...save the world, mostly as a result of catcalls from people who address it from the prism of extreme ignorance, coupled with selective attention. It's very similar to the reason that Trump and not Harris is President elect.
As for what is and is not a "dream world" with respect to nuclear energy, the expenditure on nuclear energy this year world wide amounts to 67 billion dollars according to the EIA. The expenditure on so called "renewable energy" this year was 735 billion dollars, not including the 416 billion spent on energy storage and grids.
The combined wind and solar junk according to the EIA produced just 16 Exajoules of primary energy in 2023 combined with wind energy growing zero Exajoules from 2023 and solar by 2 Exajoules to 8. Fossil fuels are growing faster than this junk.
For more than three decades in an atmosphere of catcalls and vituperation from people who know as much about nuclear energy as Magats know about economics, nuclear energy has routinely and reliably produced between 28 and 30 Exajoules of primary energy every year, a figure that all the solar and wind crap ever built, all of which will be landfill in less than 25 years, have never, not once, matched nuclear by providing 28 or 30 Exajoules in as single year. And let's be clear, the main focus of people hyping this expensive and useless (in terms of addressing the extreme global heating that has left the plant in flames) was never and clearly still isn't about addressing fossil fuels. It was and still is about attacking nuclear energy.
It is clearly too late to recover much of what has been lost because of antinuke ignorance. The finest minds of the 20th century developed the technology and lesser minds trashed it in that century and this, so that it could not accomplish what it might have done.
I fully agree it's too late. What's done cannot be undone.
I have my own view of what is and is not delusional. Catcalls addressed at me to my mind define from whom I'm hearing, their intellectual and moral standing which I am in no way compelled to take seriously and for whom no respect can be asked of me.
I spent a lot of my time in the primary scientific literature both for professional reasons and personal concerns about the horror we leave for the future. Having done so, I'm a little jaded with respect to hyping benchtop grant fulfilling research as a "breakthrough" or even as being promising. In my career I've developed a sense about scale-up and the cheering for journalist readings of press releases about benchtop work is just bread and circuses, useful perhaps only a a narcotic salve to kill the pain of an ever more dire reality but otherwise of no value.
Thank you for your observations even if, sorry to say, I am precluded from taking them seriously.
= new reply since forum marked as read