Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Chris Bowen – Australia has ZERO nuclear fallback! Renewables alone can't cut it. Honeywell CEO Vimal Kapur at Davos: data centres, steel, cement & heavy industry run on ENERGY DENSITY. Not headlines or green goals, PHYSICS. Solar won't smelt steel. Wind won't make concrete. Coal, gas & nuclear are...

KatyKray73's profile picture

katy 🌸

79,403 subscribers

17,314 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

New Zealand PM Chris Luxon rejects outright the suggestion that his govt might use nuclear power. Instead, Mr Luxon wants to double the supply of “renewables”. He says nuclear would be unsuitable because of NZ’s earthquake problem. However the threat of earthquakes in Japan is pretty similar to NZ and they are expanding their nuclear energy resources. In 2023, nuclear power accounted for approximately 8.5% of Japan's electricity supply. They intend to increase this to 20-22% by 2030. Partly to reduce CO2 emissions in line with Japan’s Net Zero obligations. So why is it OK for Japan but not New Zealand? IMHO the renewables obsessed Mr Luxon and the gormless CEOs running our mainly govt owned energy generation/ transmission companies are going to send NZ industry to the wall. Leaving aside the effect constantly rising electricity prices have on the man in the street. Through grocery prices and other everyday purchases. If we leave coal, hydro, gas and geothermal aside for the sake of the argument, nuclear may or not be a viable energy option for NZ. However it can’t be any worse than the fools errand we are presently on with wind and solar.
0:54

New Zealand PM Chris Luxon rejects outright the suggestion that his govt might use nuclear power. Instead, Mr Luxon wants to double the supply of “renewables”. He says nuclear would be unsuitable because of NZ’s earthquake problem. However the threat of earthquakes in Japan is pretty similar to NZ and they are expanding their nuclear energy resources. In 2023, nuclear power accounted for approximately 8.5% of Japan's electricity supply. They intend to increase this to 20-22% by 2030. Partly to reduce CO2 emissions in line with Japan’s Net Zero obligations. So why is it OK for Japan but not New Zealand? IMHO the renewables obsessed Mr Luxon and the gormless CEOs running our mainly govt owned energy generation/ transmission companies are going to send NZ industry to the wall. Leaving aside the effect constantly rising electricity prices have on the man in the street. Through grocery prices and other everyday purchases. If we leave coal, hydro, gas and geothermal aside for the sake of the argument, nuclear may or not be a viable energy option for NZ. However it can’t be any worse than the fools errand we are presently on with wind and solar.

The Redbaiter

15,329 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Solar and wind are sold as cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear using a number called LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). But LCOE is a junk metric. It pretends that one-megawatt-hour of intermittent power is the same as one-megawatt-hour of reliable power. It isn't. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you still need electricity. So backup plants (coal, gas or nuclear) must run in the background, ready to fire instantly. LCOE fails to count that cost. It also ignores the miles of transmission lines for remote wind farms, the giant storage systems to cover lulls, the stabilizers to keep frequency steady, and the massive overbuild needed just to survive bad weather weeks.These hidden costs explode as wind and solar take over more of the grid. On paper, LCOE makes these renewables look cheap. In reality, they drive up costs system-wide. That's why nations with the most wind and solar have the highest electricity prices. LCOE isn't just misleading, it's a lie.
1:00

Solar and wind are sold as cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear using a number called LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). But LCOE is a junk metric. It pretends that one-megawatt-hour of intermittent power is the same as one-megawatt-hour of reliable power. It isn't. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you still need electricity. So backup plants (coal, gas or nuclear) must run in the background, ready to fire instantly. LCOE fails to count that cost. It also ignores the miles of transmission lines for remote wind farms, the giant storage systems to cover lulls, the stabilizers to keep frequency steady, and the massive overbuild needed just to survive bad weather weeks.These hidden costs explode as wind and solar take over more of the grid. On paper, LCOE makes these renewables look cheap. In reality, they drive up costs system-wide. That's why nations with the most wind and solar have the highest electricity prices. LCOE isn't just misleading, it's a lie.

Electroverse

13,404 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Wind and solar look cheap on paper, but only because their true costs are hidden. Power grids must balance supply and demand every second. Wind and solar cannot do that. Their output follows the weather, which is variable. So every megawatt of wind or solar requires a matching megawatt of reliable backup. A 100 MW wind farm does not replace a 100 MW gas plant. The gas plant still has to be built, staffed, fueled and kept ready at all times. Consumers are effectively paying for two systems, but only one is accounted for. Think of it like hiring a worker who only shows up 30% of the time. The hourly wage looks cheap, but you still need a fully trained backup worker available 24-7 to fill in for the other 70%. That backup is required and still costs money even when sitting idle. But the extra cost is ignored. This accounting trick explains why renewables look inexpensive in charts, while electricity prices soar in grids that rely heavily on them. Globally, the renewable failure is clear. In 2024, solar supplied just 1.4% of global primary energy. Wind supplied about 1.5%. Fossil fuels still provided around 87%. This is not a global energy transition. It is a costly experiment played by a handful of Western economies.
1:12

Wind and solar look cheap on paper, but only because their true costs are hidden. Power grids must balance supply and demand every second. Wind and solar cannot do that. Their output follows the weather, which is variable. So every megawatt of wind or solar requires a matching megawatt of reliable backup. A 100 MW wind farm does not replace a 100 MW gas plant. The gas plant still has to be built, staffed, fueled and kept ready at all times. Consumers are effectively paying for two systems, but only one is accounted for. Think of it like hiring a worker who only shows up 30% of the time. The hourly wage looks cheap, but you still need a fully trained backup worker available 24-7 to fill in for the other 70%. That backup is required and still costs money even when sitting idle. But the extra cost is ignored. This accounting trick explains why renewables look inexpensive in charts, while electricity prices soar in grids that rely heavily on them. Globally, the renewable failure is clear. In 2024, solar supplied just 1.4% of global primary energy. Wind supplied about 1.5%. Fossil fuels still provided around 87%. This is not a global energy transition. It is a costly experiment played by a handful of Western economies.

Electroverse

20,529 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Germany has just erased another symbol of its industrial strength. The demolition of the Gundremmingen cooling towers marks not only the end of a nuclear facility but the continued dismantling of Germany’s economic backbone. What began under the red-green coalition two decades ago, and was later accelerated by Angela Merkel’s panic-driven phaseout, is now being completed under Friedrich Merz. The same politicians who once promised “sustainability” are now presiding over energy dependence, deindustrialization, and the collapse of what was once Europe’s most competitive economy. Nuclear power was not Germany’s problem. It was its greatest asset: clean, efficient, and far cheaper than imported gas or unstable renewables. Yet ideological blindness turned success into guilt. The country that once built the best reactors in the world now imports nuclear energy from France and coal-based electricity from Poland. The political class calls this progress while businesses shut down and energy-intensive industries relocate abroad. Under the Merz administration, the absurdity has reached its final stage. While AI data centers, chip fabs, and future manufacturing all demand enormous amounts of reliable power, Germany is blowing up the very plants that could have supplied it. Instead of securing affordable electricity for innovation, Berlin is subsidizing wind turbines that stand still half the year and gas plants that rely on foreign regimes. This is not strategy; it is surrender disguised as virtue. The destruction of Gundremmingen is not about energy policy. It is about the decline of rational governance. Germany’s leaders are sacrificing economic sovereignty for ideology, while pretending it is moral necessity. The result is predictable: higher costs, weaker industry, and growing dependence on those who still value energy realism. What fell today in Bavaria were not cooling towers, but the last remnants of Germany’s common sense.
0:23

Germany has just erased another symbol of its industrial strength. The demolition of the Gundremmingen cooling towers marks not only the end of a nuclear facility but the continued dismantling of Germany’s economic backbone. What began under the red-green coalition two decades ago, and was later accelerated by Angela Merkel’s panic-driven phaseout, is now being completed under Friedrich Merz. The same politicians who once promised “sustainability” are now presiding over energy dependence, deindustrialization, and the collapse of what was once Europe’s most competitive economy. Nuclear power was not Germany’s problem. It was its greatest asset: clean, efficient, and far cheaper than imported gas or unstable renewables. Yet ideological blindness turned success into guilt. The country that once built the best reactors in the world now imports nuclear energy from France and coal-based electricity from Poland. The political class calls this progress while businesses shut down and energy-intensive industries relocate abroad. Under the Merz administration, the absurdity has reached its final stage. While AI data centers, chip fabs, and future manufacturing all demand enormous amounts of reliable power, Germany is blowing up the very plants that could have supplied it. Instead of securing affordable electricity for innovation, Berlin is subsidizing wind turbines that stand still half the year and gas plants that rely on foreign regimes. This is not strategy; it is surrender disguised as virtue. The destruction of Gundremmingen is not about energy policy. It is about the decline of rational governance. Germany’s leaders are sacrificing economic sovereignty for ideology, while pretending it is moral necessity. The result is predictable: higher costs, weaker industry, and growing dependence on those who still value energy realism. What fell today in Bavaria were not cooling towers, but the last remnants of Germany’s common sense.

