Something people forget is that France went all in on nuclear also to produce enough weapons grade plutonium for its independent atomic bomb program. Plutonium production was considered a feature rather than a bug of the reactor program.
Like all nuclear powers, military use preceded civilian use in France.
In addition, the military actually pushed for a French-made dual-use reactor design for the civilian program, but instead a purely civilian Westinghouse design was chosen.
All anthropogenic CO2 emissions could be solved easily, if mankind gave up a bit of control. Let orangutans or cats control and operate your power plants, and you get zero CO2 emmisons generated by humans! It will all become nature like vulkano explosions! Zero CO2 generated from mankind. All emmision goals fullfilled 100 years ahead of schedule!
this essay makes a very important point - that embracing nuclear power could have given us so much more runway on climate change, and the campaign to fearmonger on nuclear power was bad - but it's hard to take in his point because it's nearly incomprehensible at times.
"RMI’s Basalt headquarters makes 114,000 kilowatt-hours of rooftop solar a year, sparing about 40 tons of CO2 (net-zero premium for the building: $1.34 million). At that pace, 115 billion tons takes 2.7 billion years. Or every building on Earth, all 2.75 billion, matching RMI’s best work (built in 2015, not 1976) for a year, spending a mere extra $3.7 quadrillion. To pay for one essay."
What the hell does this mean? It's a bunch of numbers in a row seemingly measuring stats of different units against each other? And then this disconnected rhetorical flourish, 'to pay for one essay?' what?
And manages to ignore that solar power is now the world’s fastest growing source of electricity. Given this is largely driven by economies of scale you could just as well argue if we had gone all in solar in the 70s we would have had today’s solar cost/benefit by the 90s
It's Claudian sass. Although we've reached a point where it's hard to tell if it's the machine writing it or a person who uses it uncritically copying it.
Something people forget is that France went all in on nuclear also to produce enough weapons grade plutonium for its independent atomic bomb program. Plutonium production was considered a feature rather than a bug of the reactor program.
This turns out not to be the case.
Like all nuclear powers, military use preceded civilian use in France.
In addition, the military actually pushed for a French-made dual-use reactor design for the civilian program, but instead a purely civilian Westinghouse design was chosen.
All anthropogenic CO2 emissions could be solved easily, if mankind gave up a bit of control. Let orangutans or cats control and operate your power plants, and you get zero CO2 emmisons generated by humans! It will all become nature like vulkano explosions! Zero CO2 generated from mankind. All emmision goals fullfilled 100 years ahead of schedule!
It is importsnt to reduce CO2!
this essay makes a very important point - that embracing nuclear power could have given us so much more runway on climate change, and the campaign to fearmonger on nuclear power was bad - but it's hard to take in his point because it's nearly incomprehensible at times.
"RMI’s Basalt headquarters makes 114,000 kilowatt-hours of rooftop solar a year, sparing about 40 tons of CO2 (net-zero premium for the building: $1.34 million). At that pace, 115 billion tons takes 2.7 billion years. Or every building on Earth, all 2.75 billion, matching RMI’s best work (built in 2015, not 1976) for a year, spending a mere extra $3.7 quadrillion. To pay for one essay."
What the hell does this mean? It's a bunch of numbers in a row seemingly measuring stats of different units against each other? And then this disconnected rhetorical flourish, 'to pay for one essay?' what?
And manages to ignore that solar power is now the world’s fastest growing source of electricity. Given this is largely driven by economies of scale you could just as well argue if we had gone all in solar in the 70s we would have had today’s solar cost/benefit by the 90s
So dramatic
"The math fits on a cocktail napkin. Keep all the efficiency and solar. Change one thing."
It's Claudian sass. Although we've reached a point where it's hard to tell if it's the machine writing it or a person who uses it uncritically copying it.