"The climate apocalypse is coming ... "

[Radagast]

I didn't realize the apocalypse would be so smoky. The sun has had the hue and luminance of a neon sign for a month. Every breath burns the eyes, sinuses, and throat with the smell of toasted pine tree. Ash falls from the sky at random. Last year was the worst and longest of a worsening trend, and this year is far worse and looks to be far longer as well. If this is just the start, then count me out. Juneau? Anchorage? Whitehorse? Too bad Canada is now officially hotter than Las Vegas.

On the positive side, change is happening among consumers and it may change quickly. My neighbors commute in two full size trucks, but are installing solar panels and buying a Tesla. Coal rollers won't want to be the weenie versus a Cybertruck or F-150 Lightning.

[LennStar]

Scientific advancement slowed down around the 70s, when (how to put it?) the amount of capitalism was increased.

I don’t understand (or agree) with this statement - perhaps you could explain what you mean a bit more?

Hm... how many breakthrough inventions were made before 70s and how many after?
Starting at around the century change: Electric light and machines, efficient and fast trains, cars, airplanes, chemistry, vaccines, space flight (and satellites!), computer...
and after 1970? You yould say roboter (but also that this started earlier) and the internet (which was state funded, not private).
During those old days when all those breakthrough inventions happened, it was, to put it broadly, Keynesianism in the economy. Then the Chicago boys won the game and since then there wasn't really any society changing (at least not in a good way, looking at Social Media) invention done (and financed) by private corporations.

I have to add that this is not an idea coming from me but one I read about. As I said it's hard to measure "scientific advancement". But the guys doing that research put up some fairly convincing points like the one above.

[pecunia]

Scientific advancement slowed down around the 70s, when (how to put it?) the amount of capitalism was increased.

I don’t understand (or agree) with this statement - perhaps you could explain what you mean a bit more?

Hm... how many breakthrough inventions were made before 70s and how many after?
Starting at around the century change: Electric light and machines, efficient and fast trains, cars, airplanes, chemistry, vaccines, space flight (and satellites!), computer...
and after 1970? You yould say roboter (but also that this started earlier) and the internet (which was state funded, not private).
During those old days when all those breakthrough inventions happened, it was, to put it broadly, Keynesianism in the economy. Then the Chicago boys won the game and since then there wasn't really any society changing (at least not in a good way, looking at Social Media) invention done (and financed) by private corporations.

I have to add that this is not an idea coming from me but one I read about. As I said it's hard to measure "scientific advancement". But the guys doing that research put up some fairly convincing points like the one above.

Around 1970 my dad was fixing televisions in the family basement.  Most of them still used vacuum tubes and all had a Cathode Ray Tube display.  The displays were much smaller and had less resolution than today's TVs.  A few years later he brought home a calculator from work.  It was an expensive Texas Instruments hand held calculator with an LED display.  Liquid Crystal displays were not to be seen at the time.  Cars had carburetors.  There were no personal computers.  This was the time of the mainframe and punch cards were used.  The microprocessor had not yet been invented.  Although lasers had been invented, their use was not prolific as today.  Pulse Width Modulation had not been invented.

So, there's been a lot  of stuff that has been invented / improved..  There probably has been new materials developed.  Plastics keep being refined.  Metallurgy hasn't stood still.  The processes used for manufacture have been robotized with the use of PLCs, automated welding, etc.

It does kind of seem like you are right in a way.  The true "trickle down economics" is the proliferation of invention to make our lives better.  In some ways this has happened, but when you see videos of people living in cars, people not being able to afford basic health care even with two jobs, companies not paying benefits to many, and endless war from the US government, then things just don't seem right.


It takes more than technology to make a good world.  It takes people working together.  As I wrote previously, the rules are kind of rigged right now and the needs of people and the planet are not being addressed.  Some good suggestions have been given to alleviate the situation.  I'm sure you guys have got a lot more.  Let's prevent the climate apocalypse.

[LennStar]

Right, I forgot the microchip. (Even personal computer you could say was just an logical evolution of something that was already established, not a new thing).
But a really world changing thing? Even "only" on the level of the fridge or the washing machine? Nope.

People in 1970 thought there would be several stations in space in 2000 and a colony on the moon where you prepared for the mars colonization in 2020. Cars would be flying and mail delivered per rocket.

We got E-Mail instead, which is fine, but I can't shake the feeling technological advancement lacks a certain oomph and direction since about half a century. 70 years from the first flight to the first commercial supersonic jet. Today there is none (which is okay-ish because they have a lot of drawbacks, not least the big bang).
Trains have gotten a lot better, but even though we extremely need them because of climate, nearly no one is building them. It takes longer to build a single 200km high speed line than it took 150 years ago to cross the American continent with a railroad build in the middle of no infrastructure at all.

What we do have is "Fast fashion", talent shows and countless programs on our smartphone that have made half of humanity literally intentionally addicted on wasting time.
All three are great commercial successes. But I would argue they are not an advancement.

[former player]

I remember 1970.  The number of computers in my country then could well have been less than 100.  I remembr the start of the internet too, with dial-up access to watch a coffee pot in Cambridge.

Powerful, small size computers linked to the internet, and what's more mobile computers linked to the internet, are absolutely world changing, all around the world.

[maizefolk]

Right, I forgot the microchip. (Even personal computer you could say was just an logical evolution of something that was already established, not a new thing).
But a really world changing thing? Even "only" on the level of the fridge or the washing machine? Nope.

The refrigerator is really just a logical evolution of Wiliam Cullen's artificial refrigeration first demonstrated in the 1700s. A washing machine is a logical evolution of pumping technology of water pumps (>2000 years old) and electrical motors (early 1800s).

And I suspect you are underselling how alien our world would appear to a time traveller from the 1970s. They'd be disappointed at the lack of flying cars and moon based, but at the same time I suspect they'd be freaked out by the pocket computers so many people walk around staring into 12-14 hours a day. I really enjoy reading old science fiction (it's so much more hopeful than the new stuff) and the rocket ships and laser guns are frequently juxtaposed with computers the size of rooms or buildings and working out the math of navigating from one start to another on paper. Whether that's good change or bad change is a separate question from the magnitude of the change. At the time there were plenty of people who thought washing machines and vacuums were terrible inventions that encouraged indolence among housewives.

