Damn this is good. And not just because Emmet mentions me or our new docuseries. (Although I do not object to that.)
I love this section and really wish I written it:
I no longer find the climate-oriented view of energy policy viable for stewarding our industrial commons. I want to move beyond climatism and environmentalism as the prisms through which we view energy and industry. Why should we feel ashamed for the achievements of our civilization and all the sacrifice they demanded? Why should we surrender the patrimony of our Declaration and natural rights to ecology, as many environmentalists have called for?
It is all so much blackmail, a cross between delusion and sabotage.
One conclusion that immediately leaps out is that allowing wind and solar power onto the grid results in a "tragedy of the commons".
They consume the redundancy and margins that were built into the grid to deal with excursions and extraordinary events in order to manage their everyday operations, leaving no margin and no reserve for emergencies.
I love the language and conceptualization of the article.
Adding to my earlier comment, along the lines of your appeal. I have addressed [Progressive, Liberal] Unitarian-Universalist congregations twice now, including this aside during discussion of Conservation as Salvation:
"In fact, it’s a queer thing for the Progressive to become obsessed with capping our energy usage. A great part of our progressive human spirit is invested in creative improvements to our shared well-being and exploration of the unknown. Energy is the currency of these endeavors."
Just wonderful stuff. I think a lot of people in the US and around the world are ready for this kind of positive vision of the future. You are the bard leading the world out of doomerism!
LWRs, PEMs & SOECs are all current technologies and all eminently scalable
LWRs for base load electricity
LWRs + PEMs for diurnal and seasonal load following of grid demand
LWRs + SOECs for the most cost effective manufacture of NEH
Because of the humongous energy density of uranium, the numbers needed to meet the total energy
demand of any nation or region will be minimal
Because the numbers are minimal, the impending Copper Crunch and other energy-mineral 'crunches' will have minimal effect
Because the numbers are minimal, environmental impact, ecosystem destruction and biodiversity loss will all be minimal
Because the numbers are minimal, the investment required is minimal
It's the Occam's Razor solution to decarbonising all sectors of energy use to provide energy at the most affordable prices that will benefit the poorest in society the most (aka the name of the game)
We either solve our energy problem or we perish. Wind and solar are for fools. Carbon hysteria is for tyrants. Our betters are ignorant and they hate us. We deindrialized and now are unable to build anything of consequence, if we wanted to.
mark mills’ digital cathedrals praised the work of server farms and it appears that cloud intelligent software, fission reactors, and container ships are the significant primary tools of human advance in our time. We probably need to add transport balloons to schlep those large reactors to continental spots without waterway access. But the term ‘industrial’ harkens nostalgia for society no less departed than the subsistence agriculture loved by the Malthusians. And now a monster in the Jack Sullivan armed mercantile industrial policy, larding ever more $Ts on subsidies for obsolete and 2nd class domains, inventing new bans and sanctions upon global markets in an effort to partition global commerce and science. Lincoln nor Hamilton could be happy with the electoral straight we’ve worked ourselves to with twin industrial protectionists vying to kill the post war golden goose of global economy of scale. The US does need to restore the full time job, but this won’t come from suppressing trade, spending more on old industry, or even faster growth. Our incubation of new markets continues to generate plenty of wealth, but we can’t influence the operation of creative destruction and the secondary flight from learning new ways of organizing production. Our problem is completely internal, we have everything needed to solve it, we have to make America think harder and this means increasing state capacity to influence and diffuse emerging economy. Apocalypsm and victimology show the results of the intellectual admin class having too much undirected budget, inventing hazard where none exists, creating a cruel munchausen bureaucracy upon the left out. we desperately need that brain power redirected to architecting and constructing state capacity for software based market society. We won’t achieve agreement of philosophies and we should stop trying via politicized culture war. We need a culture of accountability and pragmatic unity of disparate paradigms that arrive at parameters of human socialization, productivity and recovery from different belief systems. The secular paradigm and state structure inherently drains, filters and sanitizes science and practices to remove human endeavor and imperative. With the shrinkage of traditional religion we can’t afford that.
Verbosity, even of such high quality, does not the problem solve.
In nuclear-ready nations [USA] this Occam’s Razor combination of Gen III+ LWRs and nuclear enabled hydrogen (NEH) will rid them of the ‘evils’ of burning fossil fuels (FFs) and return to the economy billions of $s per year, saved from eleiminating FF pollution, not to mention the millions of premature deaths/vile illnesses saved every year too. It could start right now with existing and scalable technologies
And, @Robert Bryce, if you took the time to read it, it might will educate you as to how NPPs will manufacture greener-than-green NEH and how it should be used. It may change your mind from H-for Hype to H for Hope. Plus, there’s a link to a detailed analysis of the savings that could be made in the UK in eliminating FF burning in every sector of energy use.
Damn this is good. And not just because Emmet mentions me or our new docuseries. (Although I do not object to that.)
I love this section and really wish I written it:
I no longer find the climate-oriented view of energy policy viable for stewarding our industrial commons. I want to move beyond climatism and environmentalism as the prisms through which we view energy and industry. Why should we feel ashamed for the achievements of our civilization and all the sacrifice they demanded? Why should we surrender the patrimony of our Declaration and natural rights to ecology, as many environmentalists have called for?
It is all so much blackmail, a cross between delusion and sabotage.
