The Nerd Reich: Nation States

Introduction

This is a book review of part of Gil Duran’s “Network States and the Rise of Cryptocurrency to end democratic governments.”  Which is mainly about Peter Thiel, who has had the greatest effect, more even than Elon Musk, in his influence on right-wing libertarian radicalism in the U.S., including getting J D Vance appointed to the Vice Presidency.  And other Silicon billionaires who have joined with Thiel and his world views.

As someone interested in how people and communities will thrive in the future as we return to the past before coal as fossil fuels decline, I was most interested in the billionaires plans to form new Network States. Peter Thiel, who is very aware of Peak Oil aware and spoken with many of the writers at The Oil Drum, Postcarbon and others.  Are these network states going to be the way billionaires save themselves and tech workers?

Well, the plan is more like them to become kings. Balaji Srinivasan, former CTO of Coinbase and backer of many prominent technology companies, has explained the plan at Network State conferences. Basically, the plan is for the gray “tech tribe” to partner with the Republican “red tribe” to form nation states that the “Blue tribe”, Democrats will not be welcome at. To put it mildly, since they are on the wrong side of the coming Second Civil War the gray & red tribes will wage against them. The new nation state will will have a corporate CEO (presumably the founding billionaire), backed by the police they bestow great wealth upon, and other security forces. The war will be fought over the internet, that they control, to restrict or publish their version of reality (of which they have very little as you will see below). This will not only crush democratic governments, but also universities, the media, and government institutions. Pretty much the same as the Project 2025 plan of the Heritage Foundation – who have spoken at some of their Network State conferences and gatherings.

So, as far as Nation States goes, Peter Thiel now has bunkers in New Zealand and Argentina where he appears to be trying to set up a network state. According to The Guardian’s 2026 article “Apocalypse prep or pure pragmatism: what is behind Peter Thiel’s move to Argentina?”:

“…Last week, Argentina’s chamber of deputies held a six-hour debate on a set of sweeping regulatory changes put forward by President Javier Milei’s rightwing government shortly after Thiel moved to Buenos Aires. Juan Marino, a member of the chamber of deputies and the leader of the Piquetero party, said the new laws amounted to a “technofascist legislative package” aimed at entrenching the power of US tech billionaires in the country. Thiel has not publicly advocated for them, but Marino and others have said that their timing was suggestive, and the new laws amounted to a “technofascist legislative package” aimed at entrenching the power of US tech billionaires in the country.

One of the laws, the “super RIGI”, would put in place an investment regime offering foreign companies a minimal tax rate and a 30-year guarantee against regulatory change. It specifically names AI data centers among investments it hopes to attract. It will become law if the Senate passes it.

Another, which failed, aimed to eliminate most of the restrictions around foreigners buying land in Argentina. A final decree would require some civilian government departments to share vast amounts of personal data on Argentinian citizens with the state intelligence services. There is no evidence that Thiel has advocated for these laws directly. But in the months after he moved to Buenos Aires, he held closed-door meetings with Milei and key presidential advisers.”

The land law, said Marino, could have paved the way for semi-autonomous “startup cities” – such as the controversial Próspera development in Honduras that Thiel has advocated as a way for libertarians to carve out zones outside state control.  Milei wrote an article in the Financial Times advocating the creation of “non-human corporations” – “entities operated by AI agents or robots”.  It parallels a vision put forward by OpenAI’s chief executive, Sam Altman, who predicted in 2024 that the world could soon be run by AI-owned companies. It also raises dark, thorny questions about the legal liabilities of those entities.”

***

I cannot find the details of how Thiel would run his nation state, but one of his billionaire buddy Balaji Srinivasa mentioned above has written a 262 page book on this called “The Nation State” available free here: https://thenetworkstate.com/book/tns.pdf

I looked at it to see the details of how these nation states would grow food, what energy they would use, and the other ways future societies would need to back to the past, of agriculture before fossil fuels arrived.  Well. It turns out we are not going back to the past, we are going to a glorious techno-optimistic future!  One where there are no limits to growth, energy, or resources. My comments are in italics. I scanned for the words food and energy.

FOOD

Will there will be peasants?

“…you don’t want the society where everyone must be sovereign, because taken to its irrational16 limit that means pumping your own water from out of the ground, growing your own food, not trusting any vendor or person other than yourself, and generally ending the division of labor that makes capitalism run. Extreme autarky might sound romantic, but in the absence of robotic breakthroughs going truly off-grid is a recipe for dramatic regression in the standard of living.

No, there will be robots!

“…Today, there’s a human in the loop for things like food delivery. But as robotics improves, this could in theory become a completely electromechanical process, just like printing. Every individual step from the farm to table could be automated. As this visual shows, there are already robots for each step: robots in the fertilizer factories, for harvesting, and for last-mile delivery.   stack example where someone “prints” out an apple and it’s fully robotically grown and delivered, even if in practice you’d have stockpiles of apples rather than (slowly!) growing them on demand

 

A potential nation state: r/keto

“To build a network union, the members of r/keto would need some kind of collective action that members do together (like bulk purchases of keto food or reviews of keto books). To turn it into a network archipelago, they might need to start keto clubs and restaurants and link them together (networked physical territory). Their vision might stop at a cohesive society, instead of an all-encompassing state; their network archipelago might be part of a network state that rejected not just the USDA Food Pyramid, but also the US Fed pyramid schemes.”

ENERGY (no mention of electricity, any of the fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear, trucks)

Srinavasan recommends this review of J Storrs Hall: “Where’s My Flying Car?” about how the world used to be on an increasing energy production curve until regulatory barriers of the 1970s. The Amazon blurb describes the book as: “From the failure to adopt nuclear energy and the suppression of cold fusion technology to the rise of a counterculture hostile to progress, Hall recounts how our collective ambitions for the future were derailed, with devastating consequences for global wealth creation and distribution. He then outlines a framework for a future powered by exponential progress—one in which we build as much in the world of atoms as we do in the world of bits, one rich in abundance and wonder.

Say what? From a review Srinivasan recommended about this book

Basically anything could be constructed with “atomically precise manufacturing, placing each atom one at a time exactly where you want it, giving you complete control over the structure of matter. The incredible speed alone would dramatically lower the price of literally every physical product. Hall estimates that the entire capital stock of the US—“every single building, factory, highway, railroad, bridge, airplane, train, automobile, truck, and ship”—could be rebuilt in a week. And nanotech would allow materials with extreme properties, such as the strength of diamond, to be used for everyday manufacturing and construction.

The “space pier”, a set of towers a hundred kilometers tall with a magnetic accelerator to shoot payloads into orbit, saving the fuel required to escape Earth’s gravity well and bringing down launch costs by three orders of magnitude. Or the “Weather Machine”, a fleet of quintillions of centimeter-sized balloons floating in the stratosphere, made of nanometer-thick diamond, with remote-controlled mirrors that can reflect light or allow it to pass through, forming a “programmable greenhouse gas” that can regulate temperature and direct solar energy. And of course, affordable flying cars.

A large part of progress is harnessing ever-more resources and putting them to productive use. And indeed, we’re going to need lots more energy if we’re ever going to get nanotech manufacturing, regular space travel, and of course flying cars.  And where would we get this energy? Nuclear-powered everything. Nuclear homes with local, compact reactors—they don’t need to be on the grid. Nuclear cars, whether flying or ground. Even nuclear batteries

Why don’t we have these things yet?

True nanotech, he says, was killed by federal funding. And no matter what you do, regulation will shoot your invention down, like it did nuclear power.

Srinavasan wrote at the end of his book: Bits reopen innovation in atoms. Innovation in areas like biomedicine, robotics, and energy is not upstream of the network state, it’s downstream of it. The network state solves the problem posed by Thiel, Cowen, and J Storrs Hall. We’re using bits to reopen innovation in atoms, because innovation in atoms has been blocked by regulations, which are in turn created by the US establishment

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy (2026) by Gil Durán

What follows are excerpts from the book about “Nation States”

The notion of creating special places governed by new rules was hardly original. Capitalists have long sought to create what historian Quinn Slobodian calls “alternative political arrangements at a small scale” through “acts of secession and fragmentation, carving out liberated territory within and beyond nations.”  Already there are tax havens designed to hide the wealth of corporations and the rich. Then there is Dubai’s 22-square-mile Jebel Ali Free Zone caters to 11,000 corporations with long tax and union-free tax breaks. Communist-ruled China has over a dozen Special Economic Zones where capitalism (but not democracy) reigns supreme.  Britain’s most famous overseas special zone was Hong Kong, which operated as a free port under British rule from 1842 to 1997.

Today, Google cofounder Larry Page suggests carving out part of the world as a zone where tech companies can operate without regulations.

Balaji Srinivasan   

Srinivasan, author of “The Network State”, portrays technology s an unstoppable force destined to undermine nations and transform global governance by replacing democracies with corporate controlled governments to replace existing democracies.  He declared San Francisco a city of “anarchy and tyranny” worse off than Rwanda, and that it might be easier to start a new city than to reform San Francisco. Not long after that, he published The Network State: How to Start a New Country, a free, online 474-page ebook,

 

He predicts a civil war in the United States and called on people to “exit” American democracy for life in privatized micro-nations called network states, which is “a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states.”

Tech companies would offer subscriptions to these new network states, applying the techniques of startup companies to startup societies. “Financing, attracting subscribers, calculating churn, doing customer support—there’s a playbook for all of that. It’s just Society-as-a-Service, the new SaaS.”

Srinivasan adapts the idea for a tech audience that, despite talk of techno-optimism, feels what Slobodian calls a “sense of creeping paranoia” about the future. Motivated by “greed, megalomania or the desire to have a zero percent tax rate,” they seek to escape into privatized societies where they make all the rules. It’s a dystopian vision straight out of The Sovereign Individual: existing countries and zones hollowed out by capital flight and falling tax revenues, left to collapse as the wealthy flee into highly fortified arks.

“The proponents of crack-up capitalism envisioned a new utopia: an agile, restlessly mobile fortress for capital, protected from the grasping hands of the populace seeking a more equitable present and future,” wrote Slobodian in Crack-Up Capitalism.

Since the federal government is the most determined opponent of liberty, he suggested that a solution would be to abandon citizenship in nation-states like the USA for membership in the fragmented governance model of his proposed network states.

What Yarvin called “The Cathedral”, Srinivasan called the all-powerful liberal cabal of “Woke Capita.”

Defeating Woke Capital would require anti-woke forces to unite in battle against their common enemy, the professors, activists, bureaucrats, and journalists. He divided the US into three political tribes. Democratic voters are the Blue tribe, dangerous fanatics with a quasi-religious belief in government.

 

The red tribe were Republicans, who fell into three groups: “Red God,” “Red State,” and “Red Network.” The Red God group consists of religious conservatives. They form a powerful constituency of the Republican base, he wrote, but their numbers are waning as Americans turn away from religion. The next group, the Red State, is composed of secular nationalists—mainly “national security hawks” who “reflexively support the US in every foreign intervention” and hate liberals but fear China more than anything else. Rounding out the Red tribe is the Red Network, which consists of “people of the Network” who are also “the folks in favor of commerce and trade networks, both within and across borders—the capitalists.”

The third group is the tech tribe, the Grays who lean libertarian and prefer online communities over real-world ones. They have no allegiance to the old politics of Red or Blue but form an emerging and decisive political force. To crush the Blue tribe, the Gray tribe must form an alliance with the Red tribe.

Another factor that will undermine the power of governments, is when crypto-fueled decentralized tech network states become the dominant force. Dollars and nation-states will end and crypto and privatized governments take over. Bitcoin will replace the dollar. Corporate government will replace democracy. Network state education, media, and political organizations will replace existing versions and play a central role in the conflict Srinivasan refers to as the “Second American Civil War,” that is already underway. The public will revolt and eventually American anarchy arise that will begin the American Civil War, fought mainly through propaganda and polarization, not uniformed soldiers, tanks and planes. It might start if government tried to confiscate Bitcoin.

It will be an information war, where victory comes from one side invading the minds of the other side rather than physically invade. This will be possible by controlling the digital networks—which tech controls and will determine what people can and cannot do in the digital world, and the key to maintaining control over the U.S. This big information network war would lead to a great “unbundling” of the country, a full meltdown in which “no one is in charge and everything is in chaos.” The Second American Civil War would end with the death of the nation and the rise of the network state.

Curtis Yarvin  

Yarvin is an American political theorist, blogger, and software engineer who advocates for replacing American democracy with a corporate-style monarchy. He proposed that new countries should be small, city states that competed for citizens.  Democracy would be replaced with city states governed as joint-stock corporations. But first the Cathedral needed to be overthrown, the evil shadow government of universities, media, and government institutions secretly controlling American democracy.

 

Yarvin, in his 2022 substack “the butterfly revolution” saw Trump returning to power with a vengeance in 2024 and dismantle the federal government. He would call for a “full reboot” of government, and install “a CEO” to gut the bureaucracy. This would be accompanied by an “army of ninjas”—“ideologically trained”—to “parachute” into government agencies to dismantle them. These ideological ninjas would also fan out to invade and destroy other institutions of democratic influence. Ninjas will have to land on the roofs of these buildings too—mainly journalism, academia and social media.”

Coincidentally, Elon Musk announced plans to buy Twitter shortly afterward, complaining that Twitter’s algorithms and rules favored liberals and squelched free speech. Musk viewed control of Twitter as necessary to halt the progress of what he called a “woke mind virus” infecting the world. The Wall Street Journal later revealed that Musk had been goaded into buying the site by a “shadow crew” of right-wing billionaires. “Before and during Mr. Musk’s breakneck takeover of Twitter, a close-knit group of libertarian-leaning activists and businessmen have been encouraging him to get involved,”

“This group includes the so-called PayPal mafia—former executives at the online payments company who include Mr. Musk, the investor Peter Thiel and entrepreneur David Sacks—as well as ancillary figures like the venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson,

Marc Andreessen

Andreessen had long been on the nation state train. In 2013, he predicted there would be an explosion of new countries in the 21st century, with double, triple, as many quadruple countries in the future.

In a blurb for Srinivasans book, Andreessen said ““Balaji has the highest rate of output per minute of good new ideas of anybody I’ve ever met, and The Network State may be his best”.

Other blurbs:

Brian Armstrong, Coinbase CEO: “Balaji is a visionary, one of the most original thinkers of our time.”