1900-1970 was a period of radical technological change as harnessing fossil fuels through steam engines, internal combustion engines and electricity allowed us to replace human and animal muscle with artificial power for a wide range of tasks. The technological innovation to convert much of those same replacements for human and animal power to renewable energy sources is still vast, but it's not nearly as visible to the end user, since we're changing the source of the power coming into the system rather than its uses.

At the same time we're replacing more and more of the work that used to be done by human brains with artificial brains. Whether you think that's a good thing or not, it really is going to change our world and the way we live our lives in radical ways (it's already started) ... at least if we managing to avoid civilizational collapse, which is certainly not a given.

For example, how confident are you that this post was written by a real human being vs a computer?

[GodlessCommie]

For example, how confident are you that this post was written by a real human being vs a computer?

Only confident because no one has incentive enough to use AI for this.

Not only computers, but also instant - and nearly free - connectivity across the globe. Would kill many early SciFi pieces with plots depending on parties not being in touch.

But all these marvelous advances got us (the first world) spoiled and unwilling to sacrifice even a bit of convenience for self-preservation.

[maizefolk]

Not only computers, but also instant - and nearly free - connectivity across the globe. Would kill many early SciFi pieces with plots depending on parties not being in touch.

Yup. I've also heard that it's harder than it used to be to write scripts for horror movies now that you always first have to deal with the "why don't they just call for help on their cell phones?" question.

[GodlessCommie]

Yup. I've also heard that it's harder than it used to be to write scripts for horror movies now that you always first have to deal with the "why don't they just call for help on their cell phones?" question.

In The Expanse, they introduced an alien technology capable of turning laws of physics on and off.

Would come handy here - "no more electromagnetic waves in bands X, Y, and Z for you"!

[maizefolk]

But all these marvelous advances got us (the first world) spoiled and unwilling to sacrifice even a bit of convenience for self-preservation.

As I read back over this post, I'm curious what leads you to think that there is a causal relationship here.

Are you saying that you think the average person in the 1800s or 1700s would be more willing to sacrifice their short-term self interest for the long term good of their country/civilization/species? If so, I'd be fascinating to hear more about what leads you to that view.

[GodlessCommie]

Are you saying that you think the average person in the 1800s or 1700s would be more willing to sacrifice their short-term self interest for the long term good of their country/civilization/species? If so, I'd be fascinating to hear more about what leads you to that view.

Well, people have volunteered for military service, with a much higher chance of dying than today, in much greater numbers. They (mostly) did not resist draft, and did not chase away politicians who introduced draft. That's not exactly the same - but it is real sacrifice. People made real effort on the homefront. Victory gardens, rationing, all that.

Do you see us accepting restriction similar to those imposed during the world wars today? Growing food at home at similar scale? Honest question. I don't. Now, it may not be causal - this is the part of the claim I have nothing to back up with.

[LennStar]

Are you saying that you think the average person in the 1800s or 1700s would be more willing to sacrifice their short-term self interest for the long term good of their country/civilization/species? If so, I'd be fascinating to hear more about what leads you to that view.

Well, people have volunteered for military service, with a much higher chance of dying than today, in much greater numbers. They (mostly) did not resist draft, and did not chase away politicians who introduced draft. That's not exactly the same - but it is real sacrifice. People made real effort on the homefront. Victory gardens, rationing, all that.

Do you see us accepting restriction similar to those imposed during the world wars today? Growing food at home at similar scale? Honest question. I don't. Now, it may not be causal - this is the part of the claim I have nothing to back up with.

War is a really bad example for various reasons. (btw. the soldiers ordered to test the reaction to poison gas did generally not follow orders and ran away instead of getting maimed for military science.)

A better example might be taxes - everyone knows that taxes are used to pay for important civic services. How many people have paid their taxes happy at which point in time? I guess that number was never above 50%.
How many people keep the noise down at their birthday party because their neighbors certainly feel as annoyed as they feel when their neighbors have their birthday party?

People were always egoistic.

"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer
rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents,
chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their
legs, and are tyrants over their teachers."
- Sokrates, according to Plato, some time B.C.

[former player]

Are you saying that you think the average person in the 1800s or 1700s would be more willing to sacrifice their short-term self interest for the long term good of their country/civilization/species? If so, I'd be fascinating to hear more about what leads you to that view.

Well, people have volunteered for military service, with a much higher chance of dying than today, in much greater numbers. They (mostly) did not resist draft, and did not chase away politicians who introduced draft. That's not exactly the same - but it is real sacrifice. People made real effort on the homefront. Victory gardens, rationing, all that.

Do you see us accepting restriction similar to those imposed during the world wars today? Growing food at home at similar scale? Honest question. I don't. Now, it may not be causal - this is the part of the claim I have nothing to back up with.

Relatives of mine were conscripted into WWI and WWII, one of them died, others spent years away from home, family and career in dangerous circumstances for very little pay.  I don't see any possibility of conscription coming back in any circumstances (not saying that's a bad thing, mind).

[GodlessCommie]

"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority, they show disrespect to their elders....

Thank you, I'm well aware that people glorified the past in the very past we now glorify. And I'm not, by any means, claim that our forefathers were all altruists.

But I'll pose the same question to you: do you see this society accepting draft to help evacuation from Kabul? Or to fight fires that ravage the West? Do you see us accepting rationing, or doing, voluntarily, anything on the scale of Victory Gardens?

Relatives of mine were conscripted into WWI and WWII, one of them died, others spent years away from home, family and career in dangerous circumstances for very little pay.  I don't see any possibility of conscription coming back in any circumstances (not saying that's a bad thing, mind).

Right. That's what I'm trying to say. I don't argue for the draft, either - but I think it is a perfect example of the shift in what we see as acceptable common sacrifice.

[maizefolk]

Are you saying that you think the average person in the 1800s or 1700s would be more willing to sacrifice their short-term self interest for the long term good of their country/civilization/species? If so, I'd be fascinating to hear more about what leads you to that view.

Well, people have volunteered for military service, with a much higher chance of dying than today, in much greater numbers. They (mostly) did not resist draft, and did not chase away politicians who introduced draft. That's not exactly the same - but it is real sacrifice. People made real effort on the homefront. Victory gardens, rationing, all that.

