Co-authored by Ronald Stein, Oliver Hemmers, and Steve Curtis

June 24, 2025

Affordable and reliable electricity from nuclear power sources is a necessity to ensure future balanced economic growth that is a lifeline out of poverty, and security for citizens around the world.

While we have seen the acceptance and advancement of nuclear power explode in the United States just over the last year or so, the recent executive orders issued by President Trump have added a strong endorsement of nuclear power.

Reading through these executive orders, it seems that there are clear commitments to remove the roadblocks that are slowing down progress in the name of safety.

The primary roadblock over the last 50 years has been the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with its 3,000 employees. In addition to the $1 billion allocated in the Federal budget, at least 80% of the NRC budget is funded by fees paid by applicants for licensure, which amount to $300 per hour.

The tenor of the Order is to impel the NRC to establish procedures to ensure that new reactor applications are processed to completion in 18 months (or less) while renewal applications take 12 months (or less). These are ambitious culture changes for the organization, especially since they are ordered to do so while reducing staff. No agency of the US Government likes to reduce staff and, indeed, the NRC will claim that such an accomplishment is too onerous to achieve. Nothing new here. It remains to be seen whether the executive order is robustly enforced.

The Navy’s seven-decade safety track record with nuclear-generated electricity to support national security began before the establishment of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its subsequent regulatory framework. Commercial nuclear power plants utilize the light water reactor design, pioneered by the US Navy. All submarines and aircraft carriers are powered by nuclear energy. Operating more than 80 nuclear-powered ships, the United States Navy is currently the largest naval force in the world.

Nuclear power reactors remain the safest industry, by far, in the US and around the world. In fact, no person has been hurt by the normal operations of any commercial nuclear power plant anywhere in the world in almost 7 decades (Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents hurt nobody, and Chernobyl was not under “normal operations” when it catastrophically failed).

Given this safety record, it would seem very easy for the NRC to establish a process to certify systems that are already so safe. It begs the question of why we need the NRC at all. The point is that nuclear safety should be viewed under the scrutiny of a long record of safe operation, not by the myopic view imposed when very little operational data was available. This is especially true during a time when many people claim to want “clean air” and the demand for reliable electricity is expected to ramp up to unprecedented levels. We will now discuss the first of the recently published nuclear power executive orders.

NuScale, the only company successful in attaining a license for a Small Modular Reactor, expended 10 years and $500 million to attain such a license. This stoppage of progress should appall everyone.

It has been clear for several decades that the onerous regulations and nearly impossible task of attaining a license to build and operate nuclear reactors has pointed to the US Government as the primary obstructer for the nuclear power community.

Changes in regulations and delays in approvals have forced huge cost overruns. Nevertheless, the two reactors completed in this realm, Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia, still offer competitively priced electricity for the grid.

Therefore, removing the US government’s obstacles to progress appears to be the path to even cheaper electricity through nuclear power. A further development, not yet resolved, is to open the electricity market to free enterprise. The cost reductions available through competition in this market are huge, indicating that such a move may be next in line. We certainly encourage the government to further withdraw from the mix and deregulate electricity from its current monopolistic framework.

The Executive Order, rightfully so, identifies the radiation protection model, the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model, as a further costly imposition on nuclear power plants with no added safety advantage. For a deeper analysis of this issue and a more sensible model called Sigmoid, No-Threshold (SNT), please consult Jack Devanny’s excellent book, “How We Can Make Nuclear Cheap Again”.

The point here is that if we overregulate safety, we will add significant costs to products that are unnecessary, as they do nothing to improve safety. Again, the excellent record of nuclear power plants over 7 decades should tell us that.

If we imposed similar safety restrictions on automobiles (no harm to people), we would end up with a car that weighed 10,000 pounds, got 3-4 miles per gallon, and was restricted to no faster than 10 mph on the road. Yet, citizens accept the over-40,000 deaths caused by automobile operation annually in the US to enjoy their benefits.

Yet, nuclear power reactors have a track record of no deaths under normal operations and suffer the most onerous safety regulations among all industries. Environmental damage is likewise extremely minimal. So, relaxing the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) will not increase environmental danger either.

So, if you want cheaper, cleaner, and reliable electricity, get these government monkeys off the backs of companies trying to bring you much more affordable and cleaner electricity. This Executive Order recognizes this reality and is moving to reduce these unnecessary and expensive regulations.

The Executive Order includes a goal of increasing nuclear power by 300 GW (moving it from 20% of current demand for electricity to 80% in the US) by 2030. This is a tall order, but America put a man on the moon with slide-rule technology in the 1960s, so the US certainly can attain this goal. We simply need to return to fair market processes and free enterprise. The companies exist, and the technology exists to do this now. We just must set them free. This Executive Order also calls for this.

Finally, the Executive Order calls for more streamlined NRC licensing processes that utilize fewer personnel. If we have smart people in nuclear power technology, wouldn’t they be best used to advance the technology rather than stop it? As mentioned earlier, we are discussing the safest industry in the world over the last seven decades. Indeed, this alone should greatly reduce the need for scrutiny.

So, the President has established his priorities (there are three other parts of this Order we will consider in future articles). Get the government out of the way of progress and allow free enterprise to bring us cheap, clean energy. He also encourages the recycling of slightly used nuclear fuel (SUNF). As pointed out in previous articles, by using fast reactors, the current stockpile of SUNF could power the US at its current demand for electricity for 270 years.

Indeed, the most expeditious path to the disposition of this material should be encouraged, and no plan exists today to dispose of this material in the US. Accelerating the process would produce far more electricity than our current and future needs, so (more supply than demand) would force the retail price of electricity to pennies per kWh or less. The nay-sayers for nuclear power have not improved their rhetoric for decades and still offer the same propaganda they have always exaggerated, with no comparison to the safety record of this industry and no consideration of its benefits.

Perhaps it is time to weigh the benefits against the risks. If we do, nuclear power comes out way ahead of other electricity production methods. This Executive Order is at least a step in this direction. We need to ensure it is enforced and strengthened to allow for an improvement in quality of life at a cost of pennies per kWh of electricity for everyone in the world.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

By Ronald Stein, PE

June 13, 2025

Disposing of the EV Batteries

The toxicity of Electric Vehicle batteries, from old or burned-out EV’s, is an even UGLIER side than what is shown in the Larry Elder documentary “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, of Electric Vehicles”

The recent California fires, where the Palisades and Eaton fires have collectively destroyed at least 12,000 structures, had a higher-than-average numbers of electric vehicles, officials said. Those fires provided a real time sequel of an uglier side of EV’s not discussed in the recently released Larry Elder documentary “Electric Vehicles: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”, i.e., how to dispose of those old or burned out EV batteries.

After the wildfires ravaged homes in Los Angeles, California, cleanup crews faced a new challenge: Electric car batteries that can explode when damaged as shown on 60 Minutes.

It’s appalling that the policymakers, JUST in wealthy countries, are setting “green” policies that continue to support humanity atrocities and environmental degradation in poorer developing countries that are mining for the exotic minerals and metals to go “green”.

In those wealthy countries, government mandates and tax incentives for people to buy EVs are shockingly a way to provide financial incentives for China and Africa to continue the exploitation of their people with yellow, brown, and black skin that mine for the exotic minerals and metals needed to construct an EV battery, and inflicting environmental degradation in their developing countries so those in wealthier developed nations can go “green”.

Lithium-ion batteries have become a mounting issue after wildfires, given the rising sales of hybrid and electric cars, particularly in California. It is well publicized that California will require 35% of new vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emission by 2026, and all new vehicles to be zero-emission by 2035, BUT the State lawmakers totally avoid any discussions about the Uglier side of Electric Vehicles – how to dispose of the batteries from old or burned-out EV’s.

These are just a few of the subjects that Net Zero policymakers NEVER discuss:

1. Lithium-ion batteries are very touchy. If they’re punctured, crushed or overheated, they can short-circuit, catch on fire or even explode. Things can get nasty when they do. EV battery fires can reach temperatures topping 1,000 degrees and emit toxic gases.
2. Extinguishing an EV battery fire requires a large amount of water, potentially thousands of gallons, depending on the specific battery and fire conditions. EV battery fires can take hours and tens of thousands of gallons of water to extinguish — unique challenges for firefighters. Lithium-ion batteries, particularly those using nickel manganese and cobalt oxide (NMC) cathodes, are more prone to thermal runaway and require even more water.
3. Burning electric vehicles (EV) batteries release toxic gases that pose risks to health and the environment. These gases include hydrogen fluoride, which can cause severe respiratory and skin damage. When burned, these batteries also release toxic vapors such as hydrofluoric acid and can leach toxic heavy metals into the ground.
4. If damaged or overheated, lithium-ion batteries can ignite or even explode — residual heat sets off a chain reaction that causes the batteries to heat up uncontrollably and spontaneously combust, a process that can happen over days, weeks or months.
5. Additionally, the combustion of EV batteries can release other toxic substances like carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and heavy metals, according to a news article from the University of Miami.

As cleanup efforts continue in the Los Angeles area neighborhoods marred by wildfires, one of the biggest challenges is the large number of lithium-ion batteries that were caught in the flames. The cleanup process is complex and resources intensive.

The California Office of Emergency Services has already sent hazmat teams to inspect homes in the Palisades and Eaton fire areas for lithium-ion batteries and flag where they’re present. The EPA has what it refers to as a battery recovery team that oversees efforts to collect them. Chris Myers, a lithium-ion battery technical specialist involved in the EPA cleanup, said. “It is very likely that these batteries were not all consumed in the fire, so now they’re damaged, which means they’re all dangerous,” he said. Myers explained that the battery systems in hybrid and electric cars are well-protected, so even vehicles that were damaged by the fires may still have charged batteries.

Handling the batteries requires a great deal of technical sophistication and care. The EPA team must wear flame-resistant clothing underneath disposable protective suits. Masks cover their faces, and either come with insertable cartridges to filter out chemicals or attach to air tanks. The crew blocks off the area where it’s working and keeps water on site in case flames erupt.

Before they can be sent to a waste or recycling facility, the collected batteries must be de-energized so that they hold no charge or very little charge. To do that, Myers said, the EPA will likely use a process developed after the Maui wildfire in 2023, which involves submerging the batteries in a solution of saltwater and baking soda. Once the batteries have lost their charges, they can be crushed with a steamroller or shipped to a facility in special packaging and eventually sent to a recycler who can salvage the critical minerals in them.

Readers are encouraged to view the Larry Elder documentary “Electric Vehicles: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly“ to learn more about the shell game wealthy countries are using to exploit developing countries to support so-called clean and green electric vehicles, and decide for themselves if the world economies and the environment can accommodate EV’s to satisfy the transportation needs for all, not just the few elites on this planet.

And now, as the early EV are aging, we need to deal with an even uglier side of Electric Vehicles –disposing of the toxic EV batteries from old or burned-out EV’s, that are polluting the air we breathe and the grounds we walk on.

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

Co-authored by Ronald Stein, P.E. and John McBratney

June 1, 2025

So-called renewables ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make products or transportation fuels for a materialistic economy.

“Green” and “Net Zero” policymakers mistakenly believe that wind and solar renewable ENERGY will replace fossil fuel ENERGY!

• REALITY CHECK: Renewables and Fossil Fuels do different things.

From the 16th to the 19th centuries whale oil was inedible and was used principally for lighting, lubrication and the manufacture of soap, textiles, jute, varnish, explosives and paint. Whales were hunted almost to extinction in the mid 1800’s.

Today, “Green” and “Net Zero” policymakers setting policies are oblivious to the reality that so-called “renewables”, ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make anything like the more than 6,000 products in our materialistic economy, nor the transportation fuels that supports cars, trucks, ships, construction equipment, and airplanes.

• In addition, everything that NEEDS Electricity, like iPhones, computers, X-ray machines, defibrillators, and datacenters are made with petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil, coal, or natural gas.

Interestingly, going “green” with wind and solar generate occasional electricity under favorable weather conditions is only affordable by the few wealthy countries that can mandate the huge subsidies.

All “Green” and “Net Zero” policymakers remain unavailable to participate in educational conversations about Energy Literacy, as these sources do different things!

• Renewables ONLY provide for the generation of electricity, totally dependent on favorable weather conditions.
• Crude oil once refined provides more than 6,000 products and transportation fuels to economies around the world.

Infrastructures that did not exist 200 years ago DEMAND continuously increasing supplies of the more than 6,000 products that are made from fossil fuels for our materialistic societies inclusive of:

• Hospitals
• Airports
• Military
• Medical equipment
• Telecommunications
• Communications systems
• Space programs
• Appliances
• Electronics
• Sanitation
• Heating and ventilating
• Transportation – road, rail, ocean, and air
• Construction – roads and buildings

The world’s population is not addicted to fossil fuels, but they are dependent on all the products and transportation fuels. Today, “Green” and “Net Zero” policymakers that wish to “transition away from fossil fuels” need to offer a backup plan to maintain the supply chain of the products and fuels to support all the above-mentioned infrastructures, and to date there has been no such plan offered or suggested There is no “green” or “Net Zero” product or technology available anywhere in the world today that offers any form of reliable back-up for wind and solar power generation – none!

Most people in the wealthier developed nations are unaware that 80% of the 8 billion people on planet earth, in poorer developing nations, are living on less than $10/day and cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag, thus any suggestion that heavily subsidized solar and wind systems are viable is simply stargazing

Today, the homeless actually “represent“ how 80% of humanity live around the world as those homeless in the wealthier developed nations are a visual reality to a world without fossil fuels.