Vitalik Buterin, a computer prodigy who received a Thiel Fellowship and cofounded a crypto platform called Ethereum: “We’ve started new currencies. Now The Network State shows us how to start new cities and new countries.”

 

Sam Altman

Thiel, known for snarky criticism of fellow tech figures, offers conspicuously high praise for Altman. “We should treat him more as a messiah figure,” Thiel told Hagey. Altman listed rogue AI, nuclear war, and a deadly virus among his worries. “I prep for survival,” he said, adding that he had “guns, gold, potassium iodide, antibiotics, batteries, water, gas masks from the Israeli Defense Force, and a big patch of land in Big Sur I can fly to.” As a backup plan, he planned to hide out with Thiel on a compound in New Zealand.

The profile depicted Altman as a man convinced of his own grand destiny to shape the world through venture capital. “I think his goal is to make the whole future,” said Graham. This future included a plan for Y Combinator to create its own city. “It would lie somewhere in America, or perhaps abroad, and would be optimized for technological solutions: it might, for instance, permit only self-driving cars,”

Altman envisioned crowdfunding the creation of a tech city of 100,000 acres and up to 100,000 residents and said he was already scouting locations.

Network State Conference, 2023, hosted by Balaji Srinivasan

A few hundred people—mostly men—gathered. Srinivasan said that multiple efforts were already happening to start new network state countries, including projects in Arizona, Texas, Latin America, and San Francisco.

There were four real estate projects: Culdesac, a 17-acre car-free suburb in Tempe; Cabin, which billed itself as a start-up building a “network city of modern villages” around the world;  Neighborhood SF, a start-up which claimed to be building a one-square-mile tech colony in the middle of San Francisco; and Próspera, a start-up city funded by Andreessen, Thiel, and Srinivasan through Pronomos Capital, a company founded by Patri Friedman—the seasteading advocate—to build network state cities around the world.  New companies would rise to challenge all existing institutions—banking, education, law, media, government—and eventually grow strong enough to replace them.  Srinivasan proposed replacing Harvard University with the Thiel Fellowship.

Dryden Brown, the 28-year-old CEO of a project called Praxis, announced plans to build a tech city in the Mediterranean backed by Sam Altman, Joe Lonsdale, and Srinivasan, along with investments from Thiel. Mark Lutter of the Charter Cities Institute had plans for a new city in Zanzibar and a “stealth” project called Braavos Cities that planned to build a settlement in the Caribbean.

The speakers said that the competition to create new states was heating up—so much so that future network state sovereigns had already begun to consider the finer details, such as military-grade security for their future realms.

Spencer Macdonald, a former army officer with a cryptosecurity firm, said that we need to start talking about security, and warned the audience that technology and walls will be insufficient to protect network state cities. He encouraged them to recruit former Special Operations soldiers to staff private police forces and hire social media teams capable of waging “info war.”  Another of his slides showed an image of California Forever, a controversial new project that sought to build a 400,000-person city in rural Solano County, 60 miles from San Francisco, where  a secretive group funded by Silicon Valley billionaires, including Andreessen, had spent $900 million to quietly buy up 60,000 acres of land in the county. An urban blank slate where everything from design to construction methods and new forms of governance could be rethought.  News of this grand plan surprised the voters of Solano County, who immediately launched a movement to oppose it due to concerns over traffic, pollution, and sprawl.

A ballot measure to make the project happen was abandoned after polls showed that 70% of voters opposed the project that both Democrats and Republicans in opposition to his billionaire city scheme. It didn’t help that California Forever had filed a $510 million lawsuit against a group of local landowners and farmers who had refused to sell their property, with the company of out-of-town billionaires accusing the locals of “endless greed.” California Forever abandoned efforts to get countywide approval and began trying to pick off Solano County’s cities one by one, promising jobs, development, and tax-base expansion in exchange for annexation and support.

Srinivasan fantasized about purging the liberals from San Francisco, where the Gray tribe would buy  large swaths of the city to seize power and territory. The Gray tribe would wear gray shirts emblazoned with corporate logos to signify their tech affiliations, showing allegiance to Musk, Bitcoin, or Y Combinator for example. They would receive special ID cards enabling access to tech-controlled sectors of the city.

 

They would also form a close alliance with the police providing regular banquets and jobs in “tech security” for the officers’ family members. Officers who signed on with the Grays would get special uniforms to represent their allegiance, and the Grays would donate heavily to police charities to “merge the Gray and police social networks.”

Corporate logos would fill the skyline in the Gray sector, and streets would be renamed to honor tech figures. Meanwhile, the Grays would build monuments and screen propaganda films to remind people of the alleged horrors inflicted by progressive Democratic governance. Police, bribed with food and jobs, would become an arm of tech capital. This would be bad news for the Blues—the Democrats and progressives who make up most of San Francisco’s voting population.  Blues would be unwelcome in zones controlled by Grays.

The goal was to do to San Francisco what Musk had done to Twitter: Gut it, purge it, and harvest its power.

Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation and a key author of Project 2025, a 920-page plan for right-wing government that would soon become the key strategy document of the second Trump administration also spoke.  Project 2025 included a proposal to purge the government by eliminating up to 1 million federal workers and dismantling entire agencies, a plan resembling Yarvin’s 2012 call for a total “reboot” of the government.

Mike Solana of Thiel’s Founders Fund, had a fireside chat with Brendan Carr, an outspoken right-wing member of the Federal Communications Commission.  Longtime Thiel associate Trae Stephens of Anduril and Founders Fund spoke about “rebuilding America’s defense arsenal”.

Two months before Trump back in power, the Grays and the Reds gathered in San Francisco to discuss the dawning of a new era that would bring MAGA Republicans and Silicon Valley into one unified network. Trump received massive support from Silicon Valley. Musk, who had initially pledged to stay out of the election, was Trump’s biggest donor and most vocal supporter. He spent $290 million to elect him, and also turned X into a right-wing propaganda machine.

 

Cryptocurrencies as a way to capture government

Trump had returned to power with help from a gigantic investment of cash from Silicon Valley. Musk alone spent over $291 million to support Trump and the Republican Party, making him the single largest individual donor by a wide margin. His massive contribution rivaled the money rolling in from the crypto industry, which suddenly became the most significant corporate donor in US politics by raising more than $175 million through a network of super PACs and crypto groups led by Fairshake—an effort heavily backed by Brian Armstrong’s Coinbase and Ripple along with a16z and its cofounders.

As it turns out, crypto is a weapon for capturing government through the maximization of political corruption. The crypto PACs, which flooded money into the 2024 election, were but a sideshow. Crypto’s real political innovation was the creation of a towering corruption machine through which the president of the United States could be openly bribed. Trump became a crypto billionaire the same week he returned to the White House. “The Trump family’s new crypto tokens are worth well over $10 billion on paper, after a frenzied rally pushed up the value of the digital assets in the days before the inauguration,” reported The New York Times on January 20, 2025, as a Trump-themed crypto product called $Trump surged.

The lords of Silicon Valley had become a political technology, a venture capital system with seemingly infinite money to throw at high-risk bets on whoever and whatever might help them control the digital infrastructure of future governance. Crypto bought them an alliance with Trump, who had long derided the industry as a “scam” but now became a champion of a Silicon Valley vision built on crypto, AI, war, and the network state.

At their core, cryptocurrencies are designed to challenge government authority by competing with it. While most crypto buyers likely view it as little more than a kind of digital lottery ticket, crypto products like Bitcoin are inherently political because they seek to privatize a key public necessity. Efforts to legitimize Bitcoin as actual currency, however, have flopped. In 2021, El Salvador became the first country in the world to embrace Bitcoin as legal tender. But Salvadorans largely shunned Bitcoin for transactions, and Bukele’s government quietly rolled back its crypto experiment

Rather than serving merely as a digital currency, Ethereum was conceived as a programmable blockchain—a platform for building entire digital institutions. Ethereum aspires to offer infrastructure for alternative social and institutional systems altogether. It functions as a distributed computing platform maintained by a global network of participants.  Ether, the native cryptocurrency of Ethereum whose market capitalization reached a high of nearly $600 billion in August 2025, fell to $203 billion in June 2026. It is the second-biggest cryptocurrency in the world, behind Bitcoin. So, while Thiel’s funds are not the largest investor in crypto, his investments have been among the most consequential, aiding the growth of Bitcoin and leading directly to the creation of Ethereum.

The early investments by Thiel and Andreessen Horowitz are notable because they poured millions of dollars into crypto when it was still an obscure, high-risk bet on a technology that mostly seemed useful to drug traffickers and pariah nations.

A 2021 study by the Government Accountability Office found that crypto had “been central to the rise of drug sales in the U.S., specifically fentanyl and other synthetic opioids.” Drug dealers were among the first to embrace crypto. Silk Road, a digital marketplace for illegal drugs that conducted transactions in Bitcoin, did $213 million in illicit business between 2011 and 2013. The founder, Ulbricht was arrested at a San Francisco public library. On Ulbricht’s computer, prosecutors found messages in which he appeared to pay $650,000 in crypto for a purported Hells Angels hit squad to murder specific individuals on his behalf.  Ulbricht’s imprisonment made him a martyr for the crypto cause, but he had always viewed himself as more than a digital drug kingpin. In 2013, he told a journalist that Silk Road was “at its core… a way to get around regulation from the state. Their time is coming to an end.”

During his campaign, Trump had vowed to pursue the “death penalty” for drug dealers, but he pardoned Ulbricht—crypto’s drug kingpin poster boy—on his second day in office.

Crypto also appeals to pariah nations like Iran, Russia, and North Korea. They love crypto because it allows them to evade sanctions and fund their authoritarian regimes.

Teams of North Korean hackers run global crypto theft scams to fund the country’s nuclear program. Human traffickers, along with various and sundry other criminal types who keep their money in the shadows, also favor crypto. These are the actual use cases of crypto—the rare situations in which people use it as a shell for moving currency into illicit schemes.

Most people who put their money into crypto are simply gambling. They buy into these schemes based on the idea that prices will continue to rise, turning small investments into life-changing windfalls. Real currencies like the dollar are backed by the full power of the US government, including its military and its nuclear arsenal, but crypto schemes mostly rely on something called the “greater fool theory.” Like most scams, this creates a small pool of winners and a vast population of losers. By pouring real money into imaginary digital currencies, crypto speculators drove crypto’s total market capitalization to a peak of nearly $4.4 trillion in late 2025. (It plunged, again, to $1.2 trillion in June 2026.)

“Hamas’s terrorism is fueled by cryptocurrency,” Brown wrote in a 2023 post. “We need to crack down on illicit crypto and stop terrorists from moving money around, evading sanctions, and funding their acts of evil. We must curb this emerging threat and protect our national security.” Stand With Crypto rated this Brown tweet, and many others, as “very anti-crypto.” Brown had backed Senator Elizabeth Warren’s call for hearings into links between crypto and terrorism, and he had called for strong crypto regulations to protect consumers from scams and abuses. So, as Brown sought a fourth term in 2024, the crypto industry decided to make an example out of him. Crypto carpet-bombed Ohio voters with ads in support of Brown’s opponent, Bernie Moreno. In total, crypto-funded PACs spent $40 million to elect Moreno, a largely unknown car salesman who had never held public office but enthusiastically supported Bitcoin.

Gallego and Slotkin, like Moreno, were the most prominent among the 53 members of Congress elected with crypto support in 2024, a year during which the industry claimed an 85%-win rate for its picks.

Within months, the Trump family’s estimated net worth skyrocketed by billions in an orgy of unprecedented corruption so staggering it made all previous bribery scandals look like penny-ante grift.

“Trump’s crypto schemes are the Mount Everest of corruption,” said Senator Jeff Merkley, who coauthored a bill called the End Crypto Corruption Act of 2025 to bar elected officials from crypto schemes. “We must ban Trump-style crypto corruption so all elected federal officials—including the president, vice-president and members of Congress—cannot profit from shady crypto practices.”

The End Crypto Corruption Act stalled in Congress, but Trump signed a pro-crypto bill, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS), in July 2025. Among other things, it freed stablecoins from oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. More importantly, it lent government legitimacy to crypto and gave the industry its first major legislative win.

 

DOGE and purging of federal workforce was in both nation state and Project 2025 plans

In announcing the creation of DOGE, Trump said it would “pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” Musk’s decision to use the name for his government assignment dramatically pumped up the price of the Dogecoin yet again.

By May 2025, a tally by Reuters estimated that 260,000 federal workers had been purged via firings, layoffs, buyouts, and forced early retirements. This amounted to roughly 10% of the entire federal workforce and marked the largest such reduction in history.  As part of the DOGE project, Musk unleashed AI systems inside government, vacuuming up troves of data to allegedly drive DOGE’s decision-making. In May 2025, Reuters reported that Musk’s use of his own AI system, Grok, was “potentially violating conflict-of-interest laws and putting at risk sensitive information on millions of Americans.”

Musk had promised that DOGE would operate with the utmost transparency, but that was a lie. Exactly how Grok was being used inside the government remained a mystery, and it quickly became known that the DOGE team was using the encrypted messaging app Signal to communicate, in violation of public record laws.  “The use of AI and Signal reinforces concerns among cybersecurity experts and government ethicists that DOGE is operating with limited transparency and that billionaire Musk or the Trump administration could use information gathered with AI to further their own interests, or go afer political targets,” reported Reuters.

This was a deliberate effort to challenge Congress and the courts, a strategy detailed in Project 2025, a blueprint produced by the Heritage Foundation and over 1000 Republican organizations.  The Center for American Progress called it an “authoritarian playbook” that would “weaken the independence of public agencies, install political cronies throughout the government, punish people it disagrees with, and control what news the media can report.

 

DOGE was one among many shocking triumphs for Thiel’s network in the second Trump era. For example, Yarvin had called for “a total shutdown of international relations, including security guarantees, foreign aid, and mass immigration,” all of became policies of the Trump Administration.

While Yarvin was far from the only right-wing thinker to express some version of these ideas, his obvious influence on the new administration attracted mainstream press attention. Two days before the inauguration, The New York Times Magazine ran a long interview with Yarvin headlined Curtis Yarvin Says Democracy is Done. Powerful conservatives are listening.” Yarvin argued American democracy should be replaced by a monarchy run by a ‘C.E.O.’ — basically his friendly term for a dictator. The article also mentioned Yarvin’s ties to Andreessen, Thiel, and Vance.

