Todd -- I am not making anything like that - where did that come from?
You have a very interesting outlook - and I am only asking questions - is that not allowed?
The point that I am trying to get across - is that there are other viable choices that are available -- but not known of - because they are not discussed.
That is all I have asked of Breakthrough -- is the discussion of other clean technologies - nothing more.
And I will not take your suggestion -as I don't know why you are asking me to unsubscribe - and you have not given me information as to what I have done to warrant such a suggestion.
Also published today: "Open Letter to Ajay Banga, President of The World Bank", calling out the bank's willful ignorance in blacklisting nuclear power for developing nations.
Todd - I am not miss understanding your position - "Breakthrough Institute" is a bastion of pro-nuclear thinking people - anyone that takes the time to dig into it can see that -- and that's perfectly OK - you are entitled to your beliefs / likes / and dislikes / etc.
What I am pointing out - is that Breakthrough - and you -- do not write about anything else as an alternative to Nuclear power - even though you have been sent validated documentation of a proven / US Patented alternative clean electric power source- that the world has been successfully using now for almost 125 years, albeit in a smaller output power form, i.e., the tuning circuitry in any AM or FM radio.
The countries that you speak of -- don't know that there is an alternative: -- because you -- whom I am interacting with here - finally -- have conscientiously chosen not to either show any interest in the alternative; enquire about it: or write about it.
So where are these Countries supposed to go to look for something to replace Nuclear power - when you for one - are boycotting the information?
If you are accusing me of ignoring or boycotting other tech, you clearly don’t know anything about me or my work. I think we’re done here. You’re welcome to unsubscribe.
Hi Todd -- it not a bias - there is just a much better , cleaner , much less expensive wat to produce electricity -- and you've been sent the information but won't engage in a conversation about it - so who's biased here.
It's not an lol situation -- it's only about producing clean electricity, where needed, at a price that doesn't break the bank.
You seem to be misunderstanding my comment. The bias is in the sample (of a whopping 3 which is not exactly a sample) that you are using as evidence that I am not engaging in thoughtful discussion of nuclear’s pros and cons. That’s a lol. What I am witnessing is that lots of countries are seriously considering nuclear, I see evidence they are taking real steps, and we should be sure that availability of finance is not (another) ex ante barrier. If the costs aren’t competitive with equivalent services, then it won’t take off and other tech will. But we shouldn’t decide that now. And neither should the WBG.
The kernel of truth in your comment is that the impact of nuclear power now is an order of magnitude less than it would have been if there had never been an anti-nuclear movement. If the 3% growth rate that the industry had settled into in the 70s and 80s had never been arrested and then reversed, but instead continued, the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 (now about 250 gigatons) would have been tripled. And ongoing emissions would have been about 30% down from what they are now (assuming same population and levels of development), so the rate of accumulation would be slower (this is not pure speculation - it's all easily modellable). In other words, there would be no emissions emergency - by anyone's definition. But that's not the same as saying we don't need nuclear now. I'm a YIMBY - as James Lovelock (preeminent early Green, co-author of the Gaia hypothesis) said, I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my back garden than a wind turbine (not that I am against wind!) and would happily wear a badge or T-shirt. As about ten people here in Germany say... "Atomkraft? Ja, bitte!"
Yes the US is very much for this. They signed the 3x pledge and have been offering DOE technical advice. They haven’t yet been aggressive about it, so I’m hoping they start to press more.
Thank you so much for these thoughtful and practical analyses.
I keep trying, too https://www.mattball.org/2023/08/net-zero-in-practice-is-war-on-poor.html
Just downloaded your book. Looking forward to reading it :-)
Todd -- I am not making anything like that - where did that come from?
You have a very interesting outlook - and I am only asking questions - is that not allowed?
The point that I am trying to get across - is that there are other viable choices that are available -- but not known of - because they are not discussed.
That is all I have asked of Breakthrough -- is the discussion of other clean technologies - nothing more.
And I will not take your suggestion -as I don't know why you are asking me to unsubscribe - and you have not given me information as to what I have done to warrant such a suggestion.
Also published today: "Open Letter to Ajay Banga, President of The World Bank", calling out the bank's willful ignorance in blacklisting nuclear power for developing nations.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2024/09/09/open_letter_to_ajay_banga_president_of_the_world_bank_1057151.html
Let's saturate the media with stories of World Bank incompetence in the energy sector.
Todd - I am not miss understanding your position - "Breakthrough Institute" is a bastion of pro-nuclear thinking people - anyone that takes the time to dig into it can see that -- and that's perfectly OK - you are entitled to your beliefs / likes / and dislikes / etc.
What I am pointing out - is that Breakthrough - and you -- do not write about anything else as an alternative to Nuclear power - even though you have been sent validated documentation of a proven / US Patented alternative clean electric power source- that the world has been successfully using now for almost 125 years, albeit in a smaller output power form, i.e., the tuning circuitry in any AM or FM radio.
The countries that you speak of -- don't know that there is an alternative: -- because you -- whom I am interacting with here - finally -- have conscientiously chosen not to either show any interest in the alternative; enquire about it: or write about it.
So where are these Countries supposed to go to look for something to replace Nuclear power - when you for one - are boycotting the information?
If you are accusing me of ignoring or boycotting other tech, you clearly don’t know anything about me or my work. I think we’re done here. You’re welcome to unsubscribe.
Hi Todd -- it not a bias - there is just a much better , cleaner , much less expensive wat to produce electricity -- and you've been sent the information but won't engage in a conversation about it - so who's biased here.
It's not an lol situation -- it's only about producing clean electricity, where needed, at a price that doesn't break the bank.
You seem to be misunderstanding my comment. The bias is in the sample (of a whopping 3 which is not exactly a sample) that you are using as evidence that I am not engaging in thoughtful discussion of nuclear’s pros and cons. That’s a lol. What I am witnessing is that lots of countries are seriously considering nuclear, I see evidence they are taking real steps, and we should be sure that availability of finance is not (another) ex ante barrier. If the costs aren’t competitive with equivalent services, then it won’t take off and other tech will. But we shouldn’t decide that now. And neither should the WBG.
What's your cleaner, better, cheaper energy?
If you notice -- your only three comments are from people that are nukers -- nukes aren't needed any longer.
Well, what Substack doesn’t have sample bias in the comments. lol.
Nuclear seems to be needed more than ever IMO.
The kernel of truth in your comment is that the impact of nuclear power now is an order of magnitude less than it would have been if there had never been an anti-nuclear movement. If the 3% growth rate that the industry had settled into in the 70s and 80s had never been arrested and then reversed, but instead continued, the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 (now about 250 gigatons) would have been tripled. And ongoing emissions would have been about 30% down from what they are now (assuming same population and levels of development), so the rate of accumulation would be slower (this is not pure speculation - it's all easily modellable). In other words, there would be no emissions emergency - by anyone's definition. But that's not the same as saying we don't need nuclear now. I'm a YIMBY - as James Lovelock (preeminent early Green, co-author of the Gaia hypothesis) said, I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my back garden than a wind turbine (not that I am against wind!) and would happily wear a badge or T-shirt. As about ten people here in Germany say... "Atomkraft? Ja, bitte!"
I do not think this can happen w/o a strong push from the US Is even the US position there?
Yes the US is very much for this. They signed the 3x pledge and have been offering DOE technical advice. They haven’t yet been aggressive about it, so I’m hoping they start to press more.
Agree. Except I'd love a wind turbine in my yard.