4 ms·
I can't. Smil's claims are just poorly informed, characterized by a limited understanding of fundamentals, and with a clear bias towards existing systems. Migh
by photochemsyn 3y ago
I can't. Smil's claims are just poorly informed, characterized by a limited understanding of fundamentals, and with a clear bias towards existing systems. Might as well be a kerosene lamp enthusiast in the era of electricity and incandescent bulbs.
It's entirely possible to run human civilization at its current level of complexity without fossil fuels or uranium, entirely using the sun's energy output and the planet's energy output in the form of solar, wind, geothermal and storage.
Smil is entirely opposed to this notion, likely because the people who've promoted him don't want to see the value of their fossil fuel and uranium investments drop to zero. Wanna buy a kerosene lamp, anyone?
- jnsaff2 3y agoThis is what I was talking about. Rants like this who have switched off mid sentence somewhere. He does not say that anything about staying on fossils. He does not say anything about there not being enough green resources. He just quantifies what it would take and the result is that we need to build like a reactor per week or massive amounts of PV/wind/etc. Much more and much quicker than we do.