On February 5, 2025, a group of anonymous researchers with tech backgrounds published a memo, “Capture of U.S. Critical Infrastructure by Neoreactionaries,” which warned that “the rapid takeover of federal infrastructure mirrors the broader ambitions of the neoreactionary (NRx) movement—a small group of Silicon Valley elites who reject democracy and seek to install a ‘CEO Monarch’ to rule by technological and financial dominance. This network includes Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Balaji Srinivasan, David Sacks, and Curtis Yarvin. Once considered fringe, their ideas are now embedded into the core of government operations.

Thiel’s extended network fanned out across the administration, with Bloomberg reporting that at least sixteen of Thiel’s longtime associates had taken high-level positions in Washington. They included Sacks, who Trump appointed as his AI and crypto czar. “A billionaire tech entrepreneur who used his wealth and influence in Silicon Valley to help Donald Trump win the presidency has deep connections to the new administration’s efforts to remake the government,” reported Bloomberg.

AI: existential threat or a way to rip off the creative ideas of millions of people?

I think that the whole “existential risk” brouhaha is a way to distract the public from the actual harm they are doing, which Duran writes “create their products by harvesting every bit of accessible content and data in the world, strip mining the creativity, knowledge, and intellectual property of billions of people to feed their networks without permission, payment, or acknowledgment—all in a quest to transform the collective output of humanity into private corporate property.”

The book “AI Snake Oil” shows how many of the models are flat out wrong, and so people are denied jobs, kept in jail because they are too poor to post bail – losing work and families – because AI has predicted they might not pay it back. Health care systems reject claims unfairly. And so on.

Duran continues: Worse, this massive process of theft and regurgitation requires tremendous amounts of energy, making AI systems a nightmare for the natural world. “The energy resources required to power this artificial-intelligence revolution are staggering, and the world’s biggest tech companies have made it a top priority to harness ever more of that energy, aiming to reshape our energy grids in the process,” wrote James O’Donnell and Casey Crownhart in the MIT Technology Review in May 2025.

Nearly every aspect of the AI race appears to require the maximal exploitation of people, land, and resources. AI’s boosters pitch it as the solution to every problem imaginable, but the current approach seems destined to create more problems than it solves. “Essentially what we have in this generation of what is called AI is a business where there’s 10,000 mostly white men who are benefiting, and eight billion people around the world who are being either exploited, at a minimum, or directly harmed by the success of those 10,000,” said Roger McNamee, an early Facebook investor and billionaire turned Silicon Valley critic.

I can’t help but wonder if the AI bubble will pop any day now, and hopefully defund nation state ambitions. Duran points out that “Investors were pouring cash into the development of AI, but AI was producing a relative trickle of revenue, making the AI boom look to some like an economic bubble. Tech giants like Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta invested a combined $410 billion in AI hardware and infrastructure in 2025 alone and are projected to escalate that to as much as $650 billion in 2026. Meanwhile, venture capital has fueled roughly $259 billion in investment in start-ups and software.”

Trillions are being spent to build out the technology, but the revenue for AI software and services is projected to remain under $200 billion in 2026.  J.P. Morgan Chase analysts anticipate $5 trillion of spending on AI infrastructure between now and 2030,” reported Time. The AI race hinges on an inherently accelerationist logic: that burning maximum cash and energy to scale the technology as fast as possible will produce both a world-shifting miracle and infinite profits. Unlike the crypto race, which was heavily dependent on venture capital for its survival, major tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Meta helped lead the charge into AI, pledging hundreds of billions of dollars for AI infrastructure and data centers.

Trump’s return was a bonanza for the crypto industry, but it was an even bigger windfall for AI. During his first week in the White House, Trump announced the creation of Stargate, a partnership between OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank that pledged $500 billion to build up to ten new AI data centers. He also repealed a Biden executive order emphasizing the need for safety, security, and workers’ rights, issuing a new executive order on AI focused on the need to “enhance America’s global AI dominance” and pledged to bulldoze regulations to speed up the development of AI,

On June 13, 2025, Trump escalated the relationship between AI and government with the creation of Detachment 201, which inducted four high-level AI executives into the US Army Reserve with the rank of lieutenant colonel. Despite having no military background, four executives from Meta, OpenAI, and Palantir donned camouflage fatigues and combat boots.

Three days later, OpenAI received a $200 million contract to “develop prototype frontier AI capabilities to address critical national security challenges in both warfighting and enterprise domains,” according to a statement from the Pentagon. In July, Anthropic, Google, and xAI also received contracts worth up to $200 million apiece. One month later, the US Army announced plans to consolidate seventy-five different technology contracts worth as much as $10 billion into one single contract with Palantir. In February 2026, the DHS signed a purchasing agreement worth up to $1 billion with Palantir.

“As the economies of more countries more deeply assimilate information technology, they will see the emergence—so evident already in North America—of a more or less unemployable underclass. This is exactly what is happening. This will lead to a reaction with a nationalist, anti-technology bias.”

AI would not destroy governments by hollowing out the economy over time. Instead, AI became the operating system for governance itself. The Sovereign Individual imagined technology forcing the cognitive elite to flee collapsing nation-states destabilized by severe economic decline. What is unfolding is far more profitable and sinister: Technology is becoming the infrastructure of state power, arriving precisely at the moment when those who controlled it had captured the presidency for an aspiring dictator distinguished by a bottomless appetite for greed. The arrangement allowed him to feast on crypto corruption while they gorged on government power and lucrative state contracts to bolster their risky bets on speculative technologies. Instead of collapsing government, they colonized it.

Democracy was too unpredictable, its institutions unlikely to crumble overnight. Failure would mean severe consequences for the oligarchs who had tried to overthrow the most powerful nation in the world. Srinivasan had long worried about a massive backlash against Silicon Valley.

Trump and Freedom Cities (Nation States)

In May 2023, Trump’s campaign announced a “quantum leap” plan to “create a new American future and modernize communities across the country.” The first item on its agenda: “BUILDING FREEDOM CITIES.” “President Trump will work to open up the American frontier, holding a contest to charter new cities where families and individuals can have a new shot at the American Dream,” read the plan. “The federal government owns nearly one-third of the land mass of the United States. Hundreds of millions of these acres are empty.” The quantum leap plan envisioned a competition in which the ten best proposals for new cities won vast plots of federal land on which to build. Trump did not explain why it was necessary to build new cities from scratch rather than invest in existing cities, and few asked. Mainstream news outlets reported on the plan without questioning the idea, and few have mentioned it since.

No project received more media attention than Praxis, which, after failing in its yearslong search to find a willing host country, took a more hostile approach under Trump. In the summer of 2024, Dryden Brown visited Greenland to scout locations for his project. “I went to Greenland to try to buy it,” he explained in a series of social media posts in November. One month later, president-elect Trump declared that “the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” in a social media post announcing his decision to appoint a new ambassador to Denmark: Ken Howery, a longtime Thiel associate who cofounded PayPal and Founders Fund. “As the Trump administration intensifies efforts to acquire Greenland from Denmark — or take it by force — some Silicon Valley tech investors are promoting the frozen island as a site for a so-called freedom city, a libertarian utopia with minimal corporate regulation,” reported Reuters in a story headlined “Greenland ‘Freedom City’?

Newsweek (Is ‘Freedom City’ being planned for Greenland? What We Know) reported that Reuters found that Silicon Valley tech investors Thiel and Andreessen had been advocating for the idea of a “freedom city” in Greenland, “a libertarian utopia with minimal corporate regulation”.  New Scientist reported that Praxis had raised hundreds of millions in seed funding.  On X in 2024, Brown wrote he wanted to create an early model of Terminus—the name Elon Musk has suggested for a future city on Mars. “We must build a prototype of Terminus on Earth before departing for Mars. I believe Greenland is the place,” Brown posted.

In another article, Newsweek reported that “According to reports from Wired, some groups calling for freedom cities have already been in communication with the Trump administration. The Freedom Cities Coalition, a think tank pushing for the creation of unregulated areas in every state, said that it had informed the White House about the use of interstate compacts to create the cities. One organization pushing for the concept is Próspera, 1,000 acres, some on the resort island of Roatán,  supported by Pronomos Capital, a venture capital firm backed by Thiel, Srinivasan, and Andreessen. Thiel already has close ties to the Trump administration and has supported Vice President JD Vance’s political career since his run for Senator in Ohio.

There isn’t much to see at Próspera’s main headquarters near the town of Crawfish Rock on Roatán, just an office building and a smattering of businesses including “a Bitcoin café and education center, a genetics clinic, a scuba shop,” according to The New York Times Magazine. Two thousand residents supposedly call the zone home and few physically are actually there. The sparse settlement is mostly known for allowing experimental medical treatments not approved by the FDA. Próspera is a private, for-profit city, with its own government that courts foreign investors through low taxes and light regulation,” wrote journalist Rachel Corbett in The New York Times Magazine in 2024. Businesses can choose a regulatory framework from 36 countries or make their own.  Próspera claims that 250 companies are incorporated in the zone, which has become a destination for biohackers who visit for those experimental therapies.

 

The Honduran public is not in favor of Prospera, made possible by President Juan Hernanez, who the

US government indicted on drug trafficking charges. He was arrested and extradited to the US, where he stood trial and received a 45-year sentence in 2024, the same year that the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that his laws allowing Próspera was unconstitutional. In 2025, Trump pardoned Hernández. A story in The Wall Street Journal shed light on the president’s motivations for freeing a man convicted of smuggling 400 tons of cocaine and being at what a federal prosecutor called “the center of one of the largest and most violent drug-trafficking conspiracies in the world.” Republican operative Roger Stone had lobbied for the pardon, citing Próspera as part of his rationale. “In a blog post on the week of Trump’s inauguration in January, Stone argued that the new president could ‘crush socialism and save a freedom city in Honduras’ by pardoning Hernández, branding Prospera as a utopian project with ‘major implications for U.S. policy and the future of freedom throughout the world,” reported the Wall Street Journal.

Stone’s decision to make Próspera part of his argument raised questions about whether tech oligarchs played a role in the Hernández pardon. “The reason seems clear: Hernández helped some big-time American crypto bros turn their dream of a government-free utopia into a reality, and these broligarchs—the best known of whom is Peter Thiel—are the same people who helped fund President Trump’s first presidential campaign, and J.D. Vance’s political career.” Srinivasan has long identified Próspera as the prime example of his network state idea in action—a venture-capital-backed settlement governed by a private corporation.

Praxis, the brainchild of a surfer and college dropout named Dryden Brown, billed itself as a future city of 10,000 somewhere in the Mediterranean.   Praxis investors included Andreessen, Altman, and Lonsdale, along with the Winklevoss twins, Fred Ehrsam of Coinbase, and, for a while, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried. Along with Próspera, Praxis became a flagship project on Srinivasan’s official Network State Dashboard, a web page that tracks the progress of such projects around the globe. “Network States offer a path to crypto’s next wave of adoption by integrating onchain infrastructure into the parallel institutions supplanting the global system’s core functions, and As local communities dissolve and Nation States stumble, Network States will ascend” declared the Praxis website. Though Brown claimed to have ample financing and interest, finding an amenable host government proved challenging. The search took on a game show quality as Brown traveled the world searching for a location, even popping up in Argentina and the Dominican Republic to consider the finer points of locating there.

 

Brown is now pitching another location for his network state / freedom city. A Vanity Fair profile featured Brown trumpeting a new plan to build a city called Atlas on the 100,000-acre grounds of Vandenberg Space Force Base near Santa Barbara, California.  “The idea goes like this: Let the so-called Praxians build a city on federal land in Vandenberg,” wrote Zoë Bernard. “They will erect facilities, housing, and offices. They will attract tech talent from nearby Los Angeles and San Francisco. With their newfound city, they will help revitalize American manufacturing. They will build drones and ships and space infrastructure. Brown cited Ayn Rand and the Founding Fathers as inspirations,

Another project, the Highland Rim Project, sought to build a network of aligned Christian communities in the rolling hills along the Kentucky-Tennessee border. Highland Rim is closely associated with Andrew Isker, a controversial right-wing pastor aiming to create Christian zones explicitly designed to operate outside secular democratic governance.

Isker has described Indians as “cow worshippers,” Judaism as “literally blasphemous and anti-Christian,” and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a law that aids a war “against Christians, men, and white people.”

“There’s a name for the rough concept that Isker describes: the ‘Network State,’ an ascendant and buzzy tech movement where internet groups are beginning to explore what it might be like to start their own new countries,” wrote Kiera Butler of Mother Jones. “At first, these new countries would appear online, and eventually in actual physical locations. Simply put, the Highland Rim Project is the Christian nationalist take on that

Nate Fischer, the CEO of New Founding—and funder of American Reformer, the Christian nationalist publication formerly edited by Chris Buskirk, JD Vance’s partner in the Rockbridge Network—explicitly described his idea as a network state. “Nation states are not the principal form of government today,” Fischer wrote on X. “I see no reason Christian nations or peoples couldn’t organize network states.”

New Founding had received investment from Marc Andreessen, and Fischer had invested in Pronomos Capital, Friedman’s fund for network state projects. It was a strange marriage: one of Silicon Valley’s most powerful venture capitalists directly funding a company behind a Christian nationalist separatist project that openly identified as a network state.

Most of these new concepts cropped up in California—and seemed designed to tap into Trump’s freedom city proposal. In San Francisco, Mark Lutter and Jeffrey Mason of the Charter Cities Institute proposed a tech-focused freedom city in the Presidio, a sprawling park on federal land with views of the Golden Gate Bridge, that would focus on “development and deployment of innovative technologies under a more permissive regulatory framework which can then safely be deployed at scale.”

In Alameda, an island city in the San Francisco Bay, a tech worker named James Ingallinera proposed the creation of “Frontier Valley” at the site of an old navy base, describing the project as a “new special regulation district” with “the most accelerated code in the US for robotics and physical innovation.”

In Sonoma County, 87 miles north of San Francisco, a Stanford computer science graduate named Devon Zuegel pitched “Esmeralda,” a new walkable city for “high-agency people” on the outskirts of the bucolic town of Cloverdale.

Freedom cities are simply Trump’s rebranding of the same idea. Palmer Luckey, cofounder of Anduril, called for Trump to build a freedom city in Cuba. “The United States should immediately expand our base on Guantanamo Bay into Liberty City, an American Singapore of the Caribbean,” he wrote. “We already control Guantanamo under a perpetual lease, complete with a deepwater port, airfields, and proximity to key trade routes. Why not turn it into a special economic zone?”

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, one of the more vocal evangelists for the network state, agreed. At the 2024 Network State Conference, he had explicitly linked his company to the concept, stressing the need to create “an archipelago” of private cities to serve as a “refuge where the builders of the world can make sure they have a place to reside.”

We should designate ~10 or so like this across different pieces of federal land, each with its own exemption from federal and state law,” he wrote on X in response to Luckey’s call for a colony in Cuba. “One for bio, one for drones/aviation, one for crypto, one for robotics, one for mining, etc. See what happens without so much regulation within a small sandbox.” Trump was already thinking along those lines. “I have concepts for Gaza that I think are very good,” Trump said during a trip to the Middle East in May. “Make it a freedom zone. Let the United States get involved and make it just a freedom zone. I’d be proud to have the United States have it, take it, make it a freedom zone.”

Months earlier, he had shared an AI-generated video of a dystopian future Gaza, complete with a Trump resort, a golden statue of himself, and dollar bills raining from the sky. His Gaza fantasy was the network state in its most ghoulish incarnation: a tech-fascist casino amid the ruins of a genocide. The result: Project Sunrise, a $112 billion proposal from Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner that would displace Palestinians and build a tech city in Gaza. “Beachside luxury resorts. High-speed rail. AI-optimized smart grids,” reported The Wall Street Journal.

Seizing land and creating new colonial settlements backed by tech capital had become a key part of Trump’s foreign policy. Within days of the US raid to capture and arrest Nicolás Maduro, the president of Venezuela, Mark Lutter of the Charter Cities Institute publicly called for the creation of yet another tech city there. “Venezuela doesn’t need to become another Iraq,” he wrote on X. “It needs a Freedom City… A Freedom City = new land, new rules, real property rights, real rule of law—built with the U.S.

Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine calls for the creation of a “free economic zone” in the Donbas region,

most of which is currently occupied by Russian military forces. In Kazakhstan, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev announced vague plans for a “cryptocity” near the capital, Astana. On the Caribbean island of Nevis, a Belgian Bitcoin investor named Olivier Janssens was buying up land for a proposed city called Destiny, which Janssens describes as an American Dubai. On the Venezuelan island of Isla Margarita, a German crypto entrepreneur was planning CryptoCity, a housing development for 1,000 people where every transaction would be handled via crypto. In Nigeria, Itana City—backed by Pronomos Capital and the crypto exchange Binance—was supposedly rising inside the Lekki Free Zone near Lagos which bills itself as the “global jurisdiction of choice on the African continent for the Internet citizens of the world.” Wired called it “a Peter Thiel-backed startup city” that “wants to be Africa’s Delaware”.

Pop-up conferences like Edge City and Zuzalu toured Thailand, Bhutan, Patagonia, and Montenegro, spreading the gospel of future digital citizenship. Srinivasan himself launched a so-called Network School in Forest City, a Chinese-funded development off the coast of Malaysia that had become a “ghost city” with fewer than 7,000 residents and rows of empty high-rise apartment buildings. Network School aimed to provide “a three-month learning retreat marketed to people interested in ‘network nations,’ a kind of utopia for the anarcho-capitalist set,” according to Wired. A different Forest City emerged in the English countryside. In October 2025, the Albion City Development Corporation unveiled a proposal to build Forest City 1, a new settlement of 1 million people on 45,000 acres of prime agricultural land near the Cambridgeshire-Suffolk border, the brainchild of Shiv Malik.  Malik and Reeve are currently seeking government approval to become an officially designated development corporation, which would empower them to acquire land and steamroll opposition. Malic said that a development corporation is an authoritarian tool that can force people to sell their land.

Ravikant is no stranger to bizarre ideas. He is also an investor in something called the Balaji Fund, which invests in network state projects globally. Other investors in the Balaji Fund—named for Balaji Srinivasan—include Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Coinbase board member Fred Ehrsam. Neither Johnson nor Ravikant mentioned the network state in their conversation, but it was a recurring presence at the Don’t Die conference. Multiple speakers lectured the crowd on network state projects like Vitalia, a “pop-up city” located at Próspera in Honduras which has declared its goal to “make death optional.”

Another speaker mentioned something called Vitalist Bay, an additional longevity-themed “pop-up city” in San Francisco. The Vitalist Bay presentation featured a large picture of Thiel on one side and an AI-generated version of the city skyline on the other. A network state presence made sense, because Johnson is also planning his own Don’t Die country to “defeat all causes of human and planetary death, promoting prosperity and longevity.” “I’m also building a network state, very similar to a nation-state,” said Johnson in an Instagram video. In interviews, he laid out hopes to create a Don’t Die network state 20 million strong in a year’s time.

The Tech Industry enters the Defense industry

Silicon Valley’s pivot back to defense technology is one of its most dramatic shifts in recent years. In 2024, defense tech start-ups raised nearly $3 billion in venture capital across one hundred deals, according to TechCrunch, setting a record. Defense investment surged even higher in 2025.

Just as tech venture capitalists took chunks out of the hotel, media, taxi, and retail industries, they now hope to redirect the military funding spigot to their own coffers.

In late 2024, Elon Musk derided Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet as “the worst military value for money in history,” declaring, “Manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones anyway.” The comments caused Lockheed Martin’s stock to drop by 3.8 percent, “wiping out nearly $5 billion in market value.”

a16z also regularly takes potshots at the old-school military-industrial complex. “The system is failing us,” the firm declared in a 2025 paper calling for defense reform. “The Pentagon has spent trillions to defend America and deter our adversaries. Yet our fleet is shrinking, weapon systems are delivered late and over budget, and warfighters lack the tools to win the fight of the future.” In other words: Give the money to Silicon Valley.

Venture capital now clusters around defense tech the way it clusters around AI and crypto. Under the banner of ‘patriotic tech,’ this new bloc is building the infrastructure of control—clouds, AI, finance, drones, satellites—an integrated system we call the Authoritarian Stack. It is faster, ideological, and fully privatized: a regime where corporate boards, not public law, set the rules.”

In June 2025, a report by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese blasted tech companies for providing AI infrastructure used by Israeli military to commit genocide in Palestine, because it is lucrative for many,”  The forever-occupation has become the ideal testing ground for arms manufacturers and Big Tech—providing boundless supply and demand, little oversight, and zero accountability—while investors and private and public institutions profit freely.”

Conclusion

Why wouldn’t Thiel decide to get loud about the Antichrist as the war went on? All his prophetic interests now converged. AI-augmented war raged in the Holy Land as the crypto billionaire president fantasized about building an AI-powered network state Trump casino atop the rubble. Meanwhile, a small but powerful group of Thiel’s protégés were also pitching holy war as venture strategy and pushing Christianity as a networking opportunity.  For him, the ultimate threat (the Antichrist) is any form of international political order, be it any kind of world state or even a strong United Nations. In Thiel’s view, this must be countered.”

Thiel and his cohort of powerful industry leaders are done pretending. They’re hyping death, decline, and diabolical futures from which—in their grim, self-serving fairy tale—only they can save us.

Its mandate for perpetually exponential growth makes constant destruction the path to profit. The quickest way to scale a multibillion-dollar bonanza is to collapse existing systems—taxis, hotels, media—or escape into new ones: AI, Mars, digital immortality, network states. The ending of worlds has become the business model.

Tech oligarchs are hardly unique in their quest to remake the global order. Their struggle aligns with a larger push by authoritarians worldwide who wish to rid the world of liberal democracy this century.

They form networks of like-minded forces working to legitimize authoritarian forms of governance. “Nowadays, autocracies are run not by one bad guy but by sophisticated networks relying on kleptocratic financial structures, a complex of security services—military, paramilitary, police—and technological experts who provide surveillance, propaganda, and disinformation,” wrote Anne Applebaum in Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World.   Corrupt, state-controlled companies in one dictatorship do business with corrupt, state-controlled companies in another.

They prefer a world in which different systems—Chinese authoritarian capitalism, Russian kleptocracy, Hungarian “illiberal democracy,” Saudi-style absolute monarchy—will coexist on more equal footing.  To achieve this requires unseating the US as the world’s dominant superpower. This is a main goal of multipolarity, when democratic nations will be entirely powerless to stop authoritarian domination.   Billionaire investor and network state enthusiast Naval Ravikant jumped on the multipolarity train in 2025. “The US will actually do better in a multipolar world, because it’ll no longer have to subsidize and police everyone else.”

Stripped of all the religious gobbledygook, the core arguments of Dugin and Thiel converge on a simple thesis: The United States—a young nation that rose to power at unprecedented speed, becoming a hegemonic world power exerting force and influence through pax Americana and a vision of liberal democracy they slander as an enemy of freedom—is the most likely Antichrist.

“Brexit, just the beginning,” wrote Jeffrey Epstein to Thiel on June 26. “Of what,” replied Thiel. Epstein explained: “return to tribalism. counter to globalization. amazing new alliances. you and i both agreed zero interest rates were too high, and as i said in your office… finding things on their way to collapse… was much easier than finding the next bargain.”  Like Thiel, Epstein saw the world headed toward a breaking point and looked for ways to capitalize. It sounds crazy to most people, but a certain class of men has long seen chaos and collapse as a recipe for destiny, and some among them believe the apocalypse is now at hand.

The release of the Epstein files in 2026 revealed the extent to which Epstein had been a major early player in crypto, investing $3 million in Coinbase and helping to fund the development of Bitcoin at a critical stage in 2014. “At the very moment Bitcoin’s future was in jeopardy, Epstein’s money and access placed him inside the institutions that were beginning to frame the cryptocurrency as a tool to route around nation states—and consolidate power among a new class of networked tech elites,” wrote journalist Nafeez Ahmed.

Their zeal for disruption has already made democracy into an endangered species. Once held up as a global beacon of liberty, America has been revealed as highly vulnerable to destruction. Pushing it to the brink wasn’t particularly difficult. It required only enough wealthy and influential people who were willing to fund it, or at least go along with it quietly. Quickly, we witnessed the rise of an openly corrupt president who is selling out the country for crypto, launching illegal invasions of foreign countries, threatening to attack NATO allies, sending troops into American cities, deploying masked terror squads to abduct immigrants, and openly abusing the justice system to prosecute his political enemies while also selling presidential pardons to the highest bidders. He is just getting started.

The capture of democracy extends beyond government to media as well. Radical tech oligarchs now control The Washington Post and CBS—in addition to Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok—and some fantasize about a hostile takeover of The New York Times. In 2025, a16z launched the a16z New Media Fellowship “for operators, creators and storytellers shaping the future of media.” The firm is also a leading investor in Substack.  It’s all a chilling realization of Balaji Srinivasan’s call for Silicon Valley oligarchs to create a parallel media system that essentially replaces journalism with propaganda—a crucial element of any fascist movement.

I feel that I personally have to start thinking realistically about how to flee the country. Everyone else in a similar position should have a 2029 plan as well.

While the champions of tech fascism see the Republican Party as the best vehicle for its hopes, they also understand the inherent corruptibility of the Democratic Party, which also serves its wealthy donors more than it serves anyone else.

During his 1999 speech at the Independent Institute, Thiel predicted that official Washington would be too dumb to understand what was happening and too powerless to stop it, and so far he seems correct on that point.

Yarvin is also correct that Trump is failing to go full fascist authoritarian, to do The Thing—a full-on state of exception that suspends the Constitution and the rule of law, as called for by his cockamamie theory.

A dramatic overnight lurch into full fascism would likely result in an explosion of widespread resistance that could spark economic devastation and end badly for him. Trump, an octogenarian who increasingly struggles to keep his eyes open in public, seems to prefer a more gradual sort of decline that does not interrupt his moneymaking schemes (or his nap time).  Despite occasional threats, Trump does not currently seem inclined to start executing journalists, judges, or members of Congress. Such measures, and more, would be necessary to achieve a full treasonous overthrow of American democracy.

Those who still believe in democracy must avoid being lulled into complacency. Democracy’s enemies specialize in long-term strategies, and they have enough money to operate in perpetuity; they are scheming for global control.

Trump is a symptom of a far greater disease in our system, a disease that will continue to grow and metastasize after he dies. The billionaires of Silicon Valley have a plan to succeed. They understand that a political system dependent on checks from wealthy corporations and individuals is inherently tilted in their favor.

To create a better future, we must create a world without billionaires. We can have billionaires, or we can have democracy. We cannot have both. If we continue to allow a tiny group of men to stockpile the majority of the world’s wealth, they will continue to buy the power they need to impose hierarchy, oppression, subjugation, and death on the vast majority of people, whom they see as their inferiors. History strongly suggests that extreme wealth has a tendency to drive people insane and transform them into tyrants.

All it took was a handful of people with billions of dollars to begin the unraveling of our entire nation. The Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the nation itself mean nothing to these people, who view it as little more than an asset to be divvied up and liquidated.  This current onslaught of anti-democracy billionaires exposes an existential flaw in our system. In a nation where money buys power, money can buy power to destroy the nation itself. We do not allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons because such power does not belong in the hands of individuals.

“The fact that our society allows the existence of billionaires is the fundamental problem at the core of this book,” wrote Adam Becker in More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity. “Without billionaires, fringe philosophies like rationalism and effective accelerationism would stay on the fringe, rather than being pulled into the mainstream through the reality-warping power of concentrated wealth.”

Tomorrow, our country will be poor, and our children and grandchildren will be among those deemed unworthy of food and care. But only if we allow them to accelerate their schemes of exponential chaos and decline while walling us out of the digital castles they seek to erect.

This brings us to the challenge of accountability. Holding powerful people accountable for complicity in the overthrow of democracy is not just a matter of justice, it’s a crucial mechanism for self-defense. If we do shake loose from the grip of fascism, we must harden our systems to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. Our system failed to hold Trump accountable for his crimes the first time around, and we are reaping the consequences.  We need investigations, hearings, prosecutions, and likely some kind of truth and reconciliation commission. We need a full postmortem of our brush with national death, as well as prison sentences and severe financial penalties for those who participated in, or profited from, the defiling of our government.

Their rise must become a cautionary tale that future children learn about in history class.

we should ban crypto, which is designed to defraud the public and undermine national security and stability. In addition, it should become official US government policy to view the network state and all similar anti-government schemes as what they are—extremist ideologies designed to foment sedition and societal harm.

