Відео

Keep adding "nauseum", the next fleet is unfinished. Awesomly Great Commentary! "Rome wasn't built in a day", but it worked for a thousand years, and we're only looking at 8-9 decades so far if we can get the Holographic Principle nucleation chemical bonding circuit adjusted for purpose.

Wow .... Krellenstein has excellently elaborated the history and current state of nuke industry elegantly and with gusto .... clearly a master class. Though after this cast, it becomes increasingly clearer WHY nuke community needs to move expeditiously AWAY from water reactors to MSRs or versions of FSRs to evolve the industry and why other seasoned engineers like Sorensen, Pheil, Devanney have chosen to move on to create a dif future for nuclear. Explains why TerraPowers FSR has potential to reset the industry and also why Devanney, Hargraves of Thorcon have moved into tier 3-4 countries for dev their reactors. Despite this, current energy environment in NYC should allow for the start up of Shoreham Massive exercise in mental masturbation in anticipating most catrastrophic scenarios which could be significantly reduced by moving away from the enormous baggage of water ... period Just thinking about the reduced material in concrete savings for example let alone the sig bonuses of fuel type in MSRs/FSRs is convincing.

Since fossil fuels kills multitudes more than nuclear, we should regulate it much more than it is. Then suddenly with the resultant price increases, people would not be so anti-nuke after all.

No. It’s trying to avoid millennia of ecological disasters...!

This guy knows his stuff. FSAR, Tech Specs, USAR, PSAR and all the various regulations - Good thing there's somebody that takes an avid interest in that kind of thing.

Excellent program. I think just the right amount of detail. James is really wonderful at providing the relevant history. I am also interested in the topic of advanced reactors because I believe a (future) reactor design that produces more economical power than coal is key to adoption in 3rd world countries, and to greenhouse gas reduction. Any chance of a future podcast on that topic?

ABWR, my beloved

They should allow building npps with regular grade concrete

@1:03:42, James asks what are the regulations that could be eliminated that would make NPPs cheaper. Chris was not prepared for this question. How about the regulations that prevent the release of radioactive gases if there is a meltdown. These gases are far less dangerous than the exhaust from coal plants and would prevent an explosion that would release a lot more radioactive material. Bret Kugelmass called this a safety regulation that makes NPPs less safe.

I think I understand this, but Simon Michaux has said that the reason we use uranium is to mask our nuclear weapons buildup. He thinks thorium is a better choice, but we were in a cold war when the program took off, so we used the more volatile option.

Well I've listened to the whole thing and still missed exactly what Krellenstein really thinks the 'rate limiting step' actually is. And while standardisation is obviously desirable, it stands in eternal tension with innovation.

Why is this guy yelling? Jeesh!

I have listened to your videos and acknowledge your support for nuclear. While I am not anti-nuclear, I support what one could call containment. In other words there are places that nuclear could be helpful. Given the accelerating deployment and technical development of WWS (Wind, Water, Solar) for baseload, for that nuclear is becoming obsolete. My fear is that nuclear will receive greater profit seeking capital investments' by using political means. You mention a declining standard of living. In my opinions a WWS based world has greater potential. Issues of population, environmental degradation. sustainable food production and wealth distribution seem lacking in your discussions. As I have mentioned, fossil fuels are finite and are the cause of climate warming. Step outside, the sunshine, flowing waters, and wind are free.

Another excellent show with James. I'd be interested in hearing what James thinks pro nuclear community should be focusing on if not regulation.

Yes. I work in nuclear and the regulation is strangling the industry.

This type of info/show is what the schools should be showing to the kids now, instead of the cnn 10 bullshit that they see now

17 GW of permitted new build capacity. What do we need to do to get those machines built and in operation? I know there are several rural electric cooperatives and municipal electric cooperatives around the country, have them band together and buy up all this capacity for their use and distribution for their citizen members. That spreads the risk and extra cost of the first several units and the development of a North American supply chain. I think it's the quickest way to catch up with the Chinese. I know I've been talking to Mike or electric cooperative I'm gonna go back in this next week After a little bit of study and re-watching this fine video excellent work, Dr. Chris

Well, I already know I'm gonna be listening to this podcast a couple more times. It's an understatement to say "I learned a lot listening to your Q&A, and comment on Nuclear regulation.

Well, I already know I'm gonna be listening to this podcast a couple more times. It's an understatement to say "I learned a lot listening to your Q&A, and comment on Nuclear regulation.

"Self-licking ice cream cone". That metaphor does not get nearly enough dramatic pause it deserves.

Nuclear has an insane economic problem, to stop CO2 emissions it needs a massive national grid expansion to the millions and millions and millions of customers. The grid itself is 10times more expensive then the nuclear electricity plant. No CO2 emissions needs the expensive national grid to be 10times bigger to be robust and handle normal growth in demand. Nuclear $ x 10 x 10 = $ ZILLIONS.

Lots of useful info and analysis in this talk, but where to even begin with the giant blind spots expressed here? I have no time to elaborate, but have written and spoken about these subjects and more for four decades, with well over 100,000 hours of research behind it. I'll just give references here. These thinkers must be explored in depth, if there is to be any big picture clarity at all: Celente Berman Keiser Heinberg Kunstler Orlov Geoff Lawton Allan Savory Vandana Shiva And myself, among others. This cannot possibly be stated strongly enough.

My reading is that it's been a combination of factors. Irrational fearmongering, misaligned incentives in the industry, loss of industrial capacity and poorly directed regulation have all played their part. The persistence of bad science around LNT has not helped matters either. The fact of the US Senate recently passing legislative - with a highly bi-partisan vote - to reframe and refresh the NRC has to tell us that regulatory evolution has been necessary. Although I accept that the loss of experienced and capable people in the industry is probably the most critical problem at the moment. Maybe the US should consider poaching a few good Rosatom people with very high pay.

The root cause is the principles behind a LWR. High-pressure/low-temperature. To keep a high-pressure reactor from melting down and containing hydrogen explosions is inherently expensive. Then you have an overzealous regulator that makes the construction tolerances next to impossible to meet. Then you have the nuclear-rated low-temperature power conversion equipment. Combine those with an inefficient use of fuel and you get a really expensive power plant no matter what. How might this be solved, Hmmmmmm? Maybe, just maybe by building low-pressure/high-temperature reactors that don't need any of those expensive protections and work with off-the -shelf power conversion equipment. Combine that with very high efficiency and process heat and you get a cheap power plant and cheap industrial heat. Now if there were just some companies developing such a reactor. Hmmmmmm maybe someone like TerraPower, Terrestrial Energy, Moltex, Seaborg, Dual Fuel, Exodys Energy, Copenhagen Atomics, Thorcon, or Oklo, or, or, or. All it takes is one of them to be successful and no one ever builds another PWR ever again.

Wrong thinking can waste decades and national wealth. 🤔

If you are open to thinking, you must understand that the national electrical grid does the job of getting electricity to the millions of customers. The national grid is a $TRILLIONS infrastructure investment and must have cash flow. Electricity is dirt cheap to generate. Even nuclear is promising to match coal fired electricity costs. Australian generation price is 5cents kWh and grid electricity is 50cents kWh. The grid makes electricity expensive. With 20 million vehicles in 20 years being battery vehicles and parked 23 hours every day, then 20 million big vehicle batteries will be FREE to the customers to power the homes and buildings at night and most of the day with dirt cheap rooftop electricity and no grid costs. Both sides of politics can agree on this. Agree on this as it is dirt cheap. The grid can be energised by the 20million buildings rooftop solar PV and 20million Battery vehicles.

Nice interview.

When I bought my first personal computer the second and third things I bought were a surge-protector and an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The future that I see is one that current will be managed locally with local battery management. No more burps.