Do you see us accepting restriction similar to those imposed during the world wars today? Growing food at home at similar scale? Honest question. I don't. Now, it may not be causal - this is the part of the claim I have nothing to back up with.

Huh. Well I said I'd be fascinated to hear your reasoning and indeed I am.

The two confounders that occur to me are that our government used to be a LOT better at propaganda than it is today (check out some of the posters and newsreels from during world war 2 it's impressively compelling) and it had a lot less competition. Today we have a much wider range of independent media, which both means propaganda doesn't work as well and people are exposed to a lot more information on the realities of going to war.

The other, and I could certainly see how you could argue this one counts as less willing to sacrifice than prior generations, is that if your life trajectory is to be born, live, and die within a 5-10 mile radius and work on the farm just like your father and grandfather, you may be more willing to take the risk of death or maiming to get to see the world and maybe, if you survive, end up with a different sort of life afterwards. Today many people feel they have more options anyway, and our volunteer military draws disproportionately from the people and communities where there isn't much hope of living a life better than your parents'.

But it's certainly an interesting argument to make.

[sixwings]

Right, I forgot the microchip. (Even personal computer you could say was just an logical evolution of something that was already established, not a new thing).
But a really world changing thing? Even "only" on the level of the fridge or the washing machine? Nope.

The refrigerator is really just a logical evolution of Wiliam Cullen's artificial refrigeration first demonstrated in the 1700s. A washing machine is a logical evolution of pumping technology of water pumps (>2000 years old) and electrical motors (early 1800s).

And I suspect you are underselling how alien our world would appear to a time traveller from the 1970s. They'd be disappointed at the lack of flying cars and moon based, but at the same time I suspect they'd be freaked out by the pocket computers so many people walk around staring into 12-14 hours a day. I really enjoy reading old science fiction (it's so much more hopeful than the new stuff) and the rocket ships and laser guns are frequently juxtaposed with computers the size of rooms or buildings and working out the math of navigating from one start to another on paper. Whether that's good change or bad change is a separate question from the magnitude of the change. At the time there were plenty of people who thought washing machines and vacuums were terrible inventions that encouraged indolence among housewives.

1900-1970 was a period of radical technological change as harnessing fossil fuels through steam engines, internal combustion engines and electricity allowed us to replace human and animal muscle with artificial power for a wide range of tasks. The technological innovation to convert much of those same replacements for human and animal power to renewable energy sources is still vast, but it's not nearly as visible to the end user, since we're changing the source of the power coming into the system rather than its uses.

At the same time we're replacing more and more of the work that used to be done by human brains with artificial brains. Whether you think that's a good thing or not, it really is going to change our world and the way we live our lives in radical ways (it's already started) ... at least if we managing to avoid civilizational collapse, which is certainly not a given.

For example, how confident are you that this post was written by a real human being vs a computer?

I actually think the gadgets we have aren't even the most important part of our technology. We always look at the gadgets or big things like airplanes, but the absolute crazy tech changes revolves around our access to information. We have million years of information available to us in 1-2 seconds to google something. That kind of access to information would have been completely unfathomable not all that long ago.

[GodlessCommie]

The two confounders that occur to me are that our government used to be a LOT better at propaganda than it is today (check out some of the posters and newsreels from during world war 2 it's impressively compelling) and it had a lot less competition. Today we have a much wider range of independent media, which both means propaganda doesn't work as well and people are exposed to a lot more information on the realities of going to war.

Well, I absolutely get and accept your first argument. But lets set fighting in a war aside for a moment - that appeals to our basic instincts, and isn't like climate change, which has to be understood by higher-order thinking.

We can concentrate on the homefront. Canning, limited choices of clothing, rationing, growing food, all that. Much closer to what we need to do now. In fact, many of the same exact things would have helped with climate change. Yet I cannot imagine a similar scale nationwide effort. And, without any data to back it up, I feel like it all boils down to our unwillingness to accept even modest voluntary hardship. Willingness that people here demonstrated 70 years ago.

Granted, propaganda affected this side, too. Yet even people who accept the reality of climate change, and don't need to be convinced, are highly reluctant to lower their level of consumption.

[maizefolk]

We can concentrate on the homefront. Canning, limited choices of clothing, rationing, growing food, all that. Much closer to what we need to do now. In fact, many of the same exact things would have helped with climate change. Yet I cannot imagine a similar scale nationwide effort. And, without any data to back it up, I feel like it all boils down to our unwillingness to accept even modest voluntary hardship. Willingness that people here demonstrated 70 years ago.

Granted, propaganda affected this side, too. Yet even people who accept the reality of climate change, and don't need to be convinced, are highly reluctant to lower their level of consumption.

Also no evidence on my side, but I think there is a different explanation for the limited amount of action by folks who accept just how bad climate change is going to get in coming decades.

Whether it is climate change or a war, people aren't willing to sacrifice if they don't think the outcome matters, but they are also unwilling to sacrifice if they don't think their sacrifice is going to change the outcome. That's part of why government propaganda is important during wars. There is a sweet spot where most of the population believes the threat is serious and real, but doesn't think the threat is so great that we're all doomed anyway so why try. Because of the collective action problem this is even more important. The more people are in the sweet spot of serious-enough-to-buckle-down-and-fight but not so-serious-we-might-as-well-give-up, the bigger the impact the group as a whole can have and, the easier it is to believe we can actually successfully address the problem, and the broader the sweet spot of how serious people can believe the problem to be without either ignoring it or giving up becomes.

In world war II most americans were very carefully held in that sweet spot. With the benefit of hindsight scrap and rubber drives didn't do much to MATERIALLY help the war effort, but by organizing the drives the government hammered home both the seriousness of the war effort but also the idea that people's individual actions could make a difference and let people visibly see their friends and neighbors were all pulling towards a common goal.

Today if you try to take personal action to address climate change a large but shrinking set of voices will tell you that you're dumb for taking it so seriously, and a small but growing set of voices will tell you you're dumb for thinking it's not already too late.

[pecunia]

In addition the problem seems so big that it's hard to wrap your arms around it.  A war has a an ending.  We can understand that.  Climate change, not so clear cut.

The United States population is equivalent to 4.25% of the total world population.  Even if the whole country were to clean up it's act,.......what are the remaining 95 percent of the folks in the world going to do? 

Propaganda was noted.  I haven't seen a whole lot of propaganda from the government telling people of actions to be taken to battle this thing.

We need to change the thinking.  We need to change the rules.

[former player]

In addition the problem seems so big that it's hard to wrap your arms around it.  A war has a an ending.  We can understand that.  Climate change, not so clear cut.

The United States population is equivalent to 4.25% of the total world population.  Even if the whole country were to clean up it's act,.......what are the remaining 95 percent of the folks in the world going to do? 

Propaganda was noted.  I haven't seen a whole lot of propaganda from the government telling people of actions to be taken to battle this thing.

We need to change the thinking.  We need to change the rules.

At least 50% of the population aren't the problem because they are too poor to be the problem.

The US is ony 4.25 of the population but a much bigger part of the problem.  And China, of course.  Of the countries that are the problem (the G20) most of the governments have accepted that their countries are the problem and are at least paying lip service to doing something about it, even if too late and not yet believably enough - although that too is starting to change.

[Abe]

There’s not really a point where change is “too late”, climate change isn’t binary. That’s the problem with all the media coverage of the current IPCC report. Yeah we’re probably not going to prevent some effects, but if we do nothing. The effects will be much worse (I know you all know this already, just making a point). I agree setting goals that sound unrealistic on their face will not help because some fraction of people will just throw up their hands. I guess on the other hand, maybe a “aim high and even if you fail it’ll clear the bar” messaging will help?

[LennStar]

I think we mostly forget, when talking about sacrifices, about the A) the time factor and B) the difference between relative and absolute sacrifices.

A) When the result of climate change will really kick in, I will be dead. So why should I do something? Even if you don't consciously think that, it is a vastly less motivating factor than "If I don't do something, the Nazis will drop a bomb on my house in half a year".

B) MMM talks a lot about hedonistic adaption. To what were people adapted 100 years ago? To die in industrial accidents for example. To die from smog. It was not only living all your life in a 10 mile radius (thanks for pointing that out), but all of life was a lot more dangerous. It was still a time when famine - literally people dying from hunger - was, even if not happening, something the older had experienced.
Everything you did had a lot worse risk/reward ratio.

Canning, limited choices of clothing, rationing, growing food, all that.

There are ecos who do this. And I have no doubt most people would do this if forced today - but doing it out of your free will I am sure people 100 years would not have done in big numbers if they had the sureness of supply that we have today. How many millionaires in 1940 did this?

Collecting rubber and scraps is equivalent to not buying a new iPhone this year emotionally. For some it's hard, others wonder why nobody else is doing it.

Saving the world is everwhelming huge. Putting a bullet into Franz Nazi (or knitting socks for the guy who does this) seems a lot easier in comparison.

[GodlessCommie]

Good points, good points.

I thought more about it all yesterday, and maybe I have underestimated our willingness to do hard things for the common good. Take the pandemic. In about 50% of the population, "bend the curve" mantra really took hold. People did limit things they enjoy not only to protect themselves, but to protect others.

Like a war effort, these actions were concrete, and the expectation was that they were limited in time. The goal was clear, the "war" looked winnable. The authorities came up with a good slogan. None of it exists in the climate change realm. In fact, there is very little top down guidance, and it is rather vague.

[Metalcat]

In addition the problem seems so big that it's hard to wrap your arms around it.  A war has a an ending.  We can understand that.  Climate change, not so clear cut.

The United States population is equivalent to 4.25% of the total world population.  Even if the whole country were to clean up it's act,.......what are the remaining 95 percent of the folks in the world going to do? 

Propaganda was noted.  I haven't seen a whole lot of propaganda from the government telling people of actions to be taken to battle this thing.

We need to change the thinking.  We need to change the rules.

At least 50% of the population aren't the problem because they are too poor to be the problem.

The US is ony 4.25 of the population but a much bigger part of the problem.  And China, of course.  Of the countries that are the problem (the G20) most of the governments have accepted that their countries are the problem and are at least paying lip service to doing something about it, even if too late and not yet believably enough - although that too is starting to change.

But those governments represent the people who "aren't the problem".

The people may not be "the problem", but they are the barrier holding governments back from solutions.

What the individuals do or don't do doesn't matter nearly as much as what they *want*.

[former player]

In addition the problem seems so big that it's hard to wrap your arms around it.  A war has a an ending.  We can understand that.  Climate change, not so clear cut.

The United States population is equivalent to 4.25% of the total world population.  Even if the whole country were to clean up it's act,.......what are the remaining 95 percent of the folks in the world going to do? 

Propaganda was noted.  I haven't seen a whole lot of propaganda from the government telling people of actions to be taken to battle this thing.

We need to change the thinking.  We need to change the rules.

At least 50% of the population aren't the problem because they are too poor to be the problem.

The US is ony 4.25 of the population but a much bigger part of the problem.  And China, of course.  Of the countries that are the problem (the G20) most of the governments have accepted that their countries are the problem and are at least paying lip service to doing something about it, even if too late and not yet believably enough - although that too is starting to change.

But those governments represent the people who "aren't the problem".

The people may not be "the problem", but they are the barrier holding governments back from solutions.

What the individuals do or don't do doesn't matter nearly as much as what they *want*.

I probably wasn't clear enough.  The 40% of the world's population who are not in the G20 emit only 15% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.  A significant proportion of the 2.7 billion people in China and India who are at similar poverty levels to non-G20 populations are emitting similarly limited amounts of greenhouse gases, because they can't afford to do anything else.

It's the world's minority of rich people, and the governments they elect, who are the problem.  And very much because the USA is rich and designed around cheap carbon energy they need to put their own house in order rather than blaming everyone else for their own inaction.  If the USA cleaned up its act it would send a signal to everyone else to clean up their lesser (except China) emissions.  And hey, they might even get on the clean energy technology bandwagon and sell it to the rest of the world.  Win/win if only sense prevailed.

[GodlessCommie]

To @former player 's point (I think) It's really unhelpful to only compare emissions between countries. Per capita emissions have to be considered - that's where China and especially India suddenly don't look like main problems. A bit contrary to that point, there are a few countries not in G20 that have very high per capita emissions (Mongolia, Kazakhstan).

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita

Putting all the blame on all rich countries is also not very helpful. UK, France, Spain and Portugal all have lower per capita emissions than China. UK's progress in decarbonization is especially impressive.

