This pamphlet argues that the fiat monetary system is fundamentally incompatible with the deflationary nature of technological progress. It proposes an Energy Standard — a decentralized, blockchain-based currency backed by physically produced kilowatt-hours — as a thermodynamic anchor for money in the age of AI and robotics. Drawing on the Austrian School of Economics (Mises, Hayek), game theory, and thermodynamics, it analyses incentive structures in energy markets and makes the case for a market-driven ecological transition without state coercion.ditigal: petznek.at/pamphlet
Reviewing the evolution of classical physics and modern economics, all macroeconomic symbols and economic tools invented by humankind in the past (such as fiat currency and GDP) are essentially merely limited fittings to objective reality and "symbolic hallucinations." The previous work, The Entropy Standard: The Biosphere Fluid, Time Ledgers, and the Physical Limits of Civilization, starts from the first principles of thermodynamics and information theory, redefining human society as a "colloidal fluid" dissipative structure on the Earth's surface. It points out that traditional economics, having long been confined to lagging and subjective statistical reports, has driven modern society into terminal crises known as "Mechanization Blockade Disease" and "Complexity Parasitism". To address this, this proposal constructs the "Entropy Standard" economic physics tracking framework. In its underlying logic, this framework resolutely rejects the creation of unchanging, metaphysical absolute physical prototypes or "axioms." This is because social systems differ from the rigid, lifeless matter studied in classical physics; human civilization is a highly non-equilibrium, viscoelastic, and time-evolving complex fluid system. No static axiom or closed formula can lock down the truth once and for all; instead, they would simply devolve into dogma. Therefore, this framework instead embraces high-frequency, large-scale physical-level sampling protocols—sinking the sampling base directly to distributed physical edges (such as smart grid total loads, API call timestamps, and supply chain logistics). By continuously expanding the spatial sampling scope and increasing the temporal sampling frequency, it captures the system's true internal resistance and waste heat loss in real time, thereby endowing the dashboard with self-correcting and adaptive capabilities. Regarding the specific measurement methodology, this framework references the developmental trajectory of classical physics measurement history from "local crudeness" to "fundamental constants and absolute benchmarks," achieving hard-core tracking through two core measurement objects and quantitative mapping equations: Physical Stripping of the Social Total Time Ledger: Utilizing high-frequency timestamps and information-energy interfaces, the waking time of carbon-based individuals is objectively sliced to distinguish between effective working time (which genuinely extracts negative entropy from the physical world) and complexity overhead (which is swallowed by red tape). Circuitry Mapping of Negentropic Energy and System Internal Resistance: Introducing macro Ohm's law and the Joule heat formula, this approach discards illusory monetary prices and directly anchors to physical Joules and the basal metabolic energy level baseline. Through the dynamic tracking of waste heat loss and the establishment of a critical thermal breakdown criterion, it transforms metaphysical economic crises into physical phase-transition processes that can be warned in advance using mathematical integration.
Version: v1.6.4 (June 2026) Major additions in this version: phased migration protocol with cryptographic quarantine (Section 6.4.4), sensitivity boundaries delineating the statistical decoupling threshold up to mu = 1.9% (Section 6.7), and integration of recent empirical MEV findings (Mancino & Rezzoli, 2025). Abstract Contemporary blockchain architectures face a critical impasse defined herein as the "Tetra-Lemma"—a four-dimensional optimization problem encompassing decentralization, security, scalability, and thermodynamic sustainability. Legacy Proof-of-Work networks confront diminishing security budgets due to the exhaustion of block subsidies, while Proof-of-Stake systems inherently risk oligarchic centralization. This paper establishes a Unified Monetary-Supply Framework that resolves these structural conflicts by synthesizing the deterministic Customized Halving schedule with the probabilistic regeneration logic of the Proof of Rinne (PoR). We demonstrate that by enforcing a "Thermodynamic Statute of Limitations" on dormant assets, the protocol functions as a Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamic Engine. This architecture transforms entropic asset attrition—traditionally viewed as systemic loss—into a regenerative security budget. The remainder of the abstract, covering the SDE and Fokker-Planck validation, the ZKP owner recovery model, and the resulting equilibrium, is in the manuscript. Data & Code AvailabilityThe mathematical models and high-precision stochastic simulations (e.g., Monte Carlo paths, SDE convergence, and Fokker-Planck distributions) presented in this manuscript are fully reproducible. The corresponding Python simulation suite and open-source models are made available at the author's GitHub repository (rincoin-regenerative-simulations) to ensure scientific transparency. Integrity & Provenance This document is anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain via OpenTimestamps. The proof file verification_data_v1.6.4.ots, included in the files below, covers the SHA-256 digest of Tokino_Rincoin_v1.6.4.pdf: 5269207ea7e363e8df312ed50c00afc119b43e6fa5d3c717e6a7d8fc9863147b The archived proof is in its as-submitted form: it commits the digest to the public OpenTimestamps calendars and does not itself embed the Bitcoin attestations. Completing it against those calendars — which both verification paths below do automatically — yields three Bitcoin attestations, the earliest in block 952366. An OpenTimestamps proof carries no wall-clock time of its own — any date reported for it is read from a Bitcoin block header. To verify, upload the PDF and the .ots file to opentimestamps.org, or with a Bitcoin node: ots verify -f Tokino_Rincoin_v1.6.4.pdf verification_data_v1.6.4.ots — the -f flag is required because the proof's filename differs from the document's. The provenance of this document is recorded in a separate signed artifact, the Rincoin Provenance Certificate (10.5281/zenodo.21415730), which binds this whitepaper to the digest above and is the reference for the full anchoring detail. That certificate carries its own OpenPGP signature, Bitcoin anchor, and PAdES signature; this whitepaper itself carries the OpenTimestamps proof only. Zenodo archival gives this record a persistent identifier and an independent retrieval path; it is not itself a cryptographic control. Validation_Scientific_Provenance_v1.6.4.pdf in the files below is an earlier certificate edition, retained as evidence. It is superseded by the record cited above. Correspondence & AffiliationPrimary Author: Tokino, Michiru (時乃 満)Affiliation: Rincoin Core Research Academic Inquiries: edu@aevust.org Community Governance: @aevustus (Discord) / @aevust (X/Telegram) Keywords: Rincoin, Proof of Rinne (PoR), regenerative crypto-economics, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, non-equilibrium steady state (NESS), stochastic differential equations (SDE), Fokker-Planck equation, recirculation incentive mechanism, macroeconomic homeostasis, Nash equilibrium, cryptographic vault, zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP), modular blockchain architecture, account abstraction, blockchain tetra-lemma, MEV mitigation, sandwich attack resistance, sensitivity analysis, statistical decoupling threshold, phased migration protocol
Renewables have moved from the sidelines to the center of policy and investment. Evidence from IEA, IRENA, REN21, and recent studies shows steep cost drops in solar and wind, record capacity growth, and more jobs. Environmental gains (lower GHGs, cleaner air and water, smarter land use) come with economic and social upsides (jobs, energy security, rural access via decentralized systems). But real constraints persist: grid congestion, curtailment, flexibility gaps; high financing costs and regulatory uncertainty in emerging markets; supply chain risks; and community concerns over siting and land rights. The challenge has shifted from tech costs to system integration and governance—durable policies, markets that value flexibility, quicker permitting, and just transition tools. Priorities ahead: operating high VRE under extremes, long-duration storage and sector coupling (hydrogen, heat, industry), critical minerals and circularity, resilience to climate and cyber risks, and effective de-risking in the Global South.
