>Building gas now and hoping it goes away in 50 years is a terrible solution To me, that's your money statement. People get complacent. That's just the nature

>Building gas now and hoping it goes away in 50 years is a terrible solution To me, that's your money statement. People get complacent. That's just the nature of animal life here on earth. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if gas was still with us in 50 years. At the same time, as the article points out, nuclear really does have some real scaling issues. Even if we "just want a little", so to speak. It's a solution that's really only going to work if the government takes the lion's share of the risk. (ie - pays for it.) Even then, will it do everything for us? The mathematician in me looking at the physics says probably not, but you can't dismiss the possibility of revolutionary advances. I mean maybe fusion comes along? Who knows? Of course that puts us right back where we were with gas. Gambling on tech advances. But at least you're not pumping out CO2. I don't know? My gut tells me the developing world will innovate and hodge podge together something that will make us rethink the problem. Like doing something unexpected with under or above ground pumped hydro storage maybe? Or something a bit easier like molten salt since they'd likely be using solar thermal anyway? They're also more willing to play fast and loose with safety, so cracking water for hydrogen fuel cells becomes really attractive in that environment. I don't know? Just think it might be interesting to keep an eye on what projects pop up in, say, island nations in Asia? Or, perhaps, coastal nations in Africa? If you have a lot of relatively simple local generation and storage, your grid level stuff doesn't even need as much load shedding or "gap filling"? I guess we'll see how it all works out.