And yes, who we elect plays a huge difference. Canada has a more demanding climate than the US average (it take more energy to get from below freezing to comfortable than from hot to comfortable), but has slightly lower per capita emissions. Australia should be able to do better than either - but instead, it does worse. And it's 100% because people down under keep electing coal-loving governments.

[GodlessCommie]

Even more stark example of the importance of who we elect: the difference in per capita emissions between US states. Vermont (very challenging climate) emits 9.38 metric tons per year per person. West Virginia - milder climate - emits 52. 9/10 of the states with lowest per capita emissions are blue, 10/10 of worst offenders are red.

And for an example of the importance of compact living (as opposed to techno-wizardry) look at Washington, DC.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/us-states-by-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-capita.html

[maizefolk]

Like a war effort, these actions were concrete, and the expectation was that they were limited in time. The goal was clear, the "war" looked winnable. The authorities came up with a good slogan. None of it exists in the climate change realm. In fact, there is very little top down guidance, and it is rather vague.

I'm in complete agreement with you here. I think one of the reasons we're in this particular mess with regards to communication and messaging at the moment (although I don't know what I would have done differently at the time) is that the UN/IPCC and other bodies communicating on climate change policy made the gamble of drawing a line in the sand at ~1.5 degrees C of warming. I understand why they did it. If you just say "less is better and more is worse" it's easy for governments to continue avoiding action and saying a little more isn't going to matter all that much.

But now we're in a situation where limiting to 1.5 degrees C really does seem quite unlikely. So those same intergovernmental and scientific bodies have the unenviable tasks of either drawing a new line in the sand (because 2.5C is still a LOT better than 3.5C, and so on), at which point their repositioning will be used a weapon to attack their credibility ("you said we absolutely positively had to stop at 1.5C, so why should we believe you this time"). Or they hold onto the original line in the sand and we're in the situation we're in now where most people either think there's no problem or think there's no hope.

A bit of a tangent, but I was an Andrew Yang supporter back in the democratic primaries and I remember the reaction to his debate answer in August of 2019 that the time to completely prevent climate change had passed and we needed to focus not only on limiting how large that climate change is but also adapting our civilization to the effects we know are coming. At the time almost everyone seemed to perceive accepting that some amount of climate change is going to happen as an out-there and defeatist worldview. But two years on, at least the a sizable minority of people seem to share the same view. I guess my point is just that, while it can seem like people's views on climate change are static over a period of weeks or months, really big shifts in public opinion can sneak up on you. So maybe (hopefully) the messaging on climate change will catch up to dealing with the new defeatism and hopelessness that seems to be a growing reason many people aren't willing to sacrifice for this particular fight.

[GodlessCommie]

Also, to state the obvious, in WWII the alliances were between countries that, for the lack of a better terms, liked each other. And in the case of Western democracies and USSR, there could be no suspicion that USSR would slack off - they were fighting for their dear life.

Now, with climate change, countries that are at best suspicious of each other have to cooperate. It's a truly global problem. So why should I give up my Suburban, when Xi is surely cheating on me and keeps building coal plants? And the other way around, why should I keep living in a cramped apartment w/o AC and commute on a bus, when Americans, Brits, and Germans, who created most of the CO2 currently in atmosphere, enjoy better standards of living?

[pecunia]

Even more stark example of the importance of who we elect: the difference in per capita emissions between US states. Vermont (very challenging climate) emits 9.38 metric tons per year per person. West Virginia - milder climate - emits 52. 9/10 of the states with lowest per capita emissions are blue, 10/10 of worst offenders are red.

And for an example of the importance of compact living (as opposed to techno-wizardry) look at Washington, DC.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/us-states-by-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-capita.html

Seems like the places where the jobs depend on the fossil fuel thing elect in kind.  I guess it's an example of job preservation.  I think old Jimmie Inhofe from Oklahoma is another good example of that.  It's an ol state.

It once again verifies that old Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

As coal plants are closed, the jobs will diminish and it may be easier to convince the folks in those areas.  But first there must be political and economic push to close them.

[maizefolk]

As coal plants are closed, the jobs will diminish and it may be easier to convince the folks in those areas.  But first there must be political and economic push to close them.

The coal jobs are already going away. Many of them are gone. Here is the percentage of US electricity sourced from coal fired power plants over time:



And here is total coal mining employment in the USA.



The problem is that when the coal jobs leave places like West Virginia we as a society don't do anything to replace them (in Germany when coal mines shut down their federal government invests huge amounts of money into the effected regions to kickstart new industries*). People aren't voting to protect their existing jobs from climate change regulation near so much as they're voting for people promise (falsely) they can bring back the relative security and stability and pride of an earlier time.

*New industries. Not boot camps trying to teach people in their 40s and 50s to become computer programmers. 

(Edit, fixed 2nd graph)

[pecunia]

As coal plants are closed, the jobs will diminish and it may be easier to convince the folks in those areas.  But first there must be political and economic push to close them.

The coal jobs are already going away. Many of them are gone. Here is the percentage of US electricity sourced from coal fired power plants over time:



And here is total coal mining employment in the USA.



The problem is that when the coal jobs leave places like West Virginia we as a society don't do anything to replace them (in Germany when coal mines shut down their federal government invests huge amounts of money into the effected regions to kickstart new industries*). People aren't voting to protect their existing jobs from climate change regulation near so much as they're voting for people promise (falsely) they can bring back the relative security and stability and pride of an earlier time.

*New industries. Not boot camps trying to teach people in their 40s and 50s to become computer programmers. 

(Edit, fixed 2nd graph)

Give that person a silver dollar, I think he is absolutely right.

What could they put in place of the coal mines?  Henry J Kaiser used to say, "Find a Need and Fill It."  He started out in concrete.

How about semiconductors?  J R Semplot, the potato king, did it in Boise a few years back.  He did good for a while with Micron.  It just so happens that the entire world seems to be short of chips to build cars.  I'll bet the coal miners in Wyoming and West Virginia would welcome such an opportunity if they could be trained for it.  You may not think that they can, but people can do a lot of they have the need.

I'll bet there may be some rare Earth metals waiting to be mined by experienced miners.  They may need to relocate as ore bodies don't tend to move but some nice rural jobs could be created.  You see China kind of has a monopoly on Rare Earth Metals and we need them for all kinds of things.