Imoleayo Abraham Awodele, Molusiwa S. Ramabodu, Nathaniel Ayinde Olatunde, Iruka C. Anugwo
Africa is richly endowed with renewable energy resources, including solar, wind, and hydropower, yet the continent faces a significant energy access deficit, with over 600 million people lacking reliable electricity. Traditional fossil fuel-based energy models have proven inadequate for meeting the region's growing energy demands while posing environmental and economic challenges. This study explores the need to transcend these conventional energy paradigms by accelerating the adoption of sustainable, inclusive renewable energy systems tailored to Africa's unique context. Adopting a qualitative research approach, the study employed document analysis of policy reports, scholarly literature, and energy market trends to examine the continent's renewable energy transition. Thematic analysis identified key barriers such as limited access to financing, fragmented regulatory frameworks, and insufficient technical capacity. However, the findings also highlight transformative opportunities, including decentralized energy systems for off-grid rural communities, digital innovations, and international climate finance. The study recommends empowering community-driven energy models, adopting innovative financing mechanisms such as microcredit and crowdfunding and fostering cross-sectoral collaboration. These measures will not only expand energy access but also position Africa as a leader in global climate action, environmental sustainability, and inclusive energy innovation. Keywords: Renewable Energy Transition; Decentralized Energy Systems; Sustainable Development; Africa Energy Policy.
Abstract Grounded in a hard-core perspective at the intersection of thermodynamics and information theory, this paper strips away the symbolic illusions of traditional political economy, redefining human society as an active, viscoelastic "colloidal fluid" dissipative structure driven by external energy throughput and the fundamental "time ledgers" of carbon-based individuals. Moving beyond monetary and financial fictions, the framework establishes the Dual Constraint Equations of Civilizational Survival: The Upper Limit Constraint Equation, which maps the physiological and physical time limits imposed on carbon-based components by the combined demands of innovative labor, unmechanized repetitive labor, and exponential administrative/game-theoretic complexity overhead ; and The Lower Limit Maintenance Equation, which dictates the non-negotiable minimum energy baseline required to prevent system disintegration. Using this apparatus, the work diagnoses two terminal pathologies plaguing modern advanced societies: Mechanization Blockade Disease (where stalled technological evolution forces human flesh to brute-force unmechanized repetitive labor, triggering population cliffs) and Complexity Parasitism (where skyrocketing administrative and defensive friction devours society's scarce innovative brainpower). The classical scholar Gu Yanwu once distinguished between the "fall of a state" (wangguo) and the "collapse of all-under-heaven" (wang tianxia)—the former representing the mere succession of ruling algorithms, and the latter the disintegration of a civilization's high-order negative entropy system. Examining the present, the global sphere is deeply mired in the quagmire of AI algorithm bubbles and capital centralization; from Asia, Africa, and Latin America to Europe and the Americas, state will is reasserting comprehensive control over physical resources. History and the laws of physics indicate that even though technological bubbles will ultimately burst, and even though centralized control will cause internal friction and complexity overhead to expand exponentially, we must still hope that this represents merely a transient system damping in the long river of history. For the Second Law of Thermodynamics has long delivered its ultimate verdict: without free physical sampling and distributed trial-and-error, human civilization will inevitably descend into absolute information dead silence. This theory may well transcend its era. Humanity remains trapped in the illusions of gold and fiat currency vouchers, unable as yet to embrace a true "Entropy Standard." Yet, a day will come when civilization is anchored upon the physical ledger of entropy-based accounting, and humanity will no longer rely on crude "combustion and explosions" to enact its achievements, but will instead drive grand phase transitions via minute energy leaps. So long as civilization's informational genes are not swallowed by entropy increase, the myth will endure across the starry seas of the universe.
Asad Mujeeb, Jamiu O. Oladigbolu, Mutiu Shola Bakare, Abduljelil Atima Ibrahim
As the global push for carbon neutrality accelerates, energy efficiency has become essential for sustainable development, especially for nations like Nigeria that face rising energy demands and significant environmental challenges. This study explores how integrating energy efficiency with carbon neutrality can support Nigeria's strategic energy goals while offering global lessons for other countries facing similar challenges, focusing on key sectors, including industry, transport, and power generation. The study systematically examines the impacts of renewable energy (RE) technologies, like solar, wind, and hydropower—alongside policy reforms, technological innovations, and demand-side management strategies to advance energy efficiency in Nigeria. Key findings include the identification of strategic policy frameworks, technological solutions, and the transformative role of green hydrogen in decarbonizing hard-to-electrify sectors. The study also emphasizes the importance of international climate finance, decentralized RE systems like solar mini-grids for improving energy access, and economic opportunities for job creation in the RE sector. Furthermore, it highlights the need for behavioral changes, community engagement, and consistent policy implementation to address infrastructure gaps and drive energy efficiency goals. The novelty of this research lies in its scenario-based analysis of Nigeria's low-carbon transition, detailing both the opportunities and challenges, such as policy inconsistencies, infrastructure deficits, and financial constraints. The findings stress the importance of international collaboration, technological advancements, and targeted investments to overcome these challenges. By offering actionable insights and strategic recommendations, this study provides a roadmap for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers to drive Nigeria towards a sustainable, carbon-neutral future by 2050.
