What energy combination will prevail in North America in 2100 (Jim Conca, Eric Jelinski)

Natural Gas And Renewables Will Rule America’s Electricity Production Jim Conca October 25, 2019 As much as wind and solar are increasing, natural gas is increasing more. And gas will continue to grow faster than all other sources in the United States for some time. By mid-century, gas should exceed 50% of our generation, with renewables in second at over 25%. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/25/natural-gas-and-renewableswill-rule-americas-electricity-future/

Nuclear – natural gas is better than nuclear – renewable wind and solar John Shanahan October 25, 2019 Jim Conca, thanks for your article predicting natural gas, wind and solar energy making up 75% of US energy sources for electric generation by 2100.

At this point, this may be the most likely prediction, but it certainly isn't the best in my opinion. The N-N energy solution for the USA would be better (nuclear and natural gas).

1

Nuclear isn't going to restart easily with the flip of a switch. There are long standing problems with nuclear that must be addressed first. That will take a revolution. Here are ten problems some think must be resolved to get nuclear going again on a large scale, worldwide.

Oil will still be heavily used for transportation and other purposes.

Even with your prediction for electricity in the United States, my estimate for total, worldwide energy use in 2100, wind and solar will be less than ten percent of all energy use. Then after a few failed generations of wind and solar it will drop down and hopefully nuclear problems will be cleared up and its use pick up.

Renewable energy and battery storage Eric Jelinski October 25, 2019 I need to say, there is no such thing as renewable energy.

Case in point. Could you build a renewable energy system without any support from coal, oil or natural gas? I’d like to see being tried by the renewable advocates. As a hint, you might consider how the pyramids were built with ‘human energy’ of the slaves. But where di the humans get their energy? It was from eating food that was enabled by photosynthesis, water and minerals and humus in the soil. But that is a far cry from mining, refining, smelting, milling, and construction of the various metals together as alloys along with rare earth elements. Iron, unrefined in the ground by itself is useless. It only became useful when Sir Henry Bessemer came along to develop a process to turn iron ore into useful iron. Also, to make concrete from limestone in a kiln using the sun as the energy source. Without a magnifying glass, or a wood burning fire pit, the hottest temperature from the sun might be 40 to 50 deg C in a desert. Consider the temperature to melt sand to form glass. Consider the temperature inside the Bessemer process that used coal before oil, gas or even electric hearth where discovered or invented. As you can hopefully see, the only true and useful renewable energy is the sunlight that grows food,…food that I call the forgotten fuel, and actually the most important fuel. Renewable energy is not possible unless the energy intensity of coal, oil and/or gas or future reactors is made available first and foremost.

Is the sun renewable? Not really. The sun is a huge ball of hydrogen atoms that are slowly being used up converted to heavier atoms until the atomic masses of product atoms approach the peak of the binding energy curve, as nuclear physicists would know. When that happens, both the renewable, and the sustainable utopia come to an end.

And we also need to share a word about energy storage. When thinking of solar electricity, the touted method of storage is in batteries. For wind turbines the touted

2

storage might be batteries again, or currently obvious the capacity of natural gas pipelines and reservoirs.

The actually most perfect energy storage is in the binding energy of atoms, atoms on the fission end of the binding energy curve and also atoms on the fusion end of the binding energy curve. The binding energy was given to us by mother nature. We can harvest the binding energy as much as we want or as little as we want, dialing nuclear reactors up or down as required. And btw, we have enough spent nuclear fuel that is really only 1% used in terms of its available energy….we could practically stop mining uranium and reburn the spent fuel.

Thus, there is no need to put the whole grid on large batteries, and cost and environment implications of batteries can be minimized to use only on key essential appliances. It is futile to build huge collection systems for wind and solar, while we have nuclear technology on a much smaller land footprint, and a much smaller materials usage footprint and is available 24/7 with an intrinsic method of storage, the binding energy, and our control system only needs to control the release of binding energy. It follows the kiss principle.

I am hoping this might provide some ideas for journalists and politicians that provides some alternative ways of thinking relative to the ongoing ‘alternative energy’ one track minded political correctness chirping of chipmunks very similar to the Pied Piper of Hamelin that is unique throughout the western world while in other countries, the priority is freedom, the priority is food, and basic energy.

The western world has lost focus on science-based government policy decisions, instead is embroiled in the politics of power plays for the sake of achieving power on a false platform, eg. that CO2 is pollution and must be taxed, and their perceived solution is that every oil burning vehicle must be converted to battery power, never mind the technical analysis that does not support their political ideology. Unfortunately benefit/cost metrics don’t apply to taxation to support any political ideology.

Where are the inspirational leaders of the present and the future equivalent to John F Kennedy, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/493205-we-choose-to-go-to-the-moon-in-thisdecade.

Or, https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/education/teachers/curricular-resources/elementaryschool-curricular-resources/ask-not-what-your-country-can-do-for-you.

We need to progress away from the current selfishness of “what’s in it for me”, that is a very destructive aspect of countries whose leaders and their minions are so focused on 3

this… to achieve power by any means including lying, deception and sound bites repeated over and over until the brain of every voter succumbs to that message.

As Einstein said; insanity is doing the same thing repetitively yet expecting different results with each try. We have tried wind and solar in various parts of the US and Canada, and it does not work, not by any metrics.

Carbon dioxide is not pollution. CO2 feeds plants and plants feed people.

The direction for electrification was set up several decades ago in Europe, US and Canada using trains powered by a ‘third rail’. Batteries come at a significant price and cannot replace a third rail or an extension cord for high power and high usage systems, Where did the ‘hydrogen economy’ that was envisaged since the 1970’s disappear to?. Steam methane reforming and hythanation of natural gas? Nuclear electric and electrolysis of water? Direct production of hydrogen from a nuclear reactor?

District heating and industrial heat from a nuclear reactor? Is it lack of vision? Is it deemed too costly? However taxation to prop up ‘alternative energy’ is very much in vogue as the political message.

While the western world wastes time and money on alternatives that don’t work, other countries such as China, India and Russia are advancing their nuclear programs, and are far more advanced in technical thinking , and in fact are beating us economically. What are the metrics comparing Chinese goods sold in the US and Canada vs US and Canadian goods sold in China? And that sums up the current state of energy policy and economic policy.

4