar are intermittent and use lots of land. It's easy to start adding wind and solar, but gets progressively more expensive to reach some elusive goal. With nuclear we have the empirical example of France building 50 some reactors and reaching 70-80% of electricity generation. There are unproven nuclear technologies that offer prospects for reducing the CO2 emissions from process heat. Nuclear should clearly be prioritized.
Andy -- Michael Liebreich is everything you list -- and you can add one more - a fraud in that he has decided to be "blind" to technology he doesn't understand or accept.
In the face of accepted 80 year old college textbook text / spreadsheets/ and visual graphs:
--- explaining "electrical resonance" and how it always develops over-unity electric output power - and
--- professional laboratory test results validating and documenting the fact that the:
--- "resonating tank circuit" always develops "over-unity power development".
he continues to preach his position - which besides being totally self-serving (for his "position" in Society - but also profiting financially from it) by denying what he doesn't understand - either by choice - specifically remaining ignorant - or by design.