Climate change, energy crises, military actions in the world, and unstable oil prices create enormous challenges for the world’s nations. The need to use less fossil fuels opens opportunities for new or somewhat neglected green technologies. To reform the energy sector, it is necessary to have a clear and measured strategy. This allows for the identification of the potential of renewable resources in each space, while finding sources of financing for the transformation. The use of renewable resources makes it possible to solve an actual problem of the developed world—as the population of cities grows, the economic vitality of regions drops significantly. By creating new energy production capacities in the regions, social exclusion is reduced, and the main resources of the regions are better used—land areas, farms, and biomass sources. Nowadays, mankind is experiencing the third significant transformation that converts from conventional fossil fuels to new energy. The future development will go along with the three major trends—resource-type carbon reduction, production technology intensification, and utilization method diversification [1]. Based on these directions of transformation, the main investment decisions will be made, which will promote the progress of the energy system. Humanity is so far the least advanced in carbon collection and burial technologies, but the development of other trends allows for tangible progress.
The shift from fossil-based energy systems to renewable sources like solar, wind, and hydro presents both opportunities and challenges for developing countries aiming to expand energy access, promote economic growth, and meet climate goals. This study examines the technological, financial, institutional, and governance aspects of clean energy transitions, focusing on regional disparities and implications for low- and middle-income economies. A systematic review of literature was carried out using the SPAR-4-SLR methodology across Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Only peer-reviewed studies published in English from 2009 to 2025 were included, guided by four research questions: (1) technological and resource endowments, (2) capital structuring and financial market dynamics, (3) institutional and policy frameworks, and (4) decentralized, digital energy governance. Search terms were tailored for each theme, and studies were classified by topic, region, and methodology. Results show that decentralized renewable systems—especially solar micro-grids—offer affordable alternatives to fossil fuels in rural and off-grid areas, enhancing job creation, energy security, and poverty reduction. Examples from Kenya, India, and Southeast Asia highlight the importance of policy consistency, financial innovation, and institutional preparedness in promoting clean energy deployment. Still, ongoing challenges such as high initial costs, infrastructure gaps, and limited technical skills continue to hinder progress in many regions. • Institutional and financial factors outweigh resource availability in clean energy. • Local policy tools often outperform broad international frameworks of clean energy. • Blended finance reduces cost barriers in early-stage clean energy projects. • Inclusive planning links clean energy to health and equity gains. • Technology transfer works best with local training and governance support.
The technological foundation of each civilization determines its living conditions and prosperity [2,3,4]. Access to discussed resources should not be viewed as solely an individual concern, since abundance is significantly shaped by economies of scale and collective practices. At the same time, they are fundamentally linked to the political practices that must be followed. Wittfogel noted that hydraulic works requiring collective effort have underpinned social structures depending on elite oversight mainly due to their complexity [5] which refers to the behaviour of a system or model characterized by a large number of interconnected components, nonlinear interactions, and emergent properties that cannot be fully understood by analysing individual parts in isolation [6].However, there is always a turning point in economies of scale where, past a certain threshold, the rising managerial costs increases the unit cost [7,8]. Projecting this principle onto social dynamics, we note that, there is an optimal point at which society gains the most from cooperative behaviour [9], yet it becomes inefficient when social structures expand to such an extent that the cost of their coordination outweighs the provided benefits [10,11].The challenges of balancing cooperative benefits with coordination costs in achieving economies of scale by state regulations have been addressed through socio-political theories emphasizing the state's role. Adam Smith recognized that cooperative market interactions, facilitated by minimal state intervention, could create economies of scale through specialization and trade, with the state ensuring basic legal frameworks [12,13]. Karl Marx argued that cooperative labor under capitalism, while initially fostering economies of scale, required state-led collectivization to equitably distribute benefits and overcome exploitative capital accumulation [14,15]. John Maynard Keynes emphasized state-driven cooperation, advocating for public investment and demand management to stabilize markets and sustain economies of scale during economic downturns [16]. Neoliberalism, led by figures like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, critiqued state overreach, promoting cooperative market mechanisms with minimal state involvement to maximize economies of scale through competition and innovation [17,18]. These perspectives shaped societal systems, with capitalism and communism as the most prominent rivals [19]. However, both the Soviet Union (communism) and the United States (capitalism) landed humans on the moon in late 1960s, demonstrating that each system, could equally effectively achieve the monumental milestone of that era [20,21].The same principle applies to technological applications-there is a limit beyond which the evolution of complexity ceases to be beneficial. For instance, the embedded complexity in various consumer goods, such as cars, creates vulnerabilities that render these vehicles prematurely obsolete [22,23]. While in earlier times this was often regarded as a disadvantage, today it appears that the temporariness of an object, which creates the need for its replacement within a short period, promotes the desired outcome: the consumption of new products to replace it [24]. This could imply that the durability of things is almost undesirable [25].Within the framework of globalization, this may not have been a flaw, as global trade was encouraged to enable easy replacement and consumption, affecting every aspect of modern life [26,27]. However, it presupposes a complex, interconnected economic system that is fragile in the face of various regulatory attempts [28]. For example, maritime transport (Figure 1) underpins the global economy, facilitating approximately 80% of international trade by volume (left pie chart in the bottom of Figure 1) and around 70% by value (right pie chart in the bottom of Figure 1), underscoring its critical role in the global movement of goods (Figure 1) [29]. Systemic vulnerabilities are weaknesses within a system that arise from its structure, interconnections, or dependencies, making it susceptible to cascading failures or disruptions when stressed [31]. These vulnerabilities are often hidden and emerge under specific conditions as in electronic-based solutions. Electronics-based solutions [32] present systemic vulnerabilities beyond the regulatory risks evident in the 2022 Russian sanctions [33] or the recent U.S. trade conflicts (April 2025) [34]. Unlike simpler mechanical systems, these technologies are inherently susceptible to disruptions in sensitive supply chains, cyberattacks, and electromagnetic pulses-creating layers of systemic vulnerability often overlooked in technological adoption decisions [22,35].Systemic vulnerabilities in complex system appears highly unstable-especially when considering isolated technical incidents, such as two small fires at Heathrow Airport which disrupted global air travel. In addition, the rapidly interconnected world, which must manage emerging complexity with tools that have not yet reached full maturity, becomes vulnerable to malicious actions such as the Mt. Gox Hack (2014).Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbances, adapt to changes, and maintain its core functions and structure in the face of stress or shocks [36]. As it is a desired goal, a question arises as to whether and how societies can thrive without the emerging complexity that has been imposed through technological solutions as well as the communication and cooperative policies that sustain global trade.Ensuring social thriving is critical, an optimization is required-one that is simple, resilient, self-sufficient, and capable of supporting at least the foundation of societal prosperity-through available adaptations [37,38].Section 2 analyzes the methodology used to approach the vulnerabilities inherent in complex systems, focusing on their susceptibility to disruptions. Section 3 delves into examples of governmental failures and technical failures, using the evolution of technology of vehicles and digital infrastructure as case studies to illustrate fragility in advanced technologies. Section 4 emerges the role of critical aspects of modern civilization: digital infrastructures and satellites. Section 5 explores future technological paradigms, weighing the promises and perils of automation, digital currencies, and interconnected systems arguing that progress is neither linear nor guaranteed. The discussion in Section 6 synthesizes these insights, proposing strategies for resilience at governance and technological levels. Finally, Section 7 concludes with recommendations for proactive design and planning to ensure robust systems, emphasizing the urgency of action during periods of stability.This study adopts a multidisciplinary approach to analyze the interplay between technological complexity, systemic vulnerabilities, and resilience in modern civilizations, with a focus on resource management perspectives. The methodology comprises three key components:• Historical and Comparative Analysis: Historical case studies, such as the collapse of the Roman Empire, Soviet Union and the Qing Dynasty (China) are examined to identify patterns of overextended infrastructure and administrative complexity leading to systemic failure. These are compared with contemporary examples (e.g., megacity resource management, global trade disruptions) to draw parallels and highlight recurring vulnerabilities.• Data-Driven Visualization:Quantitative data from global datasets (e.g., World Bank, Marine Traffic-cargo ship positions, Flightradar-air traffic, TeleGeography-submarine cable) are analyzed to illustrate the scale and fragility of interconnected systems. Visualizations are generated to map trade complexity, economic impacts, and cascading failures.• Qualitative Risk Assessment: Technical and governance failures are evaluated through qualitative frameworks, focusing on vulnerabilities in digital systems (e.g., ECUs in vehicles, cyber-hacks, CBDCs and resource distribution). Scenarios such as EMP attacks and trade wars are explored to assess cascading risks.Insights are drawn from real-world incidents e.g., Mt. Gox hack (February 2014) Heathrow fires (March 2025) and the blackout in Iberian Peninsula (April 2025) to propose adaptability strategies.The above examples were used for the revision of the pyramid of human needs. This mixed-methods approach emphasizes governance and technological perspectives to propose resilience frameworks.Limitations include the speculative nature of future risk scenarios, which however are addressed through transparent sourcing and conservative assumptions.The methodological steps of the paper, the examined issues and the conclusions are visualized in Figure 2. The Industrial Revolution and the Electronic Era established sophisticated infrastructures driven by economies of scale, rapid communication, global connectivity, and widespread access to knowledge. Evidently, global poverty rates dropped dramatically over the past century, a triumph humanity owes to these technological breakthroughs [39].Economies of scale and large-scale infrastructure have enabled the clustering of the population in major urban centers [40]. Megacity aqueducts [41], supply chains [26], industrial production, refineries, and critical infrastructure facilitate human coexistence [42]. However, these systems demand complex management, forming a fragile equilibrium that sustains societies. A deliberate or accidental failure in any major infrastructure, especially to the communication system which solves this puzzle, could immediately trigger an existential crisis.The vulnerability of the contemporary communication system, underpinned by the internet, is exemplified by approximately 1.4 million kilometers of submarine fiber-optic cables linking over 1,200 landing points worldwide [43]. Figure 3 Today, the discourse on climate change [55, 56], a narrative that remains under discussion and not fully understood due to its complexity and conflicting viewpoints [57,58,59,60,61], has led to policies aimed at reshaping the energy mix through the adoption of renewable energy sources. Even if the narrative of climate change and the associated technologies supporting it are subject to debate [62], the associated technologies introduce new challenges in their management due to their stochastic nature.The above vulnerabilities suggest that there is always the possibility that society could become trapped in a death spiral [63] of complexity, from which it would be very difficult to break free.Historically, excessive bureaucratic complexity and endemic corruption have precipitated the collapse of entire societies, as seen in Roman Empire, the Soviet Union and the late Qing Dynasty.Tainter argues that the collapse of the Roman Empire illustrates how overextended infrastructure and reliance on complex administrative systems precipitate societal decline [64]. He contends that the empire's dependence on intricate networks-such as extensive road systems, aqueducts, and a sprawling bureaucracy-demanded substantial resources to sustain. As economic returns diminished, these systems rendered the empire vulnerable to external pressures (e.g., barbarian invasions) and internal weaknesses (e.g., corruption) [65,66]. The rigid centralized administrative structure further constrained adaptability, as simplifying governance through decentralization was politically and culturally untenable, accelerating systemic failure.The Soviet Union (1922-1991) developed a highly centralized, bureaucratic system to manage its vast economy and diverse population, but this complexity fostered inefficiencies and corruption. Lengthy administrative processes, coupled with opaque resource allocation, enabled the elites to siphon resources, eroding public trust and economic stability [67]. By the 1980s, the system's rigidity stifled innovation and failed to address growing economic stagnation, culminating in the USSR's dissolution in 1991 [68].The Qing Dynasty in China succumbed to bureaucratic bloat and corruption, were intricate governance structures and rampant bribery undermined resource distribution and public welfare, particularly in urban centers. This weakened the dynasty's ability to respond to internal rebellions and external pressures, leading to its collapse in 1912 [69].The complexity of managing resources such as Water-Energy and Food nexus [70] in present megacities is a critical factor underpinning their sustainability and functionality, rendering them highly vulnerable to disruptions like tariffs and trade wars.Megacities, characterized by dense populations and intricate infrastructural networks, rely on efficient resource distribution systems that are often strained by global economic policies. For instance, tariffs can increase the cost of imported food in mega-cities which could be considered as food deserts [71,72,73]. Trade wars further complicate this by disrupting supply chains, as seen in the U.S.-China trade tensions affecting waterintensive agricultural exports [74].The interconnectedness of resource systems amplifies these risks, with energy shortages potentially cascading into water and food crises [75]. Moreover, the governance of these resources in megacities often involves multiple stakeholders, adding layers of complexity that tariffs can destabilize by altering economic incentives [76]. Consequently, such economic policies pose perilous threats to megacities' stability, where resource mismanagement could lead to existential challenges [77].Our interconnected world relies on the complexity of created synergies [78], as highlighted by the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, global trade was agitated, and global growth was halted as it is evident by Gross National Income (GNI) growth and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth. Therefore, these synergies promote advancement, but they also made systems vulnerable to unexpected disruptions [79] (Figure 4). While complexity in governance is often necessary for managing intricate systems, it can also harbor corruption, as the concealment of resources or procedures from public scrutiny may obscure unethical practices. When governmental systems are perceived as overly complex and subjective, they often fail to deliver timely resolutions, leading to a loss of public trust. This occurs as lengthy procedures for processing standard requests, such as issuing permits or accessing public services, may create opportunities for bribery payments, particularly in countries with high corruption levels [82,83,84].Modern vehicles have advanced through Electronic that and compared to simpler However, this a critical failure in an system can render these a to the resilience of vehicles Unlike that changes, technological design that address challenges Electronic both complexity and For example, a in systems, its core modern cars, such as from rely on intricate and sophisticated making them and but Figure 4 the of a with of The of technological and that the can be using tools if it while the replacement with the specific that presupposes the of supply The reliance on and modern to supply risks, as seen during the COVID-19 when shortages halted in an increase in their While these design specific they not compared to the of requiring that not The this with not to goods but to vehicles due to their dependence on how resource can these systems the between advanced and resilience the of these technological complexity can be to infrastructure and a failure can a in the collapse of the entire system it For example, the two small fires in critical of Heathrow Airport on a that global air (Figure underscoring how complexity but amplifies the risk of cascading failures when key The digital world is a of with social and how we and As we rely on these systems, they complex, the intricate social structures of such as and have become to modern communication, but their by vast and such as the data million political and eroding trust This complexity, can lead to vulnerabilities, such as or social networks, which digital or digital (Figure technologies are for interconnected systems, but their complexity can create critical vulnerabilities if not The which and through a supply how sophisticated systems can be the of on robust frameworks to that could destabilize entire economies As digital infrastructures become into as and risk of systemic A of risk that cost in emphasizing the of the economic and its for global stability technologies like which underpins such as further increase systemic complexity due to their and reliance on While is for data it remains susceptible to sophisticated The World 2022 on digital how such complexity can risks, particularly when digital systems are embedded in critical infrastructure This reliance on digital that any failure or can have for society and the economy in of a can as seen in the Mt. Gox where were of In that the cost of Mt. Gox hack was million but with the present Mt. Gox hack would cost (Figure where a gains of the of a can as seen in the This illustrates that as dependence on interconnected digital systems vulnerability to large-scale dependence on digital systems for communication, and these vulnerabilities into existential further illustrate this point we highlight a hack like the data which million and leading to required complexity, which should in the energy evident during the blackout in the Iberian Peninsula on The the intricate nature of modern management, as the system's complexity was that the could not identify the of the the the with from a in to with by renewable energy As the that to a critical in the energy the of high renewable energy particularly from like and that can vulnerabilities, as seen in the rapid and collapse during the not solely highlight the need for digital as it is to with a the need for a of the technological approach and its to cascading failures, ensuring that complexity not examples highlight systemic issues from complexity in various the fragility of systems to systemic dependence on automation, the of or in and the dependence in technologies as renewable energy could in cascading failures and the loss of of collapse a is provided by how three over the United States could and critical to the would water supply systems, and This reliance on interconnected systems amplifies as a could trigger cascading failures urban further arise with the of while digital could become in such due to their dependence on infrastructure, economic systems like could ensuring and in critical supply chains or coordination nature data if parts of the a to centralized vulnerabilities While these technologies their on and robust infrastructure, the nature of innovation in existential threats like an each in critical resources is to basic as in which the of human (Figure and Figure In the appears to a to modern critical dependence on digital technology and the of the which such as energy and we could a digital This and infrastructures their which have become for accessing communication, and the management of complexity as supply chains, energy water economy and (Figure that modern societies, overly on could collapse to levels in a like an electromagnetic technologies or infrastructure and note that, in on digital the technologies of the and are in developed societies Therefore, modern societies cannot sustain their basic as digital infrastructure is into every aspect of In a the collapse of this digital could societies, making the of basic the to of automation, the of and and the of through digital have as they but also and stability These rely on a world with and robust digital to data or yet such is from governance on digital stability is not as vulnerabilities in interconnected systems can lead to failures, such as data or system (e.g., the reliance on digital like CBDCs could economies to risks, where a entire systems, the fragility of these technological is that progress is not and the complexity of modern systems may precipitate as seen in the civilization around which advanced systems, a technology that was for collapse that the future for with technological is not a world could as due to on fragile digital infrastructure The risk of large if and systemic resilience are not potentially leading to a where the of the modern era could be to the of if each of the which were in 3 Soviet Qing the recurring of the to through inefficient bureaucratic complexity, rising corruption, and external pressures, strained their systems. This often and systemic as these structures failed to ensure for the of a new social embedded in complex governance systems a critical When this corruption can trigger that social The becomes particularly when political or governance that could effectively address these systemic the and resilience by systems of The their vast into with managing and while The the system, and administrative to under the Empire small and them to and provided they and This of and fostered stability these dependence on digital systems and the risk of systemic failure if they collapse EMP and that societies with resources, such as to during crises Therefore, real-world social and economic structures is critical and trade to a basic of life with without prosperity it is an particularly for social and an in society is in infrastructure, and societies that clustering the and management of growth through economies of scale the of resources but resilience as a but growth. that adapt their model to ensure stability, and vulnerabilities embedded in intricate systems, whether governmental corruption, economic or fragile technological societal stability, as by and contemporary rely on intricate supply chains, and industrial a fragile equilibrium where failures, like and food supply disruptions can trigger existential systems, such as and food management or can resilience by on interconnected resilience of governmental and technological systems on deliberate during periods of stability and is an or a become a systemic underscoring the urgency for proactive planning is for societies to in critical to robust governance frameworks and technological a that both resilience frameworks and humanity can technological growth thriving
Maksym Lazirko, Deniz Appelbaum, Miklos A. Vasarhelyi
Cryptocurrency exchanges face increasing pressure to demonstrate reserve adequacy following platform failures, yet current Proof of Reserves (PoR) systems suffer from incomplete verification approaches that examine either on-chain or off-chain assets separately. This study introduces the Double-Helix Framework, a verification methodology that integrates on-chain blockchain analysis with off-chain consensus algorithms to provide complete assessment of exchange financial positions. The framework employs parallel verification strands that simultaneously validate blockchain-recorded transactions and off-chain financial information, creating a unified assessment mechanism that addresses the verification gaps in existing PoR systems. The framework's integration of traditional auditing principles with distributed ledger verification creates new possibilities for regulatory compliance and investor protection in digital asset management. This framework has implications for accounting practice, suggesting that comprehensive cryptocurrency audits require verification approaches that extend to on-chain, off-chain, and intersecting transactions that have varying degrees of separation between ledgers.
