Bill, thank you especially for making blimp-o-philia acceptable. Practical lighter-than-air vehicles seem to have a lot in common with nuclear fusion—an emerging technology that is just over the horizon. I look forward to a ride with you.
Nuclear fusion has been 20 years in the future for 60 years and should remain so. If you think global warming is happening too slowly, then building reactors to make 100 million degree (C) plasma could accelerate melting. Fusion would also create new types of nuclear wastes through neutron bombardment of steel, atmosphere, other materials. Free neutrons are released from fusion reactions that can induce radioactivity. There's even been talk of using fusion reactors to convert U-238 to Pu-239 ... a fusion fission hybrid reactor. 5 kg. is enough for a weapon, and it's lethal for longer than civilization has existed.
Perhaps while we try to sell oil and gas to the world, the world will start turning away from oil and gas and we will be left high and dry with nothing on offer. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot. The Chinese will own the future unless we wake up and smell the fumes.
Superb column as always. A quibble: I wouldn't call this the "trump administration," because that implies continuity in form of government from previous administrations. We have a new form of government now - dictatorship is a pretty accurate description - so we probably should say government or regime.
If any of you subscribers hasn't read Here Comes the Sun, you must. It is super inspiring.
Re: "For years, the fossil fuel industry has used ‘stability’ as an argument against renewable energy on the grid. But as batteries have plummeted in cost, that’s actually become one of the biggest selling points: solar plus batteries, for instance, were credited with stabilizing the Texas grid this summer, even amidst high temperatures."
I think that's great, but there's a big "Yeah, but..." regarding the stability issue. From time to time - i.e., every few years - every region of the country experiences long-term, large area outages of solar and wind. Think the Texas several day cold snap, or the several day heat wave in the US Northwest. Unfortunately, It is very unlikely that batteries in the quantities needed could cover such long-term, large area outages, because most of the time, that much battery storage would not be needed, so providing it would be very wasteful. So we need some combination of an electrical grid that is capable of transferring power from anywhere to anywhere, and long-term energy storage beyond what batteries can achieve (could hydrogen be such a source? What else?). I don't see much thought being put into that issue, but it has to be solved for the time when renewable energy is the dominant energy source of the country and the world.
I have just finished reading Peter Brannen's 'The Story of CO2 is the Story of Everything'. In his concluding remarks he points out that the energy transition to renewables could create as much damage from extractive industries in search of critical minerals necessary for all those EVs, solar panels and wind turbines as that already visiited on the earth by the fossil fuel industry - and yet we must nevertheless plow ahead for the sake of our own survival and what is left of the natural world.
As though to illustrate this, the other day Trump spoke about opening a new mine in the Alaskan wilderness digging for what he in his own inimitable way called 'geranium', and all of course to assist a major donor of his.
It's not my intention to put a dampener on things, but I agree with Brannen that it's important that people understand the trade-offs. As Kate Marvel (and others) have pointed out, climate scientists have both the gift and curse bestowed on Cassandra: the gift of always being right about the future and the curse of never being believed. It's all the more important then to help people understand that some things about the transition are necessarily going to be unattractive.
Per a recent article by Mr. Mckibben, (in the New Yorker, perhaps?), the minerals needed for this technology is recyclable, & requires much less of each in current solar cells than in older ones. So very soon those minerals already extracted will be sufficient w/o additional extraction. I hope I understood this correctly!
I have no doubt that Bill is right about this in the case of whatever critical minerals he was writing about, but if one considers that we would need a continuous supply of copper, for example, when only low grade ore remains, recycling waste will not significantly reduce the damage cause by extraction and refinement.
It reminds me of the old joke about the tourist who asks a local if she can provide directions to a particular place and she replies: 'Yes, I can but I wouldn't start from here if I were you.' If we had started the transition in earnest at least thirty years ago we might be looking at a more hopeful prospect - but we didn't and so we face a scramble to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. It's also just about the worst time to have elected the dumbest US president of all time for a second term.
Why? With recycling, we'd only need marginal amounts of new anything to fill in the less than 1% losses in recycling. And even there, we have plenty of existing infrastructure that could be recycled to fill in those losses.
And the alternative, fossil fuels, there's no way to recycle the fossil fuels. In addition, the damage of mining/procuring fossil fuels by extraction and refinement produces Superfund sites (or various nations equivalent).
You are imagining a "circular" economy where 99% of what's needed comes from recycling materials already obtained & used. Can you offer some examples where 99% recycling of materials actually occurs and is sufficient for manufacturing the next round of replacement products?