Both of these ideas would require some government help like they gave the German miners.  We've spent trillions of dollars in Afghanistan to help defense companies.  I'll bet it would only take a small fraction of that to help these miners.  Some environmental regulations may need to be re-examined as rare Earth materials occur with Thorium, but we should realistically be able to do that.

Sounds like the Germans were willing to think out of the box and change the rules to make stuff work for them.  At least they try.  I guess they are still burning their brown coal.

[LennStar]

Oh yes, we are still doing that. Because building new industries is hard and expensive and it's easy to fail and anyway takes some time.
Existing coal mines are all in areas with high unemployment. Fuck the climate, if those jobs go away my place in the perliament is fucked!!

I could write pages about the intricacies (like the coal commissions or that stocks of energy companies are hold by states) but I will be spitting fire here at the end, and I don't want to heat up everything even more.

[EvenSteven]

As coal plants are closed, the jobs will diminish and it may be easier to convince the folks in those areas.  But first there must be political and economic push to close them.

The coal jobs are already going away. Many of them are gone. Here is the percentage of US electricity sourced from coal fired power plants over time:



And here is total coal mining employment in the USA.



The problem is that when the coal jobs leave places like West Virginia we as a society don't do anything to replace them (in Germany when coal mines shut down their federal government invests huge amounts of money into the effected regions to kickstart new industries*). People aren't voting to protect their existing jobs from climate change regulation near so much as they're voting for people promise (falsely) they can bring back the relative security and stability and pride of an earlier time.

*New industries. Not boot camps trying to teach people in their 40s and 50s to become computer programmers. 

(Edit, fixed 2nd graph)

Give that person a silver dollar, I think he is absolutely right.

What could they put in place of the coal mines?  Henry J Kaiser used to say, "Find a Need and Fill It."  He started out in concrete.

How about semiconductors?  J R Semplot, the potato king, did it in Boise a few years back.  He did good for a while with Micron.  It just so happens that the entire world seems to be short of chips to build cars.  I'll bet the coal miners in Wyoming and West Virginia would welcome such an opportunity if they could be trained for it.  You may not think that they can, but people can do a lot of they have the need.

I'll bet there may be some rare Earth metals waiting to be mined by experienced miners.  They may need to relocate as ore bodies don't tend to move but some nice rural jobs could be created.  You see China kind of has a monopoly on Rare Earth Metals and we need them for all kinds of things.

Both of these ideas would require some government help like they gave the German miners.  We've spent trillions of dollars in Afghanistan to help defense companies.  I'll bet it would only take a small fraction of that to help these miners.  Some environmental regulations may need to be re-examined as rare Earth materials occur with Thorium, but we should realistically be able to do that.

Sounds like the Germans were willing to think out of the box and change the rules to make stuff work for them.  At least they try.  I guess they are still burning their brown coal.

Well, it makes sense that the the potato king would get into chips.

[BicycleB]

^ Thorium, you say? I have read that thorium nuclear reactors would be far safer than uranium ones. Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone. :)

[nereo]

^ Thorium, you say? I have read that thorium nuclear reactors would be far safer than uranium ones. Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone. :)

On paper they are much safer and have fewer issues with byproducts (like spent fuel-rod storage).  But they are still experimental, and the very first commercial reactors are slated to begin construction around 2030, with an estimated operational timeframe around 2040. Whether the Chinese will hit this target is open to rampant speculation - there's still a ton of logistical problems to solve, including how to store and move the highly corrosive, super-heated salt without corrosion or cracked pipes. And of course the reactor itself still simply heats water - the normal immensely expensive, large and powerful turbines, cooling towers, etc. must be built as well.

Then of course there's alays the NIMBY question - not many communities in democratic countries will welcome a "prototype nuclear technology with no long-term data" into their community.

While we're waiting, seems we should continue to accelerate the greening our electricity grid, no...?

[pecunia]

^ Thorium, you say? I have read that thorium nuclear reactors would be far safer than uranium ones. Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone. :)

On paper they are much safer and have fewer issues with byproducts (like spent fuel-rod storage).  But they are still experimental, and the very first commercial reactors are slated to begin construction around 2030, with an estimated operational timeframe around 2040. Whether the Chinese will hit this target is open to rampant speculation - there's still a ton of logistical problems to solve, including how to store and move the highly corrosive, super-heated salt without corrosion or cracked pipes. And of course the reactor itself still simply heats water - the normal immensely expensive, large and powerful turbines, cooling towers, etc. must be built as well.

Then of course there's alays the NIMBY question - not many communities in democratic countries will welcome a "prototype nuclear technology with no long-term data" into their community.

While we're waiting, seems we should continue to accelerate the greening our electricity grid, no...?

What gets folks fired up about Thorium and the Molten Salt Reactor is that one was built at Oak Ridge long long ago.  This was before Jane Fonda and her folks spread some tales of woe.  You can read about here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

A reactor is a source of heat.  It can heat and boil water or it can heat gas.  Combined cycle gas turbines are rather efficient for power plants.  They use hot gas to spin a turbine and then the exhaust gas boils water.  These molten salr reactors can also run hotter than the reactors of today so they are thinking of doing the same thing.  The reactor can heat gas and spin a turbine.  It could stop there and the waste heat could go to industrial processes or do like the combined cycle turbines and make more electricity.  It really doesn't have to heat water at all.  Small reactors should not need big hyperbolic cooling towers.

This article says the Chinese are almost done with their first molten salt reactor.

https://www.livescience.com/china-creates-new-thorium-reactor.html

They figure to fire it up next month and get it really running in 2030.

You're right not to put all the eggs in one basket.  It's poor investing.  I'd like to see more geothermal stuff and tide power too.

I think if we took a decent look and a half ass effort we would find new jobs for the coal miners.

[BicycleB]

While we're waiting, seems we should continue to accelerate the greening our electricity grid, no...?

Of course!

[nereo]

What gets folks fired up about Thorium and the Molten Salt Reactor is ...

I see what you did there.

A reactor is a source of heat.  It can heat and boil water or it can heat gas.  Combined cycle gas turbines are rather efficient for power plants.  They use hot gas to spin a turbine and then the exhaust gas boils water.  These molten salr reactors can also run hotter than the reactors of today so they are thinking of doing the same thing.  The reactor can heat gas and spin a turbine.  It could stop there and the waste heat could go to industrial processes or do like the combined cycle turbines and make more electricity.  It really doesn't have to heat water at all.  Small reactors should not need big hyperbolic cooling towers.

