The GKG Twin Blessing course comprises 8 lectures, although the last is optional, and the first may not be needed for some audiences. It could be given in a single day seminar, or, in an academic environment, in 7 or 8 separate lectures.
New nuclear capacity won’t show up until around 2030
Meta is writing more checks for nuclear investment, even though the new capacity tied to those deals is unlikely to come online until around 2030. The company says it will need the new power to run its hyperscale datacenters.
Facebook's parent company says it has inked agreements with three outfits - TerraPower and Oklo are developing new reactor technology or building fresh sites, while Vistra is supporting existing nuclear plants. All three will deliver electricity into the grid rather than straight to Meta's own facilities.
I have been writing here for about a decade that wind and solar would inevitably prove to be far more expensive for producing useful electricity than other methods like fossil fuels, nuclear, or hydro. The reasons are not difficult to understand. Wind and solar, due to intermittency, are not capable of powering a full-time electrical grid on their own. To make the grid capable of fulfilling customer demand 24/7/365, wind and solar require large amounts of additional capital infrastructure — dispatchable back-up generation, energy storage, additional transmission capacity, and more. If wind and solar prove insufficient to eliminate dispatchable back-up generation, then you find yourself running (and paying for) two duplicative systems, when you could have had only one. Energy storage as a potential solution to intermittency turns out to be impossibly expensive. If the only back-up generation you can find that works is powered by fossil fuels, then you haven’t even succeeded in achieving zero carbon emissions in the electricity sector. //
In 2025, Louisiana had the third-lowest electricity rates in the United States. The reasons are simple—73% of Louisiana’s electricity is generated by natural gas and unlike California or New York, Louisiana has not attempted to implement carbon dioxide or renewable energy goals through its electricity generation system. //
em
2 days ago · 0 Likes
Can you please boil this analysis down to a soundbite? Voters already believe renewables are cheaper, so that soundbite should include something that slays that belief.
Richard Greene
7 hours ago · 0 Likes
Free electricity with windmills and solar panels.
At night, when there is no wind, you will not pay for electricity.
The hidden costs of powering civilization //
I want to ask you a question we don’t usually think about when we flip a light switch or fill up a tank…and that is, where does the energy actually come from?
Sure, sunlight, wind, and even coal and gas are technically free, they are energy sources just sitting there in nature to be used… some facing more limitations than others. But turning them into power we can actually use to run Santa Claus’ chocolate factory or light our christmas trees? That’s a whole different story.
This is where the idea of primary energy comes in. It’s actually not about the electricity we see listed on our bills, but is really about all the raw energy we have to pull from nature, to process, convert, and deliver before we get anything useful, such as 24/7/365 electricity, every single second we need it. And once you start looking at energy this way, things get a lot clearer.
We often hear that solar and wind energy is “clean” and basically “free” and it does not have thermal losses like a nuclear or gas-fired power plant. But to make this wind and solar energy usable and reliable in the real world, we have to build enormous support systems, mine rare minerals, manufacture components, build storage, upgrade the grid, maintain everything, and then, eventually, dispose of it. It’s not just about a solar panel and a little breeze blowing over a turbine blade.
Now compare that to conventional fuels like coal or gas or oil… they might lose more energy during combustion in power plants or engines, but the upfront infrastructure is simpler, and the systems last much longer, with the average coal or gas plant running for a good 30-60 years, nuclear usually far longer. That is not nothing and this should be considered when speaking of “free” energy.
Understanding primary energy helps cut through the feel-good stats and get down to the physics. It assists in showing us the full cost of electricity (FCOE), time, money and materials used in making any source truly usable…and once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
That is why looking at the real problem with the “Primary Energy Fallacy” often used by supporters of grid-scale wind and solar, is worth it! //
The “Primary Energy Fallacy” a term coined eloquently by many, is the idea that all primary energy from fossil fuels must be replaced by an equivalent amount of “renewable” energy. However, those people say, this would not be necessary because more than two-thirds of primary energy is lost as wasted heat during the conversion processes.
The misunderstanding occurs in the belief that wind and solar generate electricity without any losses (a secondary or tertiary form of energy) while coal, gas, uranium may have a high energy content but have “thermal losses” ~60-70% during processing. This PE fallacy argument is used for power generation and also for internal combustion engine vehicles (ICE) in a slightly adjusted form.