Energy poverty remains a pressing challenge in low-income regions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America, where over 733 million people lack access to electricity. Centralized grid expansion has failed to bridge this gap due to high infrastructure costs, technical inefficiencies, and vulnerability to climate-induced disruptions. Decentralized renewable energy (DRE) systems, including solar mini-grids, wind microgrids, biomass energy, and micro-hydro solutions, present a cost-effective, climate-resilient, and scalable alternative that leverages locally available resources. However, DRE adoption is hindered by financial constraints, weak regulatory frameworks, and fragmented policy implementation. This study employs a scoping review and comparative case study approach to assess the effectiveness of DRE solutions in expanding energy access, enhancing climate resilience, and fostering economic development in low-income regions. Case studies from Kenya’s solar-wind hybrid mini-grids, Rwanda’s pay-as-you-go (PAYG) solar expansion, Ethiopia’s biomass and biogas systems, Nigeria’s off-grid solar initiatives, and South Africa’s community-led wind energy projects reveal that DRE systems significantly reduce reliance on fossil fuels, improve local economic stability, and mitigate the impact of climate variability. However, key gaps persist in long-term resilience assessments, cross-sector policy harmonization, and the comparative viability of different DRE technologies. The study underscores the need for integrated policy frameworks, innovative financing mechanisms such as green bonds and PAYG solar, and governance models that facilitate equitable energy transitions. Scaling DRE is critical for achieving sustainable development, climate adaptation, and energy equity in low-income regions.
Georgeio Semaan, Guizhou Wang, Quoc Si Vo, Gopalakrishnan Kumar
Despite advances in biofuel production and biomass processing technologies, biorefineries still experience commercialization issues. When costs exceed revenues, their long-term economic sustainability is threatened. Although integrated biorefineries have significant global potential due to process integration and product co-generation, it is crucial that they generate a positive net return, thereby incentivizing their continual operation. Nonetheless, research and development into new system designs and process integration are required to address current biorefinery inefficiencies. The integration of Bitcoin mining into biorefineries represents an innovative approach to diversify revenue streams and potentially offset costs, ensuring the economic viability and commercial success of biorefineries. When using bio-H2, a total of 3904 sats/kg fuel can be obtained as opposed to 537 sats/kg fuel when using syngas. Bitcoin, whether produced onsite or not, is an accretive asset that can offset the sales price of other produced biochemicals and biomaterials, thereby making biorefineries more competitive at offering their products. Collaborations with policy makers and industry stakeholders will be essential to address regulatory challenges and develop supportive frameworks for widespread implementation. Over time, the integration of Bitcoin mining in biorefineries could transform the financial dynamics of the bio-based products market, making them more affordable and accessible whilst pushing towards sustainable development and energy transition.
The linkage between the metal market and crypto assets is a topic of concern. Utilizing a novel TVP-VAR framework, this study examines the volatility transmission between NFTs and precious/industrial metals. The results show strong connectivity, with most NFTs being net transmitters, and industrial metals being mostly net spillover recipients. Moreover, the connectivity was affected by the COVID-19 epidemic and the Russia-Ukraine War. Considering the potential reference value that this empirical fact may bring to market participants, this paper divides the time samples and uses the DCC-GARCH t-copula method to analyse the portfolio construction of every sub-sample. The research investigates and compares the hedge ratio, optimal weights, and hedging effectiveness of NFT-industrial metals and NFT-precious metals. These findings can bring potential inspiration to investors, market regulators, and policymakers.
Abstract: This book critically investigates the evolving landscape of energy innovation as a foundational driver for sustainable development, climate resilience, and equitable socio-economic transformation. Centered on the imperative transition away from fossil fuel dependence, the work constructs a comprehensive conceptual framework that integrates technological advancement, infrastructural decentralization, and policy-driven systemic change. It addresses a core research problem: how to accelerate the global shift toward low-carbon, inclusive, and resilient energy systems amidst institutional inertia and socio-economic disparity. Methodologically, the book employs a multidisciplinary approach combining empirical analysis, comparative case studies, and strategic foresight tools such as scenario planning and transition roadmapping. The six-chapter structure systematically examines advancements in renewable technologies, storage systems, smart grid integration, decentralized infrastructure, policy instruments, and just transition frameworks. Key findings highlight the convergence of digitalization, decentralization, and decarbonization as critical enablers of sustainable energy futures. Innovations such as AI-optimized microgrids, blockchain-based peer-to-peer energy markets, and green finance mechanisms emerge as pivotal in overcoming conventional grid limitations and socio-political constraints. The book’s implications are far-reaching: it provides scholars, practitioners, and policymakers with actionable insights for navigating energy transitions at both macro and community scales. By bridging technological and policy domains, this research offers a robust, evidence-based roadmap for designing resilient, efficient, and just energy systems by 2050 and beyond. Keywords energy innovation, renewable energy systems, energy storage, smart grids, decentralized infrastructure, energy transition, climate policy, just transition, green finance, sustainable development, systems thinking, energy equity, digital energy platforms, global energy governance, strategic foresight
In an online video from Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, a cartoon simulation shows a tsunami wiping out one of their future nuclear power stations and cutting off power. What happens next? Not much: The reactor quietly shuts itself down. "It cools off just by sitting there, no moving parts or fluids, no operator actions," says the reassuring video. "We've designed a reactor that is inherently safe no matter the events."The Seattle-based Ultra Safe and dozens of other companies like it are at the forefront of a global nuclear energy revival. As the world urgently needs to wean itself off fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and get the planet's temperature under control, policymakers, companies and researchers are reexamining nuclear energy as a green alternative that can help bolster the power produced by renewables like wind and solar. Today the industry is emerging from a period of stagnation, with a promise to double or triple its capacity by 2050.That revival is undergirded by two hot technology trends. Companies like Ultra Safe are aiming to build small modular reactors (SMRs) designed to be just a fraction of the size of former plants, to reduce both building costs and the scope of possible disasters. And many are aiming to utilize new technologies designed to make meltdown accidents impossible and to create less long-lived waste.This video (from Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, a nuclear power company) shows the safety features built into a design for a small modular reactor.CREDIT: ULTRA SAFE NUCLEAR CORPORATIONBut the surge in interest is not without controversy. As with everything in the nuclear landscape, debate rages about whether society actually needs nuclear to tackle climate change, and whether the new systems are as shiny as they seem — with reasonable arguments for and against every promise and risk. Some say the new technologies could offer a fantastic solution to our energy woes; others say nuclear is beset with so many environmental, social and economic problems that it is best abandoned in favor of other ways to meet the globe's energy demands.The next few years will decide what course nuclear power takes in the world's energy future. "This is a moment of truth," says Francesca Giovannini, a nuclear policy expert at the Harvard Kennedy School. Over the next few decades, nuclear power is "either going to make it, or that industry is fundamentally done for. ... It's 50/50 how this goes."Ups and downs in nuclear power outputNuclear power poses some obvious risks — meltdown accidents, nuclear fuel being diverted to weapons programs, environmental issues posed by mining for uranium, the problems of storing nuclear waste. Against a backdrop of such concerns, alongside shifting economics of energy production, nuclear power production started to level off in the early 2000s and even dipped briefly after the Fukushima power plant accident of 2011. Some nations, most notably Germany, decided to shutter their nuclear programs entirely. But global nuclear power production is now starting to inch upward again.Today, nuclear plants produce about 10 percent of global electricity, making nuclear the second largest source of non-fossil-fuel energy after hydropower. There are about 440 nuclear power plants in operation globally; another 60 or so are now being built, and around 100 are on order or planned.Nuclear power generation grew rapidly through the last few decades of the 20th century, then leveled off. It may be poised for another big increase.Most Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenarios for keeping the world below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming include some kind of increase in nuclear power capacity. In the International Energy Agency's (IEA) pathway to net zero, global nuclear power production doubles over 2022 levels by 2050. A key reason for this is that nuclear is seen as a good way to provide consistent baseload power to prop up more variable renewable sources of energy like wind or solar. Without nuclear, advocates say, we would need to build far more wind and solar power plants to ensure reliable supplies, doubling or tripling costs over power networks that include nuclear.Nuclear has plenty of advantages: It produces no carbon emissions (and, counterintuitively, releases less radioactive uranium and other elements into the environment than burning coal does). It takes up a lot less land than renewables, a not insignificant consideration. If the goal is to decarbonize quickly and with as little social pain as possible, "nuclear is essential," says Kai Vetter, a nuclear physicist at the University of California, Berkeley.At the UN's Convention on Climate Change meeting in Dubai in December 2023, more than 20 nations signed a declaration to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. And cash is flowing into this effort. In 2020, the US Department of Energy (DOE) notably gave $160 million for two demonstration plants to get up and running by 2027. And in 2022, the European Union declared that some nuclear projects could call themselves "green" in the same way as renewables, opening the door to environmental financing mechanisms.But as with almost every issue relating to nuclear power, the arguments in favor of nuclear have their detractors. Public policy expert M.V. Ramana at the University of British Columbia is one of many, for example, who say that baseload power is an outdated concept. A smart, diverse and flexible electric grid, they argue, can assure a reliable power supply by shunting power among sources and storage facilities.And with the cost of renewables falling fast, today's economic estimates about the relative costs of power sources may not mean much in the future.Most scenarios for global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 include a role for nuclear power. Here, projections from the International Energy Agency forecast that the total amount of power from nuclear will need to grow by 2050 to meet needs (left). But because the world's total energy demand is expected to rise significantly, nuclear's share of all power generation may actually fall (right).Then there's the question of safety. The grand total of lives lost from all nuclear power generation to date, while hard to quantify, is certainly far lower than the number of people killed by air pollution related to the burning of fossil fuels; a recent paper by NASA scientists concluded that nuclear power saved roughly 1.8 million lives from 1971 to 2009 thanks to avoided air pollution. By some accounts nuclear power has also proved less deadly than wind power, which has been linked to drownings at offshore wind farm sites and helicopter collisions with turbines.But fatality is arguably a blunt way to measure the impacts of the nuclear industry, which also include the risk of accidents contaminating large tracts of land, plus numerous other effects related to such things as mining and waste storage. Ramana has documented how the burden of these last issues falls disproportionately on Indigenous and disempowered communities, working against the goals of social justice. Nuclear power, he writes, "does not fit with any idea of a responsible and cleaner energy system."Small and shiny: New nuclear technologiesIf we are to pursue nuclear power at the scale called for by the IEA, it will take a herculean effort. The IEA's pathway requires the world to ramp up from building five big nuclear plants per year to 20 per year over the next decade. Big plants typically cost billions of dollars and come with big financial risks. Westinghouse Electric Company, for example, recently filed for bankruptcy in the face of billions of dollars of cost overruns during the construction of four nuclear plants in the United States. YOU MAY ALSO LIKE Technology Nuclear goes retro — with a much greener outlook Food & Environment 10 years after the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi, I'm still worried Food & Environment How cities can fight climate change One plan for reducing those epic and prohibitive costs is to build small modular reactors, ranging from reactors that can be shipped on a truck and produce a couple of hundred megawatts, to tiny single-megawatt sizes that are more akin to hefty diesel generators. The modules could be pre-built in a factory and shipped to a site for installation. All this should make these reactors less frightening prospects for investors (though the end price per unit of electricity might wind up higher than that from a larger nuclear power plant).A handful of SMRs are already in operation in Russia, China and India. Dozens more are in development. Canada has a national SMR action plan, and as of 2021 there were 10 SMR proposals under review (including one from Ultra Safe).But so far, the promise of enticingly low costs for SMR builds hasn't materialized, says Granger Morgan, a physicist and codirector of the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making at Carnegie Mellon. Morgan has crunched the numbers for nuclear in the US and was disappointed. "I thought SMRs were going to hold much more promise, but we can't make the numbers wash," he says.That message was hammered home in November 2023 when the company NuScale scrapped its high-profile advanced plans to build an underground SMR in Idaho in the face of cost hikes. "Would it be nice to have nuclear? Yes absolutely," says Morgan. "Will it be affordable? That's very much an open question."Others argue that small isn't always beautiful. While smaller plants present a smaller risk from smaller potential accidents, this strategy also means more plants overall, which means more facilities to protect against theft and terrorism. "You have way more fissile material dispersed; you will have to secure way more infrastructure," says Giovannini. "I mean, that becomes a mess."Next generation nuclearWhile some are focusing on making nuclear plants smaller, there's a parallel movement to make them safer and more efficient. The next generation of reactor designs — Generation IV, in the industry's lingo — includes a suite of six major reactor families, all very different from today's standard, each with many possible variants under development. Much of the attention (particularly in the US) has been focused on three of these: high-temperature gas-cooled, molten salt and sodium-cooled.The ideas behind these technologies, and even some early-stage power plants, have been around for decades. But the new variants of these old ideas combine novel fuels and designs, promising to be safer, more efficient and environmentally friendly. "They're doing all kinds of whizz-bang, high-tech stuff," says Morgan, who has no doubt that newer reactors