Doomberg vs Midas Letter: Green Energy Transition Reality vs Fantasy
Doomberg vs Midas Letter: Green Energy Transition Reality vs Fantasy
Here’s a conversation I had with Doomberg recently that calls into question a lot of the assumptions people have about the practicality of a global green energy grid. Let us know your thoughts!
Interview: The Renewable Grid Debate
James West — Host
Doomberg — Guest
James West:
Hey everybody, welcome back. I’m joined once again by the world-famous Green Chicken—Doomberg. Doomberg, welcome back.
Doomberg:
James, great to be back with you. It’s awesome to see you.
James West:
I was inspired to reach out to you because of a series of comments that happened on social media. They demonstrated to me that you were very skeptical of the ability of the global electrical power grid system to be reliably renewable anytime soon.
I was surprised by this because I’m a proponent of the green transition. I believe it’s inevitable, and I feel it’s in everybody’s best interest. But in a preliminary conversation we had, you enlightened me as to some things that made my mind more open toward the idea that it might not yet be time for renewables. So let’s start off with you articulating your position and your logic on the idea of a renewable grid transition.
Doomberg:
Sure. To do that, the first two things we need to do are define the main sources of so-called “renewable” electricity, and then understand how modern grids operate. After that, we can evaluate the existing renewable options against their efficacy in delivering a reliable grid.
When people say “renewable,” they often think of wind and solar. But under the modern definition—which we won’t get into the philosophical debate over—other sources count as well. Hydroelectricity is considered renewable, and within hydro there are two types: the standard impoundment dam system, and run-of-river hydro, which has a smaller environmental footprint but whose output depends entirely on the river’s flow rate.
Then there’s biomass—burning wood to generate electricity. Essentially, you take an old coal plant and feed it wood pellets instead. Despite controversy, burning wood is considered “carbon-neutral” by today’s environmental movement.
So: wind, solar, two forms of hydro, and biomass—these are the renewable sources.
Now, the second thing we need to understand is how a grid works. Grid reliability is absolutely crucial. A grid that’s only 99 percent reliable would be an utter catastrophe for the developed world. Industry could not exist at current levels. In fact, U.S. grid operators are held to what’s called the “1-in-10 standard”—no more than one full day of outage over ten years, or 99.97 percent reliability.
What drives that reliability? Two main factors: the ability to perfectly match supply with demand, and the presence of stabilizing inertia in the system. Too little supply leads to blackouts, but too much supply can also destabilize voltages and frequencies. The grid is a chaotic system with linearity imposed on it; once small faults appear, they can cascade quickly—as we’ve seen in places like Spain.
Grid operators care about three attributes of power sources:
- Base load capability — Can the source run 24/7, 365 days a year?
- Dispatchability — How quickly can it ramp up or down to meet demand?
- Inertia — Does it provide physical spinning mass that stabilizes the grid?
An ideal grid would be roughly 65–70 percent base load (non-dispatchable but steady) and the rest dispatchable sources that can adjust quickly.
Traditional fuels work well in this respect:
- Coal: base load, low dispatchability.
- Nuclear: base load, low dispatchability, but highly reliable.
- Natural gas: both base load and highly dispatchable.
- Impoundment hydro: base load and dispatchable—the water behind the dam acts as a natural battery.
- Biomass (wood): base load, not dispatchable.
All of these also impart inertia, thanks to large spinning turbines.
By contrast, wind and solar provide none of these three attributes. They are intermittent and non-dispatchable, and they contribute no inertia because they are inverter-based resources. Batteries can help but are limited—most grid-scale batteries last about four hours before needing recharge.
When wind and solar penetration exceeds the grid’s dispatchable capacity, instability arises. That’s why regions like California, the U.K., and parts of Europe have high prices and unreliable grids.
Before spending trillions on a global transition, we should test it. Build a small town—10,000 to 50,000 people—powered solely by wind, solar, and batteries. See if it works. It hasn’t been done, likely because it would fail catastrophically.
I’ll add that I personally own solar and battery backup for my home. They’re wonderful technologies with a place in the mix. But the Western upper-middle class has been sold a lie—that we can transition to a renewables-only grid without any sacrifice to living standards. It’s simply not true.
And the biggest fallacy of all? “The fuel is free.” The sun shines and the wind blows, yes—but the cost of using that fuel is immense. Uranium fuel, for example, is practically free per kilowatt-hour, yet nuclear power is not free because the infrastructure and safety systems are costly.
James West:
Sure. So are you agreeing that renewable power must replace hydrocarbons incrementally, or are you saying that solar and wind will never be sufficiently reliable for a developed grid?