- Stated Primary Energy Fallacy 1: “The conversion of gas and coal to power results in a loss of around 60%. This means that one unit of primary energy from wind or solar, replaces two units of that of gas/coal”
- Stated Primary Energy Fallacy 2: “The conversion losses during end use in internal combustions engines ICE are also high. Electric motors are much more efficient. Most car engines ‘lose’ 70% of fuel energy, which means that one final energy unit of electricity replaces three units of gasoline/diesel”
Modern climate politics treats humanity like an invasive species.
We’re told we consume too much, build too much, develop too much, and emit too much. The message is clear: human beings are the problem, and the earth must be protected from us.
But that is not Christianity.
It’s not even close.
For 3,000 years, the Judeo-Christian worldview taught something radically different—that humans are image-bearers designed to create, cultivate, innovate, and build. The very first job description in Scripture is found in Genesis 1:28:
“Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over every living thing.”
To modern ears, “subdue” and “dominion” sound imperial. To ancient readers, they meant responsibility, stewardship, cultivation, and development. The earth was not a fragile deity to tiptoe around; it was a raw, untamed gift meant to be worked, shaped, and stewarded for human flourishing.
And here’s where the climate debate goes off the rails.
If you believe Genesis, then energy is not a moral liability—it is the means by which humans fulfill their mandate. Energy is how you lift the poor, feed nations, sustain families, run hospitals, build infrastructure, and create the conditions for long-term stability and—ironically—environmental improvement.
Yet the climate movement has turned this mandate upside down. It demands sacrifice, limitation, and deprivation in the name of “saving the planet.” The message to the world’s poor is simple: stay poor a little longer so the West can feel environmentally virtuous. //
If you want to solve poverty, you don’t throttle energy. You expand it. You diversify it. You make it abundant and affordable. The cleanest nations on earth became clean because they became rich first. Wealth creates environmental capacity. Poverty destroys it.
The Christian view is simple: the earth was given to humanity to cultivate, not fear. The resources here are meant to be used responsibly, not locked away because climate bureaucrats believe modern prosperity is a moral sin.
The climate debate will never make sense until we recover the foundational truth Genesis established: human beings were meant to build. Meant to advance. Meant to subdue the earth—not as tyrants, but as stewards.
The earth is not a god to appease.
It is a garden to cultivate.
If you want the environment to thrive, let people thrive first.
Climate alarmists don’t just get the science wrong but also demonize the engine of wealth that has brought billions out of grinding poverty; and this “climate colonialism” is “morally unconscionable,” a Christian leader says.
“What I believe we’re seeing in the demand from wealthy Western nations that we fight climate change by reducing our use of fossil fuels is that they are demanding that the poorest nations of the world forego the use of the most abundant, affordable, reliable energy sources that can lift them out of poverty and keep them out of poverty,” E. Calvin Beisner, president of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, told The Daily Signal.
“It is the West saying to the rest, ‘We made it out, you have to stay,'” he noted. “That is just morally unconscionable.”
Jet A and Jet A-1 are kerosene-type fuels. The primary difference between the two is freeze point, the temperature at which wax crystals disappear in a laboratory test.
Jet A, which is mainly used in the United States, must have a freeze point of minus 40ºC or below and does not typically contain static dissipator additive. Jet A-1 must have a freeze point of minus 47ºC or below and for locations outside the United States, this fuel normally contains static dissipator additive. There are other key differences between the manufacturing specification within the United States and Europe/Africa/Middle East/Australasia.
We are writing to express our concerns with a January 30, 2014 article by Rita F. Redberg and Rebecca Smith-Bindman. The article is alarmingly titled, “We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer”, and is accompanied by a frightening cartoon that appears to be a doctor holding an X-ray film, and wearing a gas mask and helmet. The picture and title are the first clues that sensational claims follow, and the article does not disappoint in that regard, though it falls far short in offering prudent medical advice to frightened patients and parents.
The authors only mention in passing that medical imaging can save lives, and quickly move on to assert that there is little evidence of better health outcomes from current scanning practices. They do not mention, for example that the National Lung Screening Trial recently found that former smokers who received CT screening were 20% less likely to die from lung cancer and 7% less likely to die from any cause, compared to those who were screened with lower dose chest radiography. They do not mention the studies demonstrating the clear clinical benefits of mammography, bone mineral densitometry, and CT colonography. They do not mention the hundreds of studies that suggest that the body’s natural defense systems are quite capable of dealing with very low doses of radiation – like those that have existed on our planet since its beginning and those associated with modern medical imaging.
