Discussion about this post

User's avatar
CC's avatar

Perhaps you should read Vaclav Smil's book 'Power Density' more closely. Power density is key in any energy transition and it is clear that there is an important role for nuclear energy in the future, the densest power source of them all. It seems to be willfully ignored in this article (and perhaps also in the McKinsey and EU commission reports). Banking on a very dense power source like nuclear energy is a superior strategy to banking on blue-sky innovations somewhere in the future ("That leaves 14 per cent to be covered by blue-sky innovation". Pie in the sky?). Just a single sentence has been dedicated to nuclear: "utopian assumptions about nuclear power". There's nothing utopian about it, it just simple physics (energy density) and a G7 country has proven over many decades now, that it works: France, which pretty much achieved the transition to an almost carbon-free electricity system approximately 20 years ago.

Expand full comment
Richard Weinberg's avatar

I'm writing as a scientist. I'm not a climate scientist, so my specialized knowledge is limited, but I grew up around true experts, and have tried to stay informed.

Greenhouse gases are a real problem, and a solution is necessary. However the specific claims of expert panels are rhetorically excessive. Climate is exceedingly complex, and confident projections 50+ years into the future are fraught with uncertainty. To proceed with great caution in the face of possible severe danger is wise, but to promulgate educated guesses as "known facts" may ultimately simply discredit expertise. Thus, in my view, "If we do not [achieve net-zero carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050], we have reason to believe that the basic conditions of our existence will be in question" is perhaps true, provided one recognizes the weasel-word phrasing of "will be in question," but to me seems misleading.

Additionally, I echo the views of Camiel below: one wonders why e.g. nuclear energy is ignored in facing this problem. My own suspicion is that it reflects that sad tribal politicization of nearly everything now, such that cultural coherency becomes more important than solving problems, no matter how serious they may be.

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts