"Words Can’t Reshape Physical Reality" – A Blunt Conversation with Energy Writer Irina Slav

Irina Slav

I can't recall when I first discovered the Bulgarian freelance energy journalist Irina Slav, but from the start I was captured, not simply by her years of experience writing about oil, gas, mining and geopolitics, but also by her wit and her courage to put it all out there regarding the realities of our current energy issues. Her writing is never dry, and routinely downright fun; a contrarian grounded in facts that force you to confront what is really going on. 

In short, she seems to enjoy telling truths many seem unable to see because they've been swept away in a fifty year flood of media mischief and misinformation. 

 

So without further adieu, I am pleased to introduce you to Irina Slav.

 

EN: I admire your courage and the "let the chips fall where they may" attitude you write with. How long have you been writing and how did you "find your voice" as a writer?

IS: If we’re talking professional writing, that started about 15 years ago, but I’d been writing fiction since my teens. I think that helped train my writing “muscles” for any topic, fictional or factual.

As for finding my voice, that happened gradually, as I gained experience and realized there was no point in being polite and worrying about what people would think. I honestly no longer care about offending anyone with hard facts. They are there, whether anyone likes them or not.

EN: Have you always written about energy issues? What was your background and what drew you to write about this important topic?

IS: My academic background is in English literature and linguistics. My professional life began with translations, while I was still at university. After graduating, I spent a couple of years at a daily newspaper where I mostly translated articles but once got so excited about the topic of peak oil (yes, I believed it was coming) that I volunteered to produce my very own feature article. I think we still have the paper edition with that article.

After I left the paper (because the owner, who was a politician, asked me if I wanted to run for the European Parliament as a party candidate and I said “Hell, no”) I started work at a news agency where I was assigned coverage of Russia’s and Central Asia’s energy and mining industries. I discovered oil and gas are a fascinating topic and started reading up on it, on extraction, pipelines, refineries, the lot.

Following my decision to go freelance I had a major stroke of luck when an editor for Oilprice contacted me and offered me a daily engagement. The rest, excuse the cliché, is history. I still find oil and gas production fascinating and hugely underappreciated as the most essential industry for modern civilization. This doesn’t mean I love Big Oil or some such nonsense but I do have a deep appreciation for the people who extract hydrocarbons from the ground.

EN: You’ve spent nearly two decades covering Russian and Central Asian oil and gas before broadening out to global energy markets. Looking back, what’s the biggest misconception you’ve seen policymakers or investors hold about energy security—and how has the last few years of conflict and market chaos either validated or upended that view?

IS: The most destructive, delayed-action, misconception was the belief that globalizing supply chains would work swimmingly and it’s perfectly okay to outsource all the heavy industries to Asia to focus on the “post-industrial” economy. We’ve all seen how well that’s worked.

More generally, the assumption that words can shape physical reality has wrought havoc in the West, whether it’s about energy or geopolitics. We are now reaping what the reality shapers sowed.

EN: In your writing, you’ve highlighted “stranded transition assets” and grid integration failures for renewables, even as banks like Barclays now acknowledge the risks. Do you see the current energy crunch—driven by geopolitics, AI demand, and defense needs—as the moment when the renewables-heavy transition narrative finally cracks, or is the political momentum still too strong to reverse course?

Click to Enlarge

IS: The narrative has been cracking for a while now but the net-zero fan lobby is still very strong and loud, especially in political circles. I think the momentum is too strong for politicians to admit they were wrong about it. The current energy crisis is not helping – it just made wind and solar make sense because they are – and how I hate the word – “homegrown”. They aren’t really but nobody cares about that. I fear we’ll have to witness an actual collapse before we come to our collective senses.

EN: You’ve been blunt about EU policies like the ETS, the 2035 ICE car ban (and its green steel workaround), and methane rule “flexibilities.” From your perspective in Bulgaria, what’s the single biggest disconnect between Brussels’ decarbonization targets and the day-to-day reality of energy supply and industrial competitiveness in Europe?

IS: The biggest disconnect is in priorities. Brussels keeps harping on about “clean” energy while everyone else wants mostly cheap and reliable energy.

EN: Your recent posts have touched on blackouts, demand destruction, negative electricity prices, and the quiet return of gas-fired power in places like Spain. What practical lessons from these real-world failures do you think the energy industry and governments still refuse to learn—especially when it comes to baseload power versus intermittent sources?

IS: What governments appear incapable of comprehending is the fact that it is not okay to have a grid dominated by intermittents. Having some is fine, no problem with rooftop solar and some bigger installations in factory yards but having solar and wind make up a substantial, let alone, larger than half, portion of the energy mix is a bit risky.

