"On top of that, the use of fossil fuel has resulted in a rapid rise in atmospheric CO2. Figure 2, which could cause massively disruptive changes in the climate. Fossil fuel based civilization was entering its last stage."
Takes a leap of faith.
The data that correlates the rise of CO2 and surface temperature alone is flawed and in fact has decoupled.
Also that fossil fuel burning is the sole cause of CO2 rise is problematic also. Note Anastassia Makarieva's work on the Biotic pump.
It seems that you have succumbed to the pre-Trump school of thinking. Not saying that he is entirely right either, just that I'm getting sick of the Climate Change! rhetoric as if we should all be Chicken Little.
I said could. I don't know what the effect of this nearly unprecedented increase in CO2 will be, and neither do you, nor anybody else. One thing I can tell you is my thinking about this issue does not depend on who was elected in the last election. Pls see
When did "Humanity realized its mistake, and dismantled the prohibitive regulation."?
I'm guessing 2030 or 2050. Was there a tipping point, a sudden collapse of the anti-nuclear opposition, as I was expecting, after my opposition collapsed in 2022, or was it a gradual growth of support, with nations like the USA and Germany holding out until China and Russia were dominating the world energy markets. As of 2025, my last view of the situation on Earth, it looked like the latter, with True Believers resisting all rational debate, and Paid Propagandists holding on to their slowly diminishing industry.
Let me try again. There was nil "opposition" to nuclear in the early 70's when US costs quintupled. In fact, there was broad public support, as there is now. Communities across the country would welcome an NPP. The problem is a misdirected, all powerful regulatory system. Unless you dismantle that, nothing changes.
That system is very well, entrenched. It has been feeding at the taxpayer trough for 50 years. It will be defended to the death by the incumbent vendors who have paid an immense fee for their regulatory moat. A score of Congressional districts, many of them red, depend on this system.
I don't know what it will take to overturn this system. But I do know ranting about anti-nuclear opposition gets us nowhere.
I don't know if the system will be "overturned", as you seem to be suggesting in this article, or simply fade away, . I would like to see it happen more rapidly than it is happening now. I get frustrated when I see mainstream journalists implicitly endorse anti-nuclear beliefs when they wail about climate change and ignore the obvious solution. They don't read your substack articles. At most, they might read a Wikipedia article, which will conform to the general public beliefs about nuclear power. I'm disappointed that you think my efforts to bridge the gap between nuclear experts and these journalists are "ranting" about the opposition.
An entrenched bureaucracy and the special interest supported by its regulatory power don't fade away. The bit about humanity recognizing its mistake in the piece was a warning, not a prediction.
If I had to make a prediction for the US. Nothing much will change. The real cost of energy will rise at a increasing rate. The attempts to force intermittent sources onto the grid will create blackouts. If you own a shut down coal plant, don't dismantle it. Real wealth in the US will drop with a concomitant increase in homelessness and other societal stresses. I guess you could call me a malthusian.
The NRC will flourish in this environment. A trickle of exorbitantly expensive nuclear will enrich the nuclear establishment and further strengthen its power. The downside is they will have to spend some of that money on private security.
I did not say there was no hope for change. I said the NRC is not going to fade away without a forceful overturning of the status quo. The timid changes that people like you suggest will accomplish nothing.
I have grandkids. The job is to make my prediction false.
I am not making any suggestions for change. My role as editor in a neutral publication is separating fact from fiction, and bridging the gap between experts and the public. Others are much better at advocacy. I cannot take sides.
Malthus didn't predict anything. His theory is steady-state. Population always presses against the available resources. If resources increase the steady-state population increases accordingly.
Your comment at :
"On top of that, the use of fossil fuel has resulted in a rapid rise in atmospheric CO2. Figure 2, which could cause massively disruptive changes in the climate. Fossil fuel based civilization was entering its last stage."
Takes a leap of faith.
The data that correlates the rise of CO2 and surface temperature alone is flawed and in fact has decoupled.
Also that fossil fuel burning is the sole cause of CO2 rise is problematic also. Note Anastassia Makarieva's work on the Biotic pump.
It seems that you have succumbed to the pre-Trump school of thinking. Not saying that he is entirely right either, just that I'm getting sick of the Climate Change! rhetoric as if we should all be Chicken Little.
Ross,
I said could. I don't know what the effect of this nearly unprecedented increase in CO2 will be, and neither do you, nor anybody else. One thing I can tell you is my thinking about this issue does not depend on who was elected in the last election. Pls see
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/thinking-quantitatively-about-co2.
You are the one making a leap of faith,
When did "Humanity realized its mistake, and dismantled the prohibitive regulation."?
I'm guessing 2030 or 2050. Was there a tipping point, a sudden collapse of the anti-nuclear opposition, as I was expecting, after my opposition collapsed in 2022, or was it a gradual growth of support, with nations like the USA and Germany holding out until China and Russia were dominating the world energy markets. As of 2025, my last view of the situation on Earth, it looked like the latter, with True Believers resisting all rational debate, and Paid Propagandists holding on to their slowly diminishing industry.
David,
Let me try again. There was nil "opposition" to nuclear in the early 70's when US costs quintupled. In fact, there was broad public support, as there is now. Communities across the country would welcome an NPP. The problem is a misdirected, all powerful regulatory system. Unless you dismantle that, nothing changes.
That system is very well, entrenched. It has been feeding at the taxpayer trough for 50 years. It will be defended to the death by the incumbent vendors who have paid an immense fee for their regulatory moat. A score of Congressional districts, many of them red, depend on this system.
I don't know what it will take to overturn this system. But I do know ranting about anti-nuclear opposition gets us nowhere.
I don't know if the system will be "overturned", as you seem to be suggesting in this article, or simply fade away, . I would like to see it happen more rapidly than it is happening now. I get frustrated when I see mainstream journalists implicitly endorse anti-nuclear beliefs when they wail about climate change and ignore the obvious solution. They don't read your substack articles. At most, they might read a Wikipedia article, which will conform to the general public beliefs about nuclear power. I'm disappointed that you think my efforts to bridge the gap between nuclear experts and these journalists are "ranting" about the opposition.
An entrenched bureaucracy and the special interest supported by its regulatory power don't fade away. The bit about humanity recognizing its mistake in the piece was a warning, not a prediction.
If I had to make a prediction for the US. Nothing much will change. The real cost of energy will rise at a increasing rate. The attempts to force intermittent sources onto the grid will create blackouts. If you own a shut down coal plant, don't dismantle it. Real wealth in the US will drop with a concomitant increase in homelessness and other societal stresses. I guess you could call me a malthusian.
The NRC will flourish in this environment. A trickle of exorbitantly expensive nuclear will enrich the nuclear establishment and further strengthen its power. The downside is they will have to spend some of that money on private security.
So if there is no hope for change, why put in so much effort on these articles? Invest in solar. Sell before the crash.
I did not say there was no hope for change. I said the NRC is not going to fade away without a forceful overturning of the status quo. The timid changes that people like you suggest will accomplish nothing.
I have grandkids. The job is to make my prediction false.
I am not making any suggestions for change. My role as editor in a neutral publication is separating fact from fiction, and bridging the gap between experts and the public. Others are much better at advocacy. I cannot take sides.
Malthus didn't predict anything. His theory is steady-state. Population always presses against the available resources. If resources increase the steady-state population increases accordingly.