Torsten Prochnow

75,877 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Follow the money. If you want to know why the Australian Labor Party is indulging in a childish scare campaign against nuclear energy, follow the money. This pathetic Labor scare campaign is an insult to the intelligence of every Australian. If Labor was truly against nuclear energy on principle, it would cancel any arrangements to purchase nuclear-powered submarines and it would dismantle the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. However, we know Labor has no principles other than doing the bidding of the union thugs who fund them. This appears to be the ultimate reason behind Labor’s anti-nuclear scare campaign. Labor provides billions of dollars of grants, subsidies and incentives to support renewable energy investments. Between them and the Coalition, this has cost taxpayers $29 billion in the past 10 years. Labor enforces regulations and mandates which enforce a guaranteed market for renewable energy. Industry superannuation funds controlled by Labor’s union bosses invest heavily in these renewables projects, and why not? It’s underwritten by taxpayers thanks to Labor, guaranteeing a lucrative return for these union-controlled super funds. These lucrative returns are then used to support the Labor Party with large donations. It was no coincidence that in December 2023, union-controlled industry super funds demanded even more “favourable investment conditions” underwritten by taxpayers for the transition to net zero. These funds included CBUS, chaired by former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan, and AustralianSuper, with close ties to former Labor prime minister Paul Keating. I’ll highlight a few more union affiliations among the current Labor cabinet: • Bill Shorten and the AWU • Tony Burke and the SDA in New South Wales • Don Farrell and the SDA in South Australia • Katy Gallagher and the CPSU • Pat Conroy – the CFMEU and the AMWU • Richard Marles and the ACTU It’s insidious how much unions have infiltrated this Parliament, and how it compromises good government. This is a scam paid for by the Australian taxpayer with subsidies, and by Australian consumers with their record high energy bills. Labor and its union masters don’t want this corrupt gravy train derailed by nuclear energy. That’s why they’ve come out swinging against it, while once again showing their absolute contempt for the intelligence of the Australian people. Fortunately, Australians are smart enough not to fall for Labor’s pathetic scare campaign of three-eyed fish memes. Australians understand that nuclear power is safely used at 450 sites around the world in 32 countries. Australia is the only advanced economy in the world which doesn’t make use of this proven technology, despite having at least a quarter of the planet’s proven uranium reserves. This important natural advantage to Australia is being squandered. It makes absolutely no sense that Australia – one of the world’s most energy-rich countries – is facing energy shortages this winter and has some of the highest energy prices in the world. That is, unless you follow the money trail. Labor and the unions are orchestrating a massive scam on the Australian people, and the price of it will be our economy and our standard of living. This scam and the destruction it is causing must be exposed and stopped. Nuclear energy is a beginning, but uranium is just one of Australia’s natural advantages. We also have abundant reserves of coal and natural gas. All of these natural advantages should be utilised in an independent energy policy that prioritises affordability and reliability over climate change ideology. The Prime Minister’s inability to stand up to unions has been exposed by thugs like John Setka. The Prime Minister’s weakness has been further exposed by Senator Payman, who has escaped any serious sanction for crossing the floor against Labor policy last week. Why are we allowing this union-Labor renewables scam to happen? Is it to arrest climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Because if it is, that’s not working. Global emissions continue to rise, another indicator of the union-Labor renewables scam. They will rise no matter what Australia does, no matter how many coal mines and power stations we close, no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels pollute the Australian landscape.
4:52

Follow the money. If you want to know why the Australian Labor Party is indulging in a childish scare campaign against nuclear energy, follow the money. This pathetic Labor scare campaign is an insult to the intelligence of every Australian. If Labor was truly against nuclear energy on principle, it would cancel any arrangements to purchase nuclear-powered submarines and it would dismantle the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. However, we know Labor has no principles other than doing the bidding of the union thugs who fund them. This appears to be the ultimate reason behind Labor’s anti-nuclear scare campaign. Labor provides billions of dollars of grants, subsidies and incentives to support renewable energy investments. Between them and the Coalition, this has cost taxpayers $29 billion in the past 10 years. Labor enforces regulations and mandates which enforce a guaranteed market for renewable energy. Industry superannuation funds controlled by Labor’s union bosses invest heavily in these renewables projects, and why not? It’s underwritten by taxpayers thanks to Labor, guaranteeing a lucrative return for these union-controlled super funds. These lucrative returns are then used to support the Labor Party with large donations. It was no coincidence that in December 2023, union-controlled industry super funds demanded even more “favourable investment conditions” underwritten by taxpayers for the transition to net zero. These funds included CBUS, chaired by former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan, and AustralianSuper, with close ties to former Labor prime minister Paul Keating. I’ll highlight a few more union affiliations among the current Labor cabinet: • Bill Shorten and the AWU • Tony Burke and the SDA in New South Wales • Don Farrell and the SDA in South Australia • Katy Gallagher and the CPSU • Pat Conroy – the CFMEU and the AMWU • Richard Marles and the ACTU It’s insidious how much unions have infiltrated this Parliament, and how it compromises good government. This is a scam paid for by the Australian taxpayer with subsidies, and by Australian consumers with their record high energy bills. Labor and its union masters don’t want this corrupt gravy train derailed by nuclear energy. That’s why they’ve come out swinging against it, while once again showing their absolute contempt for the intelligence of the Australian people. Fortunately, Australians are smart enough not to fall for Labor’s pathetic scare campaign of three-eyed fish memes. Australians understand that nuclear power is safely used at 450 sites around the world in 32 countries. Australia is the only advanced economy in the world which doesn’t make use of this proven technology, despite having at least a quarter of the planet’s proven uranium reserves. This important natural advantage to Australia is being squandered. It makes absolutely no sense that Australia – one of the world’s most energy-rich countries – is facing energy shortages this winter and has some of the highest energy prices in the world. That is, unless you follow the money trail. Labor and the unions are orchestrating a massive scam on the Australian people, and the price of it will be our economy and our standard of living. This scam and the destruction it is causing must be exposed and stopped. Nuclear energy is a beginning, but uranium is just one of Australia’s natural advantages. We also have abundant reserves of coal and natural gas. All of these natural advantages should be utilised in an independent energy policy that prioritises affordability and reliability over climate change ideology. The Prime Minister’s inability to stand up to unions has been exposed by thugs like John Setka. The Prime Minister’s weakness has been further exposed by Senator Payman, who has escaped any serious sanction for crossing the floor against Labor policy last week. Why are we allowing this union-Labor renewables scam to happen? Is it to arrest climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Because if it is, that’s not working. Global emissions continue to rise, another indicator of the union-Labor renewables scam. They will rise no matter what Australia does, no matter how many coal mines and power stations we close, no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels pollute the Australian landscape.

Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺

189,199 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Renewables are the key to preventing resource scarcity, argue European leaders, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, whose bestselling book Abundance became one of Barack Obama’s favorite books of 2025 and launched a political movement dedicated to what Klein calls “a politics of plenty.” The logic is straightforward and appealing. Solar panel costs have fallen more than 90% since 2010. Wind power costs have dropped by 70%. Battery storage prices have collapsed. If governments would simply clear the regulatory obstacles to building solar farms, wind turbines, and transmission lines, the abundance argument goes, clean energy would flow so abundantly that fossil fuel dependence would become a choice rather than a necessity. “The miracles of solar and wind and battery power,” Klein told the Long Now Foundation, “have given us the only shot we have to avoid catastrophic climate change.” But if renewables could prevent resource scarcity, then the world would not be in the midst of what the International Energy Agency’s Executive Director Fatih Birol called “the greatest global energy security challenge in history,” with global supply losses now totaling 12 million barrels per day, compared to about 5 million during each of the 1973 and 1979 crises. The United Kingdom is receiving its last shipment of jet fuel from the Middle East with nothing behind it. Australia saw over 500 gas stations run dry. And South Korea is considering driving restrictions for the first time since 1991. “In April,” warned Birol, “there is nothing.” It is true that solar and batteries have made enormous progress. Solar electricity costs roughly 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour at the point of generation, cheaper than any fossil fuel in most locations. Battery costs have fallen below $115 per kilowatt-hour. China produces more solar panels than the rest of the world combined. But the world has installed more than 1,600 gigawatts of solar capacity and over 1,000 gigawatts of wind, and still we are in crisis. Global green energy investment was $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone. And yet when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, none of that capacity mattered, because solar panels do not produce jet fuel, diesel, ammonia, or the petrochemical feedstocks that underpin modern civilization. Electricity accounts for roughly 20% of final energy consumption worldwide. The other 80%, the part that moves ships, flies planes, heats buildings, and makes fertilizer, runs overwhelmingly on oil and gas. Solar and wind cannot substitute for these fuels at any price, because the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons exceeds batteries by a factor of 40 to 80 by weight. Klein and Thompson, to their credit, also support some forms of nuclear power. Abundance opens with a vision of cities powered by “clean (nuclear) and renewable (wind and solar) energy sources.” They lament America’s nuclear stagnation compared to France’s successful buildout. Klein has said that he supports advancing nuclear power alongside renewables. But, the new nuclear power plants that Klein and Thompson support do not exist. The “small modular reactors” that populate the abundance fantasy have not produced a single commercial kilowatt-hour of electricity. NuScale, the most advanced American SMR developer, canceled its flagship project in 2023 after costs doubled. No SMR has received a commercial operating license anywhere in the world. The first commercially operating SMR, if all goes well, may produce power in the early 2030s, but SMR developers have for years said that their reactors are just a few years away. Scaling to a meaningful share of global energy supply would take decades, as opposed to building conventional nuclear plants, which Japan and China have shown they can build in just two years, so long as they are standardized and the same construction crews are used. Democrats, progressives, environmental groups, and left-wing parties across Europe diverted hundreds of billions of dollars over the last two decades from developing the new oil and gas production, pipelines, refineries, and LNG terminals needed to make energy cheap and abundant. California’s aggressive climate mandates drove residential electricity prices to 34 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly double the national average, while the state simultaneously blocked new natural gas infrastructure. And global investment in oil and gas exploration and production peaked at roughly $780 billion in 2014 and fell to approximately $350 billion by 2020, a decline driven by deliberate policy choices to restrict fossil fuel development. The European Union’s Green Deal, America’s Inflation Reduction Act, and climate policies across the developed world channeled subsidies toward solar and wind while imposing carbon taxes, windfall levies, and permitting restrictions on fossil fuel projects. The UK’s Energy Profits Levy, introduced in 2022, discouraged investment in the North Sea at precisely the moment when more domestic production was needed. The UK Labor government then banned new exploration licenses in November 2025. Germany’s Energiewende spent over €500 billion on renewables while shutting down its nuclear plants, leaving the country dependent on Russian gas and then, after the Ukraine war, on LNG that must now compete with Asian buyers for cargoes that can no longer transit Hormuz. And the UK has lost a third of its refineries in the last 18 months, meaning that even if crude oil arrived tomorrow, the country lacks the capacity to refine it into the jet fuel, diesel, and heating oil its citizens need. The only energy abundance solution that works at the scale of civilization right now is piped natural gas and oil. A pipeline delivers energy continuously, at near-zero marginal cost per unit delivered, with no exposure to shipping chokepoints, insurance markets, or geopolitical disruption. A ton of natural gas moved through a pipeline costs a fraction of what the same gas costs when liquefied, shipped by tanker across an ocean, and regasified at a terminal. The logical endpoint is a world powered by natural gas delivered through continental pipeline networks, eventually transitioning to hydrogen produced from natural gas and nuclear power. America built pipelines while Europe and Asia built LNG dependency. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, which has ramped from 770,000 barrels per day to 2.9 million since the war began, is the emergency proof of concept. If the Gulf states had built sufficient pipeline capacity to bypass Hormuz before the war, the crisis would be a fraction of its current severity. So why do so many on the Left continue to preach renewables as the solution to a crisis that renewables manifestly cannot solve?... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!
6:22

Renewables are the key to preventing resource scarcity, argue European leaders, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, whose bestselling book Abundance became one of Barack Obama’s favorite books of 2025 and launched a political movement dedicated to what Klein calls “a politics of plenty.” The logic is straightforward and appealing. Solar panel costs have fallen more than 90% since 2010. Wind power costs have dropped by 70%. Battery storage prices have collapsed. If governments would simply clear the regulatory obstacles to building solar farms, wind turbines, and transmission lines, the abundance argument goes, clean energy would flow so abundantly that fossil fuel dependence would become a choice rather than a necessity. “The miracles of solar and wind and battery power,” Klein told the Long Now Foundation, “have given us the only shot we have to avoid catastrophic climate change.” But if renewables could prevent resource scarcity, then the world would not be in the midst of what the International Energy Agency’s Executive Director Fatih Birol called “the greatest global energy security challenge in history,” with global supply losses now totaling 12 million barrels per day, compared to about 5 million during each of the 1973 and 1979 crises. The United Kingdom is receiving its last shipment of jet fuel from the Middle East with nothing behind it. Australia saw over 500 gas stations run dry. And South Korea is considering driving restrictions for the first time since 1991. “In April,” warned Birol, “there is nothing.” It is true that solar and batteries have made enormous progress. Solar electricity costs roughly 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour at the point of generation, cheaper than any fossil fuel in most locations. Battery costs have fallen below $115 per kilowatt-hour. China produces more solar panels than the rest of the world combined. But the world has installed more than 1,600 gigawatts of solar capacity and over 1,000 gigawatts of wind, and still we are in crisis. Global green energy investment was $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone. And yet when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, none of that capacity mattered, because solar panels do not produce jet fuel, diesel, ammonia, or the petrochemical feedstocks that underpin modern civilization. Electricity accounts for roughly 20% of final energy consumption worldwide. The other 80%, the part that moves ships, flies planes, heats buildings, and makes fertilizer, runs overwhelmingly on oil and gas. Solar and wind cannot substitute for these fuels at any price, because the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons exceeds batteries by a factor of 40 to 80 by weight. Klein and Thompson, to their credit, also support some forms of nuclear power. Abundance opens with a vision of cities powered by “clean (nuclear) and renewable (wind and solar) energy sources.” They lament America’s nuclear stagnation compared to France’s successful buildout. Klein has said that he supports advancing nuclear power alongside renewables. But, the new nuclear power plants that Klein and Thompson support do not exist. The “small modular reactors” that populate the abundance fantasy have not produced a single commercial kilowatt-hour of electricity. NuScale, the most advanced American SMR developer, canceled its flagship project in 2023 after costs doubled. No SMR has received a commercial operating license anywhere in the world. The first commercially operating SMR, if all goes well, may produce power in the early 2030s, but SMR developers have for years said that their reactors are just a few years away. Scaling to a meaningful share of global energy supply would take decades, as opposed to building conventional nuclear plants, which Japan and China have shown they can build in just two years, so long as they are standardized and the same construction crews are used. Democrats, progressives, environmental groups, and left-wing parties across Europe diverted hundreds of billions of dollars over the last two decades from developing the new oil and gas production, pipelines, refineries, and LNG terminals needed to make energy cheap and abundant. California’s aggressive climate mandates drove residential electricity prices to 34 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly double the national average, while the state simultaneously blocked new natural gas infrastructure. And global investment in oil and gas exploration and production peaked at roughly $780 billion in 2014 and fell to approximately $350 billion by 2020, a decline driven by deliberate policy choices to restrict fossil fuel development. The European Union’s Green Deal, America’s Inflation Reduction Act, and climate policies across the developed world channeled subsidies toward solar and wind while imposing carbon taxes, windfall levies, and permitting restrictions on fossil fuel projects. The UK’s Energy Profits Levy, introduced in 2022, discouraged investment in the North Sea at precisely the moment when more domestic production was needed. The UK Labor government then banned new exploration licenses in November 2025. Germany’s Energiewende spent over €500 billion on renewables while shutting down its nuclear plants, leaving the country dependent on Russian gas and then, after the Ukraine war, on LNG that must now compete with Asian buyers for cargoes that can no longer transit Hormuz. And the UK has lost a third of its refineries in the last 18 months, meaning that even if crude oil arrived tomorrow, the country lacks the capacity to refine it into the jet fuel, diesel, and heating oil its citizens need. The only energy abundance solution that works at the scale of civilization right now is piped natural gas and oil. A pipeline delivers energy continuously, at near-zero marginal cost per unit delivered, with no exposure to shipping chokepoints, insurance markets, or geopolitical disruption. A ton of natural gas moved through a pipeline costs a fraction of what the same gas costs when liquefied, shipped by tanker across an ocean, and regasified at a terminal. The logical endpoint is a world powered by natural gas delivered through continental pipeline networks, eventually transitioning to hydrogen produced from natural gas and nuclear power. America built pipelines while Europe and Asia built LNG dependency. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, which has ramped from 770,000 barrels per day to 2.9 million since the war began, is the emergency proof of concept. If the Gulf states had built sufficient pipeline capacity to bypass Hormuz before the war, the crisis would be a fraction of its current severity. So why do so many on the Left continue to preach renewables as the solution to a crisis that renewables manifestly cannot solve?... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