Doomberg:
Great question. The first part is about how much weight we assign to carbon intensity vis-à-vis climate change. The second is how much the rest of the world will care. Realistically, carbon intensity is irrelevant to grid reliability—it’s a political choice.
Our personal view is that most people don’t care about carbon. A small, politically powerful subset does. Look at the Statistical Review of World Energy—China burns coal with reckless abandon. India too. Seven billion people in the Global South see hydrocarbons as essential for development.
Electricity is only about 20 percent of global energy demand. Even if we “green” the grid, hydrocarbons dominate in industry, transport, and heating. Despite trillions spent, 2024 set records for oil, coal, and natural gas use.
Human civilization is a struggle against entropy. You need waste heat to impose order—and the ability to impose order defines standard of living. Everyone wants more. So by all means, buy solar panels and electric cars. But the idea that renewables alone can replace hydrocarbons is a dangerous illusion.
Europe and California prove it: unstable grids, high prices. If wind, solar, and batteries worked at scale, we’d be the first to promote them.
James West:
From my perspective, the developed world’s comfort and predictability have led to epistemologically defective beliefs about the imminence of climate threats. If we measure reality strictly by instrumented data—ecological systems failing faster and faster—it’s hard to avoid concluding that we’re accelerating toward mutual extinction.
If we don’t reduce our thermal expenditures for comfort, the idea that there’s “no hurry” to decarbonize is delusional. Suppose we see sixteen Category-5 hurricanes batter the U.S. East Coast, wiping out two-thirds of base-load power. What then?
What if you’re wrong? What if climate volatility destroys the grid precisely because of misplaced trust in hydrocarbons?
Doomberg:
Let me correct a few things. I never stated an opinion on the risk of climate change—I said people will run the experiment. If it’s an existential threat, brace for impact, because people won’t make the necessary sacrifices.
Our analysis is unemotional. China burns over half the world’s coal. What New Zealand or Iceland does is irrelevant. Performative self-sacrifice doesn’t change the outcome.
The true litmus test of climate seriousness is nuclear power. You cannot claim to fear climate catastrophe and be anti-nuclear. Yet most climate advocates are. Nuclear “waste” isn’t waste—it’s potential future fuel. Modern reactor designs make meltdown risk effectively zero.
If we truly cared about climate, we’d power electricity grids and industrial steam with nuclear. The ideal grid: 70 percent nuclear, 30 percent hydro. Carbon-free, reliable, dispatchable.
James West:
I was formerly anti-nuclear—because of Fukushima—but I’ve changed. China’s molten-salt thorium reactor has demonstrated real promise.
Doomberg:
Exactly. That’s an important case study. In 1975, a megadam in China collapsed, killing between 50,000 and 250,000 people. Yet the world didn’t abandon hydroelectricity. By contrast, Fukushima caused one confirmed cancer death. Every energy source has trade-offs.
Hydro displaced Indigenous communities and wildlife in Quebec’s James Bay Project. Wind and solar involve slave and child labor in supply chains—most materials are processed in China. Wind turbine blades are nearly unrecyclable. Every option has costs.
Once you accept that, nuclear looks very good.
James West:
So your ideal mix is 70 percent nuclear and 30 percent hydro?
Doomberg:
Correct. And if hydro isn’t available, natural gas is next-best—least carbon-intense, highly dispatchable.
That doesn’t mean there’s no room for renewables. Countries like Norway, powered mostly by hydro, can add wind as a hedge against long-term hydrological variation. Hydro itself is intermittent on a decadal scale.
Personally, I own 10.8 kilowatts of battery backup with solar panels. It’s valuable for resilience, but not viable for core grid supply. Anyone can test this—run your fridge or furnace off batteries and see how long it lasts. It’s a powerful physics lesson.
Solar and batteries are great for personal redundancy—not for national grids.
James West:
I agree. On my property I run multiple three-phase tools in a woodshop and a commercial kitchen. The investment needed to go off-grid would be absurd. Even balancing power across my own buildings would require a dedicated engineer.
So my final question: do you fear your children will face exponentially greater difficulty coping with climate degradation as global population and energy demand rise?
Doomberg:
I’m deeply concerned for my children’s future—climate, environment, and fiscal instability all included. Western populations are declining, which adds complexity.
For my own children, I focus on education, capital preservation, and resilience. I fear U.S. fiscal mismanagement more immediately than climate, but both matter.
Broadly, though, I’m a techno-optimist. Humanity consistently underestimates exponential progress. While the challenges are real, innovation and adaptation have always been our defining traits.
(End of transcript.)
|
|
Watch now