If those more than 6 billion people on this planet living on less than $10/day are ever going to join the industrial revolution, they will need a supply chain of the 6,000 products supporting the materialistic demands of the infrastructures that did not exist 200 years ago, before fossil fuels, as well as an increasing demand for continuous and uninterruptible electricity, i.e., the case for nuclear power.

A basic need for our “Green” and “Net Zero” policymakers is to understand that electricity did not exist before we learned how to refine raw crude oil.

• Electricity came AFTER oil, as ALL electrical generation methods from hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar are ALL built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil,
• All EV’s, solar panels, and wind turbines are also built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
• It is of note that most so-called renewable energy products are manufactured in countries that primarily use coal fired power generation, so they are not “green” at all. A good example is electric vehicles that utilize huge Lithium Ion based batteries.
• All the transportation fuels for cars, trucks, merchant ships, aircraft, and military are made from raw crude oil.
• Getting rid of crude oil would eliminate all six ways of generating electricity, and the more than 6,000 products in demand by hospitals, airports, communications, and would paralyze virtually all transportation!

Another basic need for our “Green” and “Net Zero” policymakers is that they understand that raw crude oil is just black tar that is virtually useless, unless it can be refined into derivatives that are the basis of more than 6,000 products in society that did not exist before the 1800’s, and the various transportation fuels like gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels that are also made from that raw crude oil. They also need to understand that this process requires the availability of economically priced and reliable electric power.

Policymakers need to STOP using the word ENERGY and start referring to the demands of the economy for reliable supply chains of:

• Products, i.e. more than 6,000 that are made from oil derivatives manufacture from oil.
• Transportation Fuels, i.e., to support demand of cars, trucks, ships, and airplanes.
• Electricity, i.e., economically priced, continuous and uninterruptable.

It is worrisome that the “Green” and “Net Zero” policy makers in all Western countries presently spending billions on solar and wind generated electricity completely ignore proven scientific and engineering research by widely qualified academics and engineers that shows conclusively that carbon dioxide has only a minuscule effect upon global temperatures, thus the whole world-wide Net Zero push is all for nothing, it is unnecessary! The amount of money wasted upon Net Zero world-wide is staggering.

It’s scary that our “Green” and “Net Zero” policymakers are setting “energy” policies that are mandating subsidies, directions, and tax breaks, when they have no comprehension of the subject of ENERGY.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

© 2025 Ronald Stein, PE – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

By Ronald Stein, P.E. and Mike Umbro

May 17, 2025

While the economy DEMAND continues to increase for products and fuels, Newsom continues to destroy the SUPPLY of oil and refining to meet those DEMANDS – China coming to the rescue!

California’s Governor Newsom has been on this planet for 57 years and has yet to publicly recognize that modern life requires the use of fossil fuels to function. California is the fourth largest economy in the world. We require the PRODUCTS and TRANSPORTATION FUELS made from fossil fuels to meet the materialistic DEMANDS of humanity and our economy. Our crude oil demand exceeds 1.8 million barrels per day – this demand has proven inelastic over time.

Valero’s Benicia Refinery began operations in 1968, the same year Governor Gavin Newsom was born. More than five decades later, California still consumes over 1.8 million barrels of oil each day to meet its demands for the fuels and products made from oil. Despite advances in technology and efforts to transition toward renewable electricity, the fundamental structure of our economy remains deeply reliant on fossil fuel-derived products and transportation fuels.

From jet fuel and diesel to the thousands of petroleum-based components in electric vehicles (EVs), wind turbines, and solar panels, fossil fuels remain essential to our daily lives. While renewable electricity plays an important role in power generation, it cannot replace the raw materials and complex hydrocarbons refined from crude oil that are vital to every sector—from hospitals and national defense to communications and transportation.

California’s energy policies, particularly the mandate to phase out internal combustion vehicles and transition to EVs, addresses only a portion of our petroleum usage—namely gasoline. However, the electric vehicle itself, and its components, are manufactured using fossil fuel-based materials.

Meanwhile, demand for aviation and diesel fuels remains high:

• California consumes 13 million gallons of jet fuel per day, 16.7% of the national total to support its 145 airports, inclusive of 41 military airports and 9 international airports.
• The state uses 10 million gallons of diesel fuel daily to support its 35 million registered vehicles.
• Arizona and Nevada depend on California for 45% and 88% of their fuel needs, respectively.

Infrastructures that did not exist 200 years ago that DEMAND continuously increasing supplies of the products and fuels made from fossil fuels are:

• Hospitals
• Airports
• Military
• Medical equipment
• Telecommunications
• Communications systems
• Space programs
• Appliances
• Electronics
• Sanitation
• Heating and ventilating

Newsom wishes to “transition away from fossil fuels” but he has offered no backup plan to maintain the supply chain of products and fuels to support all the above-mentioned infrastructures.

While California policies are doing everything possible to eliminate oil production and refining out of the state with over-regulations, taxes, and environmental programs, China is ramping up its oil refinery capabilities.

This is not a partisan issue. A secure, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy future requires a pragmatic, science-based approach. We must:

• Recognize the enduring role of petroleum-based products in society.
• Ensure a stable and resilient domestic energy supply chain.
• Support innovation in both renewable and traditional electricity sectors.
• Plan responsibly for transition timelines that reflect technological and logistical realities.

As California continues to lead in climate ambition, it must also lead in practical, inclusive energy planning. The stakes—for our economy, environment, and national security—demand nothing less.

China openly supports political activism in California and is savoring the future with their many refineries coming online to meet the DEMANDS of the American society.

With the upcoming closures of the Phillips 66 Refinery in Southern California in 2025, and the Valero Refinery in Northern California in 2026, a growing national security concern would result from our growing dependence on China to meet the humongous demands for transportation fuels by California, Arizona and Nevada. The two refinery closures represent almost 17% of the state’s crude oil processing capacity to meet the materialistic demands of the States’ residents, and much of the transportation fuels needs in AZ and NV.

As California intensifies regulatory and tax burdens on in-state oil production and refining, other nations, particularly China, are rapidly expanding their refining capacities. At least eight new refinery projects are planned in China by 2030. These facilities will not only serve their own domestic growth but increasingly export refined products to nations like the U.S., offsetting California’s declining supply.

This shift carries serious implications. Offshore refining to meet U.S. demand contributes to higher global emissions, limited domestic job creation, and increased dependence on foreign supply chains—potentially weakening our national resilience and security.

Compounding the growing need for more importation to meet the materialistic demands of society will be the West Coast port’s ability to receive transportation fuels as marine facilities in California face increased congestion and dramatic vessel limits.

Our modern infrastructure—airports, hospitals, military bases, and even sanitation systems—cannot function without continuous access to petroleum-based fuels and products. Yet, California’s energy strategy focuses overwhelmingly on restricting domestic supply without a clear, scalable alternative to meet persistent demand.

The reality is this: limiting the local supply of the fuels and products made from oil without reducing demand doesn’t solve the climate challenge, it simply shifts environmental and social impacts overseas, often to countries with less stringent environmental protections and labor laws.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

By Ronald Stein

May 12, 2025

A recently released 90-minute documentary is a MUST viewing by everyone to enhance their Energy Literacy about the shell game wealthy countries are using to exploit developing countries.

Electric vehicles are being mandated in California, but Governor Newsom is oblivious to the fact that it’s just another product that cannot exist without oil, as all the thousands of parts and components of EV’s, from tires, insulation, and computers, are made from the oil derivatives manufactured out of crude oil.

Newsom’s efforts to “transition away from fossil fuels” has yet to comprehend that humanity is not addicted to fossil fuels, but they are addicted to the PRODUCTS and TRANSPORTATION FUELS made from those fossil fuels to meet the materialistic DEMANDS of humanity and the economy. Despite the DEMAND for the products and transportation fuels that so-called renewables CANNOT make, only wealthy economies, like that in California, have “green” movements and are pursuing them with mandates and costly subsidies.

The recently released documentary “Electric Vehicles: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” isn’t just another documentary that lazily cheerleads the industry, though there is a fair amount of marveling at the technology and underscoring its benefits and potential. It’s an enlightening, educational, and entertaining 90-minute documentary that is a MUST viewing by everyone to enhance their Energy Literacy and help them decide for themselves if EV’s are good, bad, or ugly.

• The documentary is available for purchase at $12.99
• The documentary is available for a 72-hour lease for $9.99

It’s appalling that the policymakers, JUST in wealthy countries, are setting “green” policies that continue to support humanity atrocities and environmental degradation in poorer developing countries that are mining for the exotic minerals and metals to go “green”.

The documentary demonstrates the environmental degradation, and humanity atrocities to people with yellow, brown, and black skin, in those poorer developing countries, to be unethical and immoral JUST for materials to make EV batteries. The documentary is narrated by Larry Elder, a talk radio host, author, politician, lawyer, and former candidate for Governor of California.

Planet Earth’s resources are limited! Our 4-billion-year-old planet has limited natural resources like oil, gas, coal, lithium, cobalt, manganese, etc. that are being extracted at alarming rates. Even with technological advances in the next few decades by those in wealthier countries, we may find “more”, but at current rates of extraction of those resources, the planet may be sucked dry in 50, 100, 500, or 1,000 years, so the question for our conversation is: Should there be a greater focus on the limitations of earth’s natural resources now being extracted for the enjoyment by wealthier countries on Earth as our 4-billion-year-old planet will continue to be here, with or without humans,?

Planet Earth’s resources are limited! Our planet has limited natural resources, including fossil fuels, but especially critical minerals (employed in many new energy systems), such as lithium, cobalt, manganese, various Rare Earth Elements (REE) and many basic industrial metals currently being extracted at unsustainable rates, and mainly from poorer developing countries, under dire working conditions, without labor or health protections, and causing serious environmental impact, due to the unsophisticated extraction processes employed.

With technological advances by wealthier countries, in the next few decades we may find “more”, but at current rates of extraction, the planet may not be able to provide those resources for very long, and in many cases, not even for a century. Wealthy countries refuse to put a greater focus on the limitations of earth’s natural resources currently being extracted for the enjoyment of wealthier countries, since they do not understand that our 4-billion-year-old planet will continue to be here, with or without humans.

The documentary educates the viewers about the critical minerals and metals needed to support the much touted “energy transition” to EVs, wind turbines, solar panels and batteries, come from unreliable, unstable or poorer developing countries such as China, some African nations, and others. Those countries have minimal labor laws and poor environmental controls, so that their production of the critical minerals and metals needed for going “green” results in serious environmental degradation, dire social consequences, and human rights abuses to their population, predominantly made up of people with yellow, brown, and black skin. All this, just to support “clean” electricity in wealthier countries.

• Question: Do you believe it is ethical and moral for wealthy countries to continue subsidies to go “green”, when they encourage China and African countries to CONTINUE exploiting many who work under miserable conditions, and when such subsidies entrench financial incentives for environmental degradation, just to support producing EV batteries, wind turbines and solar panels, mostly for wealthier countries”?

The extraction rates and R/P (reserves to production) ratio for many of the critical minerals and metals needed for going “green” are alarming, and most of these natural resources are NOT being replenished. This suggests a worrisome possibility of an unsustainable approach to the current policies of subsidies for “green” energies. Furthermore, even countries with the largest reserve base face important challenges to increasing production growth to meet projected future demand.

• LITHIUM: In 2024, the world mined about 240,000 tons of lithium, almost three times the amount mined in 2020. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that demand for lithium will increase to 450,000 tons per year by 2030. Despite a significant world resource base, production of those resources remains a major challenge.
• COBALT: In 2024, the world produced an estimated 280,000 metric tons of cobalt, the highest amount ever recorded. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was the world’s leading producer, accounting for 74% of the global total, while the country is known for the major problems with child labor and poor working conditions of its mineral sector.

Today, a typical EV battery for a Tesla sedan requires substantial raw material extraction for the battery’s minerals and metals of lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, copper, aluminum, graphite, plus the steel, plastic, and other metals for battery casings.

The documentary raises concern about those “blood minerals”, mostly from developing countries, come from mining at locations in the world that are never inspected or seen by policymakers and EV buyers.

The mining and refining involve large quantities of raw materials. The estimated total mass of raw materials mined and processed for an EV battery, including overburden and waste rock—might range from 50,000 to 100,000 pounds, depending on battery size, chemistry, and mining efficiency.

The current rates of extraction of natural resources, such as coal, gas, lithium, cobalt, etc., to support the generation of electricity, are clearly unsustainable. Humanity is unable to replace those natural resources on Planet Earth, and obviously, the production sources will eventually run out.

At current rates of extraction of natural resources, the technically and economically available world resource base may be sucked dry in a few centuries, but our 4-billion-year-old Planet Earth will continue to exist in the solar system, with or without humans.

The documentary should be viewed by so-called zero-emission policymakers in the few wealthy countries that have disrupted the delivery of electricity with strict regulations, preferential subsidies, and cancellation of proven baseload sources like coal, nuclear and even natural gas. They should have solidified other sources, to ensure that the availability of affordable electricity that is continuous and uninterruptible would not be disrupted for consumers.

