Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kenneth Kaminski's avatar

N2N

Natural Gas to Nuclear as Robert Bryce has been saying for years

It’s the only logical solution

Expand full comment
Patrick Jonke's avatar

I am always curious what makes a sensible person think that global warming represents an "existential crisis", because I don't think that claim can be sustained in the light of day. It seems to mostly occur from an overreliance on a Catastrophist narrative that is overtly political rather than scientific.

This can be seen perfectly clearly by looking at the new (10 Feb) Nature Communications peer-reviewed paper "A fire deficit persists across diverse North American forests despite recent increases in area burned." Look at not just the paper, but at the peer-reviewer comments in which the authors were asked to change their wording to "make it less useful to denialists". To their credit, the authors refused to do so and stuck to their conclusion: that NA forests are overloaded with fuel because they burn many times _less_ often then they did before the 1780s or so.

On the other hand, I think you've already seen that rushing to electrify everything before the grid can handle it would provoke a real crisis, and that was already true even before the Moss Landing catastrophe (q.v.) which deserves very close scrutiny.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts