I've just lived through half a century of soothsaying about "100% renewable energy" "by 2000", then "by 2010" then "by 2020" and now "by 2030" and "by 2040..." ad nauseum.
How's that panning out? Would more than 424 ppm of CO2 measured in the planetary atmosphere measured yesterday give some insight to that bit of soothsaying over 50 years, or is that just another thing anti-nukes don't bother to look into because they're too busy whining about nuclear power.
I'm not Nostradamus because I don't sit on my ass and make stuff up out of mocking paranoia. I have spent a vast amount of time over decades digging into the details of engineering and science, as my journal in this space, referencing the primary scientific literature, reflects.
I think I just explained that I have familial experience, a brilliant son, who is working in the lab of one of the world's leading nuclear thinkers. My son is doing SEM and TEM analysis of printed ODS steel. He's just getting started.
I recently noted in this space, not that anti-nukes bother to look very far beyond the lint in their navels, that the Brown's Ferry nuclear reactor set an operational record with solid phase printed components. It's not soothsaying, it's fucking reality, not the reality that anyone with a brain and inclination could find out about. If my contrast, one isn't too bright, and lives in a cave, they'll just remain ignorant of what is happening.
An Oak Ridge Video of 3D Printing Parts for Nuclear Reactors.
Browns Ferry 2 Nuclear Reactor, Set a Record for Reliable Operation With 3D Printed Parts.
If one wished to be literate, one could access this information readily. I do. I don't know why pontificating antinukes can't fucking be bothered to find stuff out, to check their assumptions. You know, I was a dumb shit antinuke at one point in my life, up until around 1987, but I checked my assumptions rather than wallow in what was a rather stupid ideology.
I'm not here chanting. I'm doing something our "renewable energy will save us" soothsayers don't ever bother to do, wade through the dense scientific literature to understand something called "reality."
By contrast, we have anti-nukes who come here to display the same stupidity over and over and over and over. For example, they come here with "I'm not an antinuke" statements and then carry on about so called "nuclear waste." If you ask one of them to show that in the 70 year history of the generation of used nuclear fuel, its storage has killed as many people as air pollution will kill in the next six hours - that would be around 4500 people - they either turn into clowns, change the subject, or slither away to come back later to advocate for killing more people as they wait for the "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here, and won't come, no matter how many resources are squandered on pretending it matters.
Have a wonderful weekend.
= new reply since forum marked as read