Timothy P. Stuart
Jul 20, 2017 · 1 min read

What should matter is the overall CO2 avoided per trillion-dollar invested: renewables are an expensive fiasco(backed up by fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies); while carbon-free nuclear power is a success, it’s worth the price.
“Better to target zero emissions than 100% renewable energy”
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21725001-goal-after-all-curb-global-warming-not-favour-particular-technologies-better
“Instead of the ‘100% renewables‘ mantra, we should instead be chanting ‘0% carbon‘.”
https://conservationbytes.com/2017/04/05/not-100-renewable-but-0-carbon/

)

    Timothy P. Stuart

    Written by