EN: You’ve written about parallel realities in energy—one physical and one fabricated by analysts and financiers. With oil prices swinging on tweets, record U.S. exports, and surging Chinese “clean energy component” shipments to Europe,  do you see the biggest risks (or opportunities) in the next 12–24 months for both traditional hydrocarbons and the so-called transition technologies?

IS: I think it’s pretty clear by now that hydrocarbons will be in short supply in the coming months. Just how long these shortages will last depends on when the war in the Middle East ends and the outlook doesn’t seem very good right now. So, the risk is shortage, which, I guess, would be an opportunity for those who can source oil and gas and sell them to energy-thirsty countries.

As for transition technologies, the fans will double and triple down, claiming they are safer than oil and gas imports. The problem is those technologies are also largely imported and they will become more expensive, too – energy inflation touches everything. So I think there will be some more rude awakening in the “clean energy” space. 

EN: After covering this beat for 15–20 years and living through events like the recent Bulgarian blackout, what’s one piece of advice you’d give to younger journalists, investors, or even ordinary citizens trying to cut through the noise on energy and geopolitics—especially when official narratives keep colliding with physics and economics?

IS: The one advice I would give is “Check if two plus two makes four. If the news says it doesn’t, then the news is false.” It’s a simple thing to do but not easy. A lot of people would rather stick with the false news for comfort, even if they end up paying dearly for that comfort down the line. Those who are not satisfied with “the noise” ask questions. They also buy generators for backup.

Check out her Substack, Irina Slav on energy 

The Fossil Fuel Reality Check: Here's Why “Eliminate Oil Companies” Is Easier Said Than Done

We hear it constantly: oil companies are the enemy, and the fastest path to a green future is to shut them down yesterday. Yet most of the loudest voices seem unaware of how deeply fossil fuels are woven into everyday materials and processes that even “green” technologies depend on. The uncomfortable truth, laid out clearly by energy scholar Vaclav Smil in Numbers Don’t Lie, is that while solar and wind have matured and can now be added quickly to decarbonize electricity, several massive economic sectors have no realistic non-carbon alternatives that can replace fossil fuels rapidly and at the required global scale.

Consider long-distance transportation. Jetliners run on aviation kerosene; container ships, bulk carriers, and tankers burn diesel, bunker fuel, or liquefied natural gas. There are no batteries or hydrogen systems ready to power these vessels across oceans at the scale of today’s fleet. The same fossil fuels fire the massive rotating kilns that produce more than four billion tons of cement every year and provide the coke needed to smelt more than a billion tons of primary iron in blast furnaces—the very steel used to build wind-turbine towers and monopiles.

Then there’s agriculture and manufacturing. Nearly 200 million tons of ammonia (the backbone of synthetic fertilizer that feeds roughly half the world) and about 300 million tons of plastics start with compounds derived from natural gas and crude oil. Even space heating in much of the world still runs on natural gas. These are not niche uses. They are foundational.

Smil puts the scale in perspective: displacing roughly 10 billion tons of fossil carbon annually is fundamentally different from scaling up smartphones or electric cars. The latter happened in years; the former is a multi-decade challenge. Wishful thinking can't change chemistry or physics. Pretending we can simply “ban” oil companies ignores that the steel in wind turbines, the fuel in cargo ships, the fertilizer in our fields, and the plastics in our hospitals. They all trace back to the same hydrocarbons activists want to eliminate overnight.

Energy transitions are inevitable, but they must be guided by numbers, not slogans. Understanding the full scope of fossil fuels’ roles isn’t climate denial—it’s honesty. Until we acknowledge these dependencies, we’re not solving the problem; we’re just shouting at it.

Related Links

What Are the Primary Uses of Plastic?

Where Does Plastic Come From?

What Are the Primary Uses of Plastic?

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?

Benjamin: Yes, I am.

Mr. McGuire: Plastics

--The Graduate (1967)

Do you remember that scene from The Graduate? It takes place at Dustin Hoffman's grad party. For me it was one of the most memorable lines in the film. "Plastics."

Most of us at this point in human history take it for granted. We grew up in a world where plastic is everywhere, and we never give it a thought as to where it came from. That is why I wrote Monday's post Where Do Plastics Come From?

All across the country, Duluth included, cities are working to eliminate lead pipes, most of it currently being replaced with PVC and other plastic materials or (expensive) copper. Likewise, we've been replacing lead paint with latex paints, which are polymeric. (Synthesized hydrocarbons.) 