Readers are encouraged to view the documentary “Electric Vehicles: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly“ to learn more about the shell game wealthy countries are using to exploit developing countries to support so-called clean and green electric vehicles, and decide for themselves if the world economies and the environment can accommodate EV’s to satisfy the transportation needs for all, not just the few elites on this planet.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

By Ronald Stein, P.E. and Mike Umbro

May 2, 2025

With an upcoming Valero Refinery closure in California, the 5th largest economy in the world will be more dependent of China for its demands for transportation fuels and oil derivatives to make products.

Over the last several decades, California’s passion to transition away from fossil fuels has overregulated and overly burdened just the SUPPLY of oil production and refining but has not reduced the increasing materialistic DEMANDS of the world for the more than 6,000 products and transportation fuels made from those fossil fuels. Thus, China is savoring the future with their many refineries coming online to meet the DEMANDS of society.

The recent announcement that the Valero Benica Refinery in Northern California will be closing by the end of 2026 was disappointing, but shockingly, a prelude to more closures in the future. The Valero refinery at Benicia represents almost 9% of the state’s crude oil processing capacity to meet the materialistic demands of the States’ residents.

Just last year, in October 2024, Phillips 66 announced that it would close its Wilmington-area refining complex this year, which will further reduce the state’s gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels production capacity, wiping out more than 8% of the state’s crude oil processing capacity. Losing another 1.3 billion gallons in annual gasoline output will only worsen the state’s supply challenges to meet the demands.

Governor Newsom’s policies, just on the “supply” side of the equation, continue to force California, the 5th largest economy in the world, to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil demands from foreign countries. California crude oil production is in terminal decline, driven by the lack of drilling permits, despite ample reserves. That dependence on foreign imports has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to more than 60 percent today of total consumption.

The West Coast gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels market is isolated from other supply/demand centers as California is an energy island isolated from all States East of the Sierra Mountains. The Sierra Mountains are a natural barrier that prevents the state from pipeline access to any of that excess oil from fracking East of the Sierra Mountains. As such, the West Coast is susceptible to unexpected outages of West Coast refineries as it is unable to backfill an unexpected loss in supply of crude oil.

Because California is an isolated energy island market with no incoming oil pipeline connections over the Sierra Mountains from other states, in-state refinery closures will increase importation to meet demands for transportation fuels – sourced primarily from foreign countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Iraq, Columbia, and Russia.

California transportation fuel demands have staggering numbers from the in-state refineries:

•  With all its 145 airports, inclusive of 9 international airports and 41 military airports, that demand 13 million gallons of aviation fuel daily. In 2019, California consumed 16.7% of the national total of jet fuel, making it the largest consumer of jet fuel in America.
•  For its 30 million vehicles, California is the second-largest consumer of motor gasoline among the 50 states consuming 42 million gallons a day of gasoline, just behind Texas.
•  Diesel fuel is the second largest transportation fuel used in California, consuming 10 million gallons a day of diesel to support the state’s 35 million registered vehicles.
•  California refineries supply 45% of Arizona’s and 88% of Nevada’s transportation fuels, so any disruption in California impacts all three states.
•  California’s northern and southern fuel supply systems are not connected, requiring ocean-going vessels to transport fuel between them. The efforts of California toward the oil production and refining “supply” have had minimal impact on the growing materialistic “demands” of what is made from those fossil fuels.
•  The mandating for a transition to EV’s has had minimal impact on gasoline consumption as most EV’s are second vehicles for low milage usage. The workhorse vehicles for major milage demands are still reliable and affordable internal combustion engines.
•  Hospitals and airports continue expanding to meet the demands of society. Both hospitals and airports did not exist 200 years ago as they only exist today because of the more than 6,000 products and transportation fuels made from fossil fuels.

Today, Asia is the region with the greatest number of future petroleum refineries. As of 2021, there were 88 new refinery facilities in planning or under construction in Asia for manufactured gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels used by every transportation infrastructure, and the military, as well as the manufactured oil derivatives that are the basis of most every product being used by mankind.

In the more immediate term, China has plans for multiple new refineries, with at least five projects expected to be completed by 2028, and another three new refineries by 2030, contributing to a broader shift towards integrated petrochemical facilities.

•  These eight new refineries include the Yulong Petrochemical complex and the Huajin Aramco Petrochemical Company, as well as expansions to existing refineries like the Sinopec Gulei refinery.

The upcoming closure of Phillips 66 Refinery in 2025, and the Valero Refinery in 2026 will not reduce the materialistic demands of society for the products and fuels from those refineries. The state will obviously be importing less crude oil to refine, but instead, will be importing transportation fuels manufactured in China, the same transportation fuels that are no longer manufactured at those two closed California facilities. Yes, the big winner to meet the continuously increasing demands for the products and fuels from refined oil, appears to be China.

On another front, the current “tariff wars with China” received repercussions from China. China controls most of the rare earth’s metals around the world, thus it is a national security risk to America! They are now playing those cards, which will start to impact the supply chain of those materials to meet the demands of USA manufacturers.

•  China has halted critical exports as the trade war intensifies. China has suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets, threatening to choke off supplies of components central to the demands of automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world.

•  Shipments of the magnets, essential for assembling everything from cars and drones to robots and missiles, have been halted at many Chinese ports while the Chinese government drafts a new regulatory system. Once in place, the new system could permanently prevent supplies from reaching certain companies, including American military contractors.

With closure of the Phillips 66 Refinery in 2025, and the Valero Refinery in 2026, a similar national security concern would result from our growing dependence on China to meet the humongous demands for transportation fuels by California, Arizona and Nevada.

Compounding the growing need for more importation to meet the materialistic demands of society will be the West Coast port’s ability to receive transportation fuels as marine facilities in California face increased congestion and dramatic vessel limits.

It’s obvious that the Net-Zero emission policies within California, and their lack of comprehension of “supply AND demand”, and the subsequent over regulations, mandates, and taxes just on the SUPPLY side of the equation, are causing a national security situation for the entire country’s DEMANDs for the products and fuels made from the fossil fuel industry. In the meantime, China is silently supporting the efforts of California and savoring the future with their many refineries coming online to meet the materialistic DEMANDS of society.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

By Ronald Stein, P.E.

April 16, 2025

All the parts and components to generate electricity are made from oil derivatives manufactured from oil.

Lifestyles are driven by the materialistic and transportation fuel demands of society, of which so-called wind and solar are incapable of fulfilling.

All the climate change alarmists blame emissions from fossil fuels, but they have yet to identify a back-up plan for “something” that will support the demand for products and fuels of current lifestyles in wealthier countries and that of developing economies.

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 iPhone and computers, are made with petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil, coal, or natural gas.

• Electricity came AFTER oil, as ALL electrical generation methods from hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar are ALL built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil,
• All EV’s, solar panels, and wind turbines are also built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
• All transportation fuels for cars, trucks, merchant ships, aircraft, and military are manufactured from raw crude oil.
• Getting rid of crude oil would eliminate electricity, and the more than 6,000 products in demand by hospitals, airports, communications, and the 8 billion on this planet, and would paralyze virtually all transportation!

The ruling class in wealthy countries are not cognizant that the planet populated, after oil,  from  1 to 8 billion, over the last 200 years.

Lifestyles before the 1800’s were drastically different as the world did NOT have any of the following infrastructures that were all made from the products and components made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.

• Transportation
• Hospitals
• Medical equipment
• Appliances
• Electronics
• Telecommunications
• Communications systems
• Space programs
• Heating and ventilating
• Military

In addition, all the above infrastructures need electricity, the same electricity that is based upon wire, insulation, etc., that are made from the same oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.

Today, we have more than 50,000 merchant ships, more than 20,000 commercial aircraft  and more than  50,000 military aircraft that use the fuels manufactured from crude oil.  The fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of jets moving people and products, and the merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space programs, are also dependent on what can be manufactured from crude oil.

We’ve had more than 200 years to “clone” oil to support the supply chain of products demanded by society and have been unsuccessful.

Most likely the 80% of the 8 billion on this planet living on less than $10/day would like to live the materialistic lifestyles of those in the wealthier developed countries.

Today, wealthier countries HAVE ALL the ABOVE infrastructures and have greater longevity than the other 80% on planet earth.

Yet, Net Zero policymakers around the world remain oblivious that Electricity came AFTER oil. Today, Net Zero and decarbonization pledges are a dime a dozen.

• Australian Public Service has targeted Net Zero by 2030.
• The German government has a target of net zero emissions by 2045.
• California has an aggressive decarbonization scheme. It is committed to a “just and equitable transition to carbon neutrality by 2045.
• The UK’s net zero target is 2050.
• Canada plans to hit net zero by 2050.
• EU, Japan, and South Korea are targeting net zero by 2050.
• The Biden administration — remember them? — pledged that the US would achieve net zero “no later than 2050.
• India targeting net zero by 2070.
• China claiming it will hit net zero “before 2060.”
• According to the Clean Energy States Alliance, 24 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, have “100% clean energy goals.”

Shockingly, all the above worldwide Net Zero policies to rid the use of fossil fuels would eliminate electricity, and the more than 6,000 products supporting the 8 billion on this planet, and ground all transportation dependent on the fuels made from crude oil!

There’s a huge and growing gap between these worldwide decarbonization pledges and the ever-increasing global demand for the products and fuels from hydrocarbons.

According to the International Energy Agency’s Global Energy Review, hydrocarbon growth exceeded the growth in renewables last year. The report also shows that oil, natural gas, and coal provide more than five times as much primary electricity to the global economy as the political darlings of the moment, those so-called renewables

According to the IEA, oil consumption and natural gas continue to increase. While oil and gas are pivotal fuels, the global climate story continues to be defined by coal. Last year, global coal use increased, as well as power generation from coal plants. The IEA’s reports show that soaring coal use and electricity demand in China (population: 1.4 billion) and India (population: 1.4 billion) is swamping all the climate policies and decarbonization efforts in the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, and South Korea.

Before the decarbonization pledges go into effect and significantly reduces the availability of the products and fuels made from oil that are supporting the humanity on Earth, all the worlds’ Net Zero plans NEED to be amended to identify the “replacement” to fossil fuels that can support the growing materialistic demands and the increasing demand for transportation fuels for the 8 billion on this planet.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table. 

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

Co-authored by Ronald Stein, Dr. Robert Jeffrey and Olivia Vaughan

April 11, 2025

Today, policymakers setting “green” policies are oblivious to the reality that so-called “renewables”, ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make anything.

Oil, coal, and gas are foundation to the global economy, contributing to thousands of products—estimated at over 6,000—that underpin modern living standards. These fossil fuels drive economic activity by providing energy and raw materials for industries, transportation, and manufacturing, while their derivatives permeate everyday life, from plastics to medicines.

• Electricity came AFTER oil, as ALL electrical generation methods from hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar are ALL built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil,
• All EV’s, solar panels, and wind turbines are also built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
• All transportation fuels for cars, trucks, merchant ships, aircraft, and military are made from refined crude oil.
• Getting rid of crude oil would eliminate electricity, and all the products that need electricity to operate, and ground all transportation!

Today, we have more than 50,000 merchant ships, more than 20,000 commercial aircraft and more than 50,000 military aircraft that use the fuels manufactured from crude oil. The fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of jets moving people and products, and the merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space programs, are also dependent on what can be manufactured from crude oil.

The IEA Oil Market Report – March 2025 forecasts global oil demand reaching 103.9 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2025, up 1 mb/d from 2024, with non-combusted uses (e.g., plastics, chemicals) growing from 15 mb/d in 2022 to 20 mb/d by 2050 (BP).

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright affirmed that Africa must be free to harness its vast energy resources without interference. NJ Ayuk, Executive Chairman of the African Energy Chamber says Secretary Wright’s message is a long-overdue recognition that Africa needs investment, not interference. “Africa’s energy future must be decided in Africa, not dictated by foreign governments pushing policies that undermine our economic potential. The AEC welcomes this shift in U.S. policy and calls on African leaders to capitalize on this moment by accelerating oil and gas development, creating jobs and driving industrialization.”

Contributions to Living Standards

These products profoundly enhance living standards by powering modern infrastructure, mobility, and health. Transportation fuels the logistics that deliver EVERYTHING that people need to live productive and prosperous lives. The IEA Oil Market Report – March 2025 notes Asia, led by China, accounts for 60% of 2025 demand growth, driven by petrochemical feedstocks critical for plastics and fertilizers.

Plastics improve food preservation and healthcare affordability (e.g., medical devices 30-50% cheaper than alternatives), while gas-derived fertilizers boost crop yields by 50%, feeding half the world’s population. Coal’s role in steel and cement supports urban housing for 4 billion people, and synthetic fabrics (oil-based) cut clothing costs by 20-30%, benefiting billions. Pharmaceuticals from petrochemicals have historically extended life expectancy, and lubricants enhance industrial efficiency, stabilizing supply chains.

Since 1900, fossil fuel products have doubled living standards by enabling industrialization and access to goods.

South Africa’s Energy Mix

The green factions are becoming louder in South Africa as their funding dries up from sources such as USAID and the JET. China is laughing all the way to the bank, building 95 GW of new coal and manufacturing subsidized renewables using products made from oil and ethically questionable rare earth minerals.

This while President Donald Trump has vowed to reboot the US coal industry to counter the economic advantage China has gained: “After years of being held captive by Environmental Extremists, Lunatics, Radicals, and Thugs, allowing other Countries, in particular China, to gain tremendous Economic advantage over us by opening up hundreds of all Coal Fire Power Plants, I am authorizing my Administration to immediately begin producing Energy with BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL,” President Trump wrote on social media platform Truth Social.