129,394 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Watch the look on Ursula’s face as President Trump sets out the facts on wind power "It’s the expensive form of energy, the whole thing is a complete conjob" Yet, in Australia we’ve been deluded like a quasi-religious cult into thinking we can run our entire grid based on wind and solar. No wonder Australia is going backwards. And it’s pleasing to hear President Trump saying almost exactly what I said over a decade ago. From the Hansard 18th June, 2012 ….. "Wind turbines are ludicrously inefficient. Let us not lie about the costs. The electricity they produce is 500 per cent more expensive than electricity produced by coal-fired plants (when you factor in all the costs) "Simply because of their inefficiency, no one would invest in wind turbines unless they were guaranteed some type of government handout or special government privilege. "But these government handouts have to be paid by someone. That is something the Labor party does not understand. They are paid by families through higher electricity prices. They are paid by families, by factories, by hospitals, by schools, by offices, by churches and by retail shops. They are the people that pay the price of these policies. "We have beautiful country landscapes around our nation, from Beaudesert to Boorowa, magnificent horse-riding trails and picturesque vistas. We can desecrate these landscapes by covering them with giant steel industrial wind turbines for as far as the eye can see, but it is not going to do anything to change the temperature of the globe and it not going to have any measurable effect on levels of carbon dioxide. To do so would be a recipe for retarding economic growth, increasing poverty and harming human health."
3:02

Watch the look on Ursula’s face as President Trump sets out the facts on wind power "It’s the expensive form of energy, the whole thing is a complete conjob" Yet, in Australia we’ve been deluded like a quasi-religious cult into thinking we can run our entire grid based on wind and solar. No wonder Australia is going backwards. And it’s pleasing to hear President Trump saying almost exactly what I said over a decade ago. From the Hansard 18th June, 2012 ….. "Wind turbines are ludicrously inefficient. Let us not lie about the costs. The electricity they produce is 500 per cent more expensive than electricity produced by coal-fired plants (when you factor in all the costs) "Simply because of their inefficiency, no one would invest in wind turbines unless they were guaranteed some type of government handout or special government privilege. "But these government handouts have to be paid by someone. That is something the Labor party does not understand. They are paid by families through higher electricity prices. They are paid by families, by factories, by hospitals, by schools, by offices, by churches and by retail shops. They are the people that pay the price of these policies. "We have beautiful country landscapes around our nation, from Beaudesert to Boorowa, magnificent horse-riding trails and picturesque vistas. We can desecrate these landscapes by covering them with giant steel industrial wind turbines for as far as the eye can see, but it is not going to do anything to change the temperature of the globe and it not going to have any measurable effect on levels of carbon dioxide. To do so would be a recipe for retarding economic growth, increasing poverty and harming human health."

Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education

113,195 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

It is very clear that we are poorly served by a growing class of arrogant and out of touch politicians, and Bowen is their mascot. Our politicians forget themselves. They forget that we don’t answer to them - They answer to us. They don’t pay us - We pay them. Chris Bowen has broken just about every promise that he has made. Industry is furious, electricity users are furious, and now motorists are furious. They promised that power bills would come down. Instead, power bills have gone up, while at the same time industry continues its exodus. The government is propping up a select few corporations with tax dollars and even taking over some directly. That is not the sign of a healthy energy market, or sustainable industry. It is not the sign of success that Bowen needs to maintain a modicum of credibility. So, Liam Bartlett calls him out, asks him real questions that cut to the viability of Bowen’s solutions to our real energy problems. But instead of answering Bartlett’s questions, the Minister responsible for the broken promises chooses instead to attack the journalist. Liam Bartlett is finally asking the questions that need to be asked. He is not just smiling and curtseying to the press corps - he is doing his job. Bowen shows us the answers, not by the words he says, but what he doesn’t say. It begs further questions. For me they are; Who does Bowen think he is? Followed closely by, who does he think he answers to? The answers are as obvious as the lack of answers he provides about our energy future. If it wasn’t so important, it wouldn’t really matter. But on a large and isolated continent like Australia, energy security is our life blood. Without an abundance of cheap and reliable energy, we will starve. Bowen might think his primary role is curating the swooning reporters he likes, but we all know that it is not his job. He answers to us. If he finds the questions uncomfortable, too bad. If the press required him to explain the truth of the storm we are really in - a storm that has been brewing for decades and is now spiraling out of control in front of us - then so be it. We can’t fix what we can’t see. Bowen must level with us. If he can’t fix the problems, get out of the way for somebody who can. Bowen should sit down with Liam Bartlett, and respectfully answer his questions. The people of Australia deserve nothing less. I just want Australia back.
0:28

It is very clear that we are poorly served by a growing class of arrogant and out of touch politicians, and Bowen is their mascot. Our politicians forget themselves. They forget that we don’t answer to them - They answer to us. They don’t pay us - We pay them. Chris Bowen has broken just about every promise that he has made. Industry is furious, electricity users are furious, and now motorists are furious. They promised that power bills would come down. Instead, power bills have gone up, while at the same time industry continues its exodus. The government is propping up a select few corporations with tax dollars and even taking over some directly. That is not the sign of a healthy energy market, or sustainable industry. It is not the sign of success that Bowen needs to maintain a modicum of credibility. So, Liam Bartlett calls him out, asks him real questions that cut to the viability of Bowen’s solutions to our real energy problems. But instead of answering Bartlett’s questions, the Minister responsible for the broken promises chooses instead to attack the journalist. Liam Bartlett is finally asking the questions that need to be asked. He is not just smiling and curtseying to the press corps - he is doing his job. Bowen shows us the answers, not by the words he says, but what he doesn’t say. It begs further questions. For me they are; Who does Bowen think he is? Followed closely by, who does he think he answers to? The answers are as obvious as the lack of answers he provides about our energy future. If it wasn’t so important, it wouldn’t really matter. But on a large and isolated continent like Australia, energy security is our life blood. Without an abundance of cheap and reliable energy, we will starve. Bowen might think his primary role is curating the swooning reporters he likes, but we all know that it is not his job. He answers to us. If he finds the questions uncomfortable, too bad. If the press required him to explain the truth of the storm we are really in - a storm that has been brewing for decades and is now spiraling out of control in front of us - then so be it. We can’t fix what we can’t see. Bowen must level with us. If he can’t fix the problems, get out of the way for somebody who can. Bowen should sit down with Liam Bartlett, and respectfully answer his questions. The people of Australia deserve nothing less. I just want Australia back.

