Energy Transition

[synoptic 138]

The entire energy production & transmission, chemical process, and food production industries need to be and will be completely overhauled in the 21st century to achieve sustainability.  This endeavor has many names but is most commonly referred to as the energy transition.  It is the view of many (my view as well) that this will be the most significant and even defining achievement of the 21st century.  Being a board mostly populated by Texans, I figure many of us are already working on energy transition initiatives and was interested in getting some thoughts and discussion on the topic in general and on the following in particular:

Renewables (Wind, solar, etc) and Energy storage

In order to incorporate more renewables to replace baseload power plants (nuclear, coal, NGCC), we need lots of long duration energy storage.  Can this be achieved by stacking lithium ion batteries, or will it largely be thermomechanical energy storage such as compressed air, liquid air, molten salt, or emergent battery technology (e.g. Form Energy)?  Will we ultimately need to go to conversion to hydrogen or some other chemical energy?    

Centralized vs decentralized power production

Electric grid is currently almost entirely centralized, "front-of-meter" type production.  What percentage of power production will move to microgrids and "behind-the-meter" production?  Is dispersed, customized, "smart" microgrids the way to go?

Carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration

Seems to be the cheapest option for now for decarbonization for many industries, and possibly the only way to decarbonize some process (e.g. cement and certain chemical processes) but how clean is CCUS really, and will the public tolerate/support the drilling and injection of large sequestration wells?

Hydrogen

Will the hydrogen economy take of as some are predicting, and will we have hydrogen fueled heavy trucks, ships, airplanes?  If so, will it be mostly blue (from natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration) or green (from renewable and water electrolysis) or other?

Nuclear

Is nuclear over/outdated, or will it play a substantial role in the energy transition?  Engineers love nuclear, but no one else seems to.

Food production

How to get to net zero emissions and achieve long term sustainability while maintaining low cost, high output food production for growing population.  Other than fertilizer production, this is area I know least about.  

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by synoptic

[Incredulity 11440]

Here's what happens if we get it wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/14/business/energy-environment/britain-europe-energy-gas-shortage.html

 

Why is Britain in such bad shape?

Britain is paying a price for a combination of successes and failures. The country has to a great extent phased out coal for power generation and built up capacity in renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. These moves cut greenhouse gas emissions and help curb global warming.

 

 

But shuttering coal plants while the country’s aging nuclear plants are gradually closing has made Britain dependent on gas for around 40 percent of the country’s electricity, far more than any other fuel. (In France, by contrast, nuclear plants provide about 70 percent of electricity.) It hasn’t helped that the breezes that spin Britain’s wind turbines, which generate about 20 percent of the country’s power on average, have been unusually weak in recent months.

“That success in climate policy is coming back to bite,” Mr. Gloystein said.

[synoptic 138]

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

[52-80 19047]

1 hour ago, synoptic said:

The entire energy production & transmission, chemical process, and food production industries need to be and will be completely overhauled in the 21st century to achieve sustainability.  This endeavor has many names but is most commonly referred to as the energy transition.  It is the view of many (my view as well) that this will be the most significant and even defining achievement of the 21st century.  Being a board mostly populated by Texans, I figure many of us are already working on energy transition initiatives and was interested in getting some thoughts and discussion on the topic in general and on the following in particular:

Renewables (Wind, solar, etc) and Energy storage

In order to incorporate more renewables to replace baseload power plants (nuclear, coal, NGCC), we need lots of long duration energy storage.  Can this be achieved by stacking lithium ion batteries, or will it largely be thermomechanical energy storage such as compressed air, liquid air, molten salt, or emergent battery technology (e.g. Form Energy)?  Will we ultimately need to go to conversion to hydrogen or some other chemical energy?    

Centralized vs decentralized power production

Electric grid is currently almost entirely centralized, "front-of-meter" type production.  What percentage of power production will move to microgrids and "behind-the-meter" production?  Is dispersed, customized, "smart" microgrids the way to go?

Carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration

Seems to be the cheapest option for now for decarbonization for many industries, and possibly the only way to decarbonize some process (e.g. cement and certain chemical processes) but how clean is CCUS really, and will the public tolerate/support the drilling and injection of large sequestration wells?

Hydrogen

Will the hydrogen economy take of as some are predicting, and will we have hydrogen fueled heavy trucks, ships, airplanes?  If so, will it be mostly blue (from natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration) or green (from renewable and water electrolysis) or other?