Steel would be a candidate. "Around 680 million metric tons of steel were recycled in 2024. This represents roughly 36% of the total annual steel produced globally." (AI) So that's a savings of ore extraction, smelting, & production that would otherwise have been necessary. But demand for steel only grows and in 2024 about 1.2 billion metric tons of new steel was made. Point being, you could only have a circular steel economy if nothing new was being built, and we know that's not in the cards.
Some essentials can be recycled for secondary purposes while not reducing new production. For example, you can grind up old concrete and use it, but environmentally destructive production of new cement will only increase. You can grind up vulcanized tires and add the bits to asphalt (which isn't recycled), but you can't make new tires from the bits. New tires are from oil.
Pharmaceuticals made from petrochemicals are not recycled. Likewise, plastics are 99% made from crude oil & nat gas (methane) and are famously recycled below an 8 or 9% rate. So, overall, there is no meaningful emissions reductions with recycling and no letup in extraction of minerals and FFs now or in a foreseeable future.
Also, good luck making flat glass with electricity. And adding a metric ton battery to each mining truck and compound harvester. Furthermore, „Do The Math“ by Tom Murphy, and read up on the mystefying truth about recycling with The Honest Sorcerer here on Substack.
Note I was referring to recycling of material for the new energy sector - solar/wind/battery/interconnect. Because that is the topic of this conversation.
Actually, yes, batteries can be recycled - li-ion currently. Many companies are setting up to do that, hampered right now by the lack of old, dead batteries - BEVs are too new, and the batteries last a long time. Copper for interconnect is fully recyclable. Solar panels are recylable, and as we hit maximum energy needs, we won't need much more. Wind turbines are recyclable, except for the blades, which can be repurposed. And work is being done to make them recyclable.
Interconnect: Copper, steel, and aluminum are all recyclable
Regarding your examples - as the world build out ends, steel recycling will be the major means of getting "new" steel. Other materials will replace concrete, and it, to can be recycled.
Plastics and pharmaceuticals (I don't think they're a major player in the use of oil) can be made from biowaste, although they currently aren't very much. Work is being done on new methods to recycle plastics. Pharmaceuticals are about 3% of crude oil use https://petroleumservicecompany.com/blog/history-evolution-medicine-2/.
Oh, and a majority of FF use (transportation & power production) will go down as we convert to solar/wind/storage/interconnect/BEVs. In addition, FF use to move FF fuels (ship, rail, tank truck) will virtually disappear as the need for it goes down. 40% of international shipping is fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are the #1 cargo on US rail transport. No fossil fuels to transport, no need to transport them. Which means no need to make fossil fuel to power the non-needed transportation. Other items like moving iron ore reduction from using coke to other clean technologies will help eliminate more fossil fuel use.
I didn't say there were no issues in recycling - all processes have benefits and drawbacks. The question is which has worse environmental impacts - recycling or new mining, especially as easy to obtain raw materials are used up, so more work is needed to obtain new resources.
The Ember study is super encouraging although I'm sure you were as surprised (bummed) as I was to see Europe actually was headed in the same direction as the US for different reasons. Here's how the AP put it: "in the U.S., demand growth outpaced the growth of clean power generation. In the E.U., sluggish wind and hydropower generation contributed to higher coal and gas generation, the report said. In both markets, fossil fuel generation and emissions increased." https://apnews.com/article/climate-renewable-wind-solar-coal-electricity-demand-abf7b587b038bf7580de1baee6576bbc?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Blimps??? Helium is also a finite resource, at least on Earth. Common in the universe but not on our planet. And they won't power our just in time global factory, we'd have to relocalize and power down.
Fracking postponed rationing. And fracked natural gas is the largest energy source for electric generation in the US - since before Donald. Three fourths of the nat gas is now fracked since conventional gas peaked in 1973 and is about a quarter of those levels now. Geology is also a science.
Damned if we drill, because pollution.
Damned if we don't, because concentrated fossil carbon powers everything.
Damned as it runs out, because we're unprepared logistically or psychologically.
Producing and distributing food requires huge energy inputs, including the natural gas fertilizer that makes it possible to feed over 8 billion (the "Haber Bosch" process).
When I learned to use solar PV in 1990 the first lesson was to use much less or go without. This applies on the societal level, not only the household level.
I saw the play Kyoto in London - a great dramatisation of climate talks that highlighted the power and persistence of the fossil fuel lobby. Highly recommended if you’re in New York.
Thank you, Bill. I so desperately needed your clear, factual (and often) good news...(struggling with the tipping points facts. How much more incentive do we need?)