 

Posted in Political Books, Where are the rich going | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why the kerogen in oil shale will never fill up your tank

Source: Oil Shale vs. Shale Oil: What’s the difference? USGS

Preface. The basic reason oil shale was never developed was because it was not cooked enough.  Turning it into oil requires so much “cooking energy” that the energy return is negative, as the U.S. government found out after spending almost $7 billion ($42 billion 2026) in the 1970s trying to develop kerogen shale in Colorado and Wyoming. Accelerating geology came with too many energy and environmental costs to make it a commercial project (Nikiforuk 2013).

It is so hopeless you will notice most of my references are not recent. Though it can be done, Estonia produces a little, China too, where experiments continue to try to convert it to oil since there is so much of it.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Financial Sense, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Shell is pulling out of Colorado after 31 years of trying to get the shale out

29 Sep 2013. Kurt Cobb. Geology beats technology: Shell shuts down shale pilot project:

“The belief that technology can always overcome natural limits just took a big hit this week when Royal Dutch Shell PLC decided to shut down its pilot oil shale project in western Colorado after 31 years of experimentation. A clue [as to why they shut the project down] comes from coverage in The Denver Post: “Full-scale production would probably have required building a dedicated power plant.” In simple terms, it takes energy to get energy. Shell’s process requires copious amounts of electricity to heat the rock in place through boreholes in order to release the waxy hydrocarbons embedded in it. In this pilot project, the subterranean rock was heated for three years before liquids were captured and brought to the surface for further processing.

 

Shale oil will never be an energy resource

Oil shale is any sedimentary rock that contains solid bituminous materials that are released as petroleum-like liquids when the rock is heated.

1) Restoring the land after mining the shale will be very energy expensive. When oil shale is retorted, the inorganic portion of the shale expands considerably. The spent shale remaining after retorting has no commercial value, but it must be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. Ideally, the spent shale is placed back in the mine, refilling the mined-out cavity and helping to prepare the area for land reclamation. Because of the popcorn effect, the volume of spent shale is greater than the volume of the mine from which it was taken. Thus even if the mine were completely refilled, there would still exist some amount of spent shale for which alternative disposal methods must be sought

2) Shale oil needs to be mined, pulverized, and heated to get the oil out. It’s done with machines that burn oil to dig, drill, blast, crush, load, haul, dump, heat, hydrogenate, refine, and transport the ore and final product.

3) The hydrogenation step requires a tremendous amount of water to provide hydrogen to refine the shale. Separating the hydrogen from the water uses a large amount of energy. An estimated one to four barrels of water are required for each barrel of oil. Where this water would come from is a mystery, the Colorado river is already insufficient for downstream users.

4) Randy Udall and Steve Andrews: “Compared to the coal that launched the Industrial Revolution or the oil that sustains Western Civilization, oil shale is a pathetic pretender…When it comes to energy, quality is everything. Quality can be measured in various ways—cost, convenience, and cleanliness all matter-—but energy density trumps them all…Pound for pound, oil shale contains one-tenth the energy of crude oil, one-sixth that of coal, and one-fourth that of recycled phone books…Dung cakes have four times more energy than oil shale…Searching for appropriate low-calorie analogies, we turn to food…Oil shale is said to be “rich” when it contains 30 gallons of petroleum per ton. An equal weight of granola contains three times more energy. The “vast,” “immense,” and “unrivaled” deposits of shale buried in Utah and Colorado have the energy density of a baked potato. If someone told you there were a trillion tons of tater tots buried 1,000 feet-deep, would you rush to dig them up? Oil shale has one-third the energy density of Cap’n Crunch, but no one is drilling in the cereal aisle”.

5) Steve Mut, CEO of Shell’s Unconventional Resources unit, spoke at the Denver ASPO 2005 conference about Shell’s project to use shale oil. He pointed out that people have been trying to do this for over 100 years, so there was no guarantee they’d succeed. Shell has been working on a small-scale project for over two decades. If they decide to scale it up to a level of producing significant amounts of shale oil, it would require eight to ten gigawatts of power a day, as much as a large city uses.

6) The Energy Returned on Energy Invested is at best 2 to 1 according to a study by Cleveland Cutler.  Charles A. S. Hall estimates you need an EROEI of 12 to 1 to keep Civilization-As-We-Know-It running, right now we’re at about 20 to 1 and when the oil age started, we started out at 100 to 1.

 

Shale In the News

30 September 2013. Steve Andrews. Shell’s Shale Oil Shutdown  1-800-dry-hole. ASPO.

Early last week, Shell Oil announced it was shutting down its oil shale research project in western Colorado. Combine their departure with Chevron’s exit back in February 2012 and you can count another nail in oil shale’s coffin.

Yet since this unconventional resource ranks among the largest in the world, estimated by some at 1+ trillion barrels of potential liquid energy, this might well not be the final chapter in efforts to develop it. But it probably should be.

Shale oil may be the fool’s gold of the energy world. As long-time friend, energy writer and commentator Randy Udall wrote back in 2005, “If crude oil is king, oil shale is a pauper. It’s the dregs. The mystery is not that we lack an oil shale industry; it’s that we’ve spent billions trying to develop one.” His most pointed question: are such development efforts acts of inspiration or desperation?

A badly-kept secret is that there is no oil in oil shale. The rock is actually called marlstone and the hydrocarbon it contains is a waxy substance that never went through the “oil window”—the heat and pressure applied over millions of years to turn the solid into liquid energy. Instead, developers such as Shell cooked the kerogen into petroleum by injecting heat energy. A lot of heat energy. Gigabunches of heat energy. In fact, so much was needed—one very large new power plant per 100,000 barrels/day of liquid produced—that the process, despite extensive R&D, never made economic sense.

Shell was guarded with the details of their energy balance analysis, also known as Energy Return on Energy Invested. But it seemed likely that for every unit of energy input to produce liquid from kerogen, the output was just two units, maybe 2.5 units best case. (For comparison, conventional oil in the USA is likely to result in roughly 10 units of energy output for every one unit input.) Further, while Shell claimed they owned enough water rights to supply the substantial amounts required during production, residents of arid western Colorado expected large impacts on their water supply.

The high energy and water requirements undoubtedly contributed to Shell’s exit, though the company tended to speak in terms of “evolving priorities” and “other opportunities. In Shell’s comments to journalists, they didn’t exactly say, “it’s over. Kaput. Finito.” After all, that would be fessing up to the fact that their “tens of millions of dollars” invested in oil shale R&D as of mid-2005 came up way short—a high-stakes gamble with some learning spinoffs, but mostly money down a rathole.

If misery loves company, Shell has plenty of it. During the 1915-1920 era, oil shale promoters endured the first of many investment boom and bust cycles. Half a century later, the most infamous of these crashes hit western Colorado hard; it was the flaming out of our $8 billion federal investment in oil shale started during the late 1970s. When Exxon Mobil Corp. pulled the plug on its $5 billion project on May 2, 1982 (called “Bloody Sunday”), it cut 2,200 jobs and sent west-central Colorado into a decade-long depression. Today, Shell’s decision only impacts perhaps a few dozen Coloradans. But it deals a body blow to the latest round of oil shale hype.

As recently as 2005, one California Congressman—who must have been either blind, dumb or devious—intoned that if we would just get with the oil shale program, as a US Dept. of Energy report claimed, the USA could be producing 10 million barrels a day of the stuff in a couple of decades. Given that our oil production of the $3/barrel variety actually peaked at close to 10 million b/d some 40+ years ago, the notion that we could ever produce that much from very expensive shale oil was delusional.

Randy ranked in the top tier of oil shale skeptics. Our tour together of Shell’s Mahogany Creek research site in August 2005 kick-started his concerns. Over the next eight years, he penned a number of brutally frank op-eds, wrote “The Illusive Bonanza: Pulling the Sword from the Stone,” and started speaking out about the challenges and downsides of oil shale. He rarely pulled his punches.

During our visit to Shell’s R&D site, company personnel showed us the small area, a footprint about the size of a two-car garage, from which they had produced 2000 barrels of high-quality petroleum liquids. That was the culmination of 25 years of R&D efforts. They opined that after another five years of R&D, by 2010 they should be able to make a go/no-go decision about commercialization. But in 2010, Shell admitted they needed more time. Now we have their answer: we’re outta here.

Before Randy died this past June, it may be that his last publication was his article questioning a recent twist in the oil shale story: the entrance by Estonia’s government-owned oil company Enefit into the US oil shale saga. Estonia apparently agreed to subsidize Enefit’s efforts to export its oil shale technology to the US and elsewhere. An Estonian mining engineer wondered why Estonian taxpayers were subsidizing half a billion kroons for such development. Randy went on as follows:

“But what is a ‘kroon,’ you might ask. Kroons were once the local currency in Estonia. Then, when the country adopted the Euro, the old banknotes were compressed into bricks and burned for heating fuel. Smarter to burn those, in my view, than to burn oil shale.” Yet the sheer size of this illusive prize and the high price of petroleum products make it likely that some level of R&D will continue, with or without oil majors like Shell and Chevron. So, as Yogi Berra might put it, it ain’t over til it’s over…though it probably should be.

Steve Andrews is a retired energy consultant and analyst.

 

Dec 3, 2003. Brian Robins.   Shale-oil dream ends in company collapse  theage.com.au

The collapse yesterday of Southern Pacific Petroleum marked the end of one of the most enduring and ambitious dreams of the local resources industry: shale oil.

In 1968, US business magazine Forbes heralded shale oil, essentially a process to extract oil from shale rock, as “a veritable treasure of black gold . . . so plentiful it can supply this country’s needs for at least 200 years.” The US never had a shale oil project.

When it collapsed, Southern Pacific was at work on the Stuart project near Gladstone, one of a clutch of shale oil prospects it held west of the Queensland regional centre.

While there have been other resource dreams that came to nought – such as Australian Magnesium Corp – shale oil differed. It died a lingering death that began not long after the concept emerged at the start of the 1980s, when US oil giant Exxon said it would outlay a then unheard of $400 million to buy half the Rundle oil shale prospect from Southern Pacific and its Central Pacific Minerals stablemate. Southern Pacific and Central Pacific, for much of their life known as the Rundle twins, merged in 2002.

Doubts about the technical feasibility of extracting shale oil and environmental problems arose soon after Rundle hit the news, and were never resolved. It was a complex and inefficient process. In fact, shale oil is not actually oil at all, but kerogen, with the shale heated and the resulting vapour becoming liquid oil when cooled.

The numbers just never added up: shale oil was supposed to be economic with the price of oil at more than $US13 a barrel, while Southern Pacific had reserves in excess of 26 billion barrels of oil, not far off Libya’s 29.5 billion barrels. The technical issues never were resolved and sceptical investors kept well clear of the shares.

The trigger for the interest in shale oil was the surge in oil prices in the 1970s as OPEC squeezed supplies, triggering a hunt for alternative fuels.

=============================================

Nov 30, 2003. Steve Raabe. Geology sealed Colorado’s fate in oil crash. Denver Post.

In the game of synthetic petroleum, Mother Nature has dealt a full house to Alberta, Canada, and a pair of deuces to Colorado.

Colorado’s synfuels bluff was called in 1982 when a budding oil-shale boom suddenly went bust, sending the Western Slope economy into a depression that took years to mend.

Meanwhile, northern Alberta now is pumping a steady flow of synthetic crude to the United States from a huge oil-sands deposit worth as much as $9 trillion.

“The forecast for oil sands is significant. They’re in business,” said Craig Van Kirk, head of the petroleum engineering department at Colorado School of Mines.

“On the other hand, oil shale is not in business,” he said. “Never has been, perhaps never will be.”

The difference is water. Because they contain a trace of water, doughy oil sands are easier to turn into crude than is rocky shale, which had its moisture squeezed out during eons of pressure and heat.

In a geologic quirk of fate, Canada’s oil sands evolved from ancient seabeds that retained some of their moisture.

The gooey black substance that makes up oil sands consists of individual particles of sand and clay, each surrounded by a thin film of water, then coated with a layer of heavy petroleum.

The processing of oil sands is a relatively simple technique using steam or hot water to melt oil away from sand, a separation made easy by the underlying film of water.

No such benefit exists in oil shale, where lake bottoms lost moisture through pressure and heat, creating a shalelike rock called marl.

Oil-bearing hydrocarbons in shale, known as kerogen, are bonded tightly within the rock. That requires the difficult, expensive process of cooking oil out of the shale.

Coloradans learned of oil shale’s economic and technical problems on May 2, 1982, a day still remembered as “Black Sunday,” when Exxon suddenly pulled the plug on its multibillion-dollar Colony oil shale project near Parachute.

The overnight closure left more than 2,000 workers unemployed and created a wave of bankruptcies, foreclosures and business failures on the Western Slope.

Government subsidies and soaring prices in the late 1970s and early 1980s raised hopes that oil shale could address the United States’ dependence on imported oil.

Oil-shale resources in western Colorado’s Piceance Basin contain as much as 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil, equaling about one-half of all crude oil reserves in the Mideast.

But Exxon, Union Oil of California (Unocal), Shell Oil and a handful of smaller players never have produced a profitable barrel of synthetic crude from shale.

Energy experts say oil prices, after reaching all-time highs of nearly $40 a barrel in 1981, have fallen to levels that don’t justify the huge investments necessary to build commercial oil-shale operations.

And even if prices soared again, technical and environmental impediments make shale an iffy prospect.

“It’s not so much price as it is a technological barrier,” said ExxonMobil spokesman Chris Dobbs.

The process of cooking oil out of shale requires large amounts of natural gas or electricity. Disposal of spent shale is difficult, and virtually every stage of recovery and processing consumes lots of water.

The hurdles haven’t stopped Shell from returning to Rio Blanco County with an experimental technique that may one day prove economically feasible.

Instead of the conventional technique of mining shale and baking it in industrial-sized ovens to recover oil, Shell is drilling holes into shale formations and suspending electric heaters in the well bores.

Oil melted from the electric heat is then pumped to the surface.

The “in-situ” underground process creates less surface disturbance and eliminates the problem of spent shale disposal.

“It’s promising because we think it’s environmentally more viable than in the past,” said Shell spokeswoman Jill Davis.

“But this is still in a research phase,” she said. “It’s important not to tout this because of what has happened in the past with the booms and busts.”

=============================================

Jul 12, 2004. Paul B. Weisz.Basic Choices and Constraints on Long-term Energy Supplies. Physics Today.

Oil shale, or bitumen, is sedimentary rock containing dilute amounts of “heavy oil” or near-solid carbonaceous residues. The US has negligible amounts of that resource. Worldwide estimates of the total energy contents are large but highly speculative.

