synoptic

EROEI is a fundamentally important criteria when evaluating potential energy resources and production methods, but of course not the only important criteria. For long term economically viability in modern society it is necessary to have an energy source with high EROEI. But it is a necessary condition for long term viability, not a sufficient condition. EROEI becoming less important as long as it's over one is clearly not the case, as EROEI of one is break even (i.e. useless). We need lots and lots of net energy production and this is very hard to achieve with low EROEI sources. For more information on EROEI and its significance, watch the original linked video.

EROEI is not a measure of what is economically feasible to build under any given circumstance (such as in the US from 1990-present). It is an energy ratio (output/input) to develop and run an energy asset. You can have an energy asset with a high EROEI that is a bad commercial investment or not economically viable due to a range of other reasons. Doesn’t mean the calc on nuclear is wrong or that it is not a useful metric.

Agreed on everything here. To give some scale of the current resistance to nuclear, not only is there a push to block new reactors, but there is strong push to shut down existing reactors ahead of schedule. For example, Indian Point was shutdown 14 years ahead of schedule: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-entergy-indianpoint/new-york-citys-closest-nuclear-power-plant-to-shut-by-2021-idUSKBN14T1YA Predictably, natural gas consumption increased considerably as a result: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47776 To me, it is a crime against humanity to shut down a reactor ahead of schedule that is safely producing many MWs of carbon free baseload power at a very high capacity factor, just to replace it with loads of CO2 emissions via NG power production. But the public supported it and government presented it as the responsible choice. So basically, we need to swing public opinion all the way from “let’s shut down all nuclear ahead of schedule, even without proper backup plan in place” to “let’s build new nuclear reactors at an unprecedented rate.” That is a big swing. Doesn’t help that Chernobyl is top streaming show, either.

I am very pro nuclear. If I were running things, I would build nuclear reactors all over the world to power everything and electrify heavy industry and transportation. Convert nuclear power to hydrogen via electrolysis for heavy trucks, airplanes, ships (probably need to convert some hydrogen to ammonia for ships and other applications). But the reality is that most of the public doesn't want nuclear, and every nuclear project triples its initial budget and schedule. Without heavy direct involvement from government, there are too many financial/permitting obstacles for private industry to get nuclear reactors built these days. And I am skeptical sufficient percentage of government officials get fully behind nuclear due to public perception.

This is a good video on this topic. Here is an article that more succintly states some of the same principles. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/?sh=63757687a027 Bottom line is that renewables don't produce very much usable energy as a ratio of the energy it takes to develop the assets. Nuclear, on the other hand, has the highest energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of all known energy sources.

Agreed. I think it is going to take the rest of the 21st century to achieve many of the goals. Yep, many bumps in the road and many folks using every setback to claim how it is all wrong. It is going to take massive investment, technical innovation, and political collaboration over the next several decades. Also, relatively few companies are willing to take full turn key construction projects these days, so a massive expansion of large scale industrial project execution capabilities will be needed.

Suppose I claimed in 1995 that in 25 years most Americans would be able stream unlimited data at 25 mb/s to their computer or phone. Also, the computer in your phone would be over 100x as powerful as your current desktop and you would probably never buy a camera again because that would also be on your phone, and also most people won't even have landlines anymore because phone signals are very reliable and cheap. And laptop computers would be many orders of magnitude more powerful and somehow also cheaper. And TVs are gigantic and approach reality level resolution and are also cheap and in basically ever household. A cynic may argue no, because the rich only get richer and this information age nonsense is all just a ruse to transfer money, and clearly nothing can ever get better because of the evil hearts of men. Well, maybe the rich will get richer, and maybe even some dreaded billionaires will be made, and maybe it's true that all men are evil and terrible 100% of the time. None of this has anything to do with the claims. The energy transition is already underway and will happen. I can't guarantee that no one will make any money, though.

The rich can get richer while technology improves and advances. This thread is about the energy transition, not wealth distribution.

