Build the crap out of wind and solar where it works and mix in other non carbon generation where you can; preferably distributed resources. Put up long distance DC lines to places that need extra, such as the north in winter. Install storage everywhere. Install smart controls everywhere. Make up for any emergency needs with natural gas plants that are kept operational for that purpose; we can afford a bit of carbon emissions if we eliminate the worst offenders, IMO. Reduce energy use via more efficient devices and laws around efficiency. Help with tax write offs for energy use for low income and tax heavy energy users to pay for it. Take over all utilities nationally and coordinate everything. Reduce shipping by onshoring manufacturing. Pass laws requiring allowing employees to be remote if they choose, for knowledge work. Spend a lot more on transportation infrastructure other than cars. Tax carbon at the source and let the costs trickle down into the worst offenders.

Nuclear is great tech, but isn’t financially viable today in most situations. I would love to see it in the mix above somehow if new designs were cheaper and safer. Also, energy can’t just increase forever. We have to force reductions in use where practical via the means above.

The infrastructure overhaul needed for a full-on changeover to electric would require an investment on the order of the Apollo program and I don't see that happening. Not just from a financial perspective but the engineering as well. Banning petrol cars and gas cookers and praying the rest of the dominoes fall in place isn't going to work.

Yea, I'm not saying it will work, but nuclear isn't going to work either, at this point. This was my ideas for how to do it, and clearly this problem is more complex and harder than just doing it. I figure we'll just continue to drive off the cliff and eventually there will be wars over water and cold climates.

Luckily for us, petrol will get harder to extract in the next decades, and thus more expensive.

> The United States spent $25.8 billion on Project Apollo between 1960 and 1973, or approximately $257 billion when adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars.

vs.

> The US is spending $369bn on subsidies for green technologies under the Inflation Reduction Act

None of these points seem to address the parent’s point which was that restarting a nuclear plant that is much older than its intended lifespan is not safe.

“No more criticisms without solutions” is not a real argument. Obviously criticisms must be considered. And the magnitude of the risks is obviously important.

My response was directed at this comment:

> Nuclear energy is expensive, dangerous and will only work with massive taxpayer subsidies.

It's unhelpful and doesn't move the discussion forward to unilaterally label something as shite and provide no viable alternative.

It sounds like you are arguing nuclear power is expensive, dangerous, and will only work with massive taxpayer subsidies; but we should ignore all of that because we don’t have a viable alternative. I don’t think we should ignore those statements?

> Renewable energy is a drop in the bucket and cannot possibly serve the steady and sharp increase in load demand.

That's a weird way of spelling "is serving the entirety of increase in load demand".