Redefining Energy - TECH

About Redefining Energy - TECH

Redefining Energy - Tech, a channel of the award-winning Redefining Energy podcast, features deep and broad conversations between global decarbonization leaders and technologists and host Michael Barnard. His informed perspectives on energy, industry and transportation enable him to have intense conversations with brilliant and knowledgeable people. You’ll be informed, stimulated and amused.

Publisher

Michael Barnard

Category

technology

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

12 Apr 2023

Latest episode

8 Oct 2025

Latest episodes

41 of 60 episodes have a transcript.

1. 

   8 Oct 2025TRANSCRIPT

   59. Why Fusion, SMRs, and CCS Won’t Save Us (and other Seven Sins of the Energy Transition)

   In this episode, Gerard Reid, Laurent Segalen and Michael Barnard dug into the technologies and narratives that keep surfacing in discussions about the energy transition, but which continue to underdeliver when you scrutinize the economics and engineering realities. Carbon capture and direct air capture remain heavily subsidy-driven, often costing more to operate than the value of the CO₂ they sequester. The dilution of carbon in the atmosphere makes the whole proposition profoundly inefficient, and while there are niche opportunities where high-purity CO₂ streams are adjacent to storage infrastructure, those remain exceptions. Enhanced oil recovery is the only space where the numbers truly add up, which means the public ends up footing the bill for most other applications. Even regulatory pushes, such as Germany’s, can’t overcome the fundamental cost and scalability barriers. Hydrogen suffers from a parallel set of problems. The sector’s viability as a broad energy carrier depends on hitting a production cost of around $1 per kilogram, but real-world projects are stuck closer to $8 per kilogram. That gap has led to a string of cancellations from heavy hitters like BP, Exxon, and Air Products. Despite the hype around green hydrogen, the underlying assumptions never matched the physics or the economics. Battery electrification has emerged as the far more effective pathway for most transport, leaving hydrogen to fight for narrow industrial niches while its infrastructure and fuel cell supply chains lag behind. Nuclear energy is facing its own reckoning. The pivot toward small modular reactors was meant to revive the industry with faster, cheaper, more scalable deployment, but the reality looks different. Project sizes have crept upward, wiping out the “modular” advantage, and costs are trending well above $200 per megawatt-hour—hardly competitive. Ontario’s flagship SMR project is already slipping years past its promised delivery, and there’s little to suggest Wright’s Law cost declines will appear in a sector defined by bespoke builds and long lead times. Investors may find opportunities in the extended development cycles, but the contribution to near-term decarbonization remains negligible. Fusion is another seductive technology that continues to consume enormous sums of capital without altering the climate trajectory. ITER alone is 30 years behind schedule and twenty times over budget, aiming only for a five-minute sustained reaction by 2040—without generating electricity. Private startups are raising capital but remain decades away from surmounting fundamental engineering barriers. I’ve said before that fusion may eventually matter for space exploration, but it’s irrelevant for terrestrial energy in this century. Still, as a scientific project, it’s worth continuing—but policymakers must not confuse it with a climate solution. Biofuels offer a more mixed picture. First-generation projects like corn ethanol were both environmentally and economically flawed, but second- and third-generation fuels derived from waste streams are showing promise. These have a real role to play in hard-to-electrify domains like aviation and maritime shipping. However, they’re not a replacement for direct electrification on the ground. European policy still reflects caution due to food-versus-fuel concerns, but as technologies improve, biofuels can carve out a targeted and pragmatic role. We also touched on the politics and market dynamics of offshore wind and ESG. Offshore wind in the U.S. continues to face transmission bottlenecks, fragmented policy, and outright political hostility, leading to cancelled and delayed projects. Meanwhile, Europe’s integrated approach in the North Sea demonstrates what’s possible with coordinated policy. On ESG, we acknowledged the criticisms around greenwashing and governance metrics that often make little sense. Yet, even through the noise,...

2. 

   24 Sept 2025TRANSCRIPT

   58. Deepwater Minerals, Shallow Promises (2/2)

   In the second episode of Redefining Energy Tech, Lyle Trytten (aka the Nickel Nerd) joins host Michael Barnard to explore the controversial world of seabed mining. The discussion focuses on The Metals Company (TMC), Impossible Metals, and their efforts in the Clarion Clipperton Zone. A significant milestone was recently announced: for the first time, a pre-feasibility study claimed 50 million tons of declared reserves out of 360 million tons of identified seabed resources. While notable, the credibility of this claim is in question. Unlike Canadian and Australian standards that require independent certification, TMC’s study relied on internal sources—raising concerns about transparency and trustworthiness. Mining has always carried uncertainty, and seabed operations are even riskier. Most mining projects miss their cost, scope, and timeline estimates—and deep-sea ventures amplify these risks. TMC’s proposed system involves a massive vacuum operating at 4,000 meters below sea level, connected to a 7-kilometer riser pipe hauling nodules to the surface. The technology is approaching mid-to-high readiness. In contrast, Impossible Metals is developing small autonomous vehicles to pick nodules selectively. While innovative, their tech is at a lower readiness level (around 3–4) and still grappling with deep-sea navigation—more science fiction than reality for now. Even if extraction is successful, processing presents a massive challenge. TMC has an agreement with a Japanese smelter for 1 million tons per year, but global demand calls for 9 million tons of new processing capacity. Indonesia, through China-led ventures, dominates the nickel supply chain with tightly integrated mining and smelting. TMC’s proposal to build two U.S. refineries underscores how far behind the West is in infrastructure and planning. History isn't encouraging either—many Western nickel laterite projects have failed, while Chinese efforts succeed due to end-to-end alignment of mining, processing, and market demand. The conversation also revealed deeper systemic issues. The West has allowed mining and metallurgy education to deteriorate. The U.S. now produces a fraction of the engineers it once did, while China graduates the majority of the world’s mining specialists. Reversing that trend could take a generation. Meanwhile, seabed mining risks following the path of hydrogen for transport: overhyped, slow to materialize, and economically weak compared to better alternatives. Consumers are already pushing back on seabed minerals due to environmental and ethical concerns. If deep-sea mining ever becomes viable, China is best positioned to lead. A new global treaty could further hinder seabed mining. The High Seas Treaty—now ratified by over 60 nations and set to become international law in January—prioritizes a precautionary approach to ocean activities and aims to protect nearly a third of international waters. It also includes provisions for sharing profits from marine genetic resources. While the U.S. has signed, it has yet to ratify the agreement. Looking ahead, EV adoption continues to accelerate, but resource strategies must be grounded in reality. Pursuing high-cost, speculative mineral sources powered by clean energy doesn't make sense when direct electrification offers more immediate gains. A strong critical minerals strategy in the West will require renewed investment in education, strategic alliances, and a focus on scaling practical, proven technologies—not just what looks impressive on a slide deck.