To harvest the dilute solid carbonaceous contents requires drastic measures: Either underground combustion, heating, steam, or air to drive the carbonaceous solids toward the surface, or the mining of huge volumes of solids using heat, solvents, and steam to extract the resource. The extracts must be further processed to yield usable hydrocarbon fuels, a process that requires further energy sacrifices. Compared to petroleum, these heavy oils present additional refining and environmental problems because of the abundance of nitrogen, oxygen, and metal compounds found in them. Also, the amount of CO2 released during processing and use greatly exceeds that released by the current use of petroleum fuels.

Weisz is an emeritus professor of chemical and bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and a retired senior scientist and manager at the Central Research Laboratory of the Mobil Corp. He is also currently an adjunct professor of chemical engineering at the Pennsylvania State University.

=====================================

67658 Hayduke  Dec 21, 2004 In the late 70s and early 80s I had a contract with the
Department of Energy (DOE) to document their oil shale and tar sands projects in
Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota. I trooped about all over the country, most often in the Rifle, Colorado area, shooting video and stills, interviewing content experts and preparing detailed technical reports and video documentaries for the folks back in Washington, DC.

I learned a few interesting things:
1) Oil shale doesn’t contain oil; it contains kerogen. Kerogen requires considerable
processing once it’s released from the shale before it can be used as a fuel. Yes, it
will burn if you keep an intense flame on it long enough.
2) When oil shale is retorted to release the contained kerogen, it expands 2 to 3 times
it’s in-situ volume.
3) So-called “in-situ” retorting requires considerable hard rock mining in order to
prepare the rubbleized oil shale for retorting. Somewhere around 10% 0f the kerogen can
be pumped out in in-situ processing.

After several years of effort, it was pretty well determined, by the scientists in the
field, that developing oil shale is an energy sink

========================================

18 Dec 2005.  Randy Udall and Steve Andrews. Oil shale may be fool’s gold. Denver Post.

Buried underground in western Colorado are a trillion tons of oil shale. For a century, men have tried and tried again to unlock this energy source. But the rocks have proved stubborn, promising much, delivering little.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy published a new report on oil shale. It claimed that the nation could wring “200,000 barrels a day from oil shale by 2011, 2 million barrels a day by 2020, and ultimately 10 million barrels a day” from fields in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. These predictions – both the production targets and their timing – are preposterous, as some industry experts admit.

But hyping oil shale is nothing new. As geologist Walter Youngquist once wrote, “Bankers won’t invest a dime in ‘organic marlstone,’ the shale’s proper name, but ‘oil shale’ is another matter.”

California Rep. Richard Pombo and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch are spearheading efforts to jumpstart the industry. “I find it disturbing that Utah imports oil from Canadian tar sands, even though our oil shale resource remains undeveloped,” says Hatch.

In truth, oil shale presents a paradox. If these rocks are, as some claim, the richest fossil fuel resource on Earth, why has it been so difficult to unlock them?

The primary explanation is that oil shale is a lousy fuel. Compared to the coal that launched the Industrial Revolution or the oil that sustains the world today, oil shale is the dregs. Coal seams a few feet thick are worth mining because coal contains lots of energy. If coal is good, oil is even better. And oil shale? Per pound, it contains one-tenth the energy of crude oil, one-sixth that of coal.

Searching for appropriate analogies, we enter the realm of Weight Watchers. Oil shale is said to be “rich” when a ton yields 30 gallons of oil. An equal weight of granola contains three times more energy. America’s “vast,” “immense” deposits of shale have the energy density of a baked potato. Oil shale has one-third the energy density of Cap’n Crunch, but no one is counting on the Quaker Oats Company to become a major energy producer soon.

Historically, oil shale has been mined, crushed and roasted in large kilns, or “retorts.” The slag, swollen in volume and contaminated with arsenic, must then be disposed. The process is so costly, laborious and polluting that global output has never exceeded 25,000 barrels a day, compared to 84 million barrels of conventional oil production.

In the last 150 years, humans have used 1 trillion barrels of conventional oil. The second trillion will be consumed in the next 30 years. Given projected demand for fuel, Royal/ Dutch Shell has been experimenting with a new way to produce shale oil, a way that is, at first glance, more promising.

Humor columnist Dave Barry once demonstrated that if you put a “strawberry Pop-Tart in a toaster for five minutes and 50 seconds, it will turn into a snack-pastry blowtorch, shooting flames up to 30 inches high.” Putting a chunk of oil shale into your toaster would not offer similar excitement, but in a strange way, Shell’s fascinating experiments near Rangely resemble something Barry might attempt if he had the money to build the world’s largest underground toaster oven.

The plan is audacious. Shell proposes to heat a 1,000-foot-thick section of shale to 700 degrees, then keep it that hot for three years. Beam me up, Scotty, but first share some details. Imagine a 100-acre production plot. Inside that area, the company would drill as many as 1,000 wells. Next, long electric heaters would be inserted in preparation for a multi-year bake. It’s a high-stakes gamble, but if it works, a 6-mile-by- 6-mile area could, over the coming century, produce 20 billion barrels, roughly equal to remaining reserves in the lower 48 states.

Although Shell’s method avoids the need to mine shale, it requires a mind-boggling amount of electricity. To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the company would need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history. Costing about $3 billion, it would consume 5 million tons of coal each year, producing 10 million tons of greenhouse gases. (The company’s annual electric bill would be about $500 million.) To double production, you’d need two power plants. One million barrels a day would require 10 new power plants, five new coal mines. And 10 million barrels a day, as proposed by some, would necessitate 100 power plants.

How soon will we know whether Shell’s technology is economic? The company plans to do more experiments, before making a final decision by 2010. If it pulls the trigger, it would be at least three or four years before the first oil would flow, perhaps at a rate of 10,000 barrels a day. That’s less than one-tenth of 1 percent of current U.S. consumption. But if it turns out that Shell needs more energy to produce a barrel of oil than a barrel contains, bets are off. That’s the equivalent of burning the furniture to keep the house warm. $$$ Energy is the original currency; electricity its most valuable form. Using coal-fired electricity to wring oil out of rocks is like feeding steak to the dog and eating his Alpo.

In a ham-and-egg breakfast, the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. With half the world’s oil shale resources located here, our region is committed. Another recent report by the RAND Corp. warned that if oil shale developers “overstress the environmental carrying capacity of the area, we may never see more than a few hundred thousand barrels per day of production.” Amen.

Large-scale development of the kind proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy and Pombo would be a disaster. The DOE casually dedicates all of western Colorado’s surplus water to oil shale, proposes enormous open-pit mines 2,000 feet deep, and advocates retorting up to 6 billion tons of shale each year. That’s twice the tonnage of all coal mined in the U.S. and China. This is not a vision, it is a nightmare.

Americans love panaceas. We want thinner thighs in 30 days, a pill to cure baldness, an ultrasonic carburetor that will double our mileage. A magic wand would be nice, because the nation faces serious energy challenges. Since domestic oil production peaked 30 years ago, the need for energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy has been obvious. Instead, like an addict on a binge, we continue to pursue a policy of “strength through exhaustion.” Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge before improving our woeful vehicle efficiency is one example of this brain-dead approach.

What contribution can oil shale make to energy security? Producing 100,000 barrels per day of shale oil does not violate the laws of physics. But the nation currently consumes that much oil every seven minutes. Improving the efficiency of our automobiles by 2 miles per gallon would save 10 times as much fuel, saving consumers $100 billion at the pump. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that cars, trucks and SUVs that get 30, 40 or 50 miles per gallon are doable. An aggressive national commitment to fuel efficiency is not optional, it’s inevitable. In time, a more efficient fleet could save 20 times as much petroleum as oil shale is likely to ever provide.

All hype aside, oil shale is the poorest of the fossil fuels, containing far less energy than crude oil, much less even than hog manure, peat moss or Cap’n Crunch. A meager amount of energy, tightly bound up in an enormous volume of rock, oil shale seems destined to remain an elusive bonanza, the petroleum equivalent of fool’s gold.

Randy Udall directs the Community Office for Resource Efficiency, a nonprofit energy office in Carbondale. Steve Andrews is a Denver-based energy expert.

Best article by far:  Oct 3, 2005. Randy Udall. The Illusive Bonanza: Oil Shale in Colorado “Pulling the Sword from the Stone”.

Other references

Nikiforuk, A. 22 May 2013. Difficult Truths about ‘Difficult Oil’. As we work down the hydrocarbon pyramid, energy gets messier and much more costly. TheTyee.ca

Cleveland, Cutler, J., et al. June 2010. An Assessment of the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of Oil Shale. Boston University.

2005.  James T Bartis, et. al. Oil Shale Development in the United States Prospects and Policy Issues. Prepared for the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy by RAND.

Oct 2008. Walter Youngquist. SHALE OIL–THE ELUSIVE ENERGY.
Hubbert Center Newsletter # 98/4 M. King Hubbert center for Petroleum Supply Studies.

Posted in Energy, Oil Shale | Comments Off on Why the kerogen in oil shale will never fill up your tank

‘The oil we eat’. Following the food chain back to iraq

Source: The Oil We Eat – How Our Food System Depends On Oil and How Fragile It Makes Our Food Security

Preface. Even though this article was published in 2004, it is still true today, only worse. This article will never be out of date because it is so powerfully written:

It requires the equivalent of three or four tons of TNT per acre for a modern American farm. Iowa’s fields require the energy of 4,000 Nagasaki bombs every year.

When we say the soil is rich that’s not not a metaphor. Soil is as rich in energy as an oil well. A prairie converts that energy to flowers and roots and stems, which in turn pass back into the ground as dead organic matter. The layers of topsoil build up into a rich repository of energy, a bank.

The accepted term for this strange turn of events is the green revolution, though it would be more properly labeled the amber revolution, because it applied exclusively to grain–wheat, rice, and corn. Plant breeders tinkered with the architecture of these three grains so that they could be hyper-charged with irrigation water and chemical fertilizers, especially nitrogen. This innovation meshed nicely with the increased “efficiency” of the industrialized factory-farm system. With the possible exception of the domestication of wheat, the green revolution is the worst thing that has ever happened to the planet.

Continue reading

Posted in Overpopulation, Peak Food, Peak Topsoil | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ‘The oil we eat’. Following the food chain back to iraq

Vanishing open spaces: population growth and sprawl in America

 

Preface.  Before the fossil fuel age began, up to 90% were farmers. The end of the brief blip of oil production will send us back to that time (if we aren’t so far into overshoot we go back to being hunter-gatherers). Yet we’re losing a lot of prime farmland to development.  We need all the land we can get in the future. As it is, in the Great Depression people were hungry at a time when there were 100 million people and 25% of them were farmers, while now just 1% of people are farmers and there are 348 million today.  

Kolankiewicz writes in “Vanishing Open Spaces Population Growth and Sprawl in America” below, that cities were built where the best farmland and water existed. As cities and towns grow, they sprawled outwards over this prime farmland. This is where 85% of developmental sprawl happens. The United Nations calls this soil sealing – the permanent covering of soil with impermeable materials such as asphalt or structures.  This leads to a total soil loss of food and fiber production, for water to infiltrate and be held and purified, and often increases flooding, the ability of the soil to hold water, loss of purification capacities, loss of carbon sequestration, increased urban heat from the loss of vegetation, and less biodiversity (FAO 2015).

Between 1945 and 1975, enough farms disappeared beneath concrete to pave Nebraska (Montgomery 2007), about 49.5 million acres (77,350 square miles).

Between 1982 and 2010 the U.S. lost 41.4 million acres, 14% of its crop land.  That’s equal to 65,000 square miles, an area as large as Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania

Over a third of all land that has ever been developed occurred in the last 25 years.  If we keep paving over cropland at this rate, it will all be gone in 200 years.  

Continue reading

Posted in Overpopulation, Peak Food, Soil | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Admiral Rickover 1957: Energy Resources & Our Future

Preface. I’ve shortened and reworded this prescient speech.  You can see all of it at “Energy resources and our future” – remarks by Admiral Hyman Rickover delivered in 1957″ archived at http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/klein1/docs/rickover.pdf and resilience.org has a speech by Congressman Roscoe Bartlett from 2007 about this as well here.

“We live in what historians may some day call the Fossil Fuel Age. Today coal, oil, and natural gas supply 93% of the world’s energy.

The most significant distinction between optimistic and pessimistic fuel reserve statistics is that the optimists generally speak of the immediate future – the next 25 years or so – while the pessimists think in terms of a century. A century or even two is a short span in the history of a great people. It seems sensible to me to take a long view, even if this involves facing unpleasant facts.

The popularizers of scientific news would have us believe that there is no cause for anxiety, that reserves will last thousands of years, and that before they run out science will have produced miracles. Our past history and security have given us the sentimental belief that the things we fear will never really happen – that everything turns out right in the end. But, prudent men will reject these tranquilizers and prefer to face the facts so that they can plan intelligently for the needs of their posterity.

The disposal of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants is a problem which must be solved before there can be any widespread use of nuclear power.

Continue reading

Posted in An Overview, By People, Dependence on Oil, Energy Slaves, Limits To Growth, Military, Nuclear Waste, Other Experts, Overpopulation, Overshoot, Peak Oil | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

The Green New Deal is not a solution for the real problem: Overshoot

Preface.  Seibert & Rees’ paper is important and well-written, without unintelligible scientific jargon.  It explains overshoot in just 13 pages, and covers the most important issues we face and real solutions. It explains why the Green New Deal is a fantasy and the reasons “renewables” can’t possibly help solve overshoot.  I started to highlight sections I liked but gave up, it’s all good, all worth highlighting.

While the consequences of overshoot are dire, it may seem like a blessing if you watch this powerful video showing overpopulation all over the world, roads, dumps, uncollected garbage, buildings, cities, traffic, unsold cars, sewage, dangerously polluted air, and more in Lagos, China, India, Vietnam, Pakistan, and dozens of other places     1 Hour of Urban Hell on Earth    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpe_004ioNE

Continue reading

Posted in Limits To Growth, Overshoot | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Green New Deal is not a solution for the real problem: Overshoot

A transition from fossil fuels to renewables could take a century – if it ever happens

In 2024 and the previous 60 years, primary energy consumption was 80% or more fossil fuels. An energy transition is not happening, fossil fuel growth exceeds renewable growth, reliability requires fossil fuel electricity generating plants to remain, they are not being shut down

Preface. Vaclav Smil explains why energy transitions take 50 to 100 years in the article below.  Hirsch wrote a report  for the Department of Energy in 2005, and also explained why you’d want to prepare at least 10 to 20 years for the peaking of world oil supplies, though at an ASPO conference years later, said 30 years or more (my summary of the Hirsch DOE report is here). As Smil writes below: “It is delusional to think that the United States can install in 10 years wind and solar generating capacity equivalent to that of thermal power plants that took nearly 60 years to construct.”