Equally concerning is the refining capability and gas cliff situation in South Africa, as Sasol projects the LNG supply from Mozambique to run dry by 2027. Sasol’s CTL process exemplifies coal’s added value, producing synthetic fuels and chemicals, contributing over $10 billion yearly to South Africa’s economy and supporting 30,000 jobs. Why would the country not exploit the opportunity to make use of its rich coal supplies, and further reduce its reliance on imported refined products.

Local petrol, diesel, jet fuel and gas (LNG) prices are exacerbated by USD/ZAR exchange volatility and drastic price increases in refined fuel products will immediately put inflationary pressure on consumers. South Africa currently only has two operating refineries left, Astron in the Western Cape and Natref in Gauteng (Interior). The rest have been mothballed or shut.

The South African State owned utility, Eskom with its coal fleet, earned the Best Power Company in the world in 2001, but has since been hollowed out by failed policies, corruption and mismanagement. Coal still provides over 80% of South Africa’s energy supply, but it has been under extreme pressure from the EU and other pro-renewables organizations to transition to purely renewables that can only generate electricity but CANNOT make any products or fuels. This is simply not an option for South Africa. It will lead to the continuation of the rolling blackouts that the country has been facing, despite 14 years of an extensive Renewable Independent Power Producer program that has cost billions of dollars.

The so-called “renewables”, ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make anything. Thus, the country needs all the Products and Transportation fuels that Renewables CANNOT provide, along with Nuclear Power stations. This is the only viable option that will lead to a fair and equitable chance to prosperity for the 62 million in South Africa, and the 1.2 billion people living in Sub-Saharan Africa who rely on essential goods and services.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

Co-authored by Ronald Stein, Oliver Hemmers, and Steve Curtis

March 25, 2025

Electricity from nuclear power is continuous, uninterruptable, emission free, and utilizes the least amount of earth’s natural resources to generate electricity.

Only the few wealthy countries have spent hundreds of billions of dollars subsidizing what they call “renewable energy” in the name of “carbon-free electricity” that is unreliable and weather dependent. Yet, despite picking our pockets through taxes and borrowing to support humongous subsidies for wind and solar, our direct costs are rising for electricity, our electric grid is becoming more failure-prone, and we still live with a monopolistic system, called utilities, of marketing electricity.

There is nothing more critical to our quality of life than all the 6,000 products made from oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil, and continuous and uninterruptible electricity. So, what good has all our tax money done for normal citizens to ease their lives as those renewables only generate electricity, but CANNOT make any products demanded by our materialistic society?

The best way to ensure delivery and low prices of electricity for our materialistic society is a free enterprise system free of useless and expensive regulations. So why are we allowing electricity to be marketed to us in the most expensive and precarious way imaginable?

It is common sense that if huge subsidies are needed to make a commodity viable in the market, then such a commodity is not viable in a free market. So, why do we pay such excess levies? Indeed, why are there subsidies for renewable electricity at all when about 80% of the global population of 8 billion people are living in less developed countries?

We have pointed out that nuclear power, when marketed in a levelized free-enterprise system with fair laws for all, is by far the cheapest way to produce electricity that is safe, continuous, uninterruptible, emission free, and utilizes the least amount of the earth’s natural resources to generate that electricity.

Yet, we continue to trust wealthy country governments’ intervention (remember you pay for all government expenditures) when the result is higher prices, less safe delivery systems, and effectively no lowering of pollution from poorer developing countries. Common sense would tell us that something is wrong.

All of us should be environmentalists at heart. Our daily purchases and actions should contribute to the preservation of clean air and water on the planet. Yet, we also care about our quality of life and our peaceful existence on this planet. So, we make compromises. One such compromise would be to ensure that any replacement for electricity production would be better than what we abandoned. We would also prefer not to abandon an existing solution until an even better solution comes along.

Nuclear power has earned the reputation of being the safest industry in the world. Not a single person has been harmed by a commercial nuclear power plant under normal operation in more than 70 years. About 10% of the world’s electricity, and about 20% of the US electricity is produced with nuclear power. That is a lot of production, and such a safety record is certainly worth noting.

♦ Before you write letters, nobody was harmed in Three-Mile Island or Fukushima from a failed reactor, and Chernobyl was not under normal operation when it failed. Perspective is based on perception, and we want to present this perception since so many people seem to believe differently.

Why is your perception so important? Well, if fear drives your perspective, you may tolerate more expensive or environmentally destructive methods of power production which are not to your advantage. This attitude is especially devastating in a monopolistic market in which you are not free to choose the merchant you think is best. You get what you get, and you don’t throw a fit. But we are not kindergarten children, we are thinking, discerning consumers, right?

A common-sense approach would be to have all production facilities in place before we start shutting down existing, perfectly good facilities. We should not change over until we got a cheaper price on the new commodity. Since electricity delivered on the grid is all the same, why would we pay more for something we could get cheaper? Yet, our electricity prices have skyrocketed of late on top of our being forced to expend our hard-earned tax money as well.

We have shown in other articles that recycling slightly used nuclear fuel (SUNF) from existing stockpiles could produce such a volume of electricity that it would be delivered at around a penny per kWh. It is safer, more compact, more available, cleaner and less imposing than all other forms of electricity generation. Since we are constantly producing more SUNF than we can use, it is also renewable. We still need petroleum for most of the products in our society that did not exist 200 years ago, and aviation, gasoline, and diesel fuels for transportation infrastructure since it is also compact and widely available. So, why are we paying trillions of dollars in subsidies for more expensive and less available electricity? Shouldn’t that be a consumer choice?

Unlike those living in Russia and China, US citizens have a direct choice of who our leaders are. Over the last 60 years, they have bankrupted our treasury while making our quality of life lower, at least in our most important factor, electricity. It may be time to demand a return to free-enterprise and away from artificial fear to improve our lives. Consider this perspective and make your desires known. No politician can stand up to popular demand.

For once, let us drive demand instead of being told what we are going to suffer with. Nothing will improve world quality of life in the developing countries like free or penny per-kWh electric power and access to the more than 6,000 products being enjoyed by those in the wealthier developed countries. Nuclear technology is here, and we have the time to innovate without disrupting our lives if we only demand our right to free enterprise in electricity production and delivery. The nuclear technology is here. We only need the shackles of government subsidy and overregulation to be released to allow it to happen.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

By Ronald Stein, PE

March 13, 2025

Wind and Solar can ONLY generate intermittent electricity but CANNOT make any products for our materialistic society.

So-called renewable energy is ONLY intermittently generated ELECTRICITY from renewables, as wind turbines and solar panels CANNOT make any products, or fuels for the various transportation industries.

In fact, those renewables of wind turbines and solar panels CANNOT exist without oil, as all the parts and components of the net zero emissions fantasy from wind turbines and solar panels are 100% dependent on the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, the same oil that net zero enthusiasts want to rid the world of.

Today, American policymakers setting “green” and “zero emissions” policies are oblivious to the reality that electricity came about AFTER the discovery of oil.  Without oil, there would be no electricity!

• ALL six methods for the generation of electricity from hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar are ALL built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
• All EV’s, solar panels, and wind turbines are also built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
• Everything that needs electricity to function like iPhones, computers, data centers, and X-Ray machines are all made with petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil. Without fossil fuels, there would be nothing that needs electricity!

The Bogus Myths for the generation of occasional and unreliable electricity that also kills birds, bats, and whales and lays waste to farmlands and forests and oceans are numerous:

1- It is claimed that wind and solar renewables are green and kind to the environment.

• Humongous mining requirements occurring in developing countries for the exotic minerals and metals from this 4-billion-year-old planet earth’s natural resources, the same ones that are not being replaced.
• The Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations – Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy does an excellent job of discussing the lack of transparency to the world of the green movement’s impact upon humanity exploitations in the developing countries that are mining for the exotic minerals and metals required to create the batteries needed to store “green energy”. In these developing countries, these mining operations exploit child labor and are responsible for the most egregious human rights violations of vulnerable minority populations. These operations are also directly destroying the planet through environmental degradation.
• Minimal or even non-existent labor laws in poorer developing countries to protect people against humanity atrocities of people with yellow, brown, and black skin.
• Minimal or even non-existent environmental laws and regulations laws in poorer developing countries to protect against environmental degradation to local landscapes from the massive mines scarring the landscape to produce the copper, silver, cobalt and rare earth metals required.
• Maximum usage of this 4-billion-year-old planet earth’s natural resources, the same ones that are not being replaced for future generations.
• Humongous “footprint” of land compared to the generation of electricity via nuclear, natural gas, hydro, or coal.
• Emissions will be exploding from those poorer developing countries, i.e., the other seven billion on this planet. Unlike the wealthy countries that have huge economies that can subsidize any delusionally obsessed idea, but those poorer countries dismal economies cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag!
• To manufacture each EV auto battery that weighs 1,200 pounds, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, just one Tesla EV battery requires the processing of more than 500,000 pounds of materials somewhere on the planet.

2- It is claimed that renewables are cheap.

• Only the wealthier developed countries can afford the humongous subsidies required to build renewables like Germany, Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, all of the EU, and the USA.
• With about 80% of the global population of 8 billion people living in less developed countries. Much of Africa and South-East Asia are prime examples of this, but also Pacific Ocean Island states. The people in those countries might live on less than $10 per day but the greater problem is that they have little or no access to reliable electricity, nor to the myriad of products manufactured using fossil fuels and their derivatives. The “green” agendas of the developed world are threatening to never allow them access to it.
• Wind turbines for the generation of electricity under favourable weather conditions, would be non-existent were it not for government subsidies and mandates behind them.
• Net Zero policies raise electricity costs for families and businesses in the wealthier countries that have the ability to subsidize them, and threatens the reliability of the electricity system.
• High electricity prices coupled with electricity austerity have led to economic stagnation in many of those wealthier countries.
• The cost of renewables is rising but is not recognized or understood for wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries

3- It is claimed that renewables will replace fossil fuels.

• Despite decades of efforts and billions in subsidies to bolster “green electricity” from weather dependent wind and solar, people still get all of the 6,000 products from oil, the same products that are integral to human prosperity across the globe, that support the demands of infrastructures like: Transportation, Airports, Water filtration, Sanitation, Hospitals, Medical equipment, Appliances, Electronics, Telecommunications systems, Heating and ventilating, and the Space programs.
• Everything that needs electricity to function like iPhones, computers, data centres, and X-Ray machines are all made with petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil. Without fossil fuels, there would be nothing that needs electricity!
• ALL the parts and components of renewables are built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, the same oil that renewables are supposed to replace. Without fossil fuels, there would be no electricity!
• Shockingly, the “green” movement has yet to identify a replacement for oil to support the materialistic demand for those 6,000 products made from oil.
• We’ve had more than 200 years to “clone” oil to support the supply chain of products demanded by our materialistic society and have been unsuccessful.

Net Zero, only in the wealthy countries that can subsidize renewables, is ineffective in achieving its primary goal and can never stop the weather changing. The impact of Net Zero policies is devastating for the economy and high productivity, electricity, all the more than 6,000 products made from oil derivatives, and the aviation, gasoline, and diesel fuels for our intensive industries in particular. Renewables are not kind to the environment and the lies and bogus myths being told to promote them are untenable.

Thus, before Net Zero enthusiasts destroy the economy, they need to identify the “replacement” to crude oil that will support the materialistic demands of the e8 billion on this planet for all the products made from those oil derivatives, as well as the aviation, gasoline, and diesel fuel needs of the various worldwide transportation infrastructures, before they preach net zero emissions.

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

Co-authored by Ronald Stein, Dr. Robert Jeffrey and Olivia Vaughan

March 7, 2025

Today, with 8 billion humans on this planet, only the few wealthy countries are extracting natural resources to bolster their economies and provide prosperous lives for their citizens.

Earth has existed for more than 4 billion years without present-day humans. In the past, dinosaurs and cavemen never used its plentiful natural resources.

The discrepancy in the allocation of earth’s natural resources between developed and developing economies, emphasizes a critical point affecting the future of the human species.

When we consider the needs of developing economies, we have no choice but to consider that access to electricity is a crucial cornerstone to alleviating poverty, promoting economic growth and improving living standards. It is an essential social and economic indicator. The link between electricity and GDP per capita is one of the strongest correlations in the social sciences. Why are we not utilizing a seemingly endless clean supply of electricity to shine some light on the hundreds of millions of people living in the dark?

Small Modular Reactors (SMR’s) hold the potential to revolutionize the clean electricity landscape by providing scalable and flexible solutions across both the developed and the developing world. Generation IV SMRs do not need to be near any large waterbody at all, a critical factor in many water scarce countries. They also incorporate a number of technological advances to meet the criteria of sustainability, nuclear safety, economic competitiveness and resistance to nuclear proliferation.

Small modular reactor development globally, is in part due to many South African engineers and scientists having been absorbed into private industry in South Africa and all over the world, including the USA. SMR’s have the potential to bring significant benefits to developing economies due to:

• Lower initial capital investment as SMRs require a lower upfront capital investment due to their compact size and modular design.
• Reduced construction time as SMRs can be deployed relatively quickly, with deployment timelines as short as three years.
• Siting flexibility as SMRs can be installed in a variety of locations, including remote areas with less developed infrastructure.
• Scalability as SMRs can be scaled up or down to meet energy demands. This flexibility allows developing economies to adjust their energy production as their needs change.
• Job creation and economic impact as the construction and operation of SMRs can create jobs and stimulate economic activity.
• Enhanced safety as SMRs have simpler designs and use passive cooling systems, making them inherently safer to operate than traditional reactors.

