Nuclear power and the French energy transition: It’s the economics, stupid!

[joshcryer]

15. You've been saying that for years.

Since neither of us can predict the future all we can do is making convincing arguments why we think things will pan out the way they have. My predictions, being more cynical, appear to be the route that the current governments of the world are taking. Only two, Mexico and the UK, have made commitments to emission reductions. Two. Out of 193 member states of the UN.

You question my beliefs despite that they're based on factual observations, while leaving me with "ifs" and "possibilities." An argumentative approach that is not too convincing to me at all. The nukers talk about "possibilities," as well. The thorium guys are all about that. I take their arguments with as much a grain of salt as I do yours. I support you both equally well (much to your disdain since I shouldn't support magical nuclear technology despite that a massive buildout of renewables is just as unlikely). It's just not how I see things panning out.

Answer me this, the US stands to make billions off of coal exports to China. Now the US may well reduce its emissions and it very likely will, actually, but the coal will still be produced. Is there a substantiative difference between the US burning that coal and China? I argue that there simply isn't.

A carbon tax is the only way that I can see that is remotely capable of actually forcing a sustainable economy because it assures that those exports come at the externalized cost that they bring. If you can convince me that in your future that the US won't be producing that coal, then you will have made a damn good argument. I simply don't see it, to be perfectly honest.