I very much enjoyed this this discussion. Personally I have always considered myself a moderate liberal Democrat. I disagree with your position on renewables. Renewable energy can supply enough energy to supply efficient world civilizations. The two undisputed facts are that fossil fuels are finite and there use leads to a warming climate. This is sufficient justification for change. True, besides solar and wind there will be others, such as some nuclear, tidal and wave generation, and deep well geothermal and distributed energy shifting, to name a few. I would be remis if I did not mention my concerns about misplaced capital investments leading to continued excessive profit taking. Also, world population most likely will top out at ten billion at the end of this century. North America's problem is an aging population with a low birthrate, trying to live a lifestyle not available to most of the world. Thanks Again.

38:06. I'm pretty sure Art misspoke, and he meant less oil, but anyhow, great discussion.

CANDU's my favorite kind of nuclear reactor.

In quoting Vaslav Ishmael about steel, concreate, plastic and ammonia and saying that these cannot be produced at scale without fossil fuels, this argument fails for two reasons. First Al Berman in a different video talks about the long-term limits of fossil fuels. So, we will one day be forced to find alternatives. Better sooner than later. Second, not ever mentioned is that fossil fuels cause global warming. You seem unable to admit that it would be a good idea to leave some of this stuff in the ground both for future generations and for a better climate. You also seem to ignore the progress being made with renewables.