The energy transition is already underway. It is happening now, and it is a foregone conclusion that the global energy infrastructure will be rebuilt. Every energy company in the world, including the ones with major oil and gas assets, has an energy transition division, typically populated with their best and brightest. And every developed nation in the world has developed or is currently developing their transition strategy, including major spending initiatives. Their is too much money and interest in this for it not to happen. As stated above, over $100 trillion in the next three decades - the largest global economic opportunity of our time. This money is not going to evaporate. Even heartless mercenaries who don't give a damn about the environment will participate and profit.

I have a colleague who is very interested in fusion technology and Helion in particular. Personally, I am very skeptical on fusion for commercial scale power production for the foreseeable future, as after decades of work it has failed to produce net energy production in laboratory conditions. To go from not yet demonstrated in lab (technical readiness level - 2 ) to TRL-9 for this type of technology is a very long jump. But it is enticing because of its near unlimited potential if it can be made to work. $100-150 trillion over the next three decades. This gives some scale to the magnitude of the endeavor. On some reports I made a few years ago, I estimated total spend would be tens of trillions and was told that sounded hyperbolic and to give more realistic approximations.

This is a common opinion of folks within the energy industry as well. Nuclear has the worst PR of any technology ever developed. But, I would like to work on solutions that will get built, and not on ones that should get built but don't for whatever set of reasons (politics, public perception, economics, etc).

Not many energy folks here? I figure there would be some. If not, lawyers will suffice. In my experiences with lawyers, all that is needed to discuss and argue a topic at length is vague familiarity.

Yep, when a large power plant with a high capacity factor gets pulled out of service, there needs to be sufficient infrastructure in place to cover. With the desire to pull coal and nuclear offline as quick as possible, there often isn't adequate backup.

The entire energy production & transmission, chemical process, and food production industries need to be and will be completely overhauled in the 21st century to achieve sustainability. This endeavor has many names but is most commonly referred to as the energy transition. It is the view of many (my view as well) that this will be the most significant and even defining achievement of the 21st century. Being a board mostly populated by Texans, I figure many of us are already working on energy transition initiatives and was interested in getting some thoughts and discussion on the topic in general and on the following in particular: Renewables (Wind, solar, etc) and Energy storage In order to incorporate more renewables to replace baseload power plants (nuclear, coal, NGCC), we need lots of long duration energy storage. Can this be achieved by stacking lithium ion batteries, or will it largely be thermomechanical energy storage such as compressed air, liquid air, molten salt, or emergent battery technology (e.g. Form Energy)? Will we ultimately need to go to conversion to hydrogen or some other chemical energy? Centralized vs decentralized power production Electric grid is currently almost entirely centralized, "front-of-meter" type production. What percentage of power production will move to microgrids and "behind-the-meter" production? Is dispersed, customized, "smart" microgrids the way to go? Carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration Seems to be the cheapest option for now for decarbonization for many industries, and possibly the only way to decarbonize some process (e.g. cement and certain chemical processes) but how clean is CCUS really, and will the public tolerate/support the drilling and injection of large sequestration wells? Hydrogen Will the hydrogen economy take of as some are predicting, and will we have hydrogen fueled heavy trucks, ships, airplanes? If so, will it be mostly blue (from natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration) or green (from renewable and water electrolysis) or other? Nuclear Is nuclear over/outdated, or will it play a substantial role in the energy transition? Engineers love nuclear, but no one else seems to. Food production How to get to net zero emissions and achieve long term sustainability while maintaining low cost, high output food production for growing population. Other than fertilizer production, this is area I know least about.

I work in a technical field and get to work with some folks at the top of the profession in terms of contributions and accomplishments. You cannot tell who went to what university unless you ask (or it comes up in sports discussions). No one cares in the slightest were anybody studied. Arguably the top person in the field went to an average ranked state school.

Maybe not the thread for it, but to me it seems univeristy rankings are just a bunch of marketing bullshit.