This essay responds to an article by Stanford Professor Mark Z. Jacobson et al, 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World. Their controversial WWS roadmap has several interesting features and benefits. //
Several authors have pointed out the impossibility of this Stanford WWS roadmap. Jesse Jenkins and Samuel Thernstrom published Deep Decarbonization of the Electric Power Sector. Mathijs Beckers wrote The Non-Solutions Project of Mark Z. Jacobson.
Misled by Jacobson, climate activists such as Bill McKibben of 350.org calls for world war-like mobilization of nations to effect the $125 trillion WWS roadmap.
This present essay describes a doable, affordable liquid fission (LF) power roadmap to solve the multiple issues of climate change, air pollution, and poverty reduction.
Despite technological and regulatory hurdles, Amazon remains convinced that small modular reactors (SMRs) are the answer to the cloud titan's power woes.
Last fall, the house of Bezos announced a $500 million investment in SMR startup X-Energy. On Thursday, the e-tailer revealed that X-Energy's Xe-100 SMR designs would eventually supply Washington State with "up to" 960 megawatts of clean energy.
"Eventually" is the key word here as construction isn't expected to start until the end of the decade and the plants won't begin operations until sometime in the 2030s.
About six-in-ten U.S. adults now say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, according to a Pew Research Center survey fielded in April and May. That’s up from 43% in 2020, driven by increasing support among both Republicans and Democrats.
A line chart showing that a Majority of Americans continue to support more nuclear power in the U.S. //
Americans remain more likely to favor expanding solar (77%) and wind power (68%) than nuclear power (59%). But while support for solar and wind power has declined by double digits since 2020 – largely driven by drops in Republican support – the share who favor nuclear power has grown by 16 percentage points since then.
Yes it does.
Seems like a lot doesn't it?
But, we must consider scale.
A 747-400 carries around 63,500 gallons of fuel, which actually makes that gallon-per-second burn rate quite efficient when you think about it.
At cruising altitude (around 35,000 feet), a 747 burns approximately 5-5.5 gallons per mile.
Works out to about 0.2 miles per gallon, which sounds terrible until you consider that the plane is moving nearly 400 people and their luggage at about 550 miles per hour.
Break it down per passenger, and you're looking at roughly 85-100 passenger miles per gallon. //
Greyhound many years ago measured its bus transport efficiency in passenger-miles/gallon. Their goal was to …wait for it… get to and maintain that very 85–100 passenger-miles/gallon number range.
How We Can Make Nuclear Cheap Again Paperback – March 30, 2025
by Jack Devanney (Author)
This book has a joyful message. We can simultaneously solve the Gordian Knot of our time: the closely coupled problems of energy poverty and global warming. The solution is cheap nuclear power, and we can have cheap nuclear if we want it.
Here's the Good News:
1) Our fear of radiation is vastly overblown. A providential Nature has provided us with DNA repair mechanisms that can easily handle dose rates 100's of times above normal background. Dose rates that exceed the repair capabilities of our bodies will almost never be encountered by the public in even a very large release.
2) Thanks to its insane energy density and the resulting tiny resource requirement, nuclear power is inherently cheap, less than 3 cents per kWh cheap. Indeed nascent nuclear in the 1960's did-cost less than 3 cents/kWh in today's money. Nuclear power should consume far less of the planet's precious resources than any other source of electricity, while producing nearly no pollution and very little CO2.
Nuclear's problems are man-made. Nuclear power never escaped from its government sponsored and controlled birth. In the process, it developed a regulatory regime explicitly mandated to increase costs to the point where nuclear power is barely economic, while at the same time convincing everyone that low dose rate radiation is perilous.
But what is man-made can be man-unmade. All that's required is an acceptance of these two providential realities, a change in attitude, a metanoia. With this change, the way forward becomes obvious, and not that difficult to implement.
This little book explains why (1) and (2) are true, and then traces nuclear power's decline into a prohibitively expensive mess. Finally, it offers a way out, a system for regulating nuclear which will force the providers of nuclear power to compete with each other and new entrants on a level playing field, in which case the inherent cheapness of fission power combined with technological advances will push the cost of nuclear electricity down to its should-cost.