Voliris can run on hydrogen- NZ can produce hydrogen in spades given the spillage at the Waitaki hydro dams. Generation capacity being allowed to flow out to sea instead of being pumped up to Lake Onslow as back up generation for peak time demand and emergencies in Auckland.
The Ember report looks interesting too. I've yet to read it in full. I see it covers 80 nations and wonder if it discusses NZ? I maintain that importing solar panels and batteries when we have surplus hydro is a nonsense. It is a Gentailers inspired campaign (and supported by the government) to get homes off electricity so the Gentailers can focus on big users like the Australian aluminum smelter.
Bill McKibben is a major hero for our species and all the other species.
Thanks, Bill, for your great work and this good news.
I second and third that.
Yes and Yes!
Bill, thank you so much for all the work you do.
With this good news, Bill demonstrates his patriotism! Thank you, Bill!
My own small action was this LTE to our local paper: open the link below
https://open.substack.com/pub/larryryan/p/cheap-clean-and-abundant-energy-the?r=o7zo5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I am trying to counter the disinformation that fossil fuel interests are putting out about offshore wind.
Bill, thank you especially for making blimp-o-philia acceptable. Practical lighter-than-air vehicles seem to have a lot in common with nuclear fusion—an emerging technology that is just over the horizon. I look forward to a ride with you.
Nuclear fusion has been 20 years in the future for 60 years and should remain so. If you think global warming is happening too slowly, then building reactors to make 100 million degree (C) plasma could accelerate melting. Fusion would also create new types of nuclear wastes through neutron bombardment of steel, atmosphere, other materials. Free neutrons are released from fusion reactions that can induce radioactivity. There's even been talk of using fusion reactors to convert U-238 to Pu-239 ... a fusion fission hybrid reactor. 5 kg. is enough for a weapon, and it's lethal for longer than civilization has existed.
https://substack.com/@sbm369/note/c-167240682?r=3wu1fz
Also, re-routing planes to reduce contrails might quiet down the chemtrail crazies
Yes !!!!!!
Perhaps while we try to sell oil and gas to the world, the world will start turning away from oil and gas and we will be left high and dry with nothing on offer. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot. The Chinese will own the future unless we wake up and smell the fumes.
Superb column as always. A quibble: I wouldn't call this the "trump administration," because that implies continuity in form of government from previous administrations. We have a new form of government now - dictatorship is a pretty accurate description - so we probably should say government or regime.
If any of you subscribers hasn't read Here Comes the Sun, you must. It is super inspiring.
probably 'regime' would work--thanks
And yet 'administration' is better than 'government', which implies governance. It's actually a court rather than a government.
Thanks so much for this information, which we need!
There are a lot of Americans--about half the electorate--who voted for an unlivable planet. I can't get over that.
We do have similar voters in the UK, and adding to the disbelief in their attitude is the fact that many are parents too.
Re: "For years, the fossil fuel industry has used ‘stability’ as an argument against renewable energy on the grid. But as batteries have plummeted in cost, that’s actually become one of the biggest selling points: solar plus batteries, for instance, were credited with stabilizing the Texas grid this summer, even amidst high temperatures."
I think that's great, but there's a big "Yeah, but..." regarding the stability issue. From time to time - i.e., every few years - every region of the country experiences long-term, large area outages of solar and wind. Think the Texas several day cold snap, or the several day heat wave in the US Northwest. Unfortunately, It is very unlikely that batteries in the quantities needed could cover such long-term, large area outages, because most of the time, that much battery storage would not be needed, so providing it would be very wasteful. So we need some combination of an electrical grid that is capable of transferring power from anywhere to anywhere, and long-term energy storage beyond what batteries can achieve (could hydrogen be such a source? What else?). I don't see much thought being put into that issue, but it has to be solved for the time when renewable energy is the dominant energy source of the country and the world.
there's lots of fascinating work underway on longer term storage--i've been writing about it some.
I have just finished reading Peter Brannen's 'The Story of CO2 is the Story of Everything'. In his concluding remarks he points out that the energy transition to renewables could create as much damage from extractive industries in search of critical minerals necessary for all those EVs, solar panels and wind turbines as that already visiited on the earth by the fossil fuel industry - and yet we must nevertheless plow ahead for the sake of our own survival and what is left of the natural world.
As though to illustrate this, the other day Trump spoke about opening a new mine in the Alaskan wilderness digging for what he in his own inimitable way called 'geranium', and all of course to assist a major donor of his.
