Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:

 (Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars,
we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
 The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.

>
>
Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate scientists I know.

Hmm, we agree on something. This scares me. ;)

Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve catastrophic economic decline.  But even if we accept that this was possible then, it isn't now.  Nuclear is a must, at least for a few decades.

As a scientist, do you thing SMR will see hte light of day or remain in
the darkness of research projects for another decade or two?

I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas.  Better than coal, but not good enough).

Oh my dear hydro! Can you imagine if sweden built out more hydro
(fiercely opposed by the swedish green party)? What an energy abundance
we would have! Hydro and nuclear for the win!

Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time.  There is no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We don't currently have a carbon capture system worth anything, but I can't believe it's beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job.

>
William Hyde
>