With conventional oil production peaking in 2005 and unconventional slightly raising the plateau since 2015, the time when oil starts to decline is looming, experts suggest anywhere from 2027 to 2035, but even if 2040 or some other date, the only thing that matters is that fossil fuels are finite, and we are running out of time.

Continue reading

Posted in An Overview, Infrastructure & Fast Crash, Vaclav Smil | Tagged , , | Comments Off on A transition from fossil fuels to renewables could take a century – if it ever happens

Electrifying freight trains in the U.S. is a bad idea

Diesel-electric locomotives use electricity to drive forward motion despite the name ‘diesel’.  A large diesel engine turns a shaft that drives an AC generator which makes electricity.  This electrical energy powers large electric motors at the wheels called ‘traction motors’ that have better traction and adhesion Source: https://edisontechcenter.org/Dieseltrains.html

In the U.S., freight rail tracks are privately owned. Companies put much of their profit back into maintaining the existing 95,000 mile infrastructure of tracks. Which can’t go just anywhere — tracks are laid on land with less than a 1% grade whenever possible.  And who would pay for electrification? Not private companies.

Diesel-electric locomotives are ALREADY electric, and more energy efficient than electric freight trains. Diesel-electric freight is very efficient and moves 4 times more tons per mile than trucks because they hardly ever accelerate, stop, start, or travel over 40 mph. I have a chapter on this in When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportationmore extensive than this post if you would like to know more.

High-speed passenger rail is all the rage, but when it comes to electrification of America’s freight trains there’s almost total silence. Yet Europe and Russia have electrified freight trains, so why not here?

Continue reading

Posted in Electric Grid, Electrification, Railroads | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Electrifying freight trains in the U.S. is a bad idea

Why Nuclear Power can’t replace fossil fuels

Preface. Economic reasons are the main hurdle to new nuclear plants now, with capital costs so high it’s almost impossible to get a loan, especially when natural gas is so much cheaper and less risky. But there are other reasons nuclear power is in trouble as well. Far more plants are in danger of closing than are being built because they’re so expensive (37 were predicted to shut down in 2013, 21 have been or will be soon). The $14 billion Vogtle reactors ended up cost $35 billion — of taxpayer money.  If there is another Fukushima or spent fuel pool release, the public will also be on the line for potentially trillions of dollars (Stone, R. May 24, 2016. Spent fuel fire on U.S. soil could dwarf impact of Fukushima. & Near miss at Fukushima is a warning for U.S., panel says. Science)

I have several chapters on nuclear reactors in my next book (and nuclear waste, war, and winter) that will be more up-to-date than this post, hopefully out in 2026 or 2027.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Nuclear power plants take too long to build

The Vogtle reactors were AP 1000 MODULAR reactors, which small nuclear reactor proponents say will differentiate make them more successful.  No they won’t, and so far they cost billions too, beyond what lenders will lend. k

It often takes 10 years to build one due to the many years it takes to get licensed, fabricate components, and finally another 4 to 7 years to actually build it. Or more: the Vogtle units 3 and 4 have been under construction since 2013 and aren’t expected to be ready until 2023.

That’s too long for investors to wait, they want far more immediate returns. Techno-optimists can argue that some new-fangled kind of reactor could be built more quickly.  But the public is afraid of reactors because there is nowhere to store their million-years of toxic wastes, so it’s bound to go slowly as protestors demand stringent inspections every step of the way. So even a small, simple reactor would have many hurdles to overcome.

Financial markets are wary of investments in new nuclear plants until it can be demonstrated they can be constructed on budget and on schedule. Nuclear plants have not been built in the United States for decades, but there are unpleasant memories, because construction of some of the currently operating plants was associated with substantial cost overruns and delays. There is also a significant gap between when construction is initiated and when return on investment is realized.

Nuclear power costs too much

U.S. nuclear power plants are old and in decline. By 2030, U.S. nuclear power generation might be the source of just 10% of electricity, half of production now, because 38 reactors producing a third of nuclear power are past their 40-year life span, and another 33 reactors producing a third of nuclear power are over 30 years old. Although some will have their licenses extended, 37 reactors that produce half of nuclear power are at risk of closing because of economics, breakdowns, unreliability, long outages, safety, and expensive post-Fukushima retrofits (Cooper 2013. Nuclear power is too expensive, 37 costly reactors predicted to shut down and A third of Nuclear Reactors are going to die of old age in the next 10-20 years.

New reactors are not being built because it takes years to get permits and $8.5–$20 billion in capital must be raised for a new 3400 MW nuclear power plant (O’Grady, E. 2008. Luminant seeks new reactor. London: Reuters.). This is almost impossible since a safer 3400 MW gas plant can be built for $2.5 billion in half the time. What utility wants to spend billions of dollars and wait a decade before a penny of revenue and a watt of electricity is generated?

In the USA there are 104 nuclear plants (largely constructed in the 1970s and 1980s) contributing 19% of our electricity.  Even if all operating plants over 40 years receive renewals to operate for 60 years, starting in 2028 it’s unlikely they can be extended another 20 years, so by 2050 nearly all nuclear plants will be out of business.

Joe Romm “The Nukes of Hazard: One Year After Fukushima, Nuclear Power Remains Too Costly To Be A Major Climate Solution” explains in detail why nuclear power is too expensive, such as:

  • New nuclear reactors are expensive. Recent cost estimates for individual new plants have exceeded $5 billion (for example, see Scroggs, 2008; Moody’s Investor’s Service, 2008).
  • New reactors are intrinsically expensive because they must be able to withstand virtually any risk that we can imagine, including human error and major disasters
  • We’d need to add an average of 17 plants each year, while building an average of 9 plants a year to replace those that will be retired, for a total of one nuclear plant every two weeks for four decades — plus 10 Yucca Mountains to store the waste
  • Before 2007, price estimates of $4000/kw for new U.S. nukes were common, but by October 2007 Moody’s Investors Service report, “New Nuclear Generation in the United States,” concluded, “Moody’s believes the all-in cost of a nuclear generating facility could come in at between $5,000 – $6,000/kw.”
  • That same month, Florida Power and Light, “a leader in nuclear power generation,” presented its detailed cost estimate for new nukes to the Florida Public Service Commission. It concluded that two units totaling 2,200 megawatts would cost from $5,500 to $8,100 per kilowatt – $12 billion to $18 billion total!
  • In 2008, Progress Energy informed state regulators that the twin 1,100-megawatt plants it intended to build in Florida would cost $14 billion, which “triples estimates the utility offered little more than a year ago.” That would be more than $6,400 a kilowatt.  (And that didn’t even count the 200-mile $3 billion transmission system utility needs, which would bring the price up to a staggering $7,700 a kilowatt).

Extract from Is Nuclear Power Our Energy Future, Or in a Death Spiral? March 6th, 2016, By Dave Levitan, Ensia:

In general, the more experience accumulated with a given technology, the less it costs to build. This has been dramatically illustrated with the falling costs of wind and solar power. Nuclear, however has bucked the trend, instead demonstrating a sort of “negative learning curve” over time.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the actual costs of 75 of the first nuclear reactors built in the U.S. ran over initial estimates by more than 200 percent. More recently, costs have continued to balloon. Again according to UCS, the price tag for a new nuclear power plant jumped from between US$2 billion and US$4 billion in 2002 all the way US$9 billion in 2008. Put another way, the price shot from below US$2,000 per kilowatt in the early 2000s up to as high as US$8,000 per kilowatt by 2008.

Steve Clemmer, the director of energy research and analysis at UCS, doesn’t see this trend changing. “I’m not seeing much evidence that we’ll see the types of cost reductions [proponents are] talking about. I’m very skeptical about it — great if it happens, but I’m not seeing it,” he says.

Some projects in the U.S. seem to face delays and overruns at every turn. In September 2015, a South Carolina effort to build two new reactors at an existing plant was delayed for three years. In Georgia, a January 2015 filing by plant owner Southern Co. said that its additional two reactors would jump by US$700 million in cost and take an extra 18 months to build. These problems have a number of root causes, from licensing delays to simple construction errors, and no simple solution to the issue is likely to be found.

In Europe the situation is similar, with a couple of particularly egregious examples casting a pall over the industry. Construction began for a new reactor at the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 plant in 2005 but won’t finish until 2018, nine years late and more than US$5 billion over budget. A reactor in France, where nuclear is the primary source of power, is six years behind schedule and more than twice as expensive as projected.

“The history of 60 years or more of reactor building offers no evidence that costs will come down,” Ramana says. “As nuclear technology has matured costs have increased, and all the present indications are that this trend will continue.”

Nuclear plants require huge grid systems, since they’re far from energy consumers. The Financial Times estimates that would require ten thousand billion dollars be invested world-wide in electric power systems over the next 30 years.

In summary, investors aren’t going to invest in new reactors because:

  • of the billions in liability after a meltdown or accident
  • there may only be enough uranium left to power existing plants
  • the cost per plant ties up capital too long (it can take 10 billion dollars over 10 years to build a nuclear power plant)
  • the costs of decommissioning are very high
  • properly dealing with waste is expensive
  • There is no place to put waste — in 2009 Secretary of Energy Chu shut down Yucca mountain and there is no replacement in sight.

Nor will the USA government pay for the nuclear reactors given that public opinion is against that — 72% said no (in E&E news), they weren’t willing for the government to pay for nuclear power reactors through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees for new reactors.

Cembalest, an analyst at J.P. Morgan, wrote “In some ways, nuclears goose was cooked by 1992, when the cost of building a 1 GW plant rose by a factor of 5 (in real terms) from 1972” (Cembalest).

Nuclear power depends on fossil fuels to exist (Ahmed 2017)

“One extensive study finds that the construction, mining, milling, transporting, refining, enrichment, waste reprocessing/disposal, fabrication, operation and decommissioning processes of nuclear power are heavily dependent on fossil fuels (Pearce 2008). This raises serious questions about the viability of nuclear power in about two decades time, when hydrocarbon resources are likely to be well past their production peaks.

Further, the study concludes that nuclear power is simply not efficient enough to replace fossil fuels, an endeavor which would require nuclear production to increase by 10.5% every year from 2010 to 2050-an “unsustainable prospect”. This large growth rate requires a “cannibalistic effect”, whereby nuclear energy itself must be used to supply the energy to construct future nuclear power plants. The upshot is that the books cannot be balanced as the tremendous amounts of energy necessary for mining and processing uranium ore, building and operating the power plant, and so on, cannot be offset by output in a high growth scenario. In particular, growth limits are set by the grade of uranium ore available-and high-grade uranium is predicted to become rapidly depleted in coming decades, leaving largely low-grade ore falling below 0.02% (Pearce 2008)”.

Peak Uranium

Energy experts warn that an acute shortage of uranium is going to hit the nuclear energy industry. Dr Yogi Goswami, co-director of the Clean Energy Research Centre at the University of Florida warns that proven reserves of uranium will last less than 30 years. By 2050, all proven and undiscovered reserves of uranium will be over.  Current nuclear plants consume around 67,000 tonnes of high-grade uranium per year. With present world uranium reserves of 5.5 million tons, we have enough to last last 42 years.  If more nuclear plants are built, then we have less than 30 years left (Coumans).

Uranium production peaked in the 1980s but supplies continued to meet demand because weapons decommissioned after the Cold War were converted commercial fuel. Those sources are now drying up, and a new demand-driven peak may be on the horizon.

The only way we could extend our supplies of uranium is to build breeder reactors.  But we don’t have any idea how to do that and we’ve been trying since the 1950s.

China switched on its 19th nuclear power reactor as it rushes to increase nuclear generation. The country plans to switch on 8.64 gigawatts of nuclear generating capacity in 2014 as compared to 3.24 gigawatts of new capacity in 2013. The availability of uranium for China’s nuclear industry is becoming an issue. Beijing may have to import some 80 percent of its uranium by 2020, as compared to the current 60 percent.

There may not even be enough uranium to power existing plants. For example, Nuclear fission startup TerraPower, founded and chaired by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, has raised $750 million to develop advanced nuclear reactors to serve as alternatives to the light-water reactors. The future Natrium reactor is hoped to be running by 2028 for just $4 billion dollars. It will use a different fuel than standard nuclear reactors — high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), which is enriched with more uranium than the fuel used in traditional nuclear plants. But the only source of HALEU is in Russia, and with the war in Ukraine threatening to go on for quite a while, this source is untenable. And even if money from Biden’s Inflation and climate acts is used to create a HALEU source, that’s many years away. Worse yet, the project will lose $2 billion in funding if it isn’t ready by 2028 (Wesoff 2022).

Source: Colorado Geological survey

Related articles:

Nuclear power is Way too Dangerous

In 2016, top journal Science, based on the National Academy of Sciences of lessons learned from Fukushima, reported that a nuclear spent fuel fire at Peach Bottom in Pennsylvania could force 18 million people to evacuate.  This is because there’s still nowhere to put nuclear waste, so it’s stored in pools of water on-site that are not under the containment dome, but open to the air, and a prime target for terrorists at over 100 locations.  If electric power were ever down more than 10 days due to a natural disaster, electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear weapon / solar flare, or any other reason, these nuclear pools would catch on fire and spew out radiation for many square miles and force millions of people to evacuate.  Also see: Shocking state of world’s riskiest nuclear waste sites

The dangers of nuclear waste is the main reason California and many other states won’t allow new nuclear power plants to open. To find out more about the dangers of nuclear waste and why we have nowhere to store it, read by book review of “Too Hot to touch: The Problem of high-level nuclear waste“.