Matthew Camenzuli

29,981 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The experiment is over – we know what does and doesn’t work to address climate If we look at what has been proposed to address global warming, air pollution, and energy security during the past 25 years, only one solution – electrification of all energy sectors and generation of the electricity with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro sources -- has made an impact. This solution has reduced enough world emissions and technology costs for the IPCC, to eliminate its worst-case climate scenario. What are the proposed climate solutions that never worked? (1) Fossil gas replacing coal, (2) ethanol replacing gasoline, (3) carbon capture, (4) direct removal of CO2 from the air by equipment, (5) blue hydrogen, 6) nuclear, and (7) geoengineering. We knew these were poor solutions back in 2009, when they were first evaluated. But, it has taken 17 years to overcome lobbyists pushing these techs. On the other hand, electrification of world transport, buildings, and industry and using clean renewables to provide the electricity while growing energy efficiency, also proposed in 2009, has worked, as evidenced by the world growth in electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric furnaces, and clean, renewable electricity generators. All-of-the-above policies, or let’s try everything and hope something works policies, have failed. Given the short time we have, we should never see another IPCC scenario that includes biofuels, carbon capture, direct air capture, nuclear, geoengineering or their derivatives, blue hydrogen, electo-fuels, or sustainable aviation fuels. We know what works. Let's focus on that going forward. References Elimination of most extreme IPCC scenario Components of a WindWaterSolar system 2009 paper evaluating energy technologies 2009 paper proposing to transition the world to 100% WWS More details here: "Still No Miracles Needed" Video
1:34

The experiment is over – we know what does and doesn’t work to address climate If we look at what has been proposed to address global warming, air pollution, and energy security during the past 25 years, only one solution – electrification of all energy sectors and generation of the electricity with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro sources -- has made an impact. This solution has reduced enough world emissions and technology costs for the IPCC, to eliminate its worst-case climate scenario. What are the proposed climate solutions that never worked? (1) Fossil gas replacing coal, (2) ethanol replacing gasoline, (3) carbon capture, (4) direct removal of CO2 from the air by equipment, (5) blue hydrogen, 6) nuclear, and (7) geoengineering. We knew these were poor solutions back in 2009, when they were first evaluated. But, it has taken 17 years to overcome lobbyists pushing these techs. On the other hand, electrification of world transport, buildings, and industry and using clean renewables to provide the electricity while growing energy efficiency, also proposed in 2009, has worked, as evidenced by the world growth in electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric furnaces, and clean, renewable electricity generators. All-of-the-above policies, or let’s try everything and hope something works policies, have failed. Given the short time we have, we should never see another IPCC scenario that includes biofuels, carbon capture, direct air capture, nuclear, geoengineering or their derivatives, blue hydrogen, electo-fuels, or sustainable aviation fuels. We know what works. Let's focus on that going forward. References Elimination of most extreme IPCC scenario Components of a WindWaterSolar system 2009 paper evaluating energy technologies 2009 paper proposing to transition the world to 100% WWS More details here: "Still No Miracles Needed" Video

Mark Z. Jacobson

12,201 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Chip Roy lost his bid for Texas attorney general last night. He was one of the solar industry's biggest opponents in Congress. And a group of clean energy investors decided there had to be a consequence. They ran hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of attack ads calling him "not MAGA enough." The ads never mentioned clean energy once. They forced Roy into a runoff, which he lost yesterday. I recently sat down with one of the lead donors to the campaign: Chris Larsen, the billionaire co-founder of Ripple, who is now investing heavily in climate. Chris was one of the lead investors in crypto's Fairshake campaign that turned the industry from a regulatory target into one of the most feared political forces in Washington. It spent nearly half of all corporate political dollars in the 2024 cycle and won over 95% of the races it engaged in. He thinks clean energy can do the same thing. And he does not mince words about what that requires: "This is political warfare. You talk about what works. You talk about what's going to take out that person." I also sat down with his co-founder at the Clean Break Fund: Mike Brune, the longest-serving executive director of the Sierra Club. "The next time someone votes against the solar industry, there's a lot of money that could come after them in the next primary or the next election," Brune said. The clean energy industry has been historically focused on making the affirmative case by highlighting economic benefits, building coalitions, and telling a positive story. But Chris and Mike think that the industry needs to get more serious about delivering political consequences. "The worst thing you want in a political fight is for your opponents to think you're weak," Chris told the room. There's still a massive spending gap between renewables and fossil fuels. In 2024, the entire renewable energy industry donated $2.5 million to political campaigns. Oil and gas donated $75 million just to elect Trump. That gap won't close quickly, but it's the first sign that the industry is serious about taking the gloves off.
1:19

Chip Roy lost his bid for Texas attorney general last night. He was one of the solar industry's biggest opponents in Congress. And a group of clean energy investors decided there had to be a consequence. They ran hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of attack ads calling him "not MAGA enough." The ads never mentioned clean energy once. They forced Roy into a runoff, which he lost yesterday. I recently sat down with one of the lead donors to the campaign: Chris Larsen, the billionaire co-founder of Ripple, who is now investing heavily in climate. Chris was one of the lead investors in crypto's Fairshake campaign that turned the industry from a regulatory target into one of the most feared political forces in Washington. It spent nearly half of all corporate political dollars in the 2024 cycle and won over 95% of the races it engaged in. He thinks clean energy can do the same thing. And he does not mince words about what that requires: "This is political warfare. You talk about what works. You talk about what's going to take out that person." I also sat down with his co-founder at the Clean Break Fund: Mike Brune, the longest-serving executive director of the Sierra Club. "The next time someone votes against the solar industry, there's a lot of money that could come after them in the next primary or the next election," Brune said. The clean energy industry has been historically focused on making the affirmative case by highlighting economic benefits, building coalitions, and telling a positive story. But Chris and Mike think that the industry needs to get more serious about delivering political consequences. "The worst thing you want in a political fight is for your opponents to think you're weak," Chris told the room. There's still a massive spending gap between renewables and fossil fuels. In 2024, the entire renewable energy industry donated $2.5 million to political campaigns. Oil and gas donated $75 million just to elect Trump. That gap won't close quickly, but it's the first sign that the industry is serious about taking the gloves off.

Stephen Lacey

58,363 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Speaking in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill debate today, we should all focus on the requirement to save the jobs of those 3,500 people who have this threat hanging over them. China is pushing to shut down British steel industries, pushing forward to shut down the blast furnaces in the UK. Far too many countries like China have abused the rules of the free market, have subsidised their industries ridiculously, and have used slave labour to produce products. When that happens, the free market is dead. China now itself is suffering from an overproduction of steel. Their own housing industry has gone static on them, and they were one of the biggest users of the steel produced by China. Where is that steel going to go? It’s no surprise that a Chinese company Jingye is involved in this, because by pushing forward to shut down the blast furnaces in the UK, they know that we will have to buy slab steel from China. This is not a coincidence. This is all part of the plan. We must recognise that we will have to deal with those whom we trust and who do not break the rules. That means a whole rethink of the Government’s China policy. The previous Conservative Government should never have awarded it the contract, and I warned them about that. It is time for us to make sure that we deal with China at face value and do not accept the pretence that this company is private or in any way detached from its Government. That is a critical point. Cheap Chinese steel is a desperate problem for us, and we need to work with other countries in dealing with it. We also need to get our costs down. On Net Zero, I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero that we cannot go on like this. #BritishSteel
7:45

Speaking in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill debate today, we should all focus on the requirement to save the jobs of those 3,500 people who have this threat hanging over them. China is pushing to shut down British steel industries, pushing forward to shut down the blast furnaces in the UK. Far too many countries like China have abused the rules of the free market, have subsidised their industries ridiculously, and have used slave labour to produce products. When that happens, the free market is dead. China now itself is suffering from an overproduction of steel. Their own housing industry has gone static on them, and they were one of the biggest users of the steel produced by China. Where is that steel going to go? It’s no surprise that a Chinese company Jingye is involved in this, because by pushing forward to shut down the blast furnaces in the UK, they know that we will have to buy slab steel from China. This is not a coincidence. This is all part of the plan. We must recognise that we will have to deal with those whom we trust and who do not break the rules. That means a whole rethink of the Government’s China policy. The previous Conservative Government should never have awarded it the contract, and I warned them about that. It is time for us to make sure that we deal with China at face value and do not accept the pretence that this company is private or in any way detached from its Government. That is a critical point. Cheap Chinese steel is a desperate problem for us, and we need to work with other countries in dealing with it. We also need to get our costs down. On Net Zero, I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero that we cannot go on like this. #BritishSteel