Yup.  A very smart person once pointed out to me that the largest, most powerful US Navy ships every built weren't propelled by nuclear power, but by steam engines.  A nuclear reactor just gets very, very hot.  The spinning action of the turbines are what actually produce electrical current.  Symantics to most, I know, but it is what it is...

This article says the Chinese are almost done with their first molten salt reactor.
https://www.livescience.com/china-creates-new-thorium-reactor.html
They figure to fire it up next month and get it really running in 2030.

Interesting - the article is a bit ambiguous about the timeframe and what stage construction 2030 will be.  China is fairly opaque with their industrial projects, and from what I've read they are still in the research phase and are still several years from breaking ground on commercial-scale reactors.
For those who assume China can just ram through large construction projects without delays because they don't get tied up in legal challenges and red-tape, consider the Three Gorges Dam project had decades of delays before ground-breaking and then construction lagged years behind and was subject to the normal overspends. I certainly don't subscribe to this idea that somehow China can build a next-generation plant in record time (e.g. in less than a decade).

You're right not to put all the eggs in one basket.  It's poor investing.  I'd like to see more geothermal stuff and tide power too.

I think if we took a decent look and a half ass effort we would find new jobs for the coal miners.

Finding alternative, safer and good paying jobs for the majority of coal towns would end much of the "roll-coal!" nonsense.  But that's too often derailed as "socialism!!"

[Abe]

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschina-moves-forward-with-thorium-molten-salt-reactor-8919220

This article notes that approval for a prototype 2 megawatt (not gigawatt) reactor was given in 2011. It is only now being finished. I am highly skeptical that this will progress to wide-scale commercial deployment by 2040. If it does, great!

My wife's uncle is head of urban planning and civil engineering for a large Chinese city. They can easily get eminent domain and approval for massive projects (which saves time), but are still subject to all the construction issues seen in the West.

[pecunia]

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschina-moves-forward-with-thorium-molten-salt-reactor-8919220

This article notes that approval for a prototype 2 megawatt (not gigawatt) reactor was given in 2011. It is only now being finished. I am highly skeptical that this will progress to wide-scale commercial deployment by 2040. If it does, great!

My wife's uncle is head of urban planning and civil engineering for a large Chinese city. They can easily get eminent domain and approval for massive projects (which saves time), but are still subject to all the construction issues seen in the West.

Didn't figure they had unions in China.  Good to hear they actually treat their workers well.

[Abe]

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschina-moves-forward-with-thorium-molten-salt-reactor-8919220

This article notes that approval for a prototype 2 megawatt (not gigawatt) reactor was given in 2011. It is only now being finished. I am highly skeptical that this will progress to wide-scale commercial deployment by 2040. If it does, great!

My wife's uncle is head of urban planning and civil engineering for a large Chinese city. They can easily get eminent domain and approval for massive projects (which saves time), but are still subject to all the construction issues seen in the West.

Didn't figure they had unions in China.  Good to hear they actually treat their workers well.

They don’t but I don’t think the major issue with nuclear reactor construction is the unions. Worker treatment is highly variable depending on the urgency of completing a given project. Now that workers generally have more choices and are more mobile, there’s a weak incentive to not be terrible to them.
Do you have experience with nuclear construction? If so what’s the major reason for cost over-runs in your experience? I’m not an engineer so would be interested to know what the holdup is if the reactors are that much safer.

[maizefolk]

A good read on the reasons why nuclear reactors take longer and longer to build and cost more and more:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plants-so-expensive-safetys-only-part-of-the-story/

[LennStar]

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschina-moves-forward-with-thorium-molten-salt-reactor-8919220

This article notes that approval for a prototype 2 megawatt (not gigawatt) reactor was given in 2011. It is only now being finished. I am highly skeptical that this will progress to wide-scale commercial deployment by 2040. If it does, great!

My wife's uncle is head of urban planning and civil engineering for a large Chinese city. They can easily get eminent domain and approval for massive projects (which saves time), but are still subject to all the construction issues seen in the West.

Didn't figure they had unions in China.  Good to hear they actually treat their workers well.

lol good one on both sentences.

Did you know that one of the biggest internal political threads for the Chinese Communist Party are young Marxists, freshly educated in critical Marxism at the University, that apply that critical thinking to the actions and results of the CHinese government and find it wanting?
It's a damn hard propaganda case if you beat up communists for quoting famous communists.

[Abe]

A good read on the reasons why nuclear reactors take longer and longer to build and cost more and more:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plants-so-expensive-safetys-only-part-of-the-story/

Thanks, that explains a lot! So…unlikely to have functioning commercial fleet in time to avoid climate change’s worst effects because reactors are complicated to make. Honestly if we had to bet on moderately expensive grid-scale batteries coupled with cheap solar and wind vs building a bunch of nuclear reactors, it seems the former will be easier to scale up. Both are capital-intensive, one has a lot of baggage.

[pecunia]

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschina-moves-forward-with-thorium-molten-salt-reactor-8919220

This article notes that approval for a prototype 2 megawatt (not gigawatt) reactor was given in 2011. It is only now being finished. I am highly skeptical that this will progress to wide-scale commercial deployment by 2040. If it does, great!

My wife's uncle is head of urban planning and civil engineering for a large Chinese city. They can easily get eminent domain and approval for massive projects (which saves time), but are still subject to all the construction issues seen in the West.

Didn't figure they had unions in China.  Good to hear they actually treat their workers well.

They don’t but I don’t think the major issue with nuclear reactor construction is the unions. Worker treatment is highly variable depending on the urgency of completing a given project. Now that workers generally have more choices and are more mobile, there’s a weak incentive to not be terrible to them.
Do you have experience with nuclear construction? If so what’s the major reason for cost over-runs in your experience? I’m not an engineer so would be interested to know what the holdup is if the reactors are that much safer.