Greenpeace has a critique of nuclear power called The Global Crisis of Nuclear Waste (2018) and Nuclear Reactor Hazards (2005) which makes the following points:

  1. As nuclear power plants age, components become embrittled, corroded, and eroded. This can happen at a microscopic level which is only detected when a pipe bursts. As a plant ages, the odds of severe incidents increase. Although some components can be replaced, failures in the reactor pressure vessel would lead to a catastrophic release of radioactive material. The risk of a nuclear accident grows significantly each year after 20 years. The average age of power plants now, world-wide, is 21 years.
  2. In a power blackout, if the emergency backup generators don’t kick in, there is the risk of a meltdown. This happened recently in Sweden at the Fosmark power station in 2006. A former director said “It was pure luck that there was not a meltdown. Since the electricity supply from the network didn’t work as it should have, it could have been a catastrophe.” Another few hours and a meltdown could have occurred. It should not surprise anyone that power blackouts will become increasingly common and long-lasting as energy declines.
  3. 3rd generation nuclear plants are pigs wearing lipstick – they’re just gussied up 2nd generation — no safer than existing plants.
  4. Many failures are due to human error, and that will always be the case, no matter how well future plants are designed.
  5. Nuclear power plants are attractive targets for terrorists now and future resource wars. There are dozens of ways to attack nuclear and reprocessing plants. They are targets not only for the huge number of deaths they would cause, but as a source of plutonium to make nuclear bombs. It only takes a few kilograms to make a weapon, and just a few micrograms to cause cancer.

If Greenpeace is right about risks increasing after 20 years, then there’s bound to be a meltdown incident within ten years, which would make it almost impossible to raise capital. (And indeed there was, Fukushima had a meltdown in 2011).

It’s already hard to raise capital, because the owners want to be completely exempt from the costs of nuclear meltdowns and other accidents. That’s why no new plants have been built in the United States for decades.

The Energy Returned on Energy Invested may be too low for investors as well. When you consider the energy required to build a nuclear power plant, which needs tremendous amount of cement, steel pipes, and other infrastructure, it could take a long time for the returned energy to pay back the energy invested. The construction of 1970’s U.S. nuclear power plants required 40 metric tons of steel and 190 cubic meters of concrete per average megawatt of electricity generating capacity (Peterson 2003).

The amount of greenhouse gases emitted during construction is another reason many environmentalists have turned away from nuclear power.

The costs of treating nuclear waste have skyrocketed. An immensely expensive treatment plant to cleanup the Hanford nuclear plant went from costing 4.3 billion in 2000 to 12.2 billion dollars today. If the final treatment plant is ever built, it will be twelve stories high and four football fields long (Dininny 2006).

A crisis will harden public opinion against building new Nuclear Power Plants

I wrote this section before the Fukushima disaster, and there will be more disasters as aging nuclear power plants, extended beyond their lifetime and being pushed to produce electricity full-tilt, succumb to many hazards detailed in the Green Peace International report “Nuclear Reactor Hazards“.  It’s only a matter of time before one of our aging reactors melts down.  When that happens, the public will fight the development of more nuclear power plants.  Other factors besides aging that could cause a disaster are natural disasters, failure of the electric grid, increased and more severe flooding, drought, and severe and unstable weather from climate change, lack of staffing as older workers retire with few educated engineers available to replace them.

Even Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb, thought Nuclear Power Plants were dangerous and should be put underground for safety in case of a failure and to make clean-up easier.

Five of the six reactors at the Fukushima plant in Japan were Mark 1 reactors. Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric quit after they became convinced that the Mark 1 nuclear reactor design they were reviewing was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident (Mosk).

Nuclear power plants are extremely attractive targets for terrorists and in a war.  Uranium is not only stored in the core, but the “waste” area near the plant, providing plenty of material for “dirty” or explosive atom bombs.

For details, read the original document or my summary of the Greenpeace report.

EROEI and decommissioning

See: Decommissioning a nuclear reactor

The energy to build, decommission, dispose of wastes, etc., may be more than the plant will ever generate  a negative Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI).  A review by Charles Hall et al. of net energy studies of nuclear power found the data to be “idiosyncratic, prejudiced, and poorly documented,” and concluded the most reliable EROEI information was too old to be useful (results ranged from 5 to 8:1). Newer data was unjustifiably optimistic (15:1 or more) or pessimistic (low, even less than 1:1).  One of the main reasons EROEI is low is due to the enormous amount of energy used to construct nuclear power plants, which also create a great deal of GHG emissions.

Scale

“To produce enough nuclear power to equal the power we currently get from fossil fuels, you would have to build 10,000 of the largest possible nuclear power plants. That’s a huge, probably nonviable initiative, and at that burn rate, our known reserves of uranium would last only for 10 or 20 years.” (Goodstein). Are there enough sites for 10,000 plants near water for cooling yet not so low that rising sea levels destroy them or drought remove cooling water supplies?

Staffing

Nuclear power has been unpopular for such a long time, that there aren’t enough nuclear engineers, plant operators and designers, or manufacturing companies to scale up quickly (Torres 2006).  The number of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) nuclear certificates held around the world fell from 600 in 1980 to 200 in 2007. There is also an insufficient supply of people with the requisite education or training at a time when vendors, contractors, architects, engineers, operators, and regulators will be seeking to build up their staffs. In addition, 35% of the staff at U.S nuclear utilities are eligible for retirement in the next 5–10 years.

There could be shortages in certain parts and components (especially large forgings), as well as in trained craft and technical personnel, if nuclear power expands significantly worldwide.

There are fewer suppliers of nuclear parts and components now than in the past.

Nuclear Proliferation & terrorism targets

Can we really prevent crazed dictators for 30,000 years from using plutonium and other wastes to wage war?  Even if a nuclear bomb is beyond the capabilities of society in the future, the waste could be used to make a dirty bomb. Meanwhile, reactors make good targets for terrorists who do have the money to hire scientists help them make a nuclear bomb from stolen uranium or plutonium.

Water 

Nuclear plants must be built near water for cooling, and use a tremendous amount of water. Scientists are certain that global warming will raise sea levels — about half of existing power plants would be flooded.  Climate change will cause longer and more severe droughts, with the potential for not enough water to cool the plant down, and more severe storms will bring more hurricanes and tornadoes.

NIMBYism

Never underestimate NIMBYism, which is already preventing nuclear power plants from being built. The political opposition to building thousands of nuclear plants will be impossible to overcome.

No good way to store the energy

One of the most critical needs for power is a way to store it. Utility scale storage batteries  have not been invented despite decades of research, and only enough materials exist on earth to build NaS batteries at a cost of over $44 trillion that would take up 945 square miles of real estate (Friedemann 2015)

A great deal of the electric power generated would need to be used to replace the billions of combustion engine machines and vehicles rather than providing heat, cooling, cooking power and light to homes and offices. It takes decades to move from one source of power to another. It’s hard to see how this could be accomplished without great hardship and social chaos, which would slow the conversion process down. Desperation is likely to lead to stealing of key components of the new infrastructure to sell for scrap metal, as is already happening in Baltimore where 30-foot tall street lights are being stolen (Gately 2005).

Related posts:  Energy Storage

Ramping up and down quickly to balance solar & wind damages nuclear power plants

Nuclear plants can’t ramp up or down quickly like natural gas — they are very incompatible with intermittent wind and solar power.

The German nuclear plant Brokderf was damaged because its operators increased and decreased its output to respond to energy grid fluctuations. The incident supports the theory that nuclear and renewable energy generation are incompatible. Brokdorf’s period of inactivity has cost plant owner EON more than €100 million, according to reports by Bloomberg.

State Minister for Energy Robert Habeck warned that the power plant’s output should not be increased or decreased at short notice to adapt to the supply of renewable energies on the electricity grid because “atomic energy is not a bridging technology”.

A 2011 study by Greenpeace also concluded that renewables and nuclear are not compatible and that fuel rod damage is a possible consequence.

Kiel’s nuclear supervisory authority explained that the corrosion of Brokdorf’s fuel rods was a result of the reactor’s capacity being increased from 1,440 MW to 1,480 MW in 2006.  The investigation also concluded that the decision to run the plant as a load-following power station, where output was tailored to grid fluctuations, contributed to the damage (Dehmer 2017).

Breeder reactors. You’d need 24,000 Breeder Reactors, each one a potential nuclear bomb (Mesarovic)

  • We’ve known since 1969 that we needed to build breeder reactors to stretch the lifetime of radioactive material to tens of thousands of years, and to reduce the radioactive wastes generated, but we still don’t know how to do this. (NAS)
  • If we ever do succeed, these reactors are much closer to being bombs than conventional reactors – the effects of an accident would be catastrophic economically and in the number of lives lost if it failed near a city (Wolfson).
  • The by-product of the breeder reaction is plutonium. Plutonium 239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. How can we guarantee that no terrorist or dictator will ever use this material to build a nuclear or dirty bomb during this time period?

Assume, as the technology optimists want us to, that in 100 years all primary energy will be nuclear. Following historical patterns, and assuming a not unlikely quadrupling of population, we will need, to satisfy world energy requirements, 3,000 “nuclear parks” each consisting of, say, 8 fast-breeder reactors. These 8 reactors, working at 40% efficiency, will produce 40 million kilowatts of electricity collectively. Therefore, each of the 3,000 nuclear parks will be converting primary nuclear power equivalent to 100 million kilowatts thermal. The largest nuclear reactors presently in operation convert about 1 million kilowatts (electric), but we will give progress the benefit of doubt and assume that our 24,000 worldwide reactors are capable of converting 5 million kilowatts each. In order to produce the world’s energy in 100 years, then, we will merely have to build, in each and every year between now and then, 4 reactors per week! And that figure does not take into account the lifespan of nuclear reactors. If our future nuclear reactors last an average of thirty years, we shall eventually have to build 2 reactors per day to replace those that have worn out.  By 2025, sole reliance on nuclear power would require more than 50 major nuclear installations, on the average, in every state in the union.

For the sake of this discussion, let us disregard whether this rate of construction is technically and organizationally feasible in view of the fact that, at present, the lead time for the construction of much smaller and simpler plants is seven to ten years. Let us also disregard the cost of about $2000 billion per year — or 60 percent of the total world output of $3400 billion — just to replace the worn-out reactors and the availability of the investment capital. We may as well also assume that we could find safe storage facilities for the discarded reactors and their irradiated accessory equipment, and also for the nuclear waste. Let us assume that technology has taken care of all these big problems, leaving us only a few trifles to deal with.

In order to operate 24,000 breeder reactors, we would need to process and transport, every year, 15 million kilograms (16,500 tons) of plutonium-239, the core material of the Hiroshima atom bomb. Only 10 pounds are needed to construct a bomb.  If inhaled, just ten micrograms (.00000035 ounce) of plutonium-239 is likely to cause fatal lung cancer. A ball of plutonium the size of a grapefruit contains enough poison to kill nearly all the people living today. Moreover, plutonium-239 has a radioactive life of more than 24,000 years. Obviously, with so much plutonium on hand, there will be a tremendous problem of safeguarding the nuclear parks — not one or two, but 3000 of them. And what about their location, national sovereignty, and jurisdiction? Can one country allow inadequate protection in a neighboring country, when the slightest mishap could poison adjacent lands and populations for thousands and thousands of years? And who is to decide what constitutes adequate protection, especially in the case of social turmoil, civil war, war between nations, or even only when a national leader comes down with a case of bad nerves. The lives of millions could easily be beholden to a single reckless and daring individual.

References

Ahmed, Nafeez. 2017. Failing States, Collapsing Systems BioPhysical Triggers of Political Violence. Springer.

Amy J (2021) Georgia nuclear plant cost tops $27B as more delays unveiled. Associated Press.

Cembalest, M.21 Nov 2011. Eye on the Market. The quixotic search for energy solutions.  J P Morgan

Coumans, C.  4 Sep 2010. Uranium reserves to be over by 2050. Deccan Chronicle.

Dehmer, D. July 19, 2017. German nuclear damage shows atomic and renewable power are unhappy bedfellows. Der Tagesspiegel

Dininny, S. 7 Sep 2006. Cost for Hanford waste treatment plant grows to $12.2 billion. The Olympian / Associated Press.

Friedemann, A. 2015. When Trucks stop running: Energy and the Future of Transportation. Springer.

Gately, G. 25 Nov 2005. Light poles vanishing — believed sold for scrap by thieves 130 street fixtures in Baltimore have been cut down. New York Times.

Goodstein, D. April 29, 2005. Transcript of The End of the Age of Oil talk

(Greenpeace) H. Hirsch, et al. 2005. Nuclear Reactor Hazards: Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclearreactorhazards.pdf

Heinberg, Richard. September 2009. Searching for a Miracle. “Net Energy” Limits & the Fate of Industrial Society. Post Carbon Institute.

Hirsch, R. L., et al. February 2005. Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, mitigation, & risk management. Department of Energy.

Hoyos, C. 19 OCT 2003 Power sector 'to need $10,000 bn in next 30 years'. Financial Times.

Mesarovic, Mihajlo, et al. 1974. Mankind at the Turning Point.  The Second Club of Rome Report.  E.P. Dutton, 1974 pp. 132-135

Mosk, M. 15 Mar 2011. Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest. ABC World News.

(NAS) “It is clear, therefore, that by the transition to a complete breeder-reactor program before the initial supply of uranium 235 is exhausted, very much larger supplies of energy can be made available than now exist. Failure to make this transition would constitute one of the major disasters in human history." National Academy of Sciences. 1969. Resources & Man. W.H.Freeman, San Francisco. 259.

Peterson, P. 2003. Will the United States Need a Second Geologic Repository? The Bridge 33 (3), 26-32.

Pearce, J. M. 2008. Thermodynamic Limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology. International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology 2(1): 113.

Torres, M. “Uranium Depletion and Nuclear Power: Are We at Peak Uranium?” http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379#more

Wesoff E (2022) Bill Gates’ nuclear startup wins $750M, loses sole fuel source. Canary Media

Wolfson, R. 1993. Nuclear Choices: A Citizen's Guide to Nuclear Technology. MIT Press

To see what plants are open, closing, or being built (excel):

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014-2015 Information Digest. Nuclear materials, radioactive waste, nuclear reactors, nuclear security.

Posted in Nuclear Power Energy | Tagged , | 14 Comments

Energy, Water, & Climate Change are interdependent

Preface. This is a very long post with summaries of two GAO reports on interdependencies of energy, water, and climate change from 2014 and 2012, which are still true today. While cheap and plentiful oil remains, these problems can be fixed.  As energy declines, the interdependencies are likely to snowball and accelerate collapse.

Continue reading

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Infrastructure, Energy Production, GAO Government Accountability Office, Interdependencies | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Energy, Water, & Climate Change are interdependent