Nuclear

Is nuclear over/outdated, or will it play a substantial role in the energy transition?  Engineers love nuclear, but no one else seems to.

Food production

How to get to net zero emissions and achieve long term sustainability while maintaining low cost, high output food production for growing population.  Other than fertilizer production, this is area I know least about.  

 

 

ah, yes, a message board full of lawyers and IT nerds is the perfect place to get cogent thought leadership on these issues

[synoptic 138]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

 

ah, yes, a message board full of lawyers and IT nerds is the perfect place to get cogent thought leadership on these issues

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

[EuroHorn 3204]

4 minutes ago, synoptic said:

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

You have some energy folks on here.  The problem is that the non-energy, cloak room experts will be here shortly to tell us how everything works.

Edited November 8, 2021 by EuroHorn

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

Not a lawyer, energy person, or cloak room expert ... in my lay opinion, we should rely focus on nuclear until another suitable alternative emerges. 

I feel like nuclear and renewables are the opposite side of the same coin - renewables are inefficient and not particularly good for the environment, but the average person feels good about it. Nuclear is efficient, but the average person is scared of it.

[atomheartbevo 89304]

52 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

ah, yes, a message board full of lawyers and IT nerds is the perfect place to get cogent thought leadership on these issues

These are the demographics for Surly.  I couldn't prove them under oath, but I believe them to be reasonably accurate.

 

2% of Surly members are doctors and lawyers

47% of Surly members are doctors

47% of Surly members are lawyers

2% of Surly members are engineers

2% of Surly members are not doctors, lawyers, or engineers.

[synoptic 138]

40 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

Not a lawyer, energy person, or cloak room expert ... in my lay opinion, we should rely focus on nuclear until another suitable alternative emerges. 

I feel like nuclear and renewables are the opposite side of the same coin - renewables are inefficient and not particularly good for the environment, but the average person feels good about it. Nuclear is efficient, but the average person is scared of it.

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

[Satoshi 129]

I tried to find the most anodyne link available. This is the first real “official” government estimate that I’ve seen. As with most government estimates of cost, I would expect surprises to the upside. 
 

 

[Grimas 657]

Watch this (posted on another thread) - it's a bit slow at first but sets the foundation for their conclusions...

 

[Satoshi 129]

Private companies working on fusion. 
 

 

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2054]

I picked up 3 hydrogen stocks in october last year as a combination of betting on a D president getting elected and actually having faith that they represent some of the future.  They seem to have real potential with fuel cells in factory vehicles like fork lifts and stuff.  Some bigger trucks in europe are looking at using them.  I think you can't have that massive of an expansion of them without really changing the way we do everything, but I do think certain isolated markets can totally switch to them.

[Schulz2.0 28710]

58 minutes ago, synoptic said:

Nuclear has the worst PR of any technology ever developed.

The oil and gas industry has heavily lobbied against nuclear.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2054]

well, it doesn't take much lobbying genius to produce negative PR when you share a name with this:

 

[synoptic 138]

48 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Private companies working on fusion. 
 

 

I have a colleague who is very interested in fusion technology and Helion in particular.  Personally, I am very skeptical on fusion for commercial scale power production for the foreseeable future, as after decades of work it has failed to produce net energy production in laboratory conditions.  To go from not yet demonstrated in lab (technical readiness level - 2 ) to TRL-9 for this type of technology is a very long jump. But it is enticing because of its near unlimited potential if it can be made to work.     

 

50 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

I tried to find the most anodyne link available. This is the first real “official” government estimate that I’ve seen. As with most government estimates of cost, I would expect surprises to the upside. 
 

 

$100-150 trillion over the next three decades.  This gives some scale to the magnitude of the endeavor.  On some reports I made a few years ago, I estimated total spend would be tens of trillions and was told that sounded hyperbolic and to give more realistic approximations.       

[elfenix 34161]

1 hour ago, Satoshi said:

I tried to find the most anodyne link available. This is the first real “official” government estimate that I’ve seen. As with most government estimates of cost, I would expect surprises to the upside. 
 

 

Quote

some have put the global figure between $100 and $150 trillion over the next three decades. 

current global output is nearly 100 trillion.  so even with 0 growth you're looking at ~3-5% of global output per year. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by elfenix

[DigglerontheHoof 20963]

I don't know what the right answer is but it's almost a given that we'll get it wrong. 