3. 

   10 Sept 2025TRANSCRIPT

   57. Deepwater Minerals, Shallow Promises (1/2)

   In this episode of Redefining Energy Tech Michael Barnard sat down with Lyle Trytten, who many in the industry know as the nickel nerd. He has spent decades working in mining and mineral processing and has become a trusted voice for organizations like Natural Resources Canada and the International Energy Agency. Our conversation turned to the techno-economic realities of seabed mining, a topic made timely by American executive orders on resource leasing and the ongoing debates around the Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Pacific. Lyle laid out the three categories of undersea mineralization that matter: manganese-rich crusts closer to shore, sulfide deposits around black smokers, and the polymetallic nodules that dominate the abyssal plains. It is those nodules that attract the most attention, given their mix of manganese, nickel, copper, cobalt and iron. The percentages matter here. Manganese makes up 20 to 30% of nodules, feeding a steel market of about 20 million tons annually. Copper mirrors manganese in demand at similar volumes. Nickel sits above copper in value, with nodules carrying over 1% grades. Cobalt is the prize, worth two and a half times nickel and largely controlled today by the Democratic Republic of Congo with annual output of 250,000 to 300,000 tons. Compared to terrestrial deposits, those grades are very competitive, often better than what current copper and nickel mines deliver onshore. Of course, the challenge is not what lies within the nodules but where they are. Four kilometers down is a different game than an open pit in Chile. Lyle framed it with a simple multiplier: one times for onshore, ten times for offshore, a hundred times underwater, and a thousand times when you hit the seabed. The Clarion Clipperton Zone lies thousands of kilometers from shore, making costs and logistics daunting. Even compared to offshore oil, with rigs like Deepwater Horizon working at 1.5 kilometers depth, this is an order of magnitude harder. That reality explains why seabed mining remains more a promise than a practice. We also dug into the credibility problem the sector faces. The history of mining is littered with scams, from Bre-X to pump-and-dump juniors, which is why Canada now requires transparent disclosures under NI 43-101. Without strict governance and independent validation, seabed mining risks repeating those mistakes. The resource base is not the issue. Just as with oil, the minerals are there. The question is whether reserves—economically viable, technically accessible deposits—will come online in time to meet surging demand, especially for copper, which looks tight in the next 15 years. Substitutability plays a role too. Aluminum can stand in for copper in transmission lines. Stainless steel has shifted chemistries in response to nickel price spikes. Battery makers tweak their chemistries—NMC ratios change with market conditions, and lithium iron phosphate has taken half the electric vehicle market without using nickel, manganese, or cobalt at all. Recycling will matter increasingly, but with service lives of decades for stainless and 20 years for batteries, secondary supply will not relieve near-term shortages. Companies like Redwood Materials and Moment Energy are building the bridge to a circular system, but the lag time is real. The conversation left me with a clear takeaway. Seabed mining is not an easy fix. The minerals are there in attractive grades, but the depth, cost, and governance challenges are immense. At the same time, demand for copper, nickel, and cobalt will keep rising, and prices will eventually force new sources to market. The industry has opportunities in recycling, substitution, and responsible development, but the old habits of hype and over-promising will have to be broken if it is to have a role in the critical minerals future.

Inside a recent episode

59. Why Fusion, SMRs, and CCS Won’t Save Us (and other Seven Sins of the Energy Transition)

Published 8 Oct 2025 · Transcript excerpt

[…] Great guys. So then I want to talk about slow. And actually, it's one of my favorite topics because it's always in time and always in budget. And that of course is nuclear. So where do we start that guys? I want to start with 2029. The first SMR is meant to be online. What do you think? Will it be on in 2029 or 2039 or 49? Will it be on budget or not? Well, pick the project you're referring to. Which one? The one in Ontario? Ontario, yeah, yeah. The one in Ontario. Well, SMRs are interesting. The premise of small module reactors is that the problem with nuclear was big reactors. And that's why they went over budget and stuff. […]

Who has been a guest on Redefining Energy - TECH

Names identified in recent episode analyses. Showing up to five guests.

• Paul Martin
• Emiel van Druten
• Tristan Smith
• Dr Joseph Romm
• Simon Todd

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

Apple Podcasts (US)

4.8 / 5

13 ratings

Spotify

4.8 / 5

45 ratings

Podcast Authority Score: 40 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

59

Social presence

0

YouTube

0

Engagement

51

Contact Redefining Energy - TECH

Guest appearances

Books guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.

Questions about Redefining Energy - TECH