Preach it, Emmet. Preach.
"it harangues us with the same question over and over again: what won’t we sacrifice to save ourselves?"
And we won't even save ourselves. The prescribed cure is worse than the disease.
I like the concept of the "industrial commons".
One conclusion that immediately leaps out is that allowing wind and solar power onto the grid results in a "tragedy of the commons".
They consume the redundancy and margins that were built into the grid to deal with excursions and extraordinary events in order to manage their everyday operations, leaving no margin and no reserve for emergencies.
I love the language and conceptualization of the article.
Adding to my earlier comment, along the lines of your appeal. I have addressed [Progressive, Liberal] Unitarian-Universalist congregations twice now, including this aside during discussion of Conservation as Salvation:
"In fact, it’s a queer thing for the Progressive to become obsessed with capping our energy usage. A great part of our progressive human spirit is invested in creative improvements to our shared well-being and exploration of the unknown. Energy is the currency of these endeavors."
Just wonderful stuff. I think a lot of people in the US and around the world are ready for this kind of positive vision of the future. You are the bard leading the world out of doomerism!
Absolutely magnificent. I might have more to offer at some point, but for now I'll just savor it.
This image is what pulled me in. Subscribed.
Great. You have hit them all: Lincoln, Gettysburg, nuclear power!
Two great ruminations about the future of Americans’ ideals, practicality, and work ethics. Thanks to both of you. Thanks to the insights of Juice.
You should be proud of this! You have folded in so much that is important ... and rarely seen.
Forget SMRs
LWRs, PEMs & SOECs are all current technologies and all eminently scalable
LWRs for base load electricity
LWRs + PEMs for diurnal and seasonal load following of grid demand
LWRs + SOECs for the most cost effective manufacture of NEH
Because of the humongous energy density of uranium, the numbers needed to meet the total energy
demand of any nation or region will be minimal
Because the numbers are minimal, the impending Copper Crunch and other energy-mineral 'crunches' will have minimal effect
Because the numbers are minimal, environmental impact, ecosystem destruction and biodiversity loss will all be minimal
Because the numbers are minimal, the investment required is minimal
It's the Occam's Razor solution to decarbonising all sectors of energy use to provide energy at the most affordable prices that will benefit the poorest in society the most (aka the name of the game)
https://colinmegson.substack.com/p/the-cost-of-powering-the-uk-with-85e?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
We either solve our energy problem or we perish. Wind and solar are for fools. Carbon hysteria is for tyrants. Our betters are ignorant and they hate us. We deindrialized and now are unable to build anything of consequence, if we wanted to.
Now what?
mark mills’ digital cathedrals praised the work of server farms and it appears that cloud intelligent software, fission reactors, and container ships are the significant primary tools of human advance in our time. We probably need to add transport balloons to schlep those large reactors to continental spots without waterway access. But the term ‘industrial’ harkens nostalgia for society no less departed than the subsistence agriculture loved by the Malthusians. And now a monster in the Jack Sullivan armed mercantile industrial policy, larding ever more $Ts on subsidies for obsolete and 2nd class domains, inventing new bans and sanctions upon global markets in an effort to partition global commerce and science. Lincoln nor Hamilton could be happy with the electoral straight we’ve worked ourselves to with twin industrial protectionists vying to kill the post war golden goose of global economy of scale. The US does need to restore the full time job, but this won’t come from suppressing trade, spending more on old industry, or even faster growth. Our incubation of new markets continues to generate plenty of wealth, but we can’t influence the operation of creative destruction and the secondary flight from learning new ways of organizing production. Our problem is completely internal, we have everything needed to solve it, we have to make America think harder and this means increasing state capacity to influence and diffuse emerging economy. Apocalypsm and victimology show the results of the intellectual admin class having too much undirected budget, inventing hazard where none exists, creating a cruel munchausen bureaucracy upon the left out. we desperately need that brain power redirected to architecting and constructing state capacity for software based market society. We won’t achieve agreement of philosophies and we should stop trying via politicized culture war. We need a culture of accountability and pragmatic unity of disparate paradigms that arrive at parameters of human socialization, productivity and recovery from different belief systems. The secular paradigm and state structure inherently drains, filters and sanitizes science and practices to remove human endeavor and imperative. With the shrinkage of traditional religion we can’t afford that.
Verbosity, even of such high quality, does not the problem solve.
In nuclear-ready nations [USA] this Occam’s Razor combination of Gen III+ LWRs and nuclear enabled hydrogen (NEH) will rid them of the ‘evils’ of burning fossil fuels (FFs) and return to the economy billions of $s per year, saved from eleiminating FF pollution, not to mention the millions of premature deaths/vile illnesses saved every year too. It could start right now with existing and scalable technologies
https://colinmegson.substack.com/p/how-nuclear-enabled-hydrogen-neh?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
And, @Robert Bryce, if you took the time to read it, it might will educate you as to how NPPs will manufacture greener-than-green NEH and how it should be used. It may change your mind from H-for Hype to H for Hope. Plus, there’s a link to a detailed analysis of the savings that could be made in the UK in eliminating FF burning in every sector of energy use.
Care to Power-Hungry debate it?
Existing nuclear is being sidelined by wind and solar ruining margins.
New nuclear is prohibitively expensive in the US if not around the world compared to the best alternatives. So where do you stand?