[swraith 335]

If you want to improve Nuclear....you have to fix the current version of nuclear.
 

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/georgia-powers-vogtle-doubles-original-cost-amid-further-delay/609538/

 

or you need a huge change in nuclear technology that shakes up the NRC.

 

[Captainant 27250]

There is some interesting movement in the small modular reactor space, notably in the UK as referenced in OP. It would be quite the trick if 4th gen reactors were safe enough to build and deploy out widely

[Nightfly 61]

We got little dips in recessions, but otherwise its tough to see a rapid change when global emissions are still increasing. US and Europe are shrinking in importance, India is following China, and Africa has just begun to increase its energy intensity. 

[washparkhorn 9931]

I am long hydrogen and MSR reactors.

On the storage side, we need to start choosing and building.

 

[GringoSalado 1649]

57 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I don't know what the right answer is but it's almost a given that we'll get it wrong. 

Yes this cure is going to be much, much worse than the disease. All the batteries and windmills we are going to make are going to be a boondoggle.

 

Can't find the link but I read where an experimental Fusion thingy was coming on line in 2023 I think due to use of superconducters in the magnetic field that contains the reaction, and this innovation was going to create a 10x (makes 10 more energy that the magnets & etc. use) reactor, albeit a smallish experimental one. If that shit works I'm certainly more hopeful.

[Foosters 17688]

Here's a good read from recent New Yorker on fusion:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/11/can-nuclear-fusion-put-the-brakes-on-climate-change

 

[Biff Tannen 45439]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

These are the demographics for Surly.  I couldn't prove them under oath, but I believe them to be reasonably accurate.

 

 

2% of Surly members are doctors and lawyers

47% of Surly members are doctors

47% of Surly members are lawyers

2% of Surly members are engineers

2% of Surly members are not doctors, lawyers, or engineers.

Surly 2% holla!

[Brisketexan 104226]

Hope.  Y'all fuckers in her talking bout hope.  Cracking me up.  The only dead-on, balls-accurate post in here is

Quote

I don't know what the right answer is but it's almost a given that we'll get it wrong. 

There's too much money in keeping things fucked.  There's too much cost in the effort to get them unfucked.  You can stop reading after those two facts.

Look at our own Texas grid for how well we manage energy needs when confronted with the unstoppable warrior duo of Mega-Profits and Avoid-All-Expenses.  

There are all kinds of great ideas out there.  There's even some work being done.  None of it will matter, because the money will make sure none of it matters.

[synoptic 138]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Hope.  Y'all fuckers in her talking bout hope.  Cracking me up.  The only dead-on, balls-accurate post in here is

There's too much money in keeping things fucked.  There's too much cost in the effort to get them unfucked.  You can stop reading after those two facts.

Look at our own Texas grid for how well we manage energy needs when confronted with the unstoppable warrior duo of Mega-Profits and Avoid-All-Expenses.  

There are all kinds of great ideas out there.  There's even some work being done.  None of it will matter, because the money will make sure none of it matters.

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

[Brisketexan 104226]

3 minutes ago, synoptic said:

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

Good luck.  We will get fucked.  The rich will get richer.  This process will be nothing but a massive wealth transfer, with little actual benefit to anyone but the folks on the receiving end of the $$$$.  We could find an easy-to-access source of virtually free and unlimited energy, and we would all end up paying MORE than we do today, for a product that manages to do double duty of enriching the already-rich and fucking the consumer and the environment.  That is how the real world works, and there's no unfucking it.

[synoptic 138]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Good luck.  We will get fucked.  The rich will get richer.  This process will be nothing but a massive wealth transfer, with little actual benefit to anyone but the folks on the receiving end of the $$$$.  We could find an easy-to-access source of virtually free and unlimited energy, and we would all end up paying MORE than we do today, for a product that manages to do double duty of enriching the already-rich and fucking the consumer and the environment.  That is how the real world works, and there's no unfucking it.

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

[Brisketexan 104226]

Just now, synoptic said:

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

Correct.  The wealth distribution will be the focus and purpose.  Any real "energy transition" will be incidental and of minimal benefit.

[GringoSalado 1649]

20 minutes ago, synoptic said:

As stated above, over $100 trillion in the next three decades - the largest global economic opportunity boondoggle of our time.  This money is not going to evaporate.  

Yes, yes it will.

