The permafrost gun is predicted to fire ~2050. No turning back.

[kristopher]

35. So the answer is no, you have nothing to support your belief.

All of the experts specializing in a transition to a carbon free energy system disagree with you. We use fossils because the infrastructure is a legacy of what worked best in the past. We use nuclear because it fit into that centralized system and was seen as having the potential to augment the centralized system that depends on fossil fuels.
An energy system is composed of many elements and the way those elements work together define how the economics work. Renewables work together differently than centralized thermal. They are, in fact, able to produce a superior system because of its distributed nature, and this builds redundancy into the system to make it more reliable than one prone to cascade failures.
Contrary to your "all of the above" approach, it is wasteful in the extreme to pursue ineffective solutions, such as nuclear or coal with CCS. That view is a result of nothing more than political kowtowing to the established powers in the energy field and it simply isn't true.

Renewables are right now shutting down centralized power generation. If you look at the proposals for companies seeking to build nuclear, you'll find they the plan to expand coal along with building nuclear. Nuclear reenforces the economics that support coal - renewables destroy those economics and replaces them with a system of local control over energy supplies.



Duke CEO confirms threat renewables pose to their business model
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112737600