The generally accepted definition of access to electricity includes the provision of electricity, safe cooking facilities, and a minimum level of consumption. The International Energy Agency (IEA) takes a more holistic approach to its definition, requiring households to meet a minimum specified level of electricity, which gradually increases over time and is based on whether the household is in a rural or urban environment. The set minimum threshold is currently at 250 kWh per year for rural households and 500 kW per year for urban households according to the IEA.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the average annual electricity used by a US residential customer in 2022, was 10,791 kWh. This equates to an average of roughly 900 kWh per month, 43 times the minimum rural threshold accepted by the IEA. We can thus understandably surmise that economic growth in developing economies inevitably requires growth in demand for electricity. Those economies that continue to grow, along with their long-term electricity sovereignty, must therefore develop their nuclear energy capability as a matter of fact rather than of opinion. Referring particularly to South Africa, which is an economy based on developing its mining, industrial and agricultural growth. It must focus its substantial base load electricity and energy growth on domestic nuclear power growth.

As a species, WE CANNOT accurately predict all future economic, technical and energy developments, which may radically change the upcoming economy and other progress of humans.  However, we CAN focus on certain existing issues which need to be highlighted as the very reality that cannot be ignored. The proverbial elephant in the room is that there are consequences of those wealthier developed countries avoiding methods to deliver electricity to those in developing countries.

The electricity from wind and solar renewables is weak, intermittent and unreliable. This makes them only suitable for certain situational applications, but the reality is that economic demand to achieve steady growth is for continuous, uninterruptable, dispatchable power.  Delivery of electricity to humans makes them suitable to grow industries that provide products and services to the 8 billion on this planet.

Using current nuclear technology methods, the used energy rods are taken out and replaced after approximately five to ten years.  However, only 3% of the energy available contained in nuclear fuel is used at this stage and 97% of the energy originally contained in this stored material is still available and can be used.  In other words, there is still a further 10 times the energy used still available from the Slightly Used Nuclear Fuel (SUNF) with revised usage methods. It can then be extrapolated that nuclear power will be available to humans for a further 50,000 years or more from these SUNF sources. How are we not as a species, embracing this gift from galactic solar events the universe has bestowed upon us?

Next-generation reactor designs like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and advanced fast reactors offer greater efficiency, improved safety features, and a notable reduction of spent fuel.

Two of the co-authors of this article are from South Africa, and they believe their country is well positioned to stand on its rich history of nuclear transparency and compliance as a gateway into Africa, as well as the Middle East and SE Asia. With increased safety, oversight and non-proliferation measures, isn’t it time that the developing world share in the power needed to build resilient economies of their own?

The costings from South African based nuclear companies developing SMR’s, are estimating ~$0.12/kWh by the third plant with no need for back up capacity, cost of capital and disposal costed in. It has an energy availability factor of 95%, all of the time. So, we can accurately predict production. As the modular production supply chain grows and incorporating recycled material, the cost is predicted to reduce to ~$0.01/kWh within the next generation.

Now is as good a time, as we are going to get to take the critical leap as a species to nuclear power. As a species, we can make use of the infinite power that we have access to because of collapsing stars, and hundreds of millions of nova and supernova galactic events across space and time. The infinite light in our universe has sent us the densest form of solar power it could ever muster when we use atoms for peace. Nuclear generated electricity and a rapid roll-out of Small Modular Reactors is the fastest way to cast a lasting beacon of light in forgotten developing worlds living in the dark.

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

Co-authored by Ronald Stein and Dr. Cleveland M. Jones

February 26, 2025

The few wealthy countries of Germany, Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, other EU countries, and the USA, representing less than one of the eight billion on Planet Earth are mandating social changes to achieve net zero emissions in their “small worlds within this planet “. The wealthier countries are committing billions of dollars in subsidies to support the wealthy countries’ chosen winners to achieve net zero emissions, i.e., wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries to store electricity, when weather conditions are unfavorable to wind and solar generation.

Wealthy countries’ wish to rid the world of crude oil, coal, and natural gas, without replacements in mind, is immoral, since extreme shortages of the products manufactured from fossil fuels will result in the tragic loss of billions of lives from diseases, malnutrition and weather-related events, both in the developed world and in developing economies.

Unbeknownst to the wealthy countries, over 2 billion people in the world must collect firewood or animal dung to cook, and close to 800 million live without electricity. They comprise the bottom of the pyramid of the world population, along with 80% of the 8 billion population on this planet that make less than $10/day. These billions of people cannot subsidize themselves out of energy poverty.

The billions of poor in the world are also living in countries with virtually no labor laws or environmental laws to protect their landscapes and health.

The future prosperity of these billions of people in developing countries is contingent on their economic advancement through the rightful access to harness the foundational elements of any flourishing economy, i.e., the strategic use of whatever energy sources may be available to them, including fossil fuels, for electricity and to enjoy the products and fuels that are the basis of all modern infrastructures, such as:

• Transportation
• Water filtration
• Sanitation
• Hospitals
• Medical equipment
• Appliances
• Electronics
• Telecommunications
• Communications systems
• Heating and cooling

While billions of people in many parts of the world, such as India, China, Egypt, and many countries in Africa, Asia and the Americas must burn cow dung as a fuel, the few in the wealthy countries believe they can control climate change through subsidies, on this 4-billion-year-old planet.

1. Only wealthy economies have “green” movements and are pursuing them with mandates and costly subsidies.
2. Planet Earth’s resources are limited! Our planet has limited natural resources, including fossil fuels, but especially critical minerals (employed in many new energy systems), such as lithium, cobalt, manganese, various Rare Earth Elements (REE) and many basic industrial metals currently being extracted at unsustainable rates, and mainly from poorer developing countries, under dire working conditions, without labor or health protections, and causing serious environmental impact, due to the unsophisticated extraction processes employed. With technological advances by wealthier countries, in the next few decades we may find “more”, but at current rates of extraction, the planet may not be able to provide those resources for very long, and in many cases, not even for a century. Wealthy countries refuse to put a greater focus on the limitations of earth’s natural resources currently being extracted for the enjoyment of wealthier countries, since they do not understand that our 4-billion-year-old planet will continue to be here, with or without humans.
3. Developing countries are currently the main source for the materials for wealthier countries to go “green”. The current “green movement” technology requires significant REE and ever scarcer metals to make EV batteries, build wind turbines and solar panels, and construct grid storage systems. Those materials are not easily available in the few wealthier countries and are mostly being mined in developing countries. Green energy mandates and subsidies are exploiting people and landscapes around the world and providing financial encouragement to China and Africa for the continued egregious exploitation of vulnerable minority populations, mostly of yellow, brown, and black skin, and financially incentivizing environmental degradation, to support mandated EV’s and subsidized wind turbines and solar panels in wealthier country backyards.
4. So-called renewable power has proven to be very expensive electricity. The few wealthy countries that have been able to provide heavy subsidies to transition to expensive, intermittent electricity generation from wind and sun have been Germany, Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, other EU countries, and the USA. These countries represent less than one eighth of the world’s population, but they remain ignorant of the billions in India, China, Egypt, Africa, Asia and Latin America who live on less than $10 a day, and of the billions that have no access to electricity. Wealthier countries avoid discussing and explaining how their “green movement” will help those living in poorer developing countries join the industrialized society that they themselves enjoy.
5. The supply chain to support zero-emission mandates and subsidies by the few wealthier developed countries must be ethical and moral. Billions of dollars have already been spent to support mandates for the elites of the world, while they refuse to discuss securing sustainable supply chains, promoting responsible sourcing practices and labor and environmental laws and regulations, and ensuring a just and equitable green and digital transition for all, both poor and wealthy.
6. Before wealthier counties accuse big oil for not having a zero-emission society, they need to ask themselves: “How dare WE in the wealthier countries continue to increase our demand for the products and fuels manufactured from crude oil, which make OUR life more comfortable?” Without a replacement for those fuels and petrochemical derivatives, phasing out oil would undoubtedly phase out most essential industries of modern society, including the medical industry, militaries, transportation, communications, the electrical power industries, as well as many others. The world would face a return to the unenviable lifestyle that existed in the 19^th

Wealthier countries need to participate in conversations that focus on how mandates and subsidies can provide PRODUCTS, FUELS, and ELECTRICITY for the 8 billion on this planet, not ONLY for the few who live in wealthier countries that can afford to subsidize intermittent wind and solar generation of electricity, as well as the costs associated with storage, grid upgrades and backup sources required for a hasty energy transition to a “green” energy world.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

[BIO: Dr. Cleveland M. Jones is technical director and partner at Fronteira Energia, a consultant, and researcher at Instituto Nacional de Óleo e Gás/CNPq/UERJ/Brazil, and was founder and director of several environmental and biotech firms.]

By Ronald Stein

February 13, 2025

Over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of the more than 6,000 products and different fuels for planes, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space programs that did not exist before the 1800’s. Today, the world is a materialistic society.

We have more than 50,000 merchant ships, more than 20,000 commercial aircraft and more than 50,000 military aircraft that use the fuels manufactured from crude oil. The fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of jets moving people and products, and the merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space programs, are also dependent on what can be manufactured from crude oil.

Today, American policymakers setting “green” policies are oblivious to the reality that electricity came AFTER the discovery of crude oil, and everything that NEEDS Electricity, are made with the products made from oil derivatives.

• ALL electrical generation methods from hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar are ALL built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil,
• All EV’s, solar panels, and wind turbines are also built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
• Getting rid of crude oil would eliminate electricity, and all the products that need electricity to operate!

We’ve had more than 200 years to “clone” oil to support the supply chain of products demanded by our materialistic society and have been unsuccessful.

The January 20, 2025 executive order of President Trump, “Unleashing American Energy (UAE)” calls for elimination of the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” to promote consumer choice and access to gasoline-powered automobiles. It’s true that we have no formal EV mandate, but 22 states have zero-emissions vehicle mandates or executive orders prohibiting sales of gasoline cars by a future date, typically 2035.

The few developed nations are oblivious that “Big oil” only exists because of the wealthier countries being addicted to the products and fuels that are manufactured from fossil fuels that makes THEIR lives more comfortable. The wealthy countries constantly pursue smaller and faster electronics, and bigger and faster planes, ships, and launches into outer space are the only reasons that crude oil is needed.

Seemingly unbeknownst to the “green” movements in the few wealthy countries, that are able to provide trillions of dollars of financial subsidies, and impose government mandates to transition to occasional electricity generation from breezes and sunshine is totally unaffordable by most on this planet.

The future prosperity of billions of people in developing countries is contingent on their economic advancement through the rightful access to harness the foundational elements of any flourishing economy, i.e., the strategic use of fossil fuels and electricity to enjoy the products and fuels that are the basis of all the infrastructures such as: water filtration, sanitation, heating and ventilating, hospitals, medical equipment, transportation, appliances, electronics, telecommunications, and communications systems.

The “green” movement, just in the few wealthy countries that are pursuing them with mandates and humongous financial subsidies, is totally unaffordable by more than 6 billion on this planet! Thus, the world is in desperate need of teachers to be the moderators of Energy Literacy CONVERSATIONS that discuss subjects that will benefit ALL 8 billion on this planet.

Shockingly, wealthy countries like, Germany, Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, all the EU, and the USA still remain ignorant that 80% of the 8 billion on this planet are living on less than $10 a day. These billions of people cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag. How will more than 6 billion on this planet ever see electricity?

Policymakers have no comprehension that crude oil is virtually never used to generate electricity, but when manufactured into those petrochemicals that are the basis of more than 6,000 products, is the basis for virtually all the products that support Hospitals, Medical equipment, Appliances, Electronics, Transportation, Telecommunications, Heating and Ventilating, and Communications systems.

In addition, crude oil is the basis of the various transportation fuels in our materialistic society that did not exist before the 1800’s, now being used in infrastructures like: Transportation, Airports, pleasure aircraft and boats, Space programs, and Militaries.

Before the 1800’s, and before the discovery of oil, the world had NO crude oil, and obviously NO products or transportation fuels, and NO electricity and NO Tesla’s !!  Before the 1800’s, Life was hard and short.

Renewables, like wind and solar, only exist to generate occasional electricity. Since these so-called renewables, CANNOT manufacture any of the more than 6,000 products AND the various transportation fuels made from fossil fuels for vehicles, planes and ships, that are demanded by the infrastructures of today, the same infrastructures that did not exist 200 years ago, thus it’s a great time to use President Trump’s executive orders on the subject of energy, to stimulate conversations to enhance everyone’s Energy Literacy.

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

Co-authored by Ronald Stein, Dr. Robert Jeffrey and Olivia Vaughan

February 5, 2025

Our Planet Earth has existed for more than 4 billion years without present-day humans. In the past, dinosaurs and cavemen never used the plentiful natural resources on Planet Earth.

Today, with 8 billion humans on this planet, those natural resources are being extracted by the few wealthy countries at alarming rates, and NOT being replenished.