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

24,259 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Google inks historic US deal to buy Gen IV nuclear power for data centers | Neetika Walter Kairos Power’s Hermes 2 reactor will deliver 50 MW of carbon-free power by 2030, with TVA channeling the energy to Google’s data centers. Google has announced the first power purchase agreement (PPA) between a U.S. utility and an advanced nuclear developer. Through the deal, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will buy electricity from Kairos Power’s Hermes 2 demonstration plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The 50-megawatt reactor is expected to begin operations in 2030, sending power to TVA’s grid and supporting Google’s data centers in Tennessee and Alabama. One-of-a-kind milestone This marks the first time a U.S. utility has committed to purchasing electricity from a Generation IV nuclear plant. For Google, it represents an early step in a longer-term collaboration with Kairos Power to unlock as much as 500 megawatts of nuclear capacity over the next decade. The Hermes 2 project also carries symbolic weight, reviving Oak Ridge’s historic role as a hub for nuclear innovation. Google has steadily expanded its presence in the Tennessee Valley over the past decade and has worked closely with TVA to add clean energy to the region. With artificial intelligence workloads and cloud services driving demand for reliable electricity, the company is now betting on advanced nuclear as part of its strategy to secure 24/7 carbon-free energy. The U.S. grid is under growing strain as AI, electrification, and population growth push power demand to new highs. Traditional sources of clean power, such as wind and solar, cannot always deliver around the clock, while large nuclear plants face long timelines and high costs. Small and modular nuclear reactors offer a potential solution, providing carbon-free capacity with more flexibility. Trump push gives nuclear fresh momentum The move comes as the Trump administration has accelerated support for advanced nuclear. In May, the White House signed executive orders to streamline licensing for micro-reactors and small modular reactors, to triple or even quadruple U.S. nuclear output by mid-century. Federal agencies have also launched pilot projects to test more than a dozen small reactors, many on federal land to avoid permitting delays. These steps have helped renew investor interest in nuclear technology and created room for private-sector deals like Google’s. Energy startups such as Oklo have seen their shares climb after securing government partnerships, underscoring the link between policy reform and commercial appetite. Google’s nuclear partnership reflects this broader momentum. The deal highlights how next-generation technologies can find a pathway to market by combining utility-scale, regulatory support, and private-sector demand. For Oak Ridge, the project could deliver economic benefits alongside energy breakthroughs. Kairos Power plans to train a new generation of nuclear workers in partnership with the University of Tennessee and other institutions. The Hermes 2 plant will also anchor efforts to re-establish the city as a center of nuclear innovation. In signing on to the project, Google is not only securing clean power for its data centers but also helping to push advanced nuclear toward commercial reality. Read more:
2:28

Google inks historic US deal to buy Gen IV nuclear power for data centers | Neetika Walter Kairos Power’s Hermes 2 reactor will deliver 50 MW of carbon-free power by 2030, with TVA channeling the energy to Google’s data centers. Google has announced the first power purchase agreement (PPA) between a U.S. utility and an advanced nuclear developer. Through the deal, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will buy electricity from Kairos Power’s Hermes 2 demonstration plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The 50-megawatt reactor is expected to begin operations in 2030, sending power to TVA’s grid and supporting Google’s data centers in Tennessee and Alabama. One-of-a-kind milestone This marks the first time a U.S. utility has committed to purchasing electricity from a Generation IV nuclear plant. For Google, it represents an early step in a longer-term collaboration with Kairos Power to unlock as much as 500 megawatts of nuclear capacity over the next decade. The Hermes 2 project also carries symbolic weight, reviving Oak Ridge’s historic role as a hub for nuclear innovation. Google has steadily expanded its presence in the Tennessee Valley over the past decade and has worked closely with TVA to add clean energy to the region. With artificial intelligence workloads and cloud services driving demand for reliable electricity, the company is now betting on advanced nuclear as part of its strategy to secure 24/7 carbon-free energy. The U.S. grid is under growing strain as AI, electrification, and population growth push power demand to new highs. Traditional sources of clean power, such as wind and solar, cannot always deliver around the clock, while large nuclear plants face long timelines and high costs. Small and modular nuclear reactors offer a potential solution, providing carbon-free capacity with more flexibility. Trump push gives nuclear fresh momentum The move comes as the Trump administration has accelerated support for advanced nuclear. In May, the White House signed executive orders to streamline licensing for micro-reactors and small modular reactors, to triple or even quadruple U.S. nuclear output by mid-century. Federal agencies have also launched pilot projects to test more than a dozen small reactors, many on federal land to avoid permitting delays. These steps have helped renew investor interest in nuclear technology and created room for private-sector deals like Google’s. Energy startups such as Oklo have seen their shares climb after securing government partnerships, underscoring the link between policy reform and commercial appetite. Google’s nuclear partnership reflects this broader momentum. The deal highlights how next-generation technologies can find a pathway to market by combining utility-scale, regulatory support, and private-sector demand. For Oak Ridge, the project could deliver economic benefits alongside energy breakthroughs. Kairos Power plans to train a new generation of nuclear workers in partnership with the University of Tennessee and other institutions. The Hermes 2 plant will also anchor efforts to re-establish the city as a center of nuclear innovation. In signing on to the project, Google is not only securing clean power for its data centers but also helping to push advanced nuclear toward commercial reality. Read more:

Owen Gregorian

31,255 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Reposting because the AEC requires authorisation... "AEC rules Abbie Chatfield does not need authorisation for podcast, but cross-posting rules unclear" - There are rules for some but not others. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• It’s time governments stopped lying about renewable energy. “The federal government’s wind farm subsidies are enriching foreign corporates and leaving Australians worse off, all in an effort to prop up unreliable and inefficient renewable energy projects,” said Mia Schlicht, Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. Today, the IPA released new research detailing how the federal government’s Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) guarantees a river of gold for predominantly foreign owned wind farms and how the cost is transferred to electricity consumers. The research found: In 2024, through the LRET subsidy scheme, a total of $1.04 billion was paid by electricity consumers to the 50 largest wind farms operating in Australia. 35 of Australia’s 50 largest wind farms, 70 per cent, are entirely or partially foreign owned. Australian energy consumers were forced to pay $689 million to foreign owned wind farms. “In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, the federal government is forcing Australian electricity consumers to hand over $1 billion through hidden charges on their power bills to largely foreign owned companies, all in the name of net zero,” said Ms Schlicht. “How can the Prime Minister, having broken his promise to cut household power bills, justify sending over $689 million to foreign companies when mainstream Australians cannot afford their power bills?” To meet economy wrecking emissions reduction targets, the federal government forces electricity retailers to purchase large-scale generation certificates from renewable energy producers. This artificially inflates the demand for renewables, with added costs passed on to consumers.” One of the biggest subsides that renewables get is the renewable energy target that forces energy retailers to buy renewable energy or they get penalised. This forces demand for renewables up in the short window that the sun is shining which increases the price of energy via your power bill. This scheme isn’t well understood but it should be, because if people knew how much it was increasing their power bills and that the money was going offshore they would be up in arms. People First will continue to lobby for the removal of the RET as it is unacceptable the energy prices are being forced up because of it. Quote from:
0:41

Reposting because the AEC requires authorisation... "AEC rules Abbie Chatfield does not need authorisation for podcast, but cross-posting rules unclear" - There are rules for some but not others. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• It’s time governments stopped lying about renewable energy. “The federal government’s wind farm subsidies are enriching foreign corporates and leaving Australians worse off, all in an effort to prop up unreliable and inefficient renewable energy projects,” said Mia Schlicht, Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. Today, the IPA released new research detailing how the federal government’s Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) guarantees a river of gold for predominantly foreign owned wind farms and how the cost is transferred to electricity consumers. The research found: In 2024, through the LRET subsidy scheme, a total of $1.04 billion was paid by electricity consumers to the 50 largest wind farms operating in Australia. 35 of Australia’s 50 largest wind farms, 70 per cent, are entirely or partially foreign owned. Australian energy consumers were forced to pay $689 million to foreign owned wind farms. “In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, the federal government is forcing Australian electricity consumers to hand over $1 billion through hidden charges on their power bills to largely foreign owned companies, all in the name of net zero,” said Ms Schlicht. “How can the Prime Minister, having broken his promise to cut household power bills, justify sending over $689 million to foreign companies when mainstream Australians cannot afford their power bills?” To meet economy wrecking emissions reduction targets, the federal government forces electricity retailers to purchase large-scale generation certificates from renewable energy producers. This artificially inflates the demand for renewables, with added costs passed on to consumers.” One of the biggest subsides that renewables get is the renewable energy target that forces energy retailers to buy renewable energy or they get penalised. This forces demand for renewables up in the short window that the sun is shining which increases the price of energy via your power bill. This scheme isn’t well understood but it should be, because if people knew how much it was increasing their power bills and that the money was going offshore they would be up in arms. People First will continue to lobby for the removal of the RET as it is unacceptable the energy prices are being forced up because of it. Quote from:

