[semanticjudo]

I argue from position 1 that we should be looking for the next breakthrough, CO2-emission-free power source. I'm extremely grateful that some people are. Wind and solar are highly inefficient, expensive and difficult to scale[1] and are very unlikely to be an effective solution long-term. Nuclear power sources have great potential among technologies we have access to today and while there are real, technical drawbacks (setup cost, security, waste) there are ongoing, significant research projects in each area[2]. Beyond nuclear, the seeming holy-grail would be to find a CO2-emission-free power source that is 10-100x more effective at the same or lower cost. And why can't we? Our ability to imagine what is possible in the future has been shown time and again to be very limited, in general.

Arguing position 1 amounts to taking an interest in and investing in efforts that will allow the world to progress along its current trajectory without CO2-emitting power sources.

"... why are you surprised to be forced to defend their wrongheadedness?" - I'm not... I just avoid having conversations with folks that would jump to this conclusion without hearing my point of view.

[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08... [2]http://energy.mit.edu/news/mit-releases-interdisciplinary-st...

[pdonis]

> I argue from position 1 that we should be looking for the next breakthrough, CO2-emission-free power source.

We already have one: nuclear.