Many of the greatest among them emanate from a key geopolitical rival, China.

That’s partly because the new technologies frequently use inverters. When solar panels, wind turbines, and battery systems generate or store direct current electricity, inverters turn it into the alternating current electricity that flows through the grid.

Paul N. Stockton, a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory, opened what he called a “rabbit hole” in response to a question on inverters during the House Energy & Commerce hearing.

“Do we have a satisfactory supply of inverters for all of the renewable energy that’s being brought into the grid?” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) asked Mr. Stockton, who also holds positions on subcommittees in the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.

“Manufacturers in China are important producers of inverters being deployed nationwide, across the United States,” Mr. Stockton responded.

He explained that the country’s reliance on Chinese inverters could jeopardize grid security.

“Sure, we’ve got inverters. Some of them are made in China. Others may be manufactured for final assembly in friendly nations, but they might have components—hardware, software, and firmware—that could provide attack vectors. And the constant updating of firmware from the cloud and by service providers—who’s on top of that for maintaining adequate security? Congressman, that’s an opportunity for progress,” Mr. Stockton said.

Solar Panels With Parts From China

The United States’ use of solar panels with parts from China that are assembled in Southeast Asia has been a source of controversy in this Congress. President Joe Biden vetoed a bill that would have ended his temporary pause on tariffs affecting those panels.

In his written testimony, Mr. Stockton elaborated on the ways inverter-based resources “provide China with new opportunities to disrupt the grid.”

He referred to a 2022 report from the Department of Energy outlining the cybersecurity risks associated with the changes to America’s grid.

“I propose that we prioritize our efforts to prevent Chinese leaders from accomplishing their goals in attacking the grid,” Mr. Stockton wrote.

He noted that inverter-based resources have some advantages, testifying in writing that they “have provided reliable, much-needed power during the 2023 heat domes and other extreme events.”

“Yet, they are also prone to catastrophic failures that can put the grid at risk.”

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) also asked Mr. Stockton about inverter-related vulnerabilities facing the United States.

Mr. Stockton offered a central recommendation to the lawmakers in attendance:

“Above all, ensuring that at the level of the devices, we hold manufacturers’ feet to the fire and ensure the adoption of safe and secure inverters, instead of relying on individual utilities or energy aggregators or other entities within the larger electric system to do their own homework.”

Bruce J. Walker of the Alliance for Critical Infrastructure Security voiced similar concerns about the threat from China, citing the U.S. intelligence community’s 2023 threat assessment.

Yet, he and Mr. Stockton offered contrasting perspectives on the decentralization that could be afforded by the rise of wind and solar.

Mr. Stockton argued in written testimony that decentralization could make the grid “more difficult to disrupt than today’s version, which relies on a small number of critical, high-value assets that adversaries can selectively target.”

Mr. Walker, on the other hand, testified that decentralization “has increased the surface area for cyber penetration.”

Manny Cancel, CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), named China alongside Russia, Iran, and North Korea as foreign adversaries that could threaten the United States’ grid.

“Chinese cyber activities are probably one of the largest and most dynamic cyber threats to critical infrastructure and continue to demonstrate an increasing sophistication, including new and adaptive techniques to gain access to networks and conduct espionage,” he explained in written testimony.

More Threats From China or Russia?

“Are you seeing more threats from China or Russia?” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-W.Va.) asked Mr. Cancel.

“Probably China right now, but it’s not consistent,” Mr. Cancel replied, adding that Russia is a “very complex adversary.”

The grid experts’ concerns weren’t limited to the threat from China and other rivals on the world stage.

“The accelerating decarbonization and retirement of coal generation is forcing the United States toward an electric generation fleet reliant upon natural gas pipelines, further increasing the electric sector’s cyber and physical attack surface area,” Mr. Walker testified.

One of the most high-profile attacks on America’s energy infrastructure targeted a similar system, the Colonial Pipeline for jet fuel and gasoline.

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) asked Mr. Walker if he favored more reliance on coal over improvements to pipeline security as a strategy for mitigating such threats.