Gerard Rennick

30,562 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The AI boom just hit a wall nobody saw coming. And it's not software. It's not regulation. It's not even energy... It's memory chips. Right now, Dell is raising PC prices by 30%. Intel can't ship chips. Nvidia is slashing GPU production by 40%. And almost nobody understands why. Here's the "hidden" crisis the AI industry is trying to hide: AI data centers are hoarding memory. Not GPUs. Not processors. MEMORY. Every AI server needs massive amounts of high-bandwidth memory (HBM) to run those models everyone's hyping. One problem: There are only 3 companies in the world that can make it. Samsung. SK Hynix. Micron. That's it. And all 3 just diverted their entire production capacity away from normal RAM to feed AI data centers. The math that breaks everything: 1 gigabyte of HBM takes 4X the manufacturing capacity of regular DRAM. AI will consume 20% of global DRAM production in 2026. But the thing is, consumer demand for RAM didn't disappear. PCs still need memory. Phones still need memory. Cars still need memory. But there's no capacity left to make it. The price explosion: RAM prices are up 246% in the last 6 months. DDR5 contract prices jumped 100% month-over-month in some cases. Dell's CFO said he's "never witnessed costs escalating at this pace." SK Hynix and Micron? Sold out through all of 2026. Micron straight up EXITED the consumer memory market entirely to focus on AI customers. If you're not building an AI data center, you're not getting memory chips. AI data centers pay 3-5X margins compared to consumer products. So memory manufacturers are rationally choosing: Serve Microsoft and Google's AI buildout, or serve Dell's laptop business? Easy choice. Every wafer allocated to an Nvidia H100 GPU is a wafer DENIED to your next laptop. It's a zero-sum game. And consumers are losing. The dangerous cascade effect: Nvidia is cutting RTX 50-series GPU production by 30-40% because they can't get GDDR7 memory. Dell, Lenovo, HP are all raising PC prices 15-30% in early 2026. Xiaomi and other smartphone makers are cutting shipment targets. Even Intel's crash last week? Partially driven by memory shortages limiting chip production. This is a PERMANENT reallocation of the world's silicon capacity. Not a temporary supply hiccup. For decades, consumer electronics (phones, PCs, laptops) drove memory production. Now? AI data centers are the priority customer. And that priority shift is reshaping the entire tech economy. The timeline Is worse than you think: Industry analysts project shortages lasting through 2027, maybe 2028. Why? Because building new memory fabs takes 3-5 YEARS. Micron's new Idaho fab won't meaningfully impact supply until 2028. Samsung and SK Hynix are too busy ramping up HBM4 production to expand consumer DRAM. So we're stuck. AI companies need memory to scale. But producing that memory DESTROYS the supply chain for everything else. My question here: Everyone's betting on AI scaling infinitely. But what if the AI boom STALLS because there's not enough memory to support it? What if we're not in an "AI supercycle" but a "memory shortage that kills the AI buildout"? Intel crashed 17% because they can't manufacture enough chips. The root cause though? Memory shortages limiting what they can even produce. Nvidia is cutting GPU production by 40%. AMD is struggling to get GDDR6 for Radeon cards. This isn't just a consumer problem. It's an AI infrastructure problem. And if memory doesn't scale, AI doesn't scale. The AI industry sold you on infinite scaling. But they forgot to mention the part where there's only 3 companies making the memory chips that power everything. And all 3 just chose AI data centers over you. Even Nvidia can't make enough GPUs to meet demand. Not because of energy. Not because of regulation... But because the memory supply chain is BROKEN. And it won't be fixed until 2028.
0:58

The AI boom just hit a wall nobody saw coming. And it's not software. It's not regulation. It's not even energy... It's memory chips. Right now, Dell is raising PC prices by 30%. Intel can't ship chips. Nvidia is slashing GPU production by 40%. And almost nobody understands why. Here's the "hidden" crisis the AI industry is trying to hide: AI data centers are hoarding memory. Not GPUs. Not processors. MEMORY. Every AI server needs massive amounts of high-bandwidth memory (HBM) to run those models everyone's hyping. One problem: There are only 3 companies in the world that can make it. Samsung. SK Hynix. Micron. That's it. And all 3 just diverted their entire production capacity away from normal RAM to feed AI data centers. The math that breaks everything: 1 gigabyte of HBM takes 4X the manufacturing capacity of regular DRAM. AI will consume 20% of global DRAM production in 2026. But the thing is, consumer demand for RAM didn't disappear. PCs still need memory. Phones still need memory. Cars still need memory. But there's no capacity left to make it. The price explosion: RAM prices are up 246% in the last 6 months. DDR5 contract prices jumped 100% month-over-month in some cases. Dell's CFO said he's "never witnessed costs escalating at this pace." SK Hynix and Micron? Sold out through all of 2026. Micron straight up EXITED the consumer memory market entirely to focus on AI customers. If you're not building an AI data center, you're not getting memory chips. AI data centers pay 3-5X margins compared to consumer products. So memory manufacturers are rationally choosing: Serve Microsoft and Google's AI buildout, or serve Dell's laptop business? Easy choice. Every wafer allocated to an Nvidia H100 GPU is a wafer DENIED to your next laptop. It's a zero-sum game. And consumers are losing. The dangerous cascade effect: Nvidia is cutting RTX 50-series GPU production by 30-40% because they can't get GDDR7 memory. Dell, Lenovo, HP are all raising PC prices 15-30% in early 2026. Xiaomi and other smartphone makers are cutting shipment targets. Even Intel's crash last week? Partially driven by memory shortages limiting chip production. This is a PERMANENT reallocation of the world's silicon capacity. Not a temporary supply hiccup. For decades, consumer electronics (phones, PCs, laptops) drove memory production. Now? AI data centers are the priority customer. And that priority shift is reshaping the entire tech economy. The timeline Is worse than you think: Industry analysts project shortages lasting through 2027, maybe 2028. Why? Because building new memory fabs takes 3-5 YEARS. Micron's new Idaho fab won't meaningfully impact supply until 2028. Samsung and SK Hynix are too busy ramping up HBM4 production to expand consumer DRAM. So we're stuck. AI companies need memory to scale. But producing that memory DESTROYS the supply chain for everything else. My question here: Everyone's betting on AI scaling infinitely. But what if the AI boom STALLS because there's not enough memory to support it? What if we're not in an "AI supercycle" but a "memory shortage that kills the AI buildout"? Intel crashed 17% because they can't manufacture enough chips. The root cause though? Memory shortages limiting what they can even produce. Nvidia is cutting GPU production by 40%. AMD is struggling to get GDDR6 for Radeon cards. This isn't just a consumer problem. It's an AI infrastructure problem. And if memory doesn't scale, AI doesn't scale. The AI industry sold you on infinite scaling. But they forgot to mention the part where there's only 3 companies making the memory chips that power everything. And all 3 just chose AI data centers over you. Even Nvidia can't make enough GPUs to meet demand. Not because of energy. Not because of regulation... But because the memory supply chain is BROKEN. And it won't be fixed until 2028.