Nuclear would undercut fossil fuel almost every where. Fossil would be relegated to a bit of peaking and backup for unplanned outages. Intermittents would be limited to a few niche markets. This would all be automatic. No need for subsidies or mandates. The poor would be immensely richer. Electrification of transportation and industry would explode. Desalinization would take off. Synthetic fuels could become viable. Skies would be clean. All this electricity would require little land and produce almost no CO2. The planet would be cooler. Could there be a more joyful message?
according to LNT, if every human ate a banana a week, bananas would kill 1600 people a year. In the same scenario, SNT kills one person every 2.5 million years.
Now, class, let's get back to basics.
Repeat after me:
It's not dose. It's dose rate profile.
Good.
Repeat after me:
LNT does not say eating a banana is safe or unsafe.
LNT says eating a banana has a 4 in a billion chance of killing you.
Repeat after me:
SNT does not say eating a banana is safe or unsafe.
SNT says eating a banana has a 1 in a billion-billion chance of killing you.
Whether those risks are safe or unsafe is up to you.
Class dismissed.
In less than a few centuries, 250 groundbreaking hydrocarbon processing and refining techniques were discovered. Their impact continues today, benefiting the 8 billion people living on Earth.
Today, over 6,000 products derived from petroleum enrich our lives. They have reduced infant mortality, doubled global life expectancy from around 40 to over 80 years, and made it possible to travel anywhere in the world by plane, train, ship, or car — drastically reducing weather-related deaths to nearly zero. These were all unimaginable in societies before 1800. //
Today, “Net Zero” policymakers setting “green” policies are oblivious to the reality that so-called “renewables” ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make anything. In addition, everything that NEEDS Electricity, like iPhones and computers, is made with petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil, coal, or natural gas.
Electricity came after oil, as all electrical generation methods, including hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar, are built with products, components, and equipment made from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil. //
If we go back 200 years to the 1800s, we find a decarbonized society, i.e., a very different era and a society without products, transportation fuels, and electricity. Fossil-fuel products weren’t widespread, thus lifestyles were less prosperous, health conditions were precarious, and life expectancy was short.
A renewed shift toward decarbonization and zero-emission lifestyles severely restricts the use of fossil fuels, like coal and oil, and could bring us back to a world of more than 200 years ago. That might mean billions suffering again from disease, malnutrition, and weather-related fatalities.
Moving toward decarbonization risks depriving, or delaying access to, the standards of living and products that wealthy, healthy nations take for granted. Today, around 700 million people, which is roughly 9% of humanity, live below the international poverty line. In other words, halting fossil fuel production and use would reverse many centuries of progress.
Over the last 200 years, after the discovery of the products and transportation fuels that could be manufactured out of crude oil, the world’s population has increased from 1 billion to 8 billion. It was more than 6,000 “products” from oil that supported the tremendous growth in population. //
Wind turbines and solar panels can ONLY generate ELECTRICITY.
All the products and transportation fuels demanded by society, all the infrastructures, and the economy are made from fossil fuels.
When it comes to assessing power sources, the three most significant metrics are affordability, reliability, and environmental friendliness.
For several years, we’ve been told that so-called green energy sources like wind and solar check all three of these boxes, thus making them the best choice for America.
However, this is not true. Actually, a strong case can be made that wind and solar are some of the least affordable, reliable, and clean energy sources.
On the other hand, natural gas, which has been inaccurately portrayed as being terrible for the planet and more expensive than wind and solar, is, by far, more affordable, reliable, and environmentally friendly.
This is not mere opinion. It is based on taking the whole picture into account. //
“Coal, natural gas, and nuclear are considered baseload power because they can dependably provide reliable, on-demand power whenever they are needed.” Conversely, “Wind turbines generate, on average, only about 35 percent of the power that would be possible under consistently ideal conditions.” Even worse, “Solar equipment generates, on average, only about 25 percent of the power that would be possible under sunny skies at high noon.” //
Another “hidden” cost that is often overlooked when it comes to wind and solar is that their intermittent nature “require baseload power facilities like natural gas plants to be cycling and available – racking up costs but selling no power – in the background in case they are needed at a moment’s notice when wind or solar power ramp down.”
Because the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, wind and solar necessitate “cycling in the background, which adds to the cost of operating natural gas power plants, even though wind and solar power are gaining the sales and imposing those additional operating costs on natural gas power.” //
Wind and solar power pose unique threats to open spaces and species protection. It requires approximately 60 square miles of solar panels to generate the same amount of power as a conventional power plant. It requires approximately 320 square miles of wind turbines to do the same.” //
the best way to analyze the actual cost of power sources is called the Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity (LFCOE).