• Crude oil consumption is more than 35 billion barrels per year with less than 50 years left of known reserves of oil.
• Coal consumption is more than 8 billion tons per year, with less than 135 years left of known reserves of coal.
• Natural gas consumption is more than 132 million cubic feet per year, with about 50 years left of known reserves of natural gas.
• Similar scenarios for the exotic minerals and metals, like lithium, cobalt, manganese, copper, etc., needed to go “green” with EV batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels.

With advances in technology, motivated with the increasing cost of those resources, we may find other ways to locate and extract more, like the “fracking” technology being used to extract more oil, BUT Planet Earth’s resources are limited!

Our 4-billion-year-old planet has limited natural resources like oil, gas, coal, lithium, cobalt, manganese, etc. that are being extracted at alarming rates. Even with technological advances and increasing values of those resources in the next few decades, we may find “more”, but at current rates of extraction of those resources, the planet may be sucked dry in 100, 1,000, or 5,000 years, but this 4-billion-year-old planet will be here with or without humans. Shockingly, 80% on this planet of 8 billion are living on less than $10 a day.

For the more than 6 billion on this planet that are economically challenged, they may get a sneak preview of coming attractions just by looking at wealthy and expensive California. California, with its 40 million residents representing only a miniscule 0.5% of the world’s 8 billion, is a very expensive state to live in, with the separation of the wealthy and the less fortunate growing wider each day. Using California as an example, with about 12% of the USA population, it accounts for 28% of all people experiencing homelessness in the country, and 49% of all unsheltered people in the U.S., so a question for our Energy Literacy conversation is: Should there be a greater focus on the limitations of earth’s natural resources now being extracted for the enjoyment by wealthier countries on Earth as our 4-billion-year-old planet will continue to be here, with or without humans?

Renewables, like wind and solar, CANNOT exist without the products made from oil and major government subsidies. Wind and Solar can only generate occasional electricity but CANNOT make any of the 1,000s of products made from oil. In fact, renewable energy equipment is one of the 6000+ products made from oil, without oil, wind and solar would simply not exist.

Renewables CANNOT support Transportation

One of the most visible impacts of fossil fuels is their role in modern transportation. Cars, planes, and ships are all constructed from the products made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, and all powered by gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel—would vanish in a world without fossil fuels.

Renewables CANNOT support Industry and Employment

In a fossil-fuel-free world, affordable housing itself would be a nearly impossible dream. Industrial processes—construction materials like cement, steel, and glass—are all heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Without the products made from fossil fuels, the scope of construction would revert to pre-industrial techniques: wood, stone, and limited quantities of brick.

Manufacturing jobs, which underpin much of the middle-class prosperity, would never have existed. Instead of large factories producing goods for regional or global markets, small workshops might churn out handmade products—slowly and expensively.

Renewables CANNOT support Agriculture and Food Supply

The impact on agriculture is another glaring area of transformation. Modern agriculture depends on machinery powered by fossil fuels and fertilizers synthesized from natural gas. In a world without these advancements, farming would be labor-intensive, with productivity akin to 18th-century subsistence farming.

Grocery stores might be stocked with a meager selection of locally grown vegetables and grains. Exotic imports like bananas or coffee, enabled by fossil-fuel-powered shipping, would be nonexistent. Seasonal shortages would be a grim reality, and even slight droughts or floods could result in famine. food security would teeter on the edge of disaster,

Renewables CANNOT support Healthcare and Medicine

Without fossil fuels would also strip away much of modern healthcare. Consider this: medical equipment, transportation for emergency care, and pharmaceutical production are all deeply reliant on fossil fuels. Everything from life-saving antibiotics to syringes and IV bags require petrochemical derivatives.

In a fossil free world, we wouldn’t have the resources to provide much beyond rudimentary care. The polio vaccine, dependent on sophisticated manufacturing and distribution chains, wouldn’t exist. The mortality rate for childbirth, infections, and injuries would soar.

Renewables CANNOT support Modern Conveniences

Without fossil fuels, there would be no central heating from oil or natural gas. Residents would chop firewood or rely on coal (itself a limited resource in this hypothetical scenario).

homes would be lit by candles or kerosene lamps, cooking might be done over a wood-burning stove, with meals taking hours to prepare. Refrigeration, an unsung hero of modern life, wouldn’t exist, forcing people to salt, smoke, or can food to preserve it—a time-consuming and imperfect solution.

residents bundled in multiple layers during the winter, huddling together for warmth. Without fossil fuels, their standard of living would regress to pre-industrial levels, where mere survival consumed most of their time and energy.

Renewables CANNOT support Education and Communication

Education, the backbone of a thriving community, would also suffer. Without cheap and reliable electricity, schools would be dimly lit, unheated, and sparsely equipped. Children might need to contribute to farm work or family businesses instead of attending school regularly. Advanced subjects like chemistry or engineering would be nearly impossible to teach without modern tools and materials.

Communication would revert to handwritten letters delivered by horseback. News would travel slowly, and international correspondence would be a rare luxury.

Renewables CANNOT avoid an Environmental Irony

Advocates for abandoning fossil fuels often highlight their environmental toll. Yet, in a world without them, we’d see a different kind of environmental degradation. Without synthetic fertilizers, agricultural expansion would devour vast tracts of forest to meet basic food needs. Heating with wood would result in widespread deforestation, and rudimentary industries might still pollute waterways without modern environmental regulations.

Fossil fuels are far from perfect

Ironically, while fossil fuels have undeniable environmental costs, their absence wouldn’t guarantee a pristine Earth. Instead, we’d face the paradox of localized environmental destruction on an immense scale, driven by humanity’s desperate attempts to compensate for the loss of energy-dense fuels. In Africa, this is evident where people have no choice but to chop down valuable indigenous trees to use as fuel for firewood to cook and heat their rudimentary homes. Over 70% of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa relies on wood as their primary household energy source.

Everyone needs to ask each other, Why is it that environmentalists insist on spending money and resources on litigating against the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries, instead of advancing technologies that truly encapsulate the full circular economy of the energy cycle?

Waste to Energy technologies like tire and plastic pyrolysis go a long way to close the loop between extracting new resources and deriving the most value out of resources that have already been extracted. These technologies should be receiving support and funding, instead of solar and wind, which create toxic waste and only electricity some of the time. Yet, funding and support to commercialize truly clean technologies remains an elusive bottle neck.

Instead of demonizing the energy sources for the products and fuels that built the world we know as home, we should seek balanced solutions that preserve the benefits of modernity while addressing genuine environmental concerns. A world without fossil fuels might look idyllic in the abstract, but in practice, it would resemble a dystopian world that is harsh, impoverished, and unrecognizably bleak.

Without them, our modern “wonderful life” would never have come to be. Reiterating, Planet Earth’s resources are limited! At current rates of extraction by the wealthier countries of limited natural resources like oil, gas, coal, lithium, cobalt, manganese, etc., the planet may be sucked dry in 1,000 or 5,000 years, but our 4-billion-year-old planet will continue to be here, with or without humans while the separation of the wealthy and the less fortunate continues to grow wider each day.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table. 

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

Co-authored by: Ronald Stein,  Oliver Hemmers, and Steve Curtis

January 24, 2025

Insight into today’s worldwide development of nuclear power is provided from the history of nuclear generated electricity.

American ingenuity advanced nuclear technology to a world-class innovation to benefit all.  Interestingly, the methods used in the rest of the world are copies of the American innovations.

Now, America seems to be fading into the wallpaper of greed and propaganda. It slinks to massive subsidies to support ancient power generated from breezes and sunshine, like wind and solar.  America needs to reestablish its world-leading manifestation of this technology through our secret weapon called free enterprise.

To meet increasing demands for electricity, China, Russia, Japan, and Poland are building additional nuclear power generated electricity, while the USA focuses on weather dependent wind and solar.

Russia and China are currently leading the world in nuclear electricity generation and account for 70 per cent of additional nuclear power capacity.  Today, about 60 reactors are under construction across the world. A further 110 are planned.

Today, nuclear power generated electricity is being added around the world:

• The nuclear power systems developed for the Navy have functioned well for over seven decades. All U.S. Navy submarines, and aircraft carriers are nuclear powered.
• France has more than 50 nuclear power reactors producing more than 70% of France’s electricity.
• Japan / New Energy Policy Will Set Nuclear Share Target Of 20% By 2040 Japan’s industry ministry is making final amendments to a policy that will significantly increase nuclear power from the estimated 8.5% that the reactor fleet provides today. Fourteen nuclear power plants have restarted in Japan since the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

Today, about 440 nuclear power reactors are in operation in 32 countries and Taiwan, with 62 new reactors under construction. As of August 1, 2023, the United States had 54 nuclear power plants with 93 operating commercial nuclear reactors in 28 states.

Nuclear power has the competitive advantage of being the only reliable, available, and clean power source that can accommodate the desired expansion of a clean electricity supply to the end users.  In fact, nuclear power could supply all the capacity the US needs.

The United States invented and perfected nuclear power as early as the late 1940s.  Are we willing to regress while other countries progress?  To understand this concept better, let’s review the US nuclear energy development through the years.

As Nazi Germany began to eat away at civilization, the discovery of nuclear fission, the powerhouse of nuclear reactors, was coming of age.  Like the uranium born from stardust as the ultimate energy storage, the secret to unlimited electric power for the world exploded upon the scientific community.  You have heard of the heroes of this miracle: Curie, Einstein, Meitner, Hahn, Frisch, Bohr, Teller, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and many more.  In a strange quirk of fate, the first use of nuclear fission came in the form of a bomb.  As bad as war can be, it spurred the invention of radar, jet engines, and nuclear fission devices which all went on to make life better for humans.  Nuclear fission became the flowers that grew after the thunderstorms of WWII.

After WWII, President Truman transferred the wartime Manhattan Project bomb design efforts into the genesis of peacetime development of nuclear power by creating the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).  President Eisenhower and President Kennedy continued the rapid development of “Atoms for Peace” to produce the first nuclear reactors in conjunction with private enterprise.

Hyman Rickover was another visionary to promote the development of what came to be known as light water reactors because they used the slowing down, or “moderating” of neutrons to produce energy by using the element uranium in an altered or “enriched” form.  This program was incredibly successful because the advantage of nuclear power for propulsion was so overpowering.  First used in submarines, this technology promised to advance US strategic naval advantage unsurpassed in the world.  These submarines were orders of magnitude quieter than diesel models and would not need to be refueled for the entire 30-year life of the submarine consuming uranium the size of a baseball.  The first nuclear sub, named the Nautilus after Jules Verne’s famous fictional “underwater home for its crew”, was launched in 1954.  Today, the Navy employs a fleet of more than 100 nuclear-powered vessels, including submarines and aircraft carriers.

Meanwhile, the civilian effort to produce commercial nuclear power followed two basic paths.  While they were developing the light water reactors for the Navy, a different type of reactor, called the fast reactor, had the edge in the commercial power arena.  These are called “fast” reactors because they employed more energetic neutrons by using sodium or molten salt as a coolant instead of water.  Some may know these reactors as “breeder reactors”.  However, Admiral Rickover chose the light water reactor, famously saying “I would use sodium as a coolant if the oceans were made of sodium”.  Since light water reactors were at a more advanced engineering level, it made sense to use this design for the electricity-generating nuclear power plants.  The first such reactor went into commercial power production in Shippingport, New York on December 23, 1957.  In the next 30 years, more than 100 nuclear power plants came online and provided 19.5% of the electricity in the United States.

Everything went well, and many dozens of reactors were being ordered by utility companies, until 1979.  On March 28^th, a series of events caused the reactor core at Three Mile Island number 2 to overheat and began to melt down.  Even though the reactor’s safety features prevented any injuries to the public, the media fear-factor kicked into gear.  Many people became nervous about nuclear power, and the political world amplified this fear to the point that almost all the reactor orders evaporated.  No more reactors were built after 1988 when Palo Verde near Phoenix came online.  Other than two reactors which started construction and were finished in the early 2000s, the next reactors to come online, did so in 2022 and 2023 in Vogtle, Georgia.  Even though there were 18 reactors closed before their design life, the efficiency (capacity factor) of the electricity production was increased (now better than 90%) such that the percentage of US power supplied by nuclear reactors remains close to 19.5%.  Today, 94 commercial reactors are online.  Of the 18 reactors closed, 12 of them are in a condition called safe store (SAFSTOR), meaning that they can be brought back on line with some modifications. 

More recently, we find that our demand for electricity will go up rapidly.  Just like the price of eggs has gone up rapidly because disease has caused the egg production to tank, the price of electricity will go up as other customers bid in the face of rising demand.  Many of us can do without eggs, but nobody can do without electricity.  When you combine the rising demand with a clamor among media outlets demanding that we do away with natural gas and coal to produce electricity, I guess the prevailing anti-nuclear power opinion is that we all should move into caves and cook with firewood.  I guess that would “conserve” electricity, but it would certainly not be the quality of life I would like to devolve to.  The obvious conclusion is that people simply will not tolerate such a situation.

We do not have to wait until the market for cave dwellings explode, however.  Technology has already come to the rescue.  Remember, the Navy still uses 100% nuclear power on their submarines and aircraft carriers.  The Army and Air Force are getting into the swing of nuclear power through their project (Project Pele) to migrate to small modular reactor microgrids to power their bases.  So, why does US policy so consistently fight against the one innovation in the last century that can provide renewable, clean energy, essentially, forever and certainly until we commercialize a better idea?  That is certainly one of the unanswered mysteries of our age.

