[salmonfamine]

That is also not true, and not supported by the IPCC.

What do you mean "we can't wait that long?" Any time we start reducing emissions is better than never. There will never be a "too late" point to reach net zero.

Secondly, what is the alternative to reducing our carbon outprint in 10 years?

[adrianN]

The alternative to building thousands of reactors that finish construction in ten years if we're lucky is building millions of wind turbines and solar panels that incrementally reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

[salmonfamine]

1. There is no "10 year" time limit. There is a window of time to keep our overall warming below 1.5c, which is virtually impossible regardless of which policies we choose to pursue, collectively.

2. There is no indication that we will be able to produce lithium-ion batteries with a high enough wh/kg density to create high enough energy storage capacity to replace carbon-based energy sources. Until such a time as that technology becomes possible and production-ready, we will need other sources of energy.

Not building nuclear with the assumption that grid-scale battery storage will become feasible is a potentially catastrophic policy decision.

[adrianN]

There is no x year limit, there is a x ton of CO2 limit. Gradually reducing CO2 output has a lower area under the curve than doing something for ten years and then dropping output to zero.

[salmonfamine]

You're drawing a huge false equivalence here. The idea that we can deploy renewables at scale within even two or three decades sufficient to reach net zero is patently false.

[adrianN]

It's about as false as the idea that we can deploy nuclear at scale in that timeline.

[salmonfamine]

Then we agree -- both false.