It's not my intention to put a dampener on things, but I agree with Brannen that it's important that people understand the trade-offs. As Kate Marvel (and others) have pointed out, climate scientists have both the gift and curse bestowed on Cassandra: the gift of always being right about the future and the curse of never being believed. It's all the more important then to help people understand that some things about the transition are necessarily going to be unattractive.
Per a recent article by Mr. Mckibben, (in the New Yorker, perhaps?), the minerals needed for this technology is recyclable, & requires much less of each in current solar cells than in older ones. So very soon those minerals already extracted will be sufficient w/o additional extraction. I hope I understood this correctly!
I have no doubt that Bill is right about this in the case of whatever critical minerals he was writing about, but if one considers that we would need a continuous supply of copper, for example, when only low grade ore remains, recycling waste will not significantly reduce the damage cause by extraction and refinement.
It reminds me of the old joke about the tourist who asks a local if she can provide directions to a particular place and she replies: 'Yes, I can but I wouldn't start from here if I were you.' If we had started the transition in earnest at least thirty years ago we might be looking at a more hopeful prospect - but we didn't and so we face a scramble to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. It's also just about the worst time to have elected the dumbest US president of all time for a second term.
Good points. #stupidestpresidentever.
"we would need a continuous supply of copper"
Why? With recycling, we'd only need marginal amounts of new anything to fill in the less than 1% losses in recycling. And even there, we have plenty of existing infrastructure that could be recycled to fill in those losses.
And the alternative, fossil fuels, there's no way to recycle the fossil fuels. In addition, the damage of mining/procuring fossil fuels by extraction and refinement produces Superfund sites (or various nations equivalent).
You are imagining a "circular" economy where 99% of what's needed comes from recycling materials already obtained & used. Can you offer some examples where 99% recycling of materials actually occurs and is sufficient for manufacturing the next round of replacement products?
Steel would be a candidate. "Around 680 million metric tons of steel were recycled in 2024. This represents roughly 36% of the total annual steel produced globally." (AI) So that's a savings of ore extraction, smelting, & production that would otherwise have been necessary. But demand for steel only grows and in 2024 about 1.2 billion metric tons of new steel was made. Point being, you could only have a circular steel economy if nothing new was being built, and we know that's not in the cards.
Some essentials can be recycled for secondary purposes while not reducing new production. For example, you can grind up old concrete and use it, but environmentally destructive production of new cement will only increase. You can grind up vulcanized tires and add the bits to asphalt (which isn't recycled), but you can't make new tires from the bits. New tires are from oil.
Pharmaceuticals made from petrochemicals are not recycled. Likewise, plastics are 99% made from crude oil & nat gas (methane) and are famously recycled below an 8 or 9% rate. So, overall, there is no meaningful emissions reductions with recycling and no letup in extraction of minerals and FFs now or in a foreseeable future.
Also, good luck making flat glass with electricity. And adding a metric ton battery to each mining truck and compound harvester. Furthermore, „Do The Math“ by Tom Murphy, and read up on the mystefying truth about recycling with The Honest Sorcerer here on Substack.
Tom Murphy is a scientist and focused on logistics more than politics, which is why political animals don't understand what he's showing.
Note I was referring to recycling of material for the new energy sector - solar/wind/battery/interconnect. Because that is the topic of this conversation.
Actually, yes, batteries can be recycled - li-ion currently. Many companies are setting up to do that, hampered right now by the lack of old, dead batteries - BEVs are too new, and the batteries last a long time. Copper for interconnect is fully recyclable. Solar panels are recylable, and as we hit maximum energy needs, we won't need much more. Wind turbines are recyclable, except for the blades, which can be repurposed. And work is being done to make them recyclable.
Batteries:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-well-can-electric-vehicle-batteries-be-recycled
https://www.topspeed.com/what-happens-to-aged-ev-batteries/
https://chargelab.co/blog/ev-battery-recycling
Wind turbines:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/wind-turbine-recycling
https://orsted.com/en/what-we-do/insights/the-fact-file/can-wind-turbines-be-recycled
Solar Panels:
https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-recycling
https://solarrecycling.com/how-to-recycle-solar-panels-the-complete-guide/
https://earth911.com/home-garden/recycle-solar-panels/
Interconnect: Copper, steel, and aluminum are all recyclable
Regarding your examples - as the world build out ends, steel recycling will be the major means of getting "new" steel. Other materials will replace concrete, and it, to can be recycled.