[GringoSalado 1649]

9 minutes ago, synoptic said:

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

Hablas usted carbon trading? This is likely going to be a massive wealth transfer form poorer countries to rich as the former can no longer afford economic growth because they aren't good at the boondoggle Trillion dollar thing.

[Enchubben 5502]

mentioned this in the book thread a while back. Great read for those interested in the analysis of power output vs cost vs environmental impact for this transition. Author is a longhorn too.

Separately for those that are actually investing in hydrogen technology companies - what have you chosen and why? Looking at throwing some spare change at a few but wouldn’t know where to start.

[Brisketexan 104226]

8 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

mentioned this in the book thread a while back. Great read for those interested in the analysis of power output vs cost vs environmental impact for this transition. Author is a longhorn too.

Separately for those that are actually investing in hydrogen technology companies - what have you chosen and why? Looking at throwing some spare change at a few but wouldn’t know where to start.

I suggest my new enterprise, "The Hindenburg was a Fluke, LLC" -- we have printed up some lovely embossed stock certificates, suitable for framing.  And I assure you, in terms of marketing and selling securities, it's all on the up-and-up, we ran it by the Attorney General of the State of Texas, Ken Paxton.

[Biff Tannen 45439]

13 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

mentioned this in the book thread a while back. Great read for those interested in the analysis of power output vs cost vs environmental impact for this transition. Author is a longhorn too.

Separately for those that are actually investing in hydrogen technology companies - what have you chosen and why? Looking at throwing some spare change at a few but wouldn’t know where to start.

Isn’t this the same guy that was shown earlier to be a shill for big oil?

[Enchubben 5502]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Isn’t this the same guy that was shown earlier to be a shill for big oil?

No clue, hadn’t seen that. If he is he did a bad job of showing his ass in his book as he lays out a pretty good argument for natural gas to nuclear future.

[synoptic 138]

30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  The wealth distribution will be the focus and purpose.  Any real "energy transition" will be incidental and of minimal benefit.

Suppose I claimed in 1995 that in 25 years most Americans would be able stream unlimited data at 25 mb/s to their computer or phone.  Also, the computer in your phone would be over 100x as powerful as your current desktop and you would probably never buy a camera again because that would also be on your phone, and also most people won't even have landlines anymore because phone signals are very reliable and cheap.  And laptop computers would be many orders of magnitude more powerful and somehow also cheaper.  And TVs are gigantic and approach reality level resolution and are also cheap and in basically ever household. 

A cynic may argue no, because the rich only get richer and this information age nonsense is all just a ruse to transfer money, and clearly nothing can ever get better because of the evil hearts of men.  Well, maybe the rich will get richer, and maybe even some dreaded billionaires will be made, and maybe it's true that all men are evil and terrible 100% of the time.  None of this has anything to do with the claims.  

The energy transition is already underway and will happen.  I can't guarantee that no one will make any money, though.      

 

[atomheartbevo 89304]

23 minutes ago, synoptic said:

Suppose I claimed in 1995 that in 25 years most Americans would be able stream unlimited data at 25 mb/s to their computer or phone.  Also, the computer in your phone would be over 100x as powerful as your current desktop and you would probably never buy a camera again because that would also be on your phone, and also most people won't even have landlines anymore because phone signals are very reliable and cheap.  And laptop computers would be many orders of magnitude more powerful and somehow also cheaper.  And TVs are gigantic and approach reality level resolution and are also cheap and in basically ever household. 

25 years ago, they thought we'd have flying cars and be talking to our computers (which we do talk to Siri, Alexa, etc.), and we'd be flying into space a lot more often (at a very low cost).  Our phones would be on our watches (which is true these days for many) and computers would be in our glasses (which everybody is trying to do).

They also thought VR would be massive.  Like Holodeck-style.

I mean, Lawnmower Man came out in '92.

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89304]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/08/rolls-royce-secures-450m-for-mini-nuclear-reactors-venture

Quote

Rolls-Royce will move ahead with a multibillion pound plan to roll out a new breed of mini nuclear reactors after securing more than £450m from the government and investors.

The engineering firm will set up a venture focused on developing small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs, in partnership with investors BNF Resources and the US generator Exelon Generation with a joint investment of £195m to fund the plans over the next three years.

Quote

The government will match the consortium’s investment, which is set to receive a second phase top-up of £50m from Rolls-Royce, with £210m to help roll out the mini nuclear reactors as part of the government’s green 10 point plan to kickstart the green economy over the next decade.

