It seems that you are just reciting a long litany of pre-canned arguments that have told to you in order to maintain the status quo. For example: > You do real

It seems that you are just reciting a long litany of pre-canned arguments that have told to you in order to maintain the status quo. For example: > You do realize how much of the world's energy is produced by fossil fuels / chemical energy, right? Assuming I'm ignorant of the current energy infrastructure is a weird thing to say when I point out in my very comment. > The electrons don't materialize out of thin air. The energy still has to come from somewhere. Yes and even passing familiarity with the world of energy shows that electrification of everything is going to be so economically efficient that it's unavoidable. > And if the world's gas-powered auto fleet were to switch to electric overnight, we'd have blackouts for decades because we do not have the raw power generation capability to make up for that much energy deficit. First, the idea of an overnight switch is ridiculous and uninteresting point to make, the entire point of the original article is that we have massive lithium price spikes, and we are barely into the transition. ... ... > Until batteries get probably about 2-3 times more dense in storage capacity, there's no way they can supplant gas cars and diesel powered semi trucks. This is again completer disproven by what's happening in the market right now. Maybe 10 years ago you would have been able to say this with a straight face but you'll need to update your list of talking points now. > And we should still be massively expanding nuclear power supply, 10 years ago. If you look at the nuclear plants we were constructing 10 years ago, and where they are now, you will see that we dodged a massive bullet by not building nuclear then. The time to build nuclear might have been the 1980s, but around then nuclear has already been massive over-ordered, and we would have needed EVs or heat pumps something like that to start shifting more of our load to electric. Since the 1980s, construction productivity has barely changed, whereas manufacturing productivity has gone through the roof. So in 2010, building nuclear, a construction project, was in incredibly risky proposition. And it failed miserably, saddling South Carolina electric customers with something like $20-$40/month extra on their bill for decades, for a project that will never be finished. Nuclear is a dead tech, unless SMRs come in significantly under their projected costs, or if they can somehow drastically cut their manufacturing costs early in the late 2030s or 2040s. By then we will have an extra two decades of cost drops in solar/wind/storage too, so it is hard to imagine SMRs dropping at a faster rate. But you can't count them out entirely.