It probably does in terms of averting climate change. Of course he might indulge Elon and remove all nuclear restrictions and save the world, who knows. But the chance of persuading the globe towards collective action seems ludicrously out of reach in time to avert pretty severe outcomes.
The world needs to build over 400 nuclear plants starting right now to replace fossil fuel energy needs, even with about a 33% reduction in global energy consumption.
That means a new plant starting up every 3 days. Any slower and it's not enough. This was data from a couple of years ago as well. We're never going to get close, even if Elon himself is modern jesus.
Wasn't this number flawed, because it mapped the energy needs 1:1? Like, the efficiency of a heat pump or a battery is vastly better than current motors or burning oil.
I don't know, but I doubt it, and what you're stating is essentially the opposite, fossil fuels are far more energy dense than any other form of energy, you can't run long haul diesel trucks on batteries, not without an insane network of battery swap stations. The grid infrastructure alone needs to grow at least 4x to manage this.
I can't find the source, but it was in a video presentation by Kevin Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
400 nuclear plants isn't actually that many in terms of numbers, but constructing them is an enormous task.
