UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

To be clear Ty, I would be happy moving away from fossil fuels, and really wish we were ahead of the curve on nuclear. I like the things I've seen on molten salt reactors and think they could be an answer for energy. The biggest problem with nuclear is where are you going to put it?

My issue is actually just with you. You are a one trick pony who comes into every thread trying to push the same talking points, with the same links, and most of the time it has nothing to do with what the original thread was actually about.

The transition from horses to cars took decades. You seem to want to force everything overnight. Electric cars are gaining more and more infrastructure, and I believe will eventually will be the primary mode of transportation, given time. The infrastructure is not there to supply the power needed to swap every car to electric yet. And that still doesn't solve the problem of fossil fuels like you seem to think it does, because the majority of our energy is produced by fossil fuels.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), as of 2023, the breakdown of U.S. energy production by source is roughly: natural gas (38%), petroleum (34%), coal (11%), renewable energy (8%), and nuclear power (8%); with fossil fuels accounting for approximately 84% of total U.S. primary energy production. So all of you running around in an electric talking about how green you are because you aren't burning gas (I have heard the rumor you don't actually have an electric vehicle though) are still burning fossil fuels to power your vehicle, it just doesn't come out of your tailpipe.

I am mostly on your side on this issue, but I hate the high and mighty attitude people have acting like all it takes is x, y, or z and we'll have all clean energy. That is a lot of energy that will need to be replaced, and we are constantly demanding more every day.

Oh, and the last line of the conclusion, which is where most people put the final actual statement about what the paper would conclude, ends with "our understanding of how forcings and feedbacks on deep timescales balance—or enhance—one another is incomplete." That was my point about you only talking to one sentence in the two paragraph conclusion that you posted. You looked for what you wanted, highlighted it, and then regurgitated the same crap you do every time a climate study is brought up. Add in your haughtiness and condescension and it's a recipe to win over absolutely no one to your side. But you do you Ty.