Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we started today to build nuclear plants everywhere, it's not like we would replace fossil fuels tomorrow. It takes time. Replacing fossil fuels with anything will take time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't start doing it. > Then we would need to replace absolutely everything that uses fossil fuel to use electricity. No, we wouldn't. For applications where electricity is not practical (such as, for example, comme…
> Replacing fossil fuels with anything will take time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't start doing it. Of course we should do it as quickly as possible. But look at the number: most likely we won't replace . We will just compensate for some of the loss. > we can use electricity to make liquid fuels from the CO2 and water vapor in the air, by reversing the chemical reactions that take place when the fuels are burned. B…
If you are referring to the current political situation, in which nuclear is at a huge disadvantage for irrational reasons, then I would agree that we won't start building serious nuclear capacity unless and until that political situation changes. But that will need to happen for any solution to work.
> Did you ever stop to check how many nuclear plants we would need to replace all fossil fuels?
About as many as we currently have of fossil fuel plants, since the replacement, at least for large base load electrical plants, is more or less one to one. There is no technical reason why we can't build that number of plants; your apparent belief to the contrary is simply uninformed. The obstacles are purely political.
> That's just about the narrative.
No, it isn't, it's about basic facts: poverty kills people. "Poverty" for most of the world does not mean "can't afford the Disney channel" or "can't afford wasteful overconsumption". It means "can't get enough to eat", "can't get basic health care", "can't afford basic control over your life". Telling people that they just have to suck it up and accept that because of your "degrowth" narrative is not going to work. Nor is it necessary.
You and I are posting here in a medium that requires an industrial civilization, and doing that does not imply wasteful overconsumption. I have had the computer I'm writing this post on for ten years. I've had my current phone for three (and it would be more except that my last one broke--I had that one for about seven or eight years). I've had my current car for six, and my wife has had her current car for ten. I think there are many more people living in first world countries who are like us, than who are wastefully overconsuming.
We don't need "degrowth". Nor will it be forced on us by running out of fossil fuels. If it is forced on us, it will be by stupid politics that refuses to adopt an obvious alternative that has been staring us in the face for decades.