Imagine 1970s energy policy being orders of magnitude better than 2020s energy policy. See any windmills, solar panels, or unnecessary transmission? Me, neither. See Nordstream 1 or 2? Nope.
Do you see France having to mine to the center of the earth? Yea, me, neither.🤷♂️
Do you see any kind of "taxonomy" boondogle? Hydrogen pipelines that can't possibly work according to any material science engineer? Nope. uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/madrid-pa…
Do you see any absurd ammonia-energy deals that use way more energy than they can ever produce and have no business case? 🤷♂️ Nope. open.substack.com/pub/doomberg/p…
A 2.54 cm ball of uranium weighs 1 pound (0.45 Kg). Today's spot price is $48.
When less is less: $48 over 100 years doesn't add much corporate profit or make many campaign contributions. For further reading: open.substack.com/pub/bfrandall/…
Ever heard of a Rube Goldberg Machine? Ever want to see a really big one? 1.2.3. 100% unnecessary because 4. works best all by itself. Germany wrecked 17 nuclear reactors because of 1.2.3. + 18 Lignite plants.
If 2022 energy policy makes no sense to you, it's because it's not supposed to make sense to you. It was written by gaZprom and such because $48 for 100 years of energy doesn't make sense to them. open.substack.com/pub/bfrandall/…
Republished this thread on Substack. Free. Subscribe. Share. Just doing my part to leave a better Civilization for my grandkids. Join with me. open.substack.com/pub/bfrandall/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reasonably accurate article but who can spot the absolutely ridiculous lie that's parroted millions of times over as truth? cnbc.com/2021/11/20/ill…
It starts here:
"Meanwhile, legislators were anxious to pass a comprehensive energy bill that moves the state toward 100% clean energy by 2050. The two nuclear plants at issue provided nearly 4,200 megawatts of power," (cont)
"while two others on the edge of viability, Braidwood and LeSalle, provided another 4,700. For reference, 1,000 megawatts of energy will power a mid-size city, according to Bill Gates’ book 'How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.'" So far only one whopping Pinnocchio: (100% clean)
"Nuclear Power is too expensive"
[except for everywhere that it operates]
"Nuclear Power takes too long"
[except everywhere where it has been planned at scale for more than one election cycle] [do you see any windmills-solar panels or batteries in there? me, neither]
Hydrogen has been panned lately, primarily due to challenges with storage and transportation. Distributed, Small-Modular-Reactor-based H2 generation (and O2 production) solves many of these challenges. No pipelines. No Ships.
To be sure, there are significant materials and safety problems to be solved, especially spontaneous combustion. But planned, distributed H2 generation in locations where the H2 would be transferred to the consumer solves many of these issues. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
The production of H2 ans O2 from water using high-temperature, nuclear power electrolysis is without peer. This method will make the most H2 and O2 with the fewest natural resource inputs, without compare. inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/…
Storing electrical energy is a Rube Goldberg Machine. Nuclear Power thermal heat storage, by contrast, is the lowest-cost, most powerful battery on the planet. Natrium Reactor.
Are waste solar panels hazardous waste under US law (my core competency)🧵
First: This is not legal advice. If you paid a lawyer, first answer you'd get is:
RCRA Subtitle C tells us what is and is not haz waste. If not, it's just solid waste and can be disposed of for a lot less money. The regulatory and engineering controls for haz waste are more expensive.