Ricardo

594,453 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🔌⚡Let's start with the obvious: OUR NJ ELECTRIC BILLS ARE OBSCENE. In Governor Mikie Sherrill's mammoth $60.7B budget address, she briefly referenced natural gas and nuclear energy. The rest of the speech followed the "green energy" fairy tale trajectory of her predecessor, with an emphasis on investing in solar energy and battery storage. Here’s the problem: solar and battery storage are SUPPLEMENTS, not primary power sources. Solar works when the sun's out, but the grid needs power 24/7. This may shock and surprise some, but NJ is not Texas so any comparison is completely invalid. And batteries don’t generate electricity; they store excess solar for a few hours and cost billions to build. Most store 2–4 hours of power, next generation shoots for 6–10 hours. A 24-hour battery grid is still theoretical. Here is a comparison of power reliability rates: Solar — about 8% Offshore wind — 40–50% Natural gas — 80%+ Nuclear — up to 95% Meanwhile, PJM (the regional grid operator) warned us that by 2030, the region could lose about 40 gigawatts of reliable power generation (while replacing less than half of it).Since March, there has at least been some movement on the nuclear front in NJ, but on natural gas? Mostly lip service so far. We keep hearing about storage, batteries and demand management. Great story. Where's the generation? NJ ALREADY lost $175M on the Ørsted offshore wind gamble & despite the collapse of several major projects, Trenton continues pushing to revive offshore wind, fighting federal action in court to shut it down. The kicker is that even at full capacity, that project too would have delivered well under 20 gigawatts upon completion — less than half the power NJ actually needs. So how'd we end up here in the first place? NJ used to be an energy EXPORTER. Well, Trenton Democrats shuttered reliable power before replacements existed, so now NJ IMPORTS 35–40% of our electricity from states in our regional grid. The Dems pat themselves on the back for being “green,” while importing electricity from PA generated with much-needed fossil fuels, including coal. It gets more surreal. The same Dems assign blame to (and threaten to leave) PJM. We're importing power and acting like we hold the cards. WE DON'T (just ask Pennsylvania). And "green"? Grid batteries use lithium, cobalt, nickel and other mined minerals, produced through massive industrial extraction & chemical processing. They're ridiculously expensive to build and a disposal nightmare. Is this what they call environmentally-friendly “green energy”? Now look at the budget shell game. The budget highlights spending tied to the Clean Energy Fund ($700M a year) and RGGI (roughly $80–100M annually). Those funds don’t come from Trenton. They come from YOU — surcharges you already pay for, built into your electric bill (don't forget! Over the years, billions of dollars have been diverted out of the Clean Energy Fund to plug other holes in the state budget.) THE GAME IN THE NUTSHELL: Raise your rates. Collect the money through RGGI and Clean Energy Fund charges. Hand a sliver back as a “utility credit.” Smile big at the press conference with your climate activist crew. As the Governor & Majority party celebrate "clean energy" budget spending, understand that most of it is just recycling money you've paid in your electric bill. This budget STILL gambles on “green energy.” With your wallet. SIDEBAR: During the campaign, Mikie Sherrill promised to "freeze electric rates." Fun fact: as Governor, her Executive Order didn’t freeze anything. It "urged" the Board of Public Utilities to "consider" taking action. A far cry from freezing rates, which is not a function of any NJ Governor.
0:47

🔌⚡Let's start with the obvious: OUR NJ ELECTRIC BILLS ARE OBSCENE. In Governor Mikie Sherrill's mammoth $60.7B budget address, she briefly referenced natural gas and nuclear energy. The rest of the speech followed the "green energy" fairy tale trajectory of her predecessor, with an emphasis on investing in solar energy and battery storage. Here’s the problem: solar and battery storage are SUPPLEMENTS, not primary power sources. Solar works when the sun's out, but the grid needs power 24/7. This may shock and surprise some, but NJ is not Texas so any comparison is completely invalid. And batteries don’t generate electricity; they store excess solar for a few hours and cost billions to build. Most store 2–4 hours of power, next generation shoots for 6–10 hours. A 24-hour battery grid is still theoretical. Here is a comparison of power reliability rates: Solar — about 8% Offshore wind — 40–50% Natural gas — 80%+ Nuclear — up to 95% Meanwhile, PJM (the regional grid operator) warned us that by 2030, the region could lose about 40 gigawatts of reliable power generation (while replacing less than half of it).Since March, there has at least been some movement on the nuclear front in NJ, but on natural gas? Mostly lip service so far. We keep hearing about storage, batteries and demand management. Great story. Where's the generation? NJ ALREADY lost $175M on the Ørsted offshore wind gamble & despite the collapse of several major projects, Trenton continues pushing to revive offshore wind, fighting federal action in court to shut it down. The kicker is that even at full capacity, that project too would have delivered well under 20 gigawatts upon completion — less than half the power NJ actually needs. So how'd we end up here in the first place? NJ used to be an energy EXPORTER. Well, Trenton Democrats shuttered reliable power before replacements existed, so now NJ IMPORTS 35–40% of our electricity from states in our regional grid. The Dems pat themselves on the back for being “green,” while importing electricity from PA generated with much-needed fossil fuels, including coal. It gets more surreal. The same Dems assign blame to (and threaten to leave) PJM. We're importing power and acting like we hold the cards. WE DON'T (just ask Pennsylvania). And "green"? Grid batteries use lithium, cobalt, nickel and other mined minerals, produced through massive industrial extraction & chemical processing. They're ridiculously expensive to build and a disposal nightmare. Is this what they call environmentally-friendly “green energy”? Now look at the budget shell game. The budget highlights spending tied to the Clean Energy Fund ($700M a year) and RGGI (roughly $80–100M annually). Those funds don’t come from Trenton. They come from YOU — surcharges you already pay for, built into your electric bill (don't forget! Over the years, billions of dollars have been diverted out of the Clean Energy Fund to plug other holes in the state budget.) THE GAME IN THE NUTSHELL: Raise your rates. Collect the money through RGGI and Clean Energy Fund charges. Hand a sliver back as a “utility credit.” Smile big at the press conference with your climate activist crew. As the Governor & Majority party celebrate "clean energy" budget spending, understand that most of it is just recycling money you've paid in your electric bill. This budget STILL gambles on “green energy.” With your wallet. SIDEBAR: During the campaign, Mikie Sherrill promised to "freeze electric rates." Fun fact: as Governor, her Executive Order didn’t freeze anything. It "urged" the Board of Public Utilities to "consider" taking action. A far cry from freezing rates, which is not a function of any NJ Governor.

Dawn Fantasia

12,282 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

Must watch explanation on clean energy by Greg Jackson on #BBCQT - also watch Tim Stanley squirm repeatedly when Jackson gives answers Greg Jackson, "We've crossed the rubicon.. Clean energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels" "Power from wind and solar is cheaper than power from fossil fuels" "Consumers don't see the benefits because our markets are run in the old traditional way" "We need market reform so when we build wind farms, people get cheaper energy" "It doesn't help that we are paying wind farms to turn off when it's windy, instead of giving people cheap power at those times" "59% of all of the renewable energy has been built in China" Fiona Bruce, "They're also building huge coal plants" Greg Jackson, "The majority will never be used, they'll be mothballed" "Why are they building green energy? It's not because they're nice people. Now they recognise clean energy is cheaper, and energy is the engine of growth for their industry, they're investing in it" "Six or seven years ago if you went to Chinese cities people wore face mask because of air pollution.. That's gone" Tim Stanley, "If you have a period where the wind dies and the sun doesn't shine, what happens, you have to rely on back up.. Rely on gas.. Import the power from overseas" Greg Jackson, "Allow me to help you with this answer.. As somebody who buys more power than anybody in the UK.. I can give you an authoritative answer on what to do" "An electric car holds enough power in its battery for a typical house in the best part of the week" "As more and more electric cars hit our roads, we have distributed storage of electricity, days on end, without wind" "It's not the whole solution but it's a big part of it.. And it helps us reduce our reliance on things like those fossil fuel backups" "It's always windy somewhere, it's always sunny somewhere.. As we connect our country to others.. When they're windy we get their power, when we're windy we sell ours to them" "By the way, we are one of the windiest places in the world.. This is a huge export opportunity for the UK"
2:35

Must watch explanation on clean energy by Greg Jackson on #BBCQT - also watch Tim Stanley squirm repeatedly when Jackson gives answers Greg Jackson, "We've crossed the rubicon.. Clean energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels" "Power from wind and solar is cheaper than power from fossil fuels" "Consumers don't see the benefits because our markets are run in the old traditional way" "We need market reform so when we build wind farms, people get cheaper energy" "It doesn't help that we are paying wind farms to turn off when it's windy, instead of giving people cheap power at those times" "59% of all of the renewable energy has been built in China" Fiona Bruce, "They're also building huge coal plants" Greg Jackson, "The majority will never be used, they'll be mothballed" "Why are they building green energy? It's not because they're nice people. Now they recognise clean energy is cheaper, and energy is the engine of growth for their industry, they're investing in it" "Six or seven years ago if you went to Chinese cities people wore face mask because of air pollution.. That's gone" Tim Stanley, "If you have a period where the wind dies and the sun doesn't shine, what happens, you have to rely on back up.. Rely on gas.. Import the power from overseas" Greg Jackson, "Allow me to help you with this answer.. As somebody who buys more power than anybody in the UK.. I can give you an authoritative answer on what to do" "An electric car holds enough power in its battery for a typical house in the best part of the week" "As more and more electric cars hit our roads, we have distributed storage of electricity, days on end, without wind" "It's not the whole solution but it's a big part of it.. And it helps us reduce our reliance on things like those fossil fuel backups" "It's always windy somewhere, it's always sunny somewhere.. As we connect our country to others.. When they're windy we get their power, when we're windy we sell ours to them" "By the way, we are one of the windiest places in the world.. This is a huge export opportunity for the UK"

Farrukh

523,197 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr