The lessons of the past decade make it clear that solar, wind and battery technologies cannot be deployed in times of need, are not inherently “clean” or even hydrocarbon-independent, and are not cheap, according to an Institute study. Manhattan.
Governments around the world have spent more than 5 trillion dollars latest Two decades for to subsidize wind, solar, and other so-called renewable energy sources, (BEEF) that in a purely numerical representation, if someone earned 1 dollar per second for a year (24 hours / 7 days a week / 365 days a year) they would earn approx. 31 million dollars per year, it would take nearly 161,000 years to earn that $5 trillion, according to the NOQ Report.
This is an elusive sum of money.
RES is an artificial political solution
Yet even with this astronomical financial backing, The world continues to depend on hydrocarbons by 84% of of its energy needs, a dependency that it attributes in terms of a reduction in barely 2% since governments began overspending on renewables 20 years ago.
This is reported by brand mills in one manhattan Institute Report, which concludes that:
“The lessons of the last decade make it clear that solar, wind and battery technologies cannot be deployed in times of need, are not inherently ‘clean’ or even hydrocarbon-independent, and are not cheap.”
With all this in mind, it should be clear that the so-called BEEF it was a massive drain of resources with no barriers: they are not sustainable for baseload power, even with $5 trillion in subsidies and two decades of effort.
Today, the use of wind and solar energy for mass energy production is one of the contrived political solution where it would not have been elected in a truly free energy market.
Wind and solar energy can be useful in certain situations.
However, it is absurd to claim that they can provide reliable baseload power for an advanced industrial economy.
It’s like trying to push a square peg into a round hole.
Yet governments, the media, academia and celebrities are pushing… en masse for an imminent energy “transition” as if it were a foregone conclusion.
They don’t change by magic
It is shocking and disturbing that many believe that they can magically change themselves. underlying limitations of the economics, chemistry, engineering, and physics of energy production; to match in his “infantile fantasies” and especially in political agendas.
RES cannot replace hydrocarbons soon and surely they will not bring energy security…despite what many “serious” people believe.
When it comes to reliable base load power, most of humanity has only three options:
– hydrocarbons, or coal, oil and gas
– the nuclear energy
– abandon modern civilization for a pre-industrial standard of living.
Other than having friendly aliens visit Earth with magical new energy technology, most nations have no other options.
So with the western governments who intend to become the Greensto impose sanctions on major energy exporters (Russia, Iran, Venezuela) and avoiding hydrocarbons in general (ESG, windfall taxes, limited exploration, burdensome regulations), we come down to a simple choice.
They can go nuclear, which is zero carbon, or abandon reliable electricity, but since they can’t spend that much investment and $5 trillion, it probably won’t be long before Western governments… change (or. … somersault) on nuclear power largely for two reasons.
– Increase in the prices of hydrocarbons.
– Energy security problems.
The ransom is a third minor reason compared to the previous 2.
Increase in hydrocarbon prices
Here it is good to start the analysis from the basics, vague thought and image that lead to vague words: The term “fossil fuel” is an excellent example of this.
When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of dirty technology that belongs to the 19th century.
Many believe that burn dead dinosaurs to fuel their cars.
They also believe that fossil fuels will run out soon and they will destroy the planet within a decade.
None of these absurd things are true, but many people believe them.
The use of misleading and vague language plays an important role.
Hydrocarbons is a much better and more precise word.
A hydrocarbon is a molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms.
These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources like coal, oil, and natural gas.
These energy sources have been the backbone of the world economy for decades, powering industries, transportation, and homes.
Modern civilization has only two options for baseload power: hydrocarbon or nuclear.
There is 4 strong trends which I think will drive hydrocarbon prices up, making nuclear power the only practical alternative and even more attractive than it already is.
1st Trend – The End of the Petrodollar System:
The US government will soon lose its ability to print money to buy energy, an incredible privilege no other country has. This will have significant implications for oil prices.
2nd trend: rampant depreciation of the currency:
Governments around the world have no choice but to participate in an ever-increasing currency devaluation. 2023 could be the year it reaches a crescendo.
3rd Trend – Anti-Coal Hysteria and Underinvestment:
Governments have redirects billions of funds away from nuclear and hydrocarbons and have sent them to wind and solar energy.
In addition, the ESG (Environment-Social-Governance) fad, net-zero emissions targets, and other government policies have led to massive underinvestment in hydrocarbons.
The coal hysteria is expected to reduce supplies and increase prices.
Fourth Trend – Geopolitical Disturbances:
The conflict between Russia (the second largest oil exporter) and Ukraine will not end anytime soon.
Tensions with Iran could explode at any moment.
As a result, geopolitical unrest could easily escalate, causing disruptions in hydrocarbon supplies from Russia and the Middle East.
These are four strong trends driving hydrocarbon shortages and prices significantly higher.
When hydrocarbons become expensive, people look for alternatives. And there is only one: nuclear.
Energy Security = Homeland Security
Secure access to energy, which is essential for all economies and the stability of all countries, is of paramount importance.
For this energy security is national security.
Without energy security, any country is in a vulnerable position.
No sovereign nation can afford to be at the mercy of another for something as critical as energy.
It is not surprising that many governments inevitably turn to nuclear power to ensure their access to reliable energy.
This is because a small amount of uranium can produce a large amount of power in a nuclear power plant.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a pellet of uranium an inch tall can generate as much electricity as a ton of coal, 149 gallons of oil and 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.
It is impractical for countries without a domestic supply of hydrocarbons to store coal, oil, or natural gas for many years.
On the plus side, it is practical for countries to stockpile five years of uranium for nuclear power plants.
The example of Japan
Japan is the third largest economy in the world.
Before the Fukushima disaster, Nuclear plants produced about 30% of Japanese electricity.
After Fukushima, Japan shut down all of its nuclear reactors and its nuclear plants despite a government policy that requires it to store at least five years of energy reserves.
This policy dates back to the early 1970s, when a major regional war in the Middle East disrupted power supplies and shocked Japan, which has no energy resources of its own.
Uranium is the only feasible way for Japan to meet the terms of this policy.
It is not practical for Tokyo to store coal, oil or natural gas for five years.
Japan has made an emergency exception to this policy due to Fukushima.
But without energy security, it finds itself in a vulnerable position against archrival China.
This is especially true if geopolitical turmoil in the Middle East or Eastern Europe disrupts the supply of oil and gas.
It would be a tragic irony if Japan suffered another oil crisis at a time when it suspended the very policy that protected it from such a crisis.
This will give Japan an incentive not to delay restarting its nuclear reactors.
actually japan recently made a dramatic shift to nuclear power because he finally realized that no alternative to meet your energy security needs.
Tokyo has begun restarting its nuclear reactors and implement pro-nuclear policies.
While the Japanese reboots are an important factor in determining the balance of the market, they are not the only one.
Even if Japanese uranium demand never returns, the 150 new reactors in China could create big new demand That will make up for it in the long run.
This is what happens with uranium.
It would not be surprising if hydrocarbon prices rose in the midst of a geopolitical crisis, which would be a catalyst for much higher uranium prices.
Precisely because hydrocarbon prices are expected to skyrocket to unimaginable heights for the reasons mentioned above, Western countries are desperately fighting for energy security.
Perhaps then they will realize, as Japan did, that nuclear power is the only solution.
And when they do, it will fuel the “bull” market for uranium which, however, is already underway…
But precisely because so much has already been invested in RES, the investment continues and is supported by even greater funds, because any change will also need a “forgiveness for mistake…” and this has a great political cost and no politician wants to bear it. !