My two younger daughters (under vaccination age limit) tested positive about 10 days ago. The doctor seemed confident they had the new variant. They have handled it well, really not much different than a mild cold other than lots of fatigue for first couple of days. The quarantine has had a much bigger impact on their emotional state than the virus, since they've been in the house since they tested positive and missed out on summer camp. We are following all recommended quarantine guidelines. I had the one shot Janssen vaccine a few months ago and I've been fine, despite being in very close proximity to my kids throughout the past 10 days.

Some are in worse shape than others, but grids all over the country are becoming less stable. A combination of many challenges has led to this decrease in stability - technical, environmental, political, economic. The entire energy infrastructure needs a major overhaul to achieve carbon neutral reliable power. This will take decades and trillions of dollars to achieve. We’ve kicked this can down the road for far too long, and now consumers are going to pay much more for less reliable power.

Well my grand pappy fought in world war 1 and world war 2 and he killed nazis in both. He got his hands blown off by a panzer tank in the 2nd, so when he got back to the US he killed a grizzly and he built his own bear hands with his own bare hands. Long before the internet was invented he died from a broken heart when he realized he had no more nazis left to kill. But it follows that everyone who disagrees with me on the internet is a gaping pussy.

Fair point on Trump. He certainly was an accelerant. But it was going to happen with or without him. Many seasoned message board posters will take on numerous posters, mountains of evidence, and paragraphs worth of exposition detailing exactly how wrong they are, and they will just keep chugging right along happier than a pig in shit. You cannot dissuade them with argumentation, insults, gifs, pretty much anything you can dream up in a text response. People come to these forums to argue. Arguing back at them is not going to discourage them. What you can do, depending on the forum format, is downvote them so their posts don’t show up, shadow ban them, outright ban them, crowd source them, or make them lose points every time they post till they do some quick math and realize they’ve only got so many posts before they’re gone. This is what really allowed for the enforcement of the prevailing dogma on political forums. I don’t know how long time posters can think it has anything to do with the indefensibility of Trump when we all know full well that there is an endless amount of people on the internet who will gladly defend anything no matter how ridiculous. I disagree on reddit. The format of the site is not conducive for in depth discussion and that is not its intent. It is for headlines and succinct top comments, all of which are screened & selected by mods, astroturfers, and core active posters. Nothing about it is organic point-counter point discussion encapsulating opposing views.

I’m not a relationship expert, but I’m pretty sure having agreements in place with multiple back up wives isn’t how marriage is supposed to work. It seems the majority of the effort should go into selecting and maintaining the primary wife. Maybe I am naive.

Yes. Feel free to link to a counter example.

I'm sure there is some good discussion on this site's political forum. But virtually every forum has been thoroughly culled at this point. I've not found an exception.

There are no good political discussion forums anywhere on the internet. They have all polarized and solidified around their own particular dogma. Two things happened to drive this, neither have anyhting to do with Trump. It began before Trump and will continue long after he is gone: 1. Game psychologists figured out that points systems with upvotes & downvotes keep people checking back more frequently. All forums have adopted a system of the type. To get points and not get banned or posts not shown, posting behavior gets culled and shaped to the collective views of the few most active posters. 2. Professional marketing groups use the internet to quickly disseminate their messages, and these slogans and messages have infected the entire internet. Virtually everything that gets discussed is on the latest selected hot topic and the same crafted talking points gets repeated (or simply just linked to) over and over. Go check out any forum on the internent and within two minutes you will know what type of messages will be well received and which type will not. The general consensus on poltical forums of all types is that everyone else has gone extreme or crazy, and they are simply being rational centrists. They all think others who challenge the dogma are trolls who flee in fear from their brilliant irrefutable logic. I have no idea why they think this, because true trolls do not flee from being countered; that is what they are after.

Not sure if this was intended towards me, but I’ve taken the time to read a fair amount of source material from Marx, Engels, and others, as well as commentary on their works (the academic peer reviewed kind). It simply doesn’t make sense to say that Marxism is not about social and political power. He clarified what he meant in the follow up post and we are in agreement.