Godfather? Of Climate CHANGE? PLEASEEEE!!! This further reinforces the argument that attributing atmospheric temperature changing forcing to anthropogenic causes “is and absolutely ignorant, stupid and unsupported dogma,” given the immense thermal inertia and timescales involved in the Earth's climate system, particularly the soil respiration, photosynthesis, trees and plants, continental rift, and oceans degassing (97.03% of CO2 equivalent emissions). On top of which other major forcing have to be accounted for: water vapor, particulate matter, dust, cosmic rays’ albedo ...and of course, the main source of energy the Sun. To convert gigatons of carbon (GtC) to gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2), we use the molecular weight ratio of CO2 to C, which is approximately 44/12. Photosynthesis: 120 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 440 GtCO2 Ocean Degassing: 90 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 330 GtCO2 Soil Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Plant Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions: 10 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 37 GtCO2 Updated CO2 emissions Summary 2023: Photosynthesis: 440 GtCO2 per year 35.28% Ocean Degassing: 330 GtCO2 per year 26.47% Soil Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Plant Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Fossil Fuel Emissions: 37 GtCO2 per year 2.97% ~Total: 1,247 GtCO2 per year 100% Conclusion: Natural earth's emissions of CO2 eq are in fact, 32.7 times larger than anthropogenic emissions. Annual increments of 2.5 ppmv into the atmosphere include all sources. Since man-made or anthropogenic contributions are only ~ 2.97% of the total earth’s emissions, the unfeasible results from the global ignorant + stupid policies of Net Zero CO2 are perverse, twisted, and fraudulent, since the retarded, childish, and silly absurdity of reducing absolutely all anthropogenic CO2 emissions will refer exclusively to that ~ “2.97%” therefore the reduction of the total earth atmospheric temperature will reflect an infinitesimal change only relative to that minuscule percentage. Unless all emissions and forcing remained univariable which will never happen. Soil respiration has a season variability of up to ~30-50 % this variability alone is 17 times greater than all anthropogenic coal, gas, and petroleum emissions combined. All species on Earth thrive at an “optimal” 20 degrees Celsius Note1: Plants thrive at ~23.3°C. Note 2: Mean surface temperature of Earth today is about ~15°C. Son in average earth’s average temperature require to increase 5-8 °C. to reach optimum life temperature. Conclusion: The estimated temperature -changes- due to each source of CO2, based on their radiative forcing contributions, are as follows: • Photosynthesis: 0.365°C • Ocean Degassing: 0.275°C • Soil Respiration: 0.185°C • Plant Respiration: 0.185°C • Fossil Fuel Emissions: 0.030°C Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase R. Lindzen Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A W. Happer Department of Physics, Princeton University, U.S.A W. A. van Wijngaarden Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada (June 11, 2024) Abstract Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ∘C (0.015 ∘F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). Conclusion As shown by (1), (23), (25) and (26), there appears to be no credible scenario where driving U.S. emissions of CO2 to zero by the year 2050 would avert a temperature increase of more than a few hundredths of a degree centigrade. The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. "It is impossible to find a more perfect example of a sublime global stupid policy: "all pain and no gain. Data, physical facts, and calculations conclusively determine that even if the entire world achieved “net zero” emissions by 2050, even with the perversely exaggerated IPCC’s 4 larger positive feedbacks climate sensitivity, the reduction in global warming would be a mere 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). The net zero policy is a dogmatic, narcissistic global initiative that is utterly absurd. Natural factors like solar cycles, atmospheric dust, water vapor variability, volcanic activities, soils respiration, ocean degasification, and naturally generated aerosols will vastly outweigh any negligible temperature reduction from eliminating global CO2 emissions. The Net Zero Global Agenda, based on fabricated false syllogism of a non-existent climate change crisis, is indisputably stupid: "all pain and zero gain." Even if every nation on the planet could miraculously reduce their CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 (or any other “always in the future target” year), the temperature increase averted would only be a few hundredths of a degree Celsius, a change too minuscule to be measure accurately, and well within the margin of error and uncertainty. This fact demonstrates the sheer futility and absurdity of the “Net Zero” imposing by decree and obscene subsidies, the even more polluting Green “Sustainable + Clean” Energies agenda. Dogmatic: The term implies an unyielding adherence to a particular doctrine and blind activism, without considering facts, data, or science. Given that the Net Zero policy is promoted based only on beliefs, consensus, and manipulated false convictions, crisis, and urgency, disregarding the scientific method and data, describing it as "dogmatic" is appropriate. Narcissistic: The climate change crisis is a self-centred, grandiose approach to a fabricated existential false threat. Global policies are being pushed with an “argumentum ad baculum” sense of moral superiority, with total disregard for data, knowledge, science, logic, or the practical real-world impacts on humans. It is, in fact, sociopathic narcissism. Global Stupid Policy: The Net Zero “goal” is indeed a global initiative. Climate change is a natural and ongoing process, with the Earth's climate always experiencing fluctuations. Globalists have rebranded “Global Warming” as “Climate Change” as a sale publicity pitch. In reality, the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age, a process that undeniably and naturally involves periods of warming none of these caused by anthropogenic emissions, since man did not exist at the time or didn’t use coal gas or petroleum. If globalists assume they can control the global climate, they might naively believe they can achieve a state where the climate remains static. This delusion leads to the absurd conclusion that they could inadvertently halt natural climate variations altogether, potentially causing more harm than good. Such a belief exemplifies sublime stupidity-an Olympic-class level of ignorance. The notion that human intervention can regulate the Earth's climate to a perfect equilibrium is not only scientifically baseless but also dangerously arrogant. Furthermore, increased CO2 levels have directly contributed to numerous benefits, including enhanced food production, higher GDP, improved greenery, and increased human longevity. These factors demonstrate the complexity of the climate system and the essential role CO2 plays in supporting life and economic growth. Reducing CO2 emissions drastically without considering these benefits could lead to unintended negative consequences, making the Net Zero agenda not only impractical but also criminal, genocidal and suicidal. Utterly Absurd: Since there is absolutely not a single potential benefit of the Net Zero global policy to justify the social and economic costs and self-imposed civilization collapse, furthermore when natural emissions overshadow any minimal impact of human emissions

When the majority of people can’t see past the tip of their nose about much of anything, they simply cannot get their heads around the fact that the world existed before they were born. That a human lifetime, history of human civilization and even the evolution of Man 250,000 years ago is insignificantly short compared to the history of life on earth. Therefore, they are unable to appreciate the danger we are in and the incredible speed at which global average temperature is rising compared to the paleo climate record

Fossil fuels as PEDs - brilliant analogy!

With respect to the "consortium" problem you've raised for Vogtle. This is not dissimilar to other industries like Downstream.. Power Plants etc. You will have several vendors and different companies involved with the build of a project

Mostly a great podcast - I didn’t know about the 65My old volcanic activity connection. Too bad that there was no push back on some of the climate CO2 narrative, like the comment that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for centuries. One only needs to look at the monthly Keeling curve to see that this comment is patently false.

