“ET, are you still here?”
Yes, I am. Premeptively, I’ll state I know there are many problems with nuclear. Right now and in the forseeable short term (10–20 years) it’s the only reliable, scalable source of CO2-free energy and only electricity at that. Electrcity is only a part of the total energy we currently use and we need to transition heating homes and businesses and vehicle engines, both of which use far more total energy than our total electricity output, to using electricity.
“This “Climate, the science, politics, economics and anything else” sections is not wide enough.”
“A large remit indeed.”
I apologise. My intention was to create a topic where people could debate the issues and hopefully give us all some greater insight.
“if Methane escapes to the atmosphere it will eventually break down to Carbon dioxide.”
It’s not only that Michael, Methane itself is a far more potent green house gas than CO2, 28–84 times depending on your timescale (it’s complicated). How Potent Is Methane?. The leaking of methane itself is a problem even before it breaks down.
I see an article in the Guardian today “Majority of UK’s small energy suppliers could be left to collapse this winter.”
“By the end of winter the industry may shrink to as few as 10 energy suppliers, according to analysis from experts at Baringa Partners for the Times, from about 70 suppliers at the start of the year.”
I don’t know how relaible that assessment is but it makes me think some companies are going to benefit from this crisis. Which makes my conspiracy theorist self wonder if it were not designed to do so and if not so, is the response designed to do so.
I want to note, I am not against solar and wind or other renewables. They will surely have a significant role to play. How significant is the question and where should we be putting resource to reduce emissions as effectively and quickly as possible.