Ever Heard of "Gaslighting"?
Imagine Paying $48 to Power Your Life for 100 Years
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.
“An offshore hydrogen pipeline at this depth and distance has never been done before,” said Gonzalo Escribano, an energy expert at Madrid’s Real Instituto Elcano think tank.
One of the main problems is that hydrogen is made up of small molecules which can escape through the joints and cause corrosion, said Linares, an engineer by training.
Do you see any absurd ammonia-energy deals that use way more energy than they can ever produce and have no business case? 🤷♂️ Nope.
We were a little dumbfounded when saw these headlines. Surely, this must be a joke? Alas, like much of what emanates from the current slate of Western leaders, the two countries appear to be as serious in intent as they are unserious in understanding. While we could write an entire piece demonstrating why this effort is destined to be just another multi-billion-dollar boondoggle, we’ll dispatch with those particulars rather quickly and, instead, propose a practical yet superior alternative for Germany. Let’s dig in.
One Pound of Fuel - $48.00 - for 100 Years of Energy
A 2.54 cm ball of uranium weighs 1 pound (0.45 Kg). Today's spot price is $48.
Utilizing fast-spectrum technology, that's enough fuel to power 100 years of the average North American's power-hungry life. (h/t @science_church)
When So Much Less is Not Enough
As good as the deal would be for us, the problem is that $48 over 100 years doesn't add much corporate profit or make many campaign contributions. For further reading, consider: Nuclear Power Has No Natural Constituency--But Instead, Natural Enemies.
Ever heard of a Rube Goldberg Machine? Ever want to see a really big one? 1 is the need. 2+3 are totally unnecessary because 4. works best all by itself. Germany wrecked 17 nuclear reactors because they love 2+3 but they don’t work without 18 lignite coal plants (shocking as it may be). Source: @Martianmaniac1
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 similar interests and proponents of the business-as-usual approach to everything, because $48 for 100 years of energy doesn't make sense to them. Consider European Greenies from Mordor.
Ever Heard of Gaslighting?
In the 2008 book State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind, the authors contend that the prevalence of gaslighting in American politics began with the age of modern communications:
To say gaslighting was started by... any extant group is not simply wrong, it also misses an important point. Gaslighting comes directly from blending modern communications, marketing, and advertising techniques with long-standing methods of propaganda. They were simply waiting to be discovered by those with sufficient ambition and psychological makeup to use them. Source
Hard to believe, but Russia has mastered the tactict:
"Gaslighting" has been used to describe Russia's global relations. While Russian operatives were active in Crimea in 2017, Russian officials continually denied their presence and manipulated the distrust of political groups in their favor. Source
Energy Poverty in the Age of Energy Absurdities. Imagine wrecking a fleet of 17 barely-used, over-engineered, sophisticated load-following, and paid-off nuclear reactors that produced firm power for about €20 / MWh. How do such people get elected to public office?
I find your content compelling and intellectually stimulating. One thing I am curious to hear your take is waste from nuclear. My perception is that this issue has been and will continue to be used as part of the gaslighting to poo pop any material shift to nuclear , whether or not it's legit. If you have a post on it already would appreciate a link. Thanks for helping to reinforce what se to be my similar views on the insanity of green energy and the real viable long term solution to reducing fossil fuel use (the reasons for reduction having zero to do with global warming )