Brilliant podcast Now how can we get Australia's government to comprehend?

I guess the challenge is bridging the knowledge gap to the masses. I wish I were energetic enough to undertake such a task.

When you study this is what you'll find! This further reinforces the argument that attributing significant climate warming forcing to human activities over the span of a few centuries “is unsupported,” given the immense thermal inertia and timescales involved in the Earth's climate system, particularly the oceans. To convert gigatons of carbon (GtC) to gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2), we use the molecular weight ratio of CO2 to C, which is approximately 44/12. Photosynthesis: 120 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 440 GtCO2 Ocean Degassing: 90 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 330 GtCO2 Soil Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Plant Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions: 10 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 37 GtCO2 Updated CO2 emissions Summary 2023: Photosynthesis: 440 GtCO2 per year 35.28% Ocean Degassing: 330 GtCO2 per year 26.47% Soil Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Plant Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Fossil Fuel Emissions: 37 GtCO2 per year 2.97% ~Total: 1,247 GtCO2 per year 100% Conclusion: Natural emissions of CO2 eq are 32.7 times larger than anthropogenic emissions. I have a serious question, does the annual increments considers 2.5 ppmv include all sources? Since manmade or anthropogenic contributions are only ~ 2.97% of the total earth’s emissions, this results from Net Zero CO2 are wrong or at least confusing, since the stupid absurdity of reducing absolutely all anthropogenic CO2 emissions will only refer exclusively to that ~ “2.97%” therefore the reduction of the total earth atmospheric temperature will reflect an infinitesimal change only relative to that minuscule percentage. Unless all emissions and forcing remained univariable which will never happen. Soil respiration has a season variability of up to ~50 % this variability alone is 17 times greater than all anthropogenic emission combined. Conclusion: The estimated temperature -changes- due to each source of CO2, based on their radiative forcing contributions, are as follows: • Photosynthesis: 0.365°C • Ocean Degassing: 0.275°C • Soil Respiration: 0.185°C • Plant Respiration: 0.185°C • Fossil Fuel Emissions: 0.030°C Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase R. Lindzen Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A W. Happer Department of Physics, Princeton University, U.S.A W. A. van Wijngaarden Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada (June 11, 2024) Abstract Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ∘C (0.015 ∘F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). Conclusion As shown by (1), (23), (25) and (26), there appears to be no credible scenario where driving U.S. emissions of CO2 to zero by the year 2050 would avert a temperature increase of more than a few hundredths of a degree centigrade. The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. "It is impossible to find a more perfect example of a sublime global stupid policy: "all pain and no gain. Data, physical facts, and calculations conclusively determine that even if the entire world achieved “net zero” emissions by 2050, even with the perversely exaggerated IPCC’s 4 larger positive feedbacks climate sensitivity, the reduction in global warming would be a mere 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). The net zero policy is a dogmatic, narcissistic global initiative that is utterly absurd. Natural factors like solar cycles, atmospheric dust, water vapor variability, volcanic activities, soils respiration, ocean degasification, and naturally generated aerosols will vastly outweigh any negligible temperature reduction from eliminating global CO2 emissions. The Net Zero Global Agenda, based on fabricated false syllogism of a non-existent climate change crisis, is indisputably stupid: "all pain and zero gain." Even if every nation on the planet could miraculously reduce their CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 (or any other “always in the future target” year), the temperature increase averted would only be a few hundredths of a degree Celsius, a change too minuscule to be measure accurately, and well within the margin of error and uncertainty. This fact demonstrates the sheer futility and absurdity of the “Net Zero” imposing by decree and obscene subsidies, the even more polluting Green “Sustainable + Clean” Energies agenda. Dogmatic: The term implies an unyielding adherence to a particular doctrine and blind activism, without considering facts, data, or science. Given that the Net Zero policy is promoted based only on beliefs, consensus, and manipulated false convictions, crisis, and urgency, disregarding the scientific method and data, describing it as "dogmatic" is appropriate. Narcissistic: The climate change crisis is a self-centred, grandiose approach to a fabricated existential false threat. Global policies are being pushed with an “argumentum ad baculum” sense of moral superiority, with total disregard for data, knowledge, science, logic, or the practical real-world impacts on humans. It is, in fact, sociopathic narcissism. Global Stupid Policy: The Net Zero “goal” is indeed a global initiative. Climate change is a natural and ongoing process, with the Earth's climate always experiencing fluctuations. Globalists have rebranded “Global Warming” as “Climate Change” as a sale publicity pitch. In reality, the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age, a process that undeniably and naturally involves periods of warming none of these caused by anthropogenic emissions, since man did not exist at the time or didn’t use coal gas or petroleum. If globalists assume they can control the global climate, they might naively believe they can achieve a state where the climate remains static. This delusion leads to the absurd conclusion that they could inadvertently halt natural climate variations altogether, potentially causing more harm than good. Such a belief exemplifies sublime stupidity-an Olympic-class level of ignorance. The notion that human intervention can regulate the Earth's climate to a perfect equilibrium is not only scientifically baseless but also dangerously arrogant. Furthermore, increased CO2 levels have directly contributed to numerous benefits, including enhanced food production, higher GDP, improved greenery, and increased human longevity. These factors demonstrate the complexity of the climate system, and the essential role CO2 plays in supporting life and economic growth. Reducing CO2 emissions drastically without considering these benefits could lead to unintended negative consequences, making the Net Zero agenda not only impractical but also criminal, genocidal and suicidal. Utterly Absurd: Since there is absolutely not a single potential benefit of the Net Zero global policy to justify the social and economic costs and self-imposed civilization collapse, furthermore when natural emissions overshadow any minimal impact of human emissions.

