So dramatic

"The math fits on a cocktail napkin. Keep all the efficiency and solar. Change one thing."

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?

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.

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!