Oddly enough I do have some.  It is both at nuclear power plants and at the other nuclear.  The other nuclear of which billions of dollars are spent each year is the waste cleanup which is sometimes referred to as the legacy of the cold war era.  I won't add anything to the article.  To reword the article a bit, everything is custom.  If you buy an automobile, it's one of thousands.  A lot of nuclear designs are single designs.  When one builds houses, experience is gained.  Builders learn how to do things in an efficient manner.  You may be a house builder, but I am not. (I've built a lot of sheds.)  There would have to be a lot of learning on the job.  Learning creates inefficiency on the first build.

Another reason I saw on DOE projects, the cold war legacy,  was stop and start.  One group would create a design and the funding would be done.  That design could sit for a few years before being refunded.  Different people would be involved and the project would need to be relearned.   I worked on a job and was reassigned to another job.  I asked the folks in charge when we would be able to finish the first project.  They told me it would take an act of Congress.  I thought it was a joke.  It was not.  I never did see the end of that project, but read about it in the news.  I think similar politics has afflicted commercial nuclear construction.

One personal thought is that on big projects people are removed from the money.  It's like a lot of big business.  People are just a commodity for the guys in charge to shift around.  Incentive is destroyed.

This is why smart people have the idea of building new reactors in factories.  It may provide a sort of a shield from the politicians and the funding problems.  The jobs would be seen through start to finish by the same people and they would gain experience at the necessary tasks at hand.  A third advantage may be that the engineering may not be separated from the job.  Problems could be viewed and quickly solved as they are on other products.

I believe in nukes for producing clean energy.  I did not like my time in the nuke industry.  It did pay the bills and with other jobs allow me to get to retirement and for that I am grateful. 

[GodlessCommie]

It's a damn hard propaganda case if you beat up communists for quoting famous communists.

The main reason all Communist regimes are totalitarian (or, at best, authoritarian) is that it's impossible to live up to the ideas espoused by the Communist theory. So you have to force everyone to pretend like everything is fine and goes according to a plan. Take it from someone who grew up under Communism.

[LennStar]

It's a damn hard propaganda case if you beat up communists for quoting famous communists.

The main reason all Communist regimes are totalitarian (or, at best, authoritarian) is that it's impossible to live up to the ideas espoused by the Communist theory. So you have to force everyone to pretend like everything is fine and goes according to a plan. Take it from someone who grew up under Communism.

The thing you mention here is Socialism - when people are forced to be good. When they do it out of their own goodness, that's communism.

btw. I grew up (a few years) in real existing socialism ;)

Anyway, your point is very true. In that regard it's not different from all the authoritarian religions or Free Market fanatics (who say that if greedy people with greedy companies can be as greedy as they want, somehow everyone will be better off).

As in most things in life, moderation is likely the best path.

[pecunia]

It's a damn hard propaganda case if you beat up communists for quoting famous communists.

The main reason all Communist regimes are totalitarian (or, at best, authoritarian) is that it's impossible to live up to the ideas espoused by the Communist theory. So you have to force everyone to pretend like everything is fine and goes according to a plan. Take it from someone who grew up under Communism.

The thing you mention here is Socialism - when people are forced to be good. When they do it out of their own goodness, that's communism.

btw. I grew up (a few years) in real existing socialism ;)

Anyway, your point is very true. In that regard it's not different from all the authoritarian religions or Free Market fanatics (who say that if greedy people with greedy companies can be as greedy as they want, somehow everyone will be better off).

As in most things in life, moderation is likely the best path.

As in most things in life, moderation is likely the best path. - Well said.  I can see medicine being better if Socialism was in US, but I don't want the government building cell phones.

[Abe]

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschina-moves-forward-with-thorium-molten-salt-reactor-8919220

This article notes that approval for a prototype 2 megawatt (not gigawatt) reactor was given in 2011. It is only now being finished. I am highly skeptical that this will progress to wide-scale commercial deployment by 2040. If it does, great!

My wife's uncle is head of urban planning and civil engineering for a large Chinese city. They can easily get eminent domain and approval for massive projects (which saves time), but are still subject to all the construction issues seen in the West.

Didn't figure they had unions in China.  Good to hear they actually treat their workers well.

They don’t but I don’t think the major issue with nuclear reactor construction is the unions. Worker treatment is highly variable depending on the urgency of completing a given project. Now that workers generally have more choices and are more mobile, there’s a weak incentive to not be terrible to them.
Do you have experience with nuclear construction? If so what’s the major reason for cost over-runs in your experience? I’m not an engineer so would be interested to know what the holdup is if the reactors are that much safer.

Oddly enough I do have some.  It is both at nuclear power plants and at the other nuclear.  The other nuclear of which billions of dollars are spent each year is the waste cleanup which is sometimes referred to as the legacy of the cold war era.  I won't add anything to the article.  To reword the article a bit, everything is custom.  If you buy an automobile, it's one of thousands.  A lot of nuclear designs are single designs.  When one builds houses, experience is gained.  Builders learn how to do things in an efficient manner.  You may be a house builder, but I am not. (I've built a lot of sheds.)  There would have to be a lot of learning on the job.  Learning creates inefficiency on the first build.

Another reason I saw on DOE projects, the cold war legacy,  was stop and start.  One group would create a design and the funding would be done.  That design could sit for a few years before being refunded.  Different people would be involved and the project would need to be relearned.   I worked on a job and was reassigned to another job.  I asked the folks in charge when we would be able to finish the first project.  They told me it would take an act of Congress.  I thought it was a joke.  It was not.  I never did see the end of that project, but read about it in the news.  I think similar politics has afflicted commercial nuclear construction.

One personal thought is that on big projects people are removed from the money.  It's like a lot of big business.  People are just a commodity for the guys in charge to shift around.  Incentive is destroyed.

This is why smart people have the idea of building new reactors in factories.  It may provide a sort of a shield from the politicians and the funding problems.  The jobs would be seen through start to finish by the same people and they would gain experience at the necessary tasks at hand.  A third advantage may be that the engineering may not be separated from the job.  Problems could be viewed and quickly solved as they are on other products.

I believe in nukes for producing clean energy.  I did not like my time in the nuke industry.  It did pay the bills and with other jobs allow me to get to retirement and for that I am grateful.

Thanks for your insights- my understanding now is that if a company can make small reactors in factories that are low-risk and produced in reasonable timeframes, that will circumvent most of the cost issues with reactors? It seems to make sense for baseload coverage as a stop-gap until more mature energy storage or (don’t laugh) fusion is figured out. The question is which will come first of the three possibilities.