What about the Cleveland model in which the power company is owned by the city so it doesn't have to make money for shareholders.

Why does this guy on the left not move his mouth.

I thoroughly enjoyed this presentation and plan to purchase two of Mr. Bryce's books. I do have to admit my perspectives are different. I have been a renewable energy advocate since the late 1970's and am more convened than ever that this is the road to take. Yes, nuclear has a small place like maybe space travel, maybe fusion, and for the moment as base load. But frankly, nuclear is just a fancy way of boiling water. Industrial grade renewable based high temperature storage and processing is just getting started. Around TM 44:00 you talk about our apocalyptic paradigm about energy. No, our concern is about long term availability, the type of energy, and it's threat to life on this earth. I think this discussion under appreciates the rapid development of renewable energy. Terms like: Smart Grid, VPP, community solar, geothermal, distributed generation, load shifting, heat pumps, and grid modularization are all parts the transition. This transition is possible because of the cost and technical competitiveness of renewables. Our goal is to make nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas obsolete. Sunlight is free and will last forever.

We do not have enough copper and coal to build the renewable infrastructure. It is that simple

Two years on is now marked by steady solar and battery development with cost reductions. I am glad that you brought up nuclear as a base load of last resort. I will concede this may be needed along with other special purposes. Of course evil fracking applied to deep geothermal generation could compete with nuclear. Also, the rate of battery technology development has great potential. Lithium based megapacks for base storage will hopefully be improved upon. Bottom line, the combination of renewables, storage, and distributed generation is the future.

It's ogre

seemed to have forgot about when ev's and solar first came out, very expensive but in 10 years look where we are now.

I'm proud to be part this project 2012 to 2014

Technical design error. The reactants are close together and must be combined with artificial intelligence for precautionary operation

I'm quite sure that the term "Climate Change" was coined up by some think tank. (I studied marketing/ communication). Climate happens in a thin layer of the atmosphere called the troposphere. BUT, 93,4% of the actual "Global Warming" goes into heating up the oceans while only 2,3% shows up in the troposphere... SO, when they say that global warming is at 1,3°C, they only tell us only 2,3% of the facts. This is not how global warming is actually measured. It is measured in watts per square meters and is the difference between heat received and re-emitted by the Earth. Yes, it's measured by satellites monitoring the tropopause which is between the troposphere and the stratosphere.