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/08/26/how-clt-displacement-makes-steel-cement-decarbonization-realistic/
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/06/10/reassessing-steel-how-falling-cement-use-alters-future-projections/
Plastics and pharmaceuticals (I don't think they're a major player in the use of oil) can be made from biowaste, although they currently aren't very much. Work is being done on new methods to recycle plastics. Pharmaceuticals are about 3% of crude oil use https://petroleumservicecompany.com/blog/history-evolution-medicine-2/.
Plastics are about 4-6% of crude oil use
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/How-Much-Crude-Oil-Does-Plastic-Production-Really-Consume.html
https://www.bpf.co.uk/press/Oil_Consumption.aspx
Oh, and a majority of FF use (transportation & power production) will go down as we convert to solar/wind/storage/interconnect/BEVs. In addition, FF use to move FF fuels (ship, rail, tank truck) will virtually disappear as the need for it goes down. 40% of international shipping is fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are the #1 cargo on US rail transport. No fossil fuels to transport, no need to transport them. Which means no need to make fossil fuel to power the non-needed transportation. Other items like moving iron ore reduction from using coke to other clean technologies will help eliminate more fossil fuel use.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/244429/us-fossil-fuel-energy-consumption-by-sector/
https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/the-happiest-number-ive-heard-in (from this substack owner even)
https://qz.com/2113243/forty-percent-of-all-shipping-cargo-consists-of-fossil-fuels
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Natural-Gas-and-Coal-Dominate-US-Rail-Freight.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44296-024-00036-6
So yes, fossil fuel extraction will go down. As will other mineral extraction in the long term.
If only that were as simple as you make it sound, Jeff.
https://thesustainable.life/what-are-the-disadvantages-of-recycling-copper/#
I didn't say there were no issues in recycling - all processes have benefits and drawbacks. The question is which has worse environmental impacts - recycling or new mining, especially as easy to obtain raw materials are used up, so more work is needed to obtain new resources.
I agree, Jeff. My point is that we face unpalatable choices now and have no one to blame but ourselves for our pyrophilia and cupidity.
The Ember study is super encouraging although I'm sure you were as surprised (bummed) as I was to see Europe actually was headed in the same direction as the US for different reasons. Here's how the AP put it: "in the U.S., demand growth outpaced the growth of clean power generation. In the E.U., sluggish wind and hydropower generation contributed to higher coal and gas generation, the report said. In both markets, fossil fuel generation and emissions increased." https://apnews.com/article/climate-renewable-wind-solar-coal-electricity-demand-abf7b587b038bf7580de1baee6576bbc?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Blimps??? Helium is also a finite resource, at least on Earth. Common in the universe but not on our planet. And they won't power our just in time global factory, we'd have to relocalize and power down.
Fracking postponed rationing. And fracked natural gas is the largest energy source for electric generation in the US - since before Donald. Three fourths of the nat gas is now fracked since conventional gas peaked in 1973 and is about a quarter of those levels now. Geology is also a science.
Damned if we drill, because pollution.
Damned if we don't, because concentrated fossil carbon powers everything.
Damned as it runs out, because we're unprepared logistically or psychologically.
Producing and distributing food requires huge energy inputs, including the natural gas fertilizer that makes it possible to feed over 8 billion (the "Haber Bosch" process).
When I learned to use solar PV in 1990 the first lesson was to use much less or go without. This applies on the societal level, not only the household level.
https://substack.com/@sbm369/note/c-167240682?r=3wu1fz
I saw the play Kyoto in London - a great dramatisation of climate talks that highlighted the power and persistence of the fossil fuel lobby. Highly recommended if you’re in New York.
Thank you, Bill. I so desperately needed your clear, factual (and often) good news...(struggling with the tipping points facts. How much more incentive do we need?)
Well done that man. A magnificent report Bill.
Voliris can run on hydrogen- NZ can produce hydrogen in spades given the spillage at the Waitaki hydro dams. Generation capacity being allowed to flow out to sea instead of being pumped up to Lake Onslow as back up generation for peak time demand and emergencies in Auckland.
The Ember report looks interesting too. I've yet to read it in full. I see it covers 80 nations and wonder if it discusses NZ? I maintain that importing solar panels and batteries when we have surplus hydro is a nonsense. It is a Gentailers inspired campaign (and supported by the government) to get homes off electricity so the Gentailers can focus on big users like the Australian aluminum smelter.
Power to your arm Bill
https://substack.com/@sbm369/note/c-167240682?r=3wu1fz
Oopsie. I thought Bill was a kiwi writer! We all know what Thought thought so my comment will only make sense to hydro rich New Zealand readers