“I actually advocate for an all-of-the-above approach,” he told the lawmaker.

America’s emerging electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, including existing and planned charging stations, was another recurring topic.

In his written testimony, Mr. Stockton observed that EVs open up more space for internet-managed “demand-side management”—in other words, policies and technologies designed to influence consumer behavior—”on a massive scale.”

“These same capabilities are opening the door to unprecedented opportunities to manipulate demand for power, and exacerbate rather than remedy grid instabilities,” Mr. Stockton added.

In response to questioning from Mr. Griffith, Sam Chanoski of the Idaho National Laboratory sounded more optimistic about the cybersecurity of EV charging infrastructure, based on testing at his facility and other national laboratories. He told the lawmaker that the results were on par with “any other product.”

“There is not a digital product that is invulnerable,” he said.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

To put that in perspective, if you earned $1 a second 24/7/365—about $31 million per year—it would take you 158,550 YEARS to make $5 trillion. $5 trillion is an almost unfathomable amount of money.

However, even with that astronomical financial support, the world still depends on hydrocarbons for 84% of its energy needs—down only 2% since governments started binge spending on renewables 20 years ago.

That’s all according to Mark Mills in a report from the Manhattan Institute, who concludes that:

“The lessons of the recent decade make it clear that solar, wind, and battery technologies cannot be surged in times of need, are neither inherently ‘clean’ nor even independent of hydrocarbons, and are not cheap.”

With all that in mind, it should be clear that so-called renewables—more accurately, unreliables—have been a giant flop. They are not viable for baseload power—even with $5 trillion in subsidies and two decades of trying. Today, using wind and solar for mass power generation is an artificial political solution that would not have been chosen on a genuinely free market for energy.

Wind and solar power might be useful in specific situations. Still, it’s ridiculous to think they can provide reliable baseload power for an advanced industrial economy. It’s like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Nonetheless, governments, the media, academia, and celebrities flippantly push for an imminent energy “transition” as if it’s preordained.

It’s shocking and depressing so many adults think they can magically change the underlying economics, chemistry, engineering constraints, and physics of energy production to suit their childish fantasies and political agendas.

Unreliables—i.e., renewables—will not replace hydrocarbons anytime soon and will certainly not bring about energy security… despite what many “serious” people believe. When it comes to reliable baseload power, most of humanity has only three choices:

1. hydrocarbons—coal, oil, and gas
2. nuclear power
3. abandon modern civilization for a pre-industrial standard of living.

Aside from friendly aliens delivering a magical new energy technology, most places have no other alternatives.

So, with Western governments intent on going green, sanctioning large energy exporters (Russia, Iran, Venezuela), and shunning hydrocarbons in general (ESG, windfall profits taxes, limiting exploration, burdensome regulations), it boils down to a simple choice.

They can either embrace nuclear energy—which has zero carbon emissions—or give up reliable electricity. I suspect it won’t be long before Western governments turn to nuclear energy in a big way for two reasons.

1. Rising hydrocarbon prices.
2. Concerns about energy security.

Rising Hydrocarbon Prices

First, a necessary clarification.  Sloppy, vague words lead to sloppy, vague thinking. The term “fossil fuels” is an excellent example of this.

When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of a dirty technology that belongs in the 1800s. Many believe they are burning dead dinosaurs to power their cars. They also think fossil fuels will run out soon and destroy the planet within a decade.

None of these absurd things are true, but many people believe them. Using misleading and vague language plays a large role.

I suggest expunging “fossil fuels” from your vocabulary in favor of hydrocarbons—a much better and more precise word.

A hydrocarbon is a molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources like coal, oil, and gas. These energy sources have been the backbone of the global economy for decades, providing power for industries, transportation, and homes.

Modern civilization has only two choices for baseload power—hydrocarbons or nuclear. I believe hydrocarbon prices will rise substantially in the months ahead, making nuclear—the only practical alternative—even more attractive than it already is.

