31 Comments

I wish MicroNuclear success… And the opposite to the CCP.

Expand full comment

David,

Thanks for all that you do. I really enjoy being educated by the Haymaker.

Expand full comment

Many thanks for the illuminating article, David. Let's not forget that climate policy is about redistributing wealth from richer nations to poorer ones, according to Ottmar Edenhofer, former UN climate official: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore ... We redistribute de facto the world:s wealth by climate policy"

Expand full comment

it is so very strange that all those sailors can live all those years on vessels with nuclear power and no one is killed or even becomes sick from the reactors. we ought to put a few of these reactors near every big city

Expand full comment

Hi David. I'm not very impressed with you cherry-picking a list of alarmist but incorrect climate-change predictions while you ignore the numerous correct predictions, e.g. melting of glaciers, increased methane emissions from thawing permafrost, increase in the intensity of hurricanes and cyclones, increasing intensity of bushfires in e.g. Australia and California (remember the terrible 2019-20 bushfires in Australia), and increasingly intense heatwaves (121 °F in parts of Pakistan in May this year). However, not here to start an argument about all that.

A very good resource regarding the realistic options for energy supply is http://withouthotair.com

This website was created by David MacKay, a Professor of Physics at Cambridge University, UK who died prematurely of cancer in 2016, aged 48. There are easy-to-understand discussions of how much energy we need per person per day, and how much we can realistically get from various sources e.g. nuclear, fossil fuel, wind, solar etc. See for example the discussion starting at page 103, "Can we live on renewables?" http://withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml

Solar power could be used to manufacture hydrogen or synthetic gasoline, which would solve the storage problem, however Europe would end up having to import energy probably from North African countries. The US sun belt would be in good shape though.

Expand full comment

Excellent commentary! Most of the facts contained in this Haymaker are just not understood by the mass of the public. They continue to hear only the blatant anti human propaganda being spewed by the elitist cadre and their left wing green counterparts.

The fact that China and India were able to hold the COP22 to ransom and get their way on massive coal fired infrastructure expansion while the West hurtles down a road to energy perdition demonstrates that CO2 emissions will increase massively in the East while we put our Western energy infrastructure at high risk and increasing cost.

I will be sharpening my pitchforks and putting together a bunch of torches later today.........

Expand full comment

how can we call you?

Expand full comment

Mostly commenting to say hello. I do agree that renewables have been promising more than they are delivering.

Expand full comment

Glad to see someone has common sense.

Expand full comment

Brilliant analysis. Only add on is that small modular reactors can be used to convert coal power plants (brown fields) into clean burning non carbon dioxide producing sources of power already attached to grid. See: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/repurposing-fossil-fuel-power-plant-sites-with-smrs-to-ease-clean-energy-transition.

I too wish heaps of success to MicroNuclear but there are also larger players such as Rolls Royce and other startups like NuScale Power (ticker SMR) also in this space.

Wouldn’t it be “sweet” for USA to pivot to nuclear just as CCP has cornered the market in solar.

Expand full comment

Outstanding substack. Nice reality check.

Expand full comment

Spot on Dave. Thorium based reactors also have much promise and a relatively tiny waste output but there is so much FUD around nuclear that even many of my conservative friends are not convinced. Thanks for pointedly listing the facts around solar supply and who controls it. 13D first made me aware of it almost 15 years ago but apparently policy makers don’t read long form explanations of what is going on in the rest of the world.

Keep hammering away.

Expand full comment

I truly enjoyed this weeks Haymaker because it is deep in facts and light on opinion. Our politicians and the majority of the media should try following this formula. Keep up the good work!

Expand full comment

Well said Dave! Thank you!

Expand full comment
Jun 17, 2022·edited Jun 17, 2022

Thank you for this article. Mr. Hay. I agree with virtually all of your comments but I must respectfully disagree with your contention that NATO provoked Russia. All ex-Soviet Countries who became NATO members did so because they had a choice. They could choose Russia and gamble that the Russians would stick to playing by the rules (fat chance that would happen and if you doubt what I say, ask British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell how well Russians play fairly...) and not become the first Cannon Fodder nations. Or, They could choose NATO, where they would at least have others to watch their backs. I also seem to recall a Nuclear Non-Proliferation deal where Russia, at the time of the Soviet Union's collapse, could not bear to have 5500 Nuclear Missiles in Ukraine. So they pleaded with the United States to broker a deal where Ukraine would give up those missiles and in return, Russia would NOT invade the Ukraine... Yeah, so much for agreements and trust! See what I mean about Russians changing the Rules in the middle of the Game?

As for the current Energy crisis, all this "Climate Change(TM)" nonsense is based entirely on the idea that Mother Nature somehow can't deal with the CO2 Mankind produces. This idiotic notion that Nature wasn't designed to be able to not only cope but remediate greater levels of CO2, or Plant Food, is nonsensical, ludicrous and blindingly stupid beyond belief. Should Humanity find newer and more advantageous types of Fuel? Absolutely! But, trying to make newer and more expensive versions of Ancient Technologies is asinine at best and a complete waste of Money at worst. Coal Gasification allows for far cleaner Coal use. Hydrogen would be very expensive as Hydrogen is corrosive to Carbon Steel. Geothermal is great but not transferable to Propulsion. A material that acts like a battery without wearing out prematurely or catching on fire or being non-toxic doesn't exist on Earth. Every Element on the Periodic Table of Elements has been tried, to no avail and hoping that some miraculous combination of Earth Bound Elements will somehow create a battery that would make Fossil Fuels irrelevant for propulsion is pointless.

As for Nuclear for propulsion, I would agree that ships and Air planes could be transitioned to Nuclear as Air Craft Carriers and Subs currently are due to the fact that mid-Ocean and Sky collisions are far and few between. Not so sure about current land and road vehicles. These would require something else. The race to find a new Universal Fuel resides in the Future with Technologies such as Room Temperature Super Conductors and Dark Matter. Trying to recycle Old Technologies like Wind and Solar is a waste of Time and Money. Better to fund research that will make new discoveries possible rather that continuing to inject the Hopium that Mankind is currently hooked on. My apologies for the long Diatribe but having a 46 Year front row seat to the Energy Debate has made me rather cranky as of late. I don't suffer Fools lightly anymore. I bid all of you a great Weekend. Enjoy your Summer Holidays...

Expand full comment

David,

Well done, but too kind to the "experts" in any field. As I've mentioned before, the mantra of the "experts" is, "Who are you going to believe, ME, or your lying eyes?" Groucho Marx was at least an entertaining expert.

Kevin

Expand full comment