This is not a joke. There are no wild cards. There’s no “yeah, but”. This is by
Joshua S. Goldstein, professor emeritus of international relations at American University, and Staffan A. Qvist, a Swedish energy engineer, are the authors of “A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow.â€Â Steven Pinker is a professor of psychology at Harvard University and is the author of “Enlightenment Now.â€
This is not something one would expect the NY Times to allow on the opinion pages
Nuclear Power Can Save the World
As young people rightly demand real solutions to climate change, the question is not what to do — eliminate fossil fuels by 2050 — but how. Beyond decarbonizing today’s electric grid, we must use clean electricity to replace fossil fuels in transportation, industry and heating. We must provide for the fast-growing energy needs of poorer countries and extend the grid to a billion people who now lack electricity. And still more electricity will be needed to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by midcentury.
Where will this gargantuan amount of carbon-free energy come from? The popular answer is renewables alone, but this is a fantasy. Wind and solar power are becoming cheaper, but they are not available around the clock, rain or shine, and batteries that could power entire cities for days or weeks show no sign of materializing any time soon. Today, renewables work only with fossil-fuel backup.
Germany, which went all-in for renewables, has seen little reduction in carbon emissions, and, according to our calculations, at Germany’s rate of adding clean energy relative to gross domestic product, it would take the world more than a century to decarbonize, even if the country wasn’t also retiring nuclear plants early. A few lucky countries with abundant hydroelectricity, like Norway and New Zealand, have decarbonized their electric grids, but their success cannot be scaled up elsewhere: The world’s best hydro sites are already dammed.
OK, so they’re pushing this because of ‘climate change’, but, regardless, there’s nothing wrong with pushing more clean power. I’ve noted numerous times I am not a fan of coal. Solar and wind would be best off for small building use, rather than these giant “farms” which despoil wild spaces. Hydro is great, but it is only available in certain areas, and hardcore enviroweenies not only block new construction, but want to tear down existing power generations sites. But, if the Cult of Climastrology really wants to Do Something, here
But we actually have proven models for rapid decarbonization with economic and energy growth: France and Sweden. They decarbonized their grids decades ago and now emit less than a tenth of the world average of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. They remain among the world’s most pleasant places to live and enjoy much cheaper electricity than Germany to boot.
They did this with nuclear power. And they did it fast, taking advantage of nuclear power’s intense concentration of energy per pound of fuel. France replaced almost all of its fossil-fueled electricity with nuclear power nationwide in just 15 years; Sweden, in about 20 years. In fact, most of the fastest additions of clean electricity historically are countries rolling out nuclear power.
If Warmists really want to lower “carbon pollution”, nuclear is the way to go. Wouldn’t it be better to recharge their Tesla’s and such with nuclear rather than coal/oil? Regardless of some Warmists wanting nuclear to reduce CO2 output, Skeptics can agree on using way more nuclear. Let’s make this happen.
Would it really save the world from a slight increase in temperature? Not really. But, it would make Warmists feel better and provide a lot of affordable power.
