Can we really go to Net Zero and keep energy secure and affordable with current policies, or do we need to make hard choices that politicians might not be willing to sustain over the long term? Are the new technologies going to save us or will have to rely on dirigiste policies to dampen the energy prices spikes and secure affordable power.
What will it take to go net Zero? Are we too dependent on weather and unreliable energy sources? Two visions are clashing: it is Elon Musk’s Master Plan 3 vs Bill Gates/Vaclav Smil “We don’t have the tech” or it is just a question of generation: 51 years old vs 67 and 79 years old?
We present a very tough but necessary debate with Doug Houseman, Principal Consultant at 1898 Burns McDonnell (a US Engineering giant), and a keen observer of the Energy Transition. Doug has a plan, and he also comments on the alternative which would be Greta’s plan (That’s where we start to differ). But as Mike Tyson used to say, “Everybody has a plan until he gets punched in the face”.

Are our choices that binary? Doug advocates a nuclear renaissance, massive seawater pumped hydro systems and new transmissions. No mention of decentralized power, exponential deployment of batteries and solar, nor digital.

In a simple summary: are we complexifying a simple model or are we simplifying a complex model? Blue Pill or Red Pill?