On nuclear power, I would love to have further conversations. How many reactors do you think we would have to bring online in order to replace even half of what is currently provided by fossil fuels? I saw a video talking about China planning to bring online a new reactor, what are your thoughts on their current plan in that regards? Do you think they are currently at an advantage over us?
The you issue I was pretty clear; how you talk to people, and the fact that you rarely stay on topic when you jump into a thread is my issue. You can resolve that easily by being less condescending and actually addressing the posts rather than deflecting to something that is tangentially the same but not actually what the post is about. I'm all for some good data, but you post the same thing over and over. You can take it as a honest critique and try to adjust, or you can brush it off, up to you. I'm certainly not anyone that you need to impress or take advice from.
The market will change when it is ready to change, it always has and always will. Trying to force it won't actually help.
Good on you for planning to get an electric vehicle, just remember what I said. Until the power grid is using renewables at a higher level than fossil fuels, you've just transitioned your carbon emissions from your car to a smoke stack. I remember getting into a climate change discussion with a guy who was a die hard Democrat. He went on and on about how we were killing the planet and that we needed to get off fossil fuels, and I asked what he drove. It was an old Tacoma truck making less than 15 mpg. I told him my car gets over 30 and he can lecture me when he actually contributes.
The conclusion was that we don't yet understand the complete picture of how these forces all interact. I am of the notion that less carbon dioxide will be good for the human race, and that should be a goal, I just disagree with people trying to shove it down everyone else's throat, especially the hypocritical people doing it. There was another video where the Australian government was trying to be "green" and were going to cut down a forest to put up solar panels to reduce carbon emissions. The problem was a study showed that leaving that particular forest of trees that were exceptionally good at clearing CO2 in place was actually a better call, but they were going to ignore it and move forward with the plan. That is virtue signaling at its finest.