Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Non_carbon-Emitting Power, by Michael Shellenberger.

Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress. …

Had Germany spent $580 billion on nuclear instead of renewables, and the fossil plant upgrades and grid expansions they require, it would have had enough energy to both replace all fossil fuels and biomass in its electricity sector and replace all of the petroleum it uses for cars and light trucks.

Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix. …

As a result of their renewables-only policies, California and Germany are climate laggards compared to nuclear-heavy places like France, whose electricity is 12 times less carbon intensive than Germany’s, and 4 times less carbon intensive than California’s.

It’s almost as if they aren’t taking emission reduction seriously, but have some other agenda.

Warmist celebrities such as Gore and DiCaprio scold us about our emissions, yet have enormous carbon footprints themselves. It’s as if they were strident abolitionists who never quite got around to freeing their own slaves.

They’re just not serious. Why should we take carbon reduction seriously, when the people at the top are not?