Plastics are exceedingly versatile materials used across numerous industries due to their durability, flexibility, and low cost. We hardly realize how extensively plastics are used, hence the following list is a reminder. 

1. Packaging (40% of global plastic use):
• Single-use plastics like bottles, bags, food wrappers, and containers (e.g., polyethylene, PET).
• Used for food, beverages, cosmetics, and consumer goods due to lightweight, protective properties.
2. Construction (20%):
• Pipes, insulation, flooring, and window frames (e.g., PVC, polyethylene).
• Valued for durability, corrosion resistance, and insulation.
3. Automotive (10%):
• Interior components, bumpers, dashboards (e.g., polypropylene, ABS).
• Reduces vehicle weight, improving fuel efficiency.
4. Electronics (6%):
• Casings for phones, computers, and appliances (e.g., polycarbonate, ABS).
• Provides insulation and lightweight durability.
5. Textiles (7%):
• Synthetic fibers like polyester and nylon for clothing, carpets, and ropes.
• Offers strength and flexibility.
6. Medical (5%):
• Syringes, IV bags, prosthetics, and sterile packaging (e.g., PVC, polypropylene).
• Ensures hygiene and biocompatibility.
7. Agriculture (3%):
• Mulch films, greenhouse covers, and irrigation pipes (e.g., polyethylene).
• Enhances crop protection and water efficiency.
8. Other Uses (9%):
• Includes toys, furniture, and industrial applications (e.g., acrylics, polyurethane).
• Versatile for custom molding and design.

In 2021, ~390 million tons of plastic were produced worldwide, with packaging dominating due to its widespread use in consumer goods.

These plastic products are generated by processing crude oil and natural gas. When Greenpeace says they want to put the oil companies out of business, they hardly realize what they are saying. Furthermore, we'd also be unable to convert wind into energy or generate solar power because hydrocarbons are necessary for wind turbines and solar panels.

Hydrocarbons in Wind Turbines and Solar Panels

Hydrocarbons, primarily derived from petroleum and natural gas, are integral to the production of wind turbines and solar panels, as they are used to manufacture plastics and other materials. Here’s a breakdown:

Wind Turbines

Wind turbines rely on hydrocarbons for key components, particularly plastics and composites:

1. Blades:
• Made from composite materials like fiberglass-reinforced polyester or epoxy resins (both petroleum-derived).
• These composites use hydrocarbons for the resin matrix (e.g., epoxy derived from benzene, a petroleum product) and reinforcing fibers.
• A typical 50-meter blade contains ~20-25% resin by weight, equating to ~2-3 tons of hydrocarbon-based materials per blade.
2. Nacelle and Tower Components:
• The nacelle (housing the generator) uses polycarbonate and polyurethane for casings and insulation, both derived from hydrocarbons. 
• Coatings and paints (petroleum-based) protect against corrosion.
• As with everything that has moving parts, lubricants are necessary. The synthetic gear lubricants inside the nacelle must be changed periodically just like the oil in your car engine. 
3. Manufacturing and Transport:
• Hydrocarbons are used in lubricants, mold-releasing agents, and energy for manufacturing processes.
• Transporting turbine components relies on fossil fuel-powered ships, trucks, and cranes.

Quantification:

• A single 2 MW wind turbine may require ~50-100 tons of materials, with ~10-15% being hydrocarbon-based plastics or composites (5-15 tons per turbine).
• For a 100 MW wind farm (~50 turbines), this translates to ~250-750 tons of hydrocarbon-derived materials.

Solar Panels

Solar panels also depend on hydrocarbons for various components:

1. Encapsulation and Backsheets:
• Ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), a petroleum-derived plastic, is used to encapsulate solar cells, protecting them from moisture and UV damage.
• Backsheets often use polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) or polyester (PET), both hydrocarbon-based.
2. Frames and Mountings:
• Frames are typically aluminum, but mounting systems may use polypropylene or PVC for components like junction boxes or cable insulation.
3. Manufacturing:
• Hydrocarbons are used in solvents, adhesives, and energy-intensive processes like silicon purification (requiring ~100-150 kWh/kg of silicon, often powered by fossil fuels in many regions).
• Polysilicon production relies on trichlorosilane, a hydrocarbon-derived chemical.

Quantification:

• A typical 350 W solar panel contains ~0.5-1 kg of plastic (EVA, PET, etc.), equivalent to ~0.5-1 kg of hydrocarbon-derived materials.
• For a 1 MW solar installation (~2,857 panels), this equates to ~1.4-2.9 tons of hydrocarbon-based plastics.
• Additional hydrocarbons are used indirectly in manufacturing and transport, but exact amounts vary by region and energy mix.