Quote

Rolls-Royce has promised to “harness decades of British engineering, design and manufacturing knowhow” to roll out the first of its mini reactors which are based on a similar technology used to propel nuclear submarines.

Each of the initial run of reactors is expected to have a generation capacity of 470MW, or enough to power the equivalent of 1.3m UK homes, and cost about £2bn on average, well below the price per MW sought by developers of large-scale nuclear reactors.

 

 

[Cacti 191]

8 hours ago, synoptic said:

Is nuclear over/outdated, or will it play a substantial role in the energy transition? 

Quote

China’s planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35. The effort could cost as much as $440 billion; as early as the middle of this decade, the country will surpass the US as the world’s largest generator of nuclear power…

It would be the kind of wholesale energy transformation that Western democracies — with budget constraints, political will and public opinion to consider — can only dream of…

China keeps the exact costs a state secret, but analysts including BloombergNEF and the World Nuclear Association estimate China can build plants for about $2,500 to $3,000 per kilowatt, about one-third of the cost of recent projects in the US and France.

It’s evidently going to play a substantial role in the energy transition in China—us, not so much.

[atomheartbevo 89304]

28 minutes ago, Cacti said:

It’s evidently going to play a substantial role in the energy transition in China—us, not so much.

So HBO's Chernobyl will get a second season?  Under a different name, obviously.

[Satoshi 129]

Evidently the energy transition will involve a new global satellite surveillance network. Totally cool and normal. 
 

 

[Captainant 27250]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

So HBO's Chernobyl will get a second season?  Under a different name, obviously.

IllinoisEnergyProf on YouTube has a great series of videos on the Chernobyl disaster and the following improvements in reactor passive safety, turns out those ruskies built some shitty and unsafe reactors lol

But even something like 3 mile island isn't physically possible in newer (read: developed since the 90s) reactor designs

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

IllinoisEnergyProf on YouTube has a great series of videos on the Chernobyl disaster and the following improvements in reactor passive safety, turns out those ruskies built some shitty and unsafe reactors lol

But even something like 3 mile island isn't physically possible in newer (read: developed since the 90s) reactor designs

Probably a stupid question, but have there been commensurate improvements in transmission technology, i.e. could we today more efficiently build more remote reactors without worrying about losing significant efficiency in the transmission process?

[Captainant 27250]

15 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

Probably a stupid question, but have there been commensurate improvements in transmission technology, i.e. could we today more efficiently build more remote reactors without worrying about losing significant efficiency in the transmission process?

The idea of small modular reactors is to sidestep that problem basically. Rather than running hundreds of miles of power cables, you just plonk down a cluster of SMR's where you need the power. The most promising designs are passively safe, and are completely self contained so you never need to open the containment and it just becomes its own storage cask when it's used up. 

Spoiler

https://youtu.be/TYnqJ4VnRM8

Relevant video in the spoiler

[Neonmoon 38127]

Food sustainability is probably a better investment. (Meaning more likely to be realized) 

The things they are doing with meat replacement are getting pretty creative (and tasty). 

[atomheartbevo 89304]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Food sustainability is probably a better investment. (Meaning more likely to be realized) 

The things they are doing with meat replacement are getting pretty creative (and tasty). 

Not just growing/sustainabilty but processing - that would make a huge difference if they weren't shipping food all over the world.  I can't even imagine how much food is shipped around the world, but it's got to be a helluva.

[FartingMonk 3606]

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/08/rolls-royce-secures-450m-for-mini-nuclear-reactors-venture

 

 

Ok.  Sorry I laughed at that article because it is completely full of shit.  Submarine reactors are PWRs.  Like 1950s stuff.  Does it work.  It has been proven to and has a pretty good track record.  Here is where they are going to run into trouble. 

Subs used highly enriched uranium.  Like 90 percent.  Like terrorists get hold of it and they can make bombs.  Civ reactors are like 4 percent.  2nd submarines run on unlimited budget.  That's where the problem is going to come in.  

[FartingMonk 3606]

I actually think oil and gas are digging their own grave.  A reckoning is coming and it's going to happen fast.  With covid and lost profits they basically punted turnarounds.  Now with record profits they are going to keep punting turnarounds.  That and with their love of sour crude.  Companies are going to start making the national news more and more.

[Chewbacca 7666]

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

Yep. We are making a lot of money right now on renewable and transmission projects. But it's going to take years. Decades.