It appears that the Army and Air Force will inspire the commercial market for small modular reactors just like the Navy did for light water reactors.  If you add the fast reactor recycling of the spent nuclear fuel, you can, essentially, create a supply of electricity that is too massive for us to use.  The past has shown promise for nuclear power, the military is certainly pleased with it, and it looks to be the only way to out-produce our demand.  Toss in recycling in fast reactors, and we can see prices on a fair market approach a penny per kWh.  Isn’t that better than the dollar per kWh we are headed for as big business outbids consumers and small business for electricity?  We are at a tipping point, but the customer always wins in a free enterprise system, right?

While nuclear power generation is proliferating around the world in China, Russia, and Japan with about 60 new nuclear power plants under construction and a further 110 planned, nuclear power design and construction came to an abrupt end in America in the early 1980’s due to the propaganda of the anti-nuclear movement and a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that seems unable to approve any nuclear reactor designs, despite the sterling proven safety record over 7 decades.

What will it take to stimulate American interest to recapture our leadership in nuclear power implementation and innovation?

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

By Ronald Stein PE

January 11, 2025

To support the growth of health and prosperity worldwide for the 8 billion on this planet in the coming decades, and the increasing demand for electricity, and for the 6,000+ products in our materialistic society, and for the various transportation fuels ⏤ will challenge humanity’s creativity to support the supply chains to meet those growing demands.

Government-mandated winners and losers are only applicable to those few in the wealthier countries that can afford huge subsidies, but the reality is that there are no silver bullet answers.

For those outside the few wealthy countries, we see that at least 80 percent of humanity, or more than six billion in this world, are living on less than $10 a day, and billions are living with little to no access to electricity.

Politicians in wealthier countries are pursuing the most expensive ways to generate intermittent electricity. Energy poverty is among the most crippling but least talked-about crises of the 21st century. We should not take electricity, products, and fuel for granted. Wealthy countries may be able to bear expensive electricity and fuels, but not by those that can least afford living in “energy poverty.”

It should be one of everyone’s New Year’s resolutions to acquire a passion to stimulate discussions to enhance everyone’s Energy Literacy. To support and facilitate those CONVERSATIONS, at least three are required:

♦ A Moderator: Teacher, student, or Podcast host.
♦ A representative of the products and fuels of our materialistic society and
♦ A representative of the pro-renewables for zero-emissions electricity.

Here are just a few open-ended starter questions for Teachers, Students, and Podcaster Moderators to stimulate 3-way Energy Literacy conversations:

(1) Limitations of just electricity from renewables. Renewables, like wind and solar, only exist to generate occasional electricity. Since these so-called renewables CANNOT manufacture any of the more than 6,000 products AND the various transportation fuels made from fossil fuels for vehicles, planes, and ships that are demanded by the infrastructures of today, the same infrastructures that did not exist 200 years ago, the question for our conversation is: WHY eliminate fossil fuels when there is no known “replacement” to fossil fuels that can support the materialistic demands for products and fuels of the population and economy that are supporting the 8 billion on this planet?

(2) Most of the products in our materialistic society are made from fossil fuels. Everything that NEEDS Electricity, like iPhones, computers, data centers, and X-ray machines, need electricity to function. All the parts of toilets, spacecraft, and more than 50,000 merchant ships, more than 20,000 commercial aircraft, and more than 50,000 military aircraft are also made from the products based on derivatives manufactured from crude oil, so the question for our conversation is: Why rid only the wealthy countries with “green” movements, of fossil fuels as that would just divert the supply chain of oil to refineries in developing countries, to meet the demands for products and fuels that did not exist 200 years ago?

(3) Only wealthy economies have “green” movements. Of the 8 billion now on planet earth, of which 80% are making less than $10/day and lack many infrastructures being enjoyed by those in the wealthier countries such as Transportation, Airports, Water filtration, Sanitation, Hospitals, Medical equipment, Appliances, Electronics, Telecommunications systems, Heating, and ventilating, so the question for our conversation is: Why are the wealthy countries the only ones pursuing a “green movement” with subsidies and mandates?

(4) Planet Earth’s resources are limited! Our 4-billion-year-old planet has limited natural resources like oil, gas, coal, lithium, cobalt, manganese, etc., that are being extracted at alarming rates. Even with technological advances in the next few decades, we may find “more.” Still, at current rates of extraction of those resources, the planet may be sucked dry in 50, 100, 200, or 500 years, so the question for our conversation is: Should there be a greater focus on the limitations of Earth’s natural resources now being extracted for the enjoyment by wealthier countries on Earth as our 4-billion-year-old planet will continue to be here, with or without humans,?

(5) Developing countries are THE only source for the materials for wealthier countries to go “green”. Since the current “green movement” technology requires significant rare earth minerals and metals to construct EV batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels that are not easily available in the few wealthier countries are being mined in developing countries, so the question for our conversation is: Are the wealthy country mandates and subsidies ethical and moral, to continue financially encouraging China and Africa to continue the egregious human rights violations of vulnerable minority populations by exploiting “their” poor with yellow, brown, and black skin, and financially supporting environmental degradation to “their” landscapes just to reinforce mandated EV’s, and subsidizing of wind turbines, and solar panels in “wealthier country backyards”?

(6) The Future of EV Batteries. The first cell phone, more than 50 years ago in 1973, the Motorola DynaTAC, weighed 2.5 pounds and was 9 inches tall. Today’s cell phones are generally under 7 ounces with almost unlimited functions, easy charging, and virtually unlimited applications. In the coming decades, the current 1,000-pound lithium battery in EVs will seem barbaric, just like the first cell phone, future EV batteries will be lighter, cheaper, longer range, and shorter charging times, so the question for our conversation: How long do you think it will take humanity ingenuity and creativity driven by the free enterprise environment, to meet the humongous growing demand for efficient electricity, that will most likely exceed what we experienced in cell phone development that took 5-decades?

(7) Electricity came about AFTER the discovery of oil. ALL six methods to generate electricity, from hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar, for the generation of electricity, are ALL built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, so the question for our conversation is: Why rid the world of fossil fuels as that would eliminate our ability to generate electricity?

(8) So-called renewable power has proven to be very expensive electricity. The few wealthy countries able to provide heavy subsidies to transition to occasional electricity generation from breezes and sunshine has proven to be ultra-expensive for Germany, Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, all of the EU, and the USA. These few wealthy countries that currently represent about one of the eight billion of the world’s population still remain ignorant that billions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America still live on less than $10 a day – and that billions still have little to no access to electricity, so the question for our conversation is: How will the “green movement” help those in poorer developing countries join the industrialized society being enjoyed by those in the wealthier countries?

(9) The supply chain to support zero-emission mandates must be ethical and moral. The zero-emission mandates from the few wealthier developed countries require key challenges in the supply chain requirements from the raw materials sector for rare earth minerals and metals that need to be overcome if the electricity generation transition is to be realized, so the question for our conversation is: Why is there no conversation about securing sustainable supply chains, promoting responsible sourcing practices with labor and environmental laws and regulations, and ensuring a just and equitable green and digital transition for everyone, both poor and wealthy?

(10) Nuclear power plants are prolificating around the world. For more than 7 decades, nuclear power has proven to be the safest, most compact, emissions-free, and cheapest way to produce continuous, uninterruptable, and dispatchable electricity; it has resulted in increased activities in China, Russia, and Japan with about 60 new nuclear power plants under construction across the world and a further 110 planned, so the question for our conversation is: Why do you think that America is supporting subsidies for unreliable wind and solar generated electricity that is NOT continuous nor dispatchable, and avoiding nuclear-generated electricity that is continuous, dispatchable, and emissions-free?

(11) Nuclear power generation has an impressive safety track record. America has a track record of almost 70 years of nuclear power plant operation without any injuries, including over 70 years of nuclear Navy reactor operations for all their submarines and aircraft carriers, so the question for our conversation is: Why is there so much public resistance in America to allowing nuclear power to compete with other forms of power generation on the open market?

(12) The USA is falling behind in technological developments in nuclear power generation. While nuclear power generation is proliferating around the world in China, Russia, and Japan, with about 60 new nuclear power plants under construction and a further 110 planned, nuclear power design and construction came to a slow end in America in the early 1980s due to the handling of the anti-nuclear movement and an incompetent Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so the question for our conversation is: What will it take to stimulate American interest to just catch up with foreign countries domination of technological developments in nuclear power generation?

(13) CO2 starvation. The minimum threshold for plant life is 150 ppm of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), but today, CO2 levels are about 420 ppm. Carbon dioxide is essential for life on Earth, as humans need it to regulate respiration and control blood pH, while Plants use it to create oxygen through photosynthesis. So, the question for our conversation is: With CO2 levels today nearing the starvation levels for plant and human life on Earth, why the focus on reducing CO2 levels to end life?

(14) Government-subsidized projects have yet to produce Environmental Impact Reports. To date, all wind and solar generation of electricity has been funded by government subsidies as NONE have been financed by private entrepreneurial investor funds, but all those subsidized renewable projects have yet to be accountable for Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) that detail the life cycle for renewables that run from design, procurement, and construction through operations, maintenance, and repair, as well as the life-ending decommissioning and disposal or recycling and restoration of the landscaping back to its original pristine condition, so the question for our conversation is: Why are government subsidized renewable projects toward wind, solar, and electric vehicles EXEMPT from the same Environmental Impact Reports that extensively discuss decommissioning, recycling, and restoration of the landscaping back to its original pristine condition for wind, solar, and EV battery materials when they are required when those projects are funded with private money?

(15) Earth’s natural resources are not being replenished. As the world’s population depletes, the 4-billion-year-old Planet Earth’s natural resources of crude oil, coal, natural gas, and the critical minerals and metals to support the “green” movement like lithium, cobalt, manganese, etc., over the next 50, 100, or more years, our grandchildren may be unable to enjoy the more than 6,000 products of our materialistic society, being enjoyed by the current residents on this planet, so the question for our conversation is: To continue the preservation of human life on earth, how do we get serious about conservation, efficiency improvements, and recycling the waste that humans are generating?

The above open-ended questions are intended to facilitate the stimulation of 3-way Energy Literacy conversations among teachers, students, and Podcast Moderators with representatives of the products and fuels of our materialistic society AND representatives of the pro-renewables for zero-emissions electricity.

© 2025 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

By Ronald Stein, Oliver Hemmers, and Steve Curtis

January 3, 2025

There is a growing need to recycle human caused waste as this Planet’s resources WILL run out

Our planet has numerous resources, but they are NOT unlimited resources. What’s the future of humanity 100 to 500 years from now, after humans have extracted the oil, coal, lithium, cobalt and other resources from the 4.5-billion-year-old Earth?

♦ Worldwide crude oil consumption is currently estimated at roughly 96.5 million barrels per day. According to OPEC, global demand is expected to reach 109 million barrels per day. Estimations vary slightly from other sources as well, but it is predicted that we may run out of global oil from known reserves in about 50 years.

♦ Nothing lasts forever, even the abundant coal on this planet. For coal, we may run out of global coal from known reserves in about 130 years.

As the world’s population depletes the earth’s natural resources over the next 50, 100, or more years, our grandchildren may be unable to enjoy the more than 6,000 products of our materialistic society, being enjoyed by the current residents on this planet. These are products that people need and use every day, without even realizing that they come from the refining process. Without oil, we are back in the stone age.

To continue the preservation of human life on earth, it’s time to get serious about conservation, efficiency improvements, and recycling the waste that humans are generating.

One of the primary areas of focus is the recovery of electricity from waste streams such as tires and plastics.

♦ Tires: The United States generates around 280 million waste tires each year, which is roughly one tire per person. Globally, an estimated 1 billion to 1.8 billion used tires are discarded annually.

♦ Plastic: The world produces around 400 million tons of plastic each year, which is more than double the amount produced at the beginning of the century. Growth: Since the 1970s, plastic production has grown faster than any other material. If current trends continue, global production is projected to reach 1,100 million tons by 2050.

As billions of tires and millions of tons of plastic waste being disposed of annually, these materials represent a vast untapped source of electricity. Traditional disposal methods often lead to environmental pollution and health hazards. Waste to energy technology offers a sustainable alternative by converting these materials into clean electricity while reclaiming valuable products like recovered steel, coke, and carbon black.

There is a growing list of “waste to energy” companies vying for leadership of this revolution, developing and implementing groundbreaking solutions to convert waste into valuable electricity. By focusing on recycling and electricity generation, one of those companies is SOBE, a public utility in Youngstown, Ohio that converts waste into energy through a process called enhanced pyrolysis that is ready to begin helping manufacturing and healthcare companies meet their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals while also reducing their electricity costs.

These waste to energy firms provide the recycling and handling facilities for preprocessing hydrocarbon man-made based products such as waste tires and all seven grades of plastic into feedstock used internally within the group’s (WTE) waste to energy conversion technology. The feedstock is converted during the technology process inside their plants into a clean synthetic fuel gas that can be used directly for their operations, or in gas turbines or reciprocating engines for electricity generation. Providing a clean, safe and environmentally friendly solution for the repurposing of these difficult waste streams and reducing landfill usage.

This creates and establishes a true circular economy-based recycling model. Utilizing an inexhaustible stream of man-made waste converted into clean energy. The byproducts produced consisting of carbon black and steel are then repurposed for the greater good of our planet’s resources and the environment.