can be made safer than old ones.Most existing reactors are water-cooled uranium systems, which were chosen as the dominant technology largely as a quirk of history. Like all reactor types, they have their pros and cons. They need high pressures to stop their coolant waters from boiling off at typical operating temperatures around 300 degrees Celsius. And they are designed to work with relatively slow-moving neutrons — the subatomic particles that collide with nuclear fuel to initiate nuclear fission. Slow-moving neutrons are more likely to interact with fuel particles, but systems that use them are also limited in the kinds of fuels they can use. Catastrophe can strike if the fission reaction runs amok or the reactor gets too hot and the core "melts down," as happened at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, spewing radiation into the environment.Standard water-cooled reactor designs are vulnerable to catastrophic failures leading to explosions and the meltdown of the reactor core, as happened in 1986 to the Chernobyl reactor shown here. Newer designs may be less vulnerable to this type of unsafe meltdown, advocates say.CREDIT: ATOMICALLYSPEAKING / FLICKRThe latest models of water-cooled reactors (sometimes called Gen III Plus, including many SMRs) use new design tricks to reduce the number of safety systems that require human intervention, aiming to stop accidents in their tracks automatically. Gen IV reactors, though, use entirely different coolant materials, are usually designed to operate at higher, more efficient temperatures, and often use faster-speed neutrons that can convert the most prevalent natural isotopes of uranium into usable fuel, or even feed on nuclear waste.High-temperature gas-cooled reactors, for example, run at temperatures up to 950°C, making them 20 to 33 percent more thermally efficient than water-cooled reactors. Since the core materials used in these reactors are typically stable up to 1,600°C, which is hotter than lava, there's a large margin of safety. The reactor in Ultra Safe's video is an SMR that falls into this category; its small size helps, too, with passive cooling. Ultra Safe also makes their own fuel pellets, encased in a bespoke material that they say retains radioactive materials even in extreme conditions. They're hoping to build their first commercial micro-reactor in Canada.In molten salt reactors, both fuel and coolant are already liquid. So meltdowns, in the traditional sense, are impossible. And liquid-sodium-cooled reactors have a built-in safety feature: If they heat up, the liquid sodium expands and allows more neutrons to escape through the gaps between atoms, so the reaction (which is driven by neutrons) naturally winds down. The US Department of Energy has funded the US company TerraPower (which has Bill Gates as a major investor) to build a demonstration plant of its sodium-cooled Natrium reactor in Wyoming by 2030.Nuclear waste not, want notWaste is one area where the new designs really see some significant improvements, says Giovannini. "None of the reactors have entirely solved the problem of nuclear waste, but they do provide some significant solutions in terms of quantity," she says. The spent fuel from traditional light water reactors needs to be buried in special repositories for hundreds of thousands of years, because of the production of long-lived radioactive byproducts. Some Gen IV reactors, on the other hand, can transform spent fuel into more fissile isotopes and use it for further fission reactions. This can improve efficiency and produce waste that need only be stored for hundreds of years.Not everyone, though, thinks all these systems are as shiny as they seem. In 2021, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a report entitled "'Advanced' Isn't Always Better," in which they highlighted issues with safety, sustainability and nuclear proliferation. They concluded that nearly all the Gen IV reactor types "fail to provide significant enough improvements over [light water reactors] to justify their considerable risks."The report was criticized by some for being ideologically antinuclear, says Giovannini. But, she says, "it was very fair" to point out that new tech comes with new worries. Liquid salt, the report pointed out, is corrosive; liquid sodium metal can burst into flame when in contact with water or air. High-temperature gas-cooled reactors, the report concluded, while tolerant of high temperatures, are "far from meltdown-proof, as some claim."Stay in the KnowSign up for the Knowable Magazine newsletter todayHot ideaMany of these Gen IV systems offer another key benefit: Their higher temperatures can provide not just electricity but also useful heat. This could be used in many industrial processes, such as the production of steel, cement and fertilizer, which currently burn a lot of fossil fuels in their furnaces."That heat is pretty much for free," says Vetter, who sees a particular utility for nuclear heat in desalination, getting clean drinking water out of saltwater as is done at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California. Indeed, X-energy, a leading US Gen IV nuclear company funded by the DOE, has partnered with Dow chemical company to build its first high-temperature gas-cooled reactor at a Dow chemical production site by 2030. Morgan, though, thinks that most industries will balk at the set-up costs.Even if Gen IV reactors turn out to be technically superior, though, it may be decades before they can be thoroughly tested, passed by regulators and built at commercial scale. With little time to spare in the fight against climate change, the world might be better off simply ramping up old reactor designs that are already proven, says Esam Hussein, a retired nuclear engineer from the University of Regina, Canada. "We have the operating experience, we have the regulatory framework," he says. "If the goal is to fight climate change, why don't you go with the devil you know?"All energy sources involve tradeoffs. Even solar power — widely viewed as relatively benign — requires large land areas. Nuclear power plants, in contrast, have a smaller spatial footprint.CREDIT: JENSON / SHUTTERSTOCKIn response to why we need a devil at all, many are quick to point out that no energy solution is problem-free, including renewables. Giovannini says she agrees with the nuclear industry's criticism that we have "jumped on renewables in a very uncritical way." Wind and solar require electronics and battery banks to store their energy; these in turn need elements like lithium and cobalt that can come with environmental and social justice issues from mining. "Nothing is 100 percent safe," says Vetter.It is hard for many to swallow data, assurances and statistics about nuclear, given its history and the huge amounts of money at stake. "I think the nuclear industry is selling a bunch of bullshit most of the time," says Giovannini, who has been critical of how the industry deals with public concerns. But her own main worry about nuclear is "they're moving too slow." If companies like Ultra Safe, X-Energy, TerraPower and others are going to help fight climate change with Gen IV technologies and fleets of small reactors, she and others say, they're going to have to ramp up fast.Editor's note: This story was updated on March 20, 2024, to change a name: Granger Morgan was referred to as Granger instead of Morgan in one reference. It was updated on March 21, 2024, to correct the specialty of Esam Hussein. He is a retired nuclear engineer, not a retired nuclear physicist.
The execution of smart contracts on Ethereum, a public blockchain system, incurs a fee called gas fee for its computation and data storage. When programmers develop smart contracts (e.g., in the Solidity programming language), they could unknowingly write code snippets that unnecessarily cause more gas fees. These issues, or what we call gas wastes, can lead to significant monetary losses for users. This paper takes the initiative in helping Ethereum users reduce their gas fees in two key steps. First, we conduct an empirical study on gas wastes in open-source Solidity programs and Ethereum transaction traces. Second, to validate our study findings, we develop a static tool called PeCatch to effectively detect gas wastes in Solidity programs, and manually examine the Solidity compiler's code to pinpoint implementation errors causing gas wastes. Overall, we make 11 insights and four suggestions, which can foster future tool development and programmer awareness, and fixing our detected bugs can save $0.76 million in gas fees daily.