You mean ExpertSexChange ?

Do name them - and not tiny small economy countries where the hurdle is basically on the floor.

Name established power grids that have covered base load with renewables...and for how long.

Base load is, at a minimum, 24 continuous hours of coverage. CA has hit around 40% but mostly that's hydro.

on the rugged/tough side, Ford really missed marketing the F150 to red necks. 'It can power your house for DAYS after a hurricane'

Cuban healthcare cured lung cancer. Or rather figured out how to make it chronic rather than terminal.

Necessity being the mother of invention - they don't have the money for or access to modern drugs so they found a different way the rest of the world didn't. Now they may have a world leading vaccine against ALL CANCER.

https://pbsinternational.org/t...

more detailed fact checking https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... not quite the lofty goals Cuba is claiming but significant improvement in many patients.

a caveat is the major US makers are legacy dinosaurs. Even before the EV push they were walking away from anything 'cheap'.

They've forgotten how to compete, AGAIN, without vehicles with 5 digit profit margins built in.

So when they make EVs they re-make the ENTIRE VEHICLE rather than just convert an existing proven platform to EV.

Honda and Toyota will eat their lunch yet again.

There's still a whole lot of base load to cover. Renewables plus storage won't be able to cover that for a while. The only base load capable option we have that isn't CO2 producing is nuclear.

Coal/gas won't disappear overnight.
Renewable + Storage is growing at significant rates.
Some new nuclear will come online.
And overall energy consumption is growing

Matching those changing values is the question...I think we'll have enough nuclear to cover it but it's definitely not a known fact.

I hate nuclear, it's terrible for many reasons...but in terms of climate change, it's cost aren't as bad.

Technically 2020-2021 but not for reasons related to fixing climate change.

All growth has increased, but fossil fuels have increased at lower rates than renewables.

Not perfect but it's the start of the end; but it will be a long long tail.

That's fair but as you say, you can't really plan for the failure modes, you absolutely can plan to not put generators where they are most likely to be non-functional in a very expected scenario.

That's also one of my biggest problem with nuclear. A major failure renders most contingency plans non-viable because it's nuclear. As such it must be so over engineered to never fail, it's just not practical economically even before you add the cost of failures to the kwh price.

All that aside, nuclear is absolutely necessary for climate change reasons, at least for the next couple decades.

To me the big question is do we have enough online or in pipeline to bridge the gap to when renewable can do base load plus long winters. Given how fast renewable + storage is scaling...I'm thinking we do.

What you seem to fail to understand is oil and gas companies are big enough and have existed long enough and are ENORMOUSLY PROFITABLE enough that they buy, and in some cases explicitly write, the legislation that makes their business....ENORMOUSLY PROFITABLE.

Not just really profitable but upwards of 150-200 BILLION per year in pure profit.

Exxon ALONE made 100 BILLION in gross profit (after deductions) in 2022; 80 BILLION Sept 2024-Sept 2025. https://www.macrotrends.net/st...

Tax them into the damned ground.

Don't you know, paragraph breaks are 400% worse for global warming than CO2 ;-)

At 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, livestock is something we have to deal with. As with fossil fuels, if they want to be truly green just recapture all that methane before it's emitted and sequester it - and include that cost in the price.

1800 gallons of water for one pound of beef isn't exactly sustainable either.

And lets make sure those farmers are paying for feed rather than using public land - it's your's and mine too, we shouldn't have to subsidize them, right?

You can thank the GOP for stripping the savings out of the ACA.

Every other nation does healthcare better and far cheaper than we do. The ACA was an attempt to, yes, socialize the costs. Get more people paying lower premiums and you have lower premiums over all. By letting people opt out...the sickest and poorest are the only ones left making it expensive.

There's a reason Medicare is *everybody over 65*.

The problem wasn't the reactors being near sea level, the problem was the emergency generators being in the damned basement.

So in simplistic terms the only thing they need to not fail in the specific way they did, is some sturdy stilts.

The other ways a high pressure water cooled reactor can fail, still exist.

It will be utterly hilarious if/when the extreme Texas gerrymander actually loses them seats in Texas.

They had to make 'solid red' districts be just 'lean red' in order to get the new 5 seats.

A big enough blue wave and oopsie.

So both fossil fuel and nuclear get MASSIVE subsidies by not having to pay for their emissions/waste. If gas prices included the cost to sequester the CO2 they released, they'd be FAR more expensive. Same for nuclear and it's waste storage and disposal. It isn't priced into the per kwh cost consumers pay.

Where solar and all renewables are *cheap* is long term - 50-100+ years out. Every ton of CO2 we don't emit this year saves $$$ money in reducing the increase in disaster spending gov'ts will definitely have to spend.

Hence gov't subsides are the cheapest thing govts could be doing, but stupid is gonna stupid.