There are four powerful trends that I think will push hydrocarbon prices higher.

1. Trend—The End of the Petrodollar System: The US government will soon lose its ability to print money to buy energy—an incredible privilege no other country has. That will have significant consequences for oil prices.
2. Trend—Rampant Currency Debasement: Governments worldwide have no choice but to engage in ever-increasing currency debasement. 2023 could be the year it reaches a crescendo.
3. Trend—Carbon Hysteria and Under-Investment: Governments have redirected trillions in capital away from nuclear and hydrocarbons and sent it to wind and solar. Further, ESG madness, “net zero” goals, and other unfavorable government policies have led to a massive under-investment in hydrocarbons. I expect the carbon hysteria will cause tighter supplies and higher prices.
4. Trend—Geopolitical Turmoil: The conflict between Russia (the 2nd largest oil exporter) and Ukraine has no end in sight. Tensions with Iran could explode at any moment. As a result, geopolitical turmoil could easily escalate, causing hydrocarbon supply disruptions out of Russia and the Middle East.

These are four powerful trends pushing for shortages and significantly higher hydrocarbon prices.

When hydrocarbons become expensive, the world looks to alternatives. And there is only one: nuclear.

Energy Security

Having secure access to energy, which is essential for any economy and any country’s stability, is paramount. That’s why energy security is national security.

Without energy security, any country is in a vulnerable position. No sovereign nation can tolerate being at the mercy of someone else for something as crucial as energy.

Unsurprisingly, many governments inevitably turn to nuclear to help ensure their access to reliable energy. That’s because a small amount of uranium can produce tremendous energy in a nuclear power plant.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a one-inch tall uranium pellet can produce as much electricity as one ton of coal, 149 gallons of oil, and 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

It’s impractical for countries without domestic hydrocarbon supplies to stockpile several years’ worth of coal, oil, or gas. On the hand, it is practical for countries to stockpile five years’ worth of uranium for nuclear power plants.

Take Japan, for example. Japan is the world’s third-largest economy. Before the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power plants produced around 30% of Japanese electricity. After Fukushima, Japan shut down all of its nuclear reactors.

Japan shuttered its nuclear power plants despite a government policy that requires it to stockpile at least five years’ worth of energy supplies. This policy dates back to the early 1970s when a large regional war in the Middle East disrupted energy supplies and rocked Japan, which lacks its own energy resources.

Uranium is the only feasible way for Japan to meet the terms of this policy. It’s impractical for Tokyo to stockpile five years’ worth of coal, oil, or gas.

Japan has made an emergency exception to this policy because of Fukushima. But without energy security, it’s in a vulnerable position concerning its historical rival China. That is especially true if geopolitical turmoil in the Middle East or Eastern Europe disrupts oil and gas supplies.

It would be ironic to see Japan suffer from another oil shock during the period in which it suspended the very policy to protect it from one. That should incentivize Japan not to delay restarting its nuclear reactors.

In fact, Japan has recently made a dramatic pivot towards nuclear power because it has finally realized there is no alternative for it to meet its energy security needs.

Tokyo has started reactivating its nuclear reactors and implementing pro-nuclear policies.

While Japanese restarts are an important factor determining the market balance, it is not the only one. Even if the Japanese demand for uranium never returns, the 150 new reactors in China could create enormous new demand that will more than offset it over the longer term.

Here’s the bottom line with uranium.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see hydrocarbon prices spike amid a geopolitical crisis, which would be a catalyst for much higher uranium prices.

Regardless, hydrocarbon prices are set to soar for the other reasons I mentioned above. As a result, I expect Western countries will soon become desperate for energy security.

They’ll eventually realize—as Japan did—that nuclear power is the only solution. And when they do, it will turbocharge the uranium bull market that is already underway.

With multiple crises unfolding right now, the next big move could happen imminently. That’s why I just released an urgent PDF report, it’s called: The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. It details how it could all unfold soon… and what you can do about it. Click here to download the PDF now.

Article cross-posted from International Man.