Broader Context

• Energy Input: Both wind and solar rely on fossil fuels for manufacturing. For example, producing a wind turbine generates ~10-20 tons of CO2 equivalent, and a solar panel ~0.3-0.6 tons CO2 per kW, largely due to hydrocarbon-based materials and energy.
• Recycling Challenges: Plastics in turbines and panels are hard to recycle due to their composite nature, leading to waste management issues.
• Renewable Alternatives: Some research explores bio-based resins (e.g., plant-derived epoxies) for turbines or panels, but these are not yet widely adopted.

Getting rid of oil sounds like an easy and noble objective to many but as with most things, the devil is in the details.

Summary:

• Plastics, mostly hydrocarbon-derived, are critical for packaging, construction, automotive, electronics, medical, agriculture, and more.
• Wind turbines use roughly 5-15 tons of hydrocarbon-based materials per 2 MW turbine, mainly in blades and casings. Solar panels generally use 1.4-2.9 tons per MW, primarily in encapsulation and backsheets.

EdNote: The information on this page was gathered from Grok (X.com LLM),  Google and years of reading.

* * * * * 

Are You Protopian, Utopian or Dystopian?

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2016/07/are-you-protopian-utopian-or-dystopian.html

Where Does Plastic Come From?

A smattering of applications made possible with plastics.

Imagine a world without plastic. No water bottles, no sleek smartphone casings, no corrugated plastic lawn signs, no vinyl Beatles albums, no toothbrushes. It’s hard to picture, isn’t it? Plastics are everywhere, woven into the fabric of our daily lives. (In fact, much of the fabric we wear is plastic--polyester or nylon.) But have you ever stopped to wonder: where does this stuff come from? Its origin is fossil fuels. Even the giant banners that protesters carry to protest against the oil industry were made with synthesized oil.

The journey of plastic, from raw materials to the products we use, is an interesting blend of chemistry, industry, and innovation. 

Here's the backstory of where plastics originate and how they come to be.

The Fossil Fuel Foundation

The vast majority of plastics—over 99%—originate deep underground. That is, most plastics are born from petroleum and natural gas, the fossil fuels that have powered much of modern industry. These resources are like the raw canvas for plastic production, rich in hydrocarbons that form the building blocks used in many of our favorite materials.

The process begins with refining, where crude oil or natural gas is distilled in massive industrial facilities to separate out valuable components. From crude oil, we get naphtha, and from natural gas, we extract ethane. These hydrocarbons are the stars of the show, but they need some transformation to become plastic. 

This is where cracking comes in, a process that breaks these hydrocarbons down into smaller, more manageable molecules called monomers, like ethylene and propylene. Think of monomers as Lego bricks—small, simple units that can be snapped together to create something bigger.

Next comes polymerization, where these monomers are chemically bonded into long chains called polymers. My father was a chemist whose career revolved around polymers, primarily in the real of house paints and adhesives. Before the development of latex paints, homes were painted (inside and out) with lead-based paints. We've since learned that lead is a toxic chemical that can cause brain damage, especially in children.  

Through polymerization, those chains become the plastics we know, like polyethylene (think plastic bags and bottles) or polypropylene (used in food containers and packaging). To give plastics their unique traits—flexibility, durability, or color—manufacturers mix in additives like stabilizers, colorants, or plasticizers. It’s like seasoning a dish to get just the right flavor.

Bio-Based Plastics

Not all plastics come from fossil fuels, though. A small but growing fraction—about 1% of global production—is plant based. Plastics like polylactic acid (PLA) are made from renewable sources such as corn starch, sugarcane, or other plant materials. The process involves fermenting these plants to produce lactic acid, which is then polymerized into plastic. It’s a bit like brewing beer, but instead of a cold pint, you get a biodegradable coffee cup.

These bio-based plastics are gaining traction as the world grapples with environmental concerns, though producing them still requires energy and land.

Recycling Plastics

Used plastics—like the water bottle you tossed in that bin—can be collected, cleaned, and reprocessed into new products. The idea of it sounds good, but only about 9% of plastic waste globally is actually recycled. The rest ends up in landfills, incinerators, or our oceans. I'm often surprised when I learn that there are many parts of this country that have no recycle centers. According to National Geographic, less than 10% recycle their plastic waste. And some sources say it's half that number.

Recycling plastics is tricky. The process can be costly and energy-intensive. Then again, if some folks had their way and they succeeded in bankrupting all the companies involved in oil production, we won't have to worry about how to recycle or safely discard our plastics. There won't be any.