These waste to energy innovative processes are designed to be highly efficient and environmentally friendly. By combining recycling with electricity generation, the company can minimize waste and reduce the need for additional resources. The reclaimed materials can be reintroduced into the supply chain, reducing the demand for virgin materials and the greenhouse gas emission from production facilities; further contributing to a sustainable economy.

There are several challenges with traditional electricity sources such as coal and natural gas that have long been the primary means of powering our world. However, these sources often come with a host of environmental problems, including:

♦ Greenhouse gas emissions: The burning of fossil fuels releases large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change.

♦ Air pollution: Fossil fuel combustion also produces harmful air pollutants, such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides, which can have negative health effects.

♦ Depletion of natural resources: Coal and crude oil are finite resources on our 40-billion-year-old planet, and their continued extraction and use are depleting reserves.

Renewable electricity generating sources, such as solar and wind power, only offer an intermittent, but not sustainable alternative to the continuous electricity generation from coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Additionally, the production of solar panels and wind turbines requires significant amounts of electricity and exotic minerals and metals resources to make components of wind turbines and solar panels. They also create another problem with their waste when they are damaged, thrown away, or no longer usable.

The benefits of waste-to-electricity solutions, such as those collaboratively developed by SOBE, offer a promising alternative to traditional electricity sources.

By converting waste into electricity, these solutions can help:

♦ Reduce waste: Waste-to-electricity technologies can divert waste from landfills, reducing the need for new landfills and minimizing the environmental impact of waste disposal.

♦ Generate renewable electricity: The electricity produced from waste is considered renewable because it is derived from a constantly replenished resource.

♦ Reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Waste-to-electricity technologies can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by displacing coal and natural gas for electricity generation.

♦ Create jobs: The development and implementation of waste-to-electricity technologies can create jobs in the electricity sector and related industries.

The Future of Sustainable Electricity: As the world continues to grapple with the challenges of climate change and resource depletion over the next few centuries of the world’s reserves of crude oil and exotic minerals and metals, there is a growing need for innovative solutions to our demands for electricity. Waste-to-electricity and new technologies, such as those like SOBE is working with, offer a promising path toward a more sustainable and prosperous future.

In addition to their work on waste-to-electricity solutions, SOBE is also collaborating with companies like Optics Consulting and other organizations to develop and commercialize other clean electricity technologies. By fostering partnerships and sharing knowledge, companies can help accelerate the transition to a sustainable electricity future.

Imagine a self-generating behind-the-meter solution that is 100% renewable clean and continuous technology that can be deployed in 4 MW units and can be expanded to the needs of the electricity customers. Technologies like these are coming very soon.

By harnessing the power of waste, or utilizing new innovative technologies, we can focus on continuous and reliable electricity through recycling tires and plastic waste to help reduce our reliance on coal and natural gas, reduce the landfill footprint, protect the environment, and create a cleaner, healthier world for generations to come.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

© 2024 Ronald Stein, Oliver Hemmers, and Steve Curtis – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

By Ronald Stein, P.E.

December 21, 2024

Governor Newsom remains oblivious that there is no replacement for oil that provides products that support the 8 billion on this planet.

California Governor Gavin Newsom represents a population of 40 million. The State’s residents are a miniscule 0.4 percent of the 8 billion on this planet, but he has California acting as an independent country with environmental laws, regulations, and mandates unmatched on this planet.

President-Elect Trump recognizes a key fact that Newsom does not, that there is no known “replacement” to fossil fuels that supports the materialistic demands of the population and economy, and thus most “green” movements are projected to be obliterated after Trump’s January 20^th inauguration.

The residents of California, through their silence, provides encouragement for Newsom to continue his net-zero mission that has contributed to the State having the highest costs for electricity and fuels in the nation for the few residing in the State.

The Governor remains ignorant that the other 99.6 percent of the world’s population live outside the borders of the State. Newsom is also oblivious that about 80 percent of the world’s 8 billion, many of which are in Africa, Asia and Latin America still live on less than $10 a day – and the billions who still have little to no access to electricity.

Newsom’s quixotic approach seeks to simultaneously increase occasionally generated electricity from weather dependent wind and solar while reducing the state’s use of natural gas that generates continuous, uninterruptable, and dispatchable electricity.

Wind turbines for the generation of electricity under favorable weather conditions, would be non-existent were it not for government subsidies and mandates behind them. Today, we have towering engines of mass destruction marching across the countryside killing birds and bats and laying waste to farmlands and forests.

The Governor now supports the development of offshore wind generated electricity as part of his renewable electricity goals. California is proposing to build offshore wind turbines to produce an estimated 85,000 gigawatt-hours of power annually to the electric grid.

• To meet that goal of 85,000 gigawatt-hoursof power would require 2,500 floating 10 megawatt wind turbines 20 miles offshore, each one about 1,000 feet tall, anchored in water 4,000 feet deep, with high voltage undersea transmission lines connecting each of them to land-based substations.
• If these wind turbine monstrosities are ever built, the total project cost will easily exceed $300 billion, with catastrophic consequences to the marine environmentincluding migrating whales, and then, it’s ONLY for electricity as wind turbines CANNOT make any of the more than 6,000 products that our materialistic economy demands

Newsom remains insensitive to wind being one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity, nor is he concerned that wind turbines damage the environment, kill birds, and kills whales.

Special note about a new drama television series, LANDMAN, with Lead Actor Billy Bob Thornton, that supports Energy Literacy:

All the parts and components of California Governor Newsom’s net zero emissions fantasy is 100% dependent on crude oil, the same oil that he wants to rid the world of.

As a Facebook trailer illustrates for the new “Landman” drama television series, created by Taylor Sheridan and Christian Wallace, Newsom is oblivious to the fact that every product in our society, that did not exist 200 years ago, is made from oil.

Thus, before Newsom totally destroys the California economy, Newsom needs to identify the “replacement” to crude oil that will support the materialistic demands of the economy, before he preaches net zero emissions.

Be sure to click on the Facebook Link for a 90-second commercial for the new LANDMAN drama series with Lead Actor Billy Bob Thornton, that summarizes the intellectual ignorance of the green movement:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1620339808894808

Governor Newsom, who solely picks winners and losers, announced in 2020 that California will ban sales of new gasoline powered vehicles by 2035, BUT remains oblivious to those that purchase those vehicles OUTSIDE of California, or to the 99.6% of those on this planet that live outside the borders of the State.

While the Newsom administration pushed tax credits to incentivize automakers to invest in EVs, the same credits that are financially encouraging Chian and Africa to continue exploiting their people with yellow, brown, and black skin that are mining for the exotic minerals and metals needed for EV batteries, and for those developing countries to continue the environmental degradation to THEIR landscapes, just so America can go green!

Despite decades of efforts and billions in subsidies to bolster “green electricity” from weather dependent wind and solar, Californias still get all of the 6,000 products from oil, the same products that are integral to human prosperity across the globe, that support the demands of infrastructures like: Transportation, Airports, Water filtration, Sanitation, Hospitals, Medical equipment, Appliances, Electronics, Telecommunications systems, Heating and ventilating, and the Space programs.

Shockingly, before a replacement for oil has been identified to support the materialistic demand for those 6,000 products made from oil, field production in California has dropped from 400 million barrels per year in the 1980s to only 118 billion barrels in 2023. Today, despite reserves of crude oil estimated at more than 27 billion barrels, California imports 60 percent of its oil demands.

Ironically, California policies that end oil production in the state drive up imports from nations that lack California’s environmental standards or labor protections and sets up California as a national security risk for the entire country as the State’s 9 international airports, 41 military airports and 3 of the busiest shipping terminals are dependent on foreign oil imports to operate.

California’s gas formulation is unique, from all other 49 States which means only in-state refineries can produce it.

California’s policies attacking oil refineries that manufacture only state-specific formulations continue to cause unprecedented crises. When the Phillips 66 plant closes in 2025, in-state refinery capacity will drop to its lowest level in decades to meet the States’ consumption of 1.45 million barrels per day. With refinery turnarounds needed for periodic maintenance and repairs, a shortage of California’s special fuel formulation is imminent. One blip, and we’ll have gas lines that make 1979 look like a cakewalk.

At the expense of its residents, who are now paying the highest costs for electricity and fuels in the nation, California’s Governor Newsom remains oblivious to the other 8 billion on this planet that are dependent on the products and fuels from oil, the same oil for which there is no known replacement.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table. 

© 2024 Ronald Stein – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

by Ronald Stein, P.E. and George Harris

December 19, 2024

China is Building Coal-Fired Power Plants at an Alarming Rate of two new coal plants every week!

America continues to subsidize the development of occasionally generated electricity from weather dependent wind turbines and solar panels, to replace coal power plants, with the expectation that America, with about 4% of the world’s population, can drastically impact the world’s emissions occurring from the other 96% people on this planet.

Coal is the world’s most abundant and reliable energy source. The United States has the world’s largest coal reserves.  Of the 15 major coal producing States, Montana has the largest coal reserve with 118.4 billion tons.

There are about 200 coal-burning power plants still operating in America, with many concentrated in Pennsylvania, Texas, Indiana, and the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana, i.e. only 8% of the world’s coal plants.

Worldwide there are over 2,400 coal-fired power stations, i.e., the other 92% of the world’s coal plants.

Right now, China already has a total of 1,142 operating coal-fired plants  and is building six times as many coal-fired power plants as the rest of the world combined – China is building the equivalent of two new coal plants every week

Most in the wealthier developed counties are oblivious that about 80 percent of the world’s 8 billion, many of which are in Africa, Asia and Latin America still live on less than $10 a day – and the billions who still have little to no access to electricity. For others, life is severely complicated and compromised by the hypocritical “green” agendas of wealthy country elites who have benefited so tremendously from fossil fuels since the modern industrial era began in the 1800’s.

While wealthier countries are shelling out billions of dollars in subsidies for so-called clean ELECTRICITY from wind and solar, those poorer developing countries cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag.

Developing countries desperately need dependable, affordable electricity and the products and fuels manufactured from fossil fuels to create jobs, lift families out of poverty, modernize homes, schools, and hospitals, provide clean water, and replace wood and animal dung for cooking and heating.

Even today, for the more than 6 billion on this planet living on less than $10 a day, millions of parents and children die from respiratory and intestinal diseases that are unheard of in wealthy countries, because they don’t have electricity nor any of the 6,000 products made from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil that did not exist before the 1800’s.

Coal is primarily used for generation of electricity, especially in China, India, and Africa.

As the number one importer of both crude oil and coal, China is the largest consumer of energy and producer of emissions in the world.

• China, with 1,142 coal-fired power plants in operation as of July 2023, mainland China currently has a far greater number of coal-fired plants than any other country.
• India comes in a distant second with 282 coal-fired plants.
• The U.S.is third with 210 plants. Due to onerous regulations by the Biden Administration and the overreach of his BLM and EPA, approximately 170 of the remaining coal-fired plants in the U.S. are scheduled to be de-commissioned by 2030, and there are no plans to build any new coal-fired plants in the U.S.  Meanwhile China is adding to its inventory of coal-fired power plants at a record rate.

During the first six months of 2023, China issued permits for the construction of approximately 50 new coal-fired power plants, an average of two per week. China currently has more than 300 coal-fired plants that are either under construction, permitted, or awaiting permitting. If all 300 plants are constructed, China’s inventory of coal-fired power plants will increase by more than 25%. Currently, China has six times more coal-fired power plants under construction than the rest of the World combined.

Officials within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) offer a variety of reasons for the rapid reliance upon coal-fired power plants such as recent heat waves that have increased the demand for air conditioning. New coal-fired plants will simply serve as backup support for the undependable renewable sources of electricity generation from weather dependent wind and solar and during periods of intense electricity demand.

Given that China is also currently leading the world in the construction of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, China’s increased reliance upon coal contradicts the justifications offered by the CCP. Critics point out that most of the new coal-fired power plants are being constructed in locations that fail to support the justifications offered by the CCP, such as no reported instability of the grid or unreliability of renewable energy sources. Other critics indicate that the new coal-fired plants are being constructed in locations that are already powered almost entirely by coal as opposed to supposed unreliable renewable electricity generation sources.

Whatever stance is taken, while the wealthier developed nations are rapidly decreasing reliance upon coal-fired power plants by subsidizing wind and solar, China and other developing countries are moving even faster in the opposite direction, drastically increasing reliance upon coal that is abundant and affordable for their economies.

Hope is on the horizon.  The landmark US Supreme Court Chevron case has taken much of the teeth out of overzealous federal bureaucrats. US Senator Steve Daines of Montana has proposed legislation to keep coal mines operational.  The landslide victory of the incoming Trump administration including the coal friendly majority in the US Senate and House which are committed to energy independence, will likely reign in bureaucratic red tape, shortsighted energy hysteria from those who Senator Daines refers to as “Green Hallucinationists,” and put the American people first with clean, reliable and affordable electricity from the hard-working coal miners of the good old USofA!  There is a new sheriff in town, especially DC town and the American Coal industry is proud to help wear that badge!

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

© 2024 Ronald Stein, PE – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ronald Stein: Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net 

[Ronald Stein, P.E.  is an engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”

George Harris has served as Executive Director of Montana Coal Council since September 2022.  He has a Master of Public Administration degree from BYU.  He has served as Executive Budget Officer in Montana’s Governor’s Budget Office. He was the State Risk Manager and served as President of the National State Risk Managers Association.]