Now we have Sell The Magic wherein he proposes a PR campaign in favour of nuclear power, or something of that nature. The underlying fact that he is complaining about - that nukes are much safer than everyone thinks, and that they wouldn't be so expensive with dumb over-regulation - is true enough; but while I wish him luck I also note his lack of any ideas as to how to achieve his goal.
But also, that wasn't what I wanted to write about; which was his: solar and wind are currently a grossly inadequate substitute for fossil fuels which just seems weirdly wrong. Or at the least I'd expect links to some kind of credible analysis to back it up. Currently, solar and wind are hovering around being economic alternatives to FFs, depending on exactly what scenario you look at; are increasing raipdly; and are likely to get cheaper in contrast to FFs, which aren't1. Unfortunately, I kinda know where he is getting his "facts" from, because he has been reading Alex Epstein (more; more). Once upon a time I would have foamed at the mouth about this2 but now I am more mellow; and I don't really want to read FF myself. I don't commit myself to the fairy-dust stuff about easily replacing all FFs, but clearly the majority are heading that way.
1. Once you remove the current unexpected carbon tax, that is.
* U.S. Slavery and Economic Thought by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
* Classical liberalism vs. The New Right by Tyler Cowen
* Sorry, I Still Think I Am Right About The Media Very Rarely Lying - ACX. What's also interesting here is how exactly his readers responses parallel what I saw during the GW wars: I'd say X, people would say "oh no certainly not here is person Y saying not-X", and lo and behold when you actually read it, they didn't say that at all.