Applying the LFCOE, “using the relatively wind-friendly and solar-friendly geography of Texas as a baseline, is as follows, in dollars per megawatt-hour: natural gas: $40; coal: $90; biomass: $117; nuclear: $122; wind: $291; solar: $413.”
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf
Mopani says:
July 22, 2025 at 1:18 PM
“Investors studiously seek to minimize or mitigate uncertainty.”
Absolutely 100%. The present operational method of the NRC militates against this very desire for certainty. ALARA and LNT both destroy certainty, and as others have pointed out, recent builds have proven it, with the NRC changing the rules mid-build. At minimum, once a construction license is awarded, the NRC should not be allowed to change the rules that the license was awarded under.
Mopani says:
July 22, 2025 at 1:28 PM
Separately from my previous comment, the US NRC logo in the article says everything about the viewpoint of the NRC: “Protecting People and the Environment” — from nuclear power evidently.
A better tagline would be “Clean & Safe Energy for All”. The NRC as presently constituted is not about promoting safe energy, its about promoting safety.
An illustration: If the first rule of traffic safety is “safety first” then 35MPH would be the maximum speed limit. If the first rule of traffic safety is “keep the traffic moving” then speed limits and other rules take their rightful place — accidents impede the flow of traffic, so traffic rules should help prevent accidents, but the rules become subservient to the primary goal of keeping traffic flowing.
The safety rules around Nuclear power should be subservient to the rule that nuclear power should be plentiful, cheap, and safe. Those are not unachievable goals. The failure of the NRC is to regard nuclear accidents as somehow more special than any other industrial accident, contributing to the culture of treating nuclear power as more dangerous than any other industry. As Petr Beckmann noted in the title of his book, “The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear”, depriving society of plentiful, cheap and safe energy is more hazardous.
U.S. states have built less than 400 electric vehicle charging ports through April under $7.5 billion federal infrastructure programs, the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday.
As of April 2025, 384 charging ports are operating at 68 stations in 16 states, GAO said, saying a joint office overseeing the program "has not defined performance goals with measurable targets and time frames for its activities." //
Nationwide, there are about 219,000 publicly available EV charging ports, according to the Energy Department. //
Oh, and for the sake of comparison, there are 198,443 gasoline stations in the United States, and to make it apples-to-apples, since the number of EV charging ports are just that - ports, equivalent to one single gas or diesel nozzle - just for the sake of argument, let's assume an average of six pumps per station, with two nozzles per pump; that's 2,381,316 gasoline or diesel ports in the United States. Even our own little local gas station, up the road in our little Susitna Valley village center, has six gasoline pumps and two diesel pumps, so I'm pretty confident with that number.
As a retired nuke plant employee I take it as kind of an insult to read the utilities caused this Dense-pack problem to save a few bucks. After 47 yrs of commercial operation Davis Besse is still waiting on the Federal Government to come and get even one of THEIR spent fuel assemblies. //
mjd
Aug 16
Here's a link to proof the the US Government owns the Spent Fuel and even has to pay the utilities to store it. It's a breach of contract for the government not to take their Spent Fuel and proven in a court of law: https://www.buildsmartbradley.com/2024/08/united-states-ordered-to-pay-breach-of-contract-damages-to-nuclear-operator-in-spent-fuel-dispute/
Fossil fuels pollute and renewables are not enough.
AI, industry, and growing economies need more power than ever. Meanwhile fossil fuels pollute, and renewables flicker when we need them most.
Global Energy Demand will rise 50% by 2050.
No other clean energy solution can scale fast enough to meet demand.
Renewables only provide 30-40% capacity factor.
Intermittency and the sky-high costs of battery storage make renewables an incomplete solution.
Coal Plants emit 15 billion tons of CO2 Annually.
The single largest driver of climate change, coal remains the dominant global energy source.
Nuclear only Changes the World if it
01 Scales on an assembly line.
02 Competes with coal on cost.
03 Can be deployed worldwide with ease.
Thorcon Changes The Game for Nuclear.
5-7X
Faster construction thanks to innovative shipyard construction.
1GW
High output dual plants deliver power at costs competitive with coal.
40%+
More efficient than traditional nuclear reactors.
Global
Transportable by sea. Build in shipyards and tow to installation site.
Safe
Safe by design, requiring no operator intervention or external power to maintain stability.