I think your belief that those other options would be tenable in the time frame you believe in is misled. They generate tiny fractions of the energy most peopl

I think your belief that those other options would be tenable in the time frame you believe in is misled. They generate tiny fractions of the energy most people believe, and they generally never pay for themselves over their entire lifetimes. Where do you think the batteries come from? There's a finite supply of lithium. "Ban cars from cities" is a pipe dream in north america -- it's like talking about colonizing Neptune. Not going to happen in our lifetimes, probably not in two hundred years -- maybe not ever. The entire infrastructure of the american continents and huge amounts of Europe and Asia as well is built around vehicular transport. You argue those things are necessary, but then argue against the only thing that could make even a dent in the issue because it's expensive and takes time. We don't need thousands of reactors, and we don't necessarily need the ones we do build to be like the ones we use today. Had the environmentalist nimbys not stopped all R&D and construction in the 70s, we would have fixed this problem by now. There are multiple reactor designs that are safe and effective and inexpensive to run -- but nobody's building them because they think solar is going to save the world and nuclear is scary. That's what needs to be fixed. I see that Bill Gates is lobbying for new reactor designs and construction -- I really hope he's successful.