by Lessons from the past decade clearly show that solar, wind and battery technologies cannot be deployed when needed, are not inherently ‘clean’ or even independent of hydrocarbons, and are not cheap, study finds from the Manhattan Institute
Governments around the world have spent over 5 trillion dollars the last two decades For subsidize wind, solar and other so-called renewable energies, (RES) which, in a purely numerical representation, if someone earned $1 per second for a year (24 hours/7 days a week/365 days a year), they would earn approx. $31 million 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.
The RES is an artificial political solution
However, even with this astronomical financial support, the world still depends on hydrocarbons at 84% of of his energy needs, a dependence he attributed in terms of a reduction of barely 2% since governments started spending too much on renewables 20 years ago.
This is reported by Marc Mills in Manhattan Institute Report, which concludes that:
“The lessons of the past decade clearly show that solar, wind and battery technologies cannot be deployed when needed, are not inherently ‘clean’ or even independent of hydrocarbons, and are not cheap.”
With all of this in mind, it should be clear that the so-called RES it was a massive drain of resources with no barrier: they are unsustainable for baseload electricity, 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 artificial political solution Or he would not have been chosen in a truly free energy market.
Wind and solar power can be useful in some situations.
However, it is ridiculous to claim that they can provide reliable base load power for an advanced industrial economy.
It’s like trying to push a square peg into a round hole.
Yet governments, media, universities and celebrities are all pushing… en masse for an imminent energy “transition”, as if it were a foregone conclusion.
They don’t magically change
It’s shocking and disturbing, so many people believe they can magically change themselves the underlying constraints of the economics, chemistry, engineering and physics of power generation; For match in their “childhood fantasies” and especially in political agendas.
RES cannot quickly and safely replace hydrocarbons they will not bring energy security…despite what many “serious” people think.
When it comes to reliable base load power, most of humanity has only three choices:
– hydrocarbons, or coal, oil and gas
– Nuclear power
– abandon modern civilization for a pre-industrial standard of living.
Other than friendly aliens visiting Earth with new magical energy technology, most nations have no other options.
So, with the western governments that they intend to become the GreensFor impose sanctions on major energy exporters (Russia, Iran, Venezuela) and avoiding hydrocarbons in general (ESG, exceptional taxes, limited exploration, heavy regulations), we come back to a simple choice.
They can either go to nuclear power – which emits zero carbon emissions – or ditch reliable electricity, but since they can’t spend that much investment and $5 trillion, it probably won’t be long before Western governments… are turning (or… somersaulting) on nuclear power largely for two reasons.
– Rise in hydrocarbon prices.
– Energy security issues.
Rescue is a third reason of minor importance compared to the 2 above.
Rise in hydrocarbon prices
Here, it is good to start the analysis with the essential, fuzzy thinking and image leading to vague words: the term “fossil energy” is an excellent example.
When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of dirty technology that dates back to the 1800s.
Many believe that burn dead dinosaurs to power their cars.
They also believe that fossil fuels will soon run out and they will destroy the planet within a decade.
None of these absurd things are true, but a lot of people believe them.
The use of misleading and vague language plays a big role.
Hydrocarbons is a much better and more accurate word.
A hydrocarbon is a molecule composed of carbon and hydrogen atoms.
These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas.
These energy sources have been the backbone of the global economy for decades, providing power to industries, transportation and homes.
Modern civilization has only two options for basic energy – hydrocarbons or nuclear.
There is 4 strong trends which I believe will drive up hydrocarbon prices, 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 that no other country has. This will have significant implications for oil prices.
2nd trend – Creeping currency depreciation:
Governments around the world have no choice but to engage in ever-increasing currency devaluation. 2023 could be the year it reaches a crescendo.
3rd trend – Anti-coal hysteria and under-investment:
Governments have redirects trillions of funds away from nuclear and hydrocarbons and sent them towards wind and solar.
In addition, the ESG (Environment-Social-Governance) craze, net-zero goals and other government policies have led to massive underinvestment in hydrocarbons.
The coal hysteria is expected to reduce supplies and increase prices.
4th trend – Geopolitical unrest:
The conflict between Russia (2nd oil exporter) and Ukraine is not going to 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 that are driving shortages and significantly higher hydrocarbon prices.
When hydrocarbons become expensive, people look for alternatives. And there is only one: nuclear power.
Energy Security = National Security
Security of access to energy, essential to any economy and to the stability of any country, is of the utmost importance.
For that 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’s no surprise that many governments inevitably turn to nuclear ensure their access to reliable energy.
This is due to the fact a small amount of uranium can produce a huge amount of energy in a nuclear power plant.
According to the Institute of Nuclear Energy, a pellet of uranium one inch high can produce 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 that have no domestic hydrocarbon supply to store years’ worth of coal, oil or natural gas.
On the plus side, it is convenient for countries to store five years worth of uranium for nuclear power plants.
The example of Japan
Japan is the third largest economy in the world.
Before the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power plants produced about 30% Japanese electricity.
After Fukushima, Japan has shut down all its nuclear reactors and its nuclear plants despite a government policy requiring 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 energy supplies and shocked Japan, which has no energy resources of its own.
Uranium is the only possible means for Japan to fulfill the conditions of this policy.
It is not practical for Tokyo to store five years of coal, oil or natural gas.
Japan made an emergency exception to this policy because of Fukushima.
But without energy security, it finds itself in a vulnerable position vis-à-vis China, its great rival.
This is especially true if geopolitical unrest in the Middle East or Eastern Europe disrupts oil and gas supplies.
It would be a tragic irony if Japan suffered another oil shock at a time when it was suspending the very policy that protected it from such a shock.
This will encourage Japan not to delay the restart of its nuclear reactors.
In fact, Japan recently made a dramatic shift to nuclear power because he finally realized that there is no alternative to meet its energy security needs.
Tokyo has started restarting its nuclear reactors and implement pro-nuclear policies.
Geopolitical unrest
While Japanese restarts are a major factor in determining market equilibrium, they are not the only ones.
Even if Japanese demand for uranium never returns, the 150 new reactors in China they could create huge new demand which will make up for it in the long run.
Here’s the thing about uranium.
It would not be surprising to see hydrocarbon prices rise in the midst of a geopolitical crisis, which would be a catalyst for much higher uranium prices.
Precisely because hydrocarbon prices are set to reach unimaginable heights for the reasons discussed above, Western countries are desperately struggling for energy security.
Perhaps then they will understand – as Japan did – that nuclear energy is the only solution.
And when they do, it will energize the uranium “bull” market that 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 require a “sorry mistake…” and this has a great political cost and none politician does not want to assume!
www.bankingnews.gr
