Isabelle Boemeke

And so in the last couple of years, there have been announcements coming out of labs saying we finally got a little bit of energy out, more energy out than we've put into the whole system.

But

When people say, oh, fusion is 10 years away, I say, talk to me whenever we have a product that I can buy tomorrow.

That's actually competitive.

That's actually, you know, because there can be one maybe in 10 years, which I highly doubt, but it's going to cost an insane amount of money.

And I'm not saying that to say we shouldn't pursue fusion, but it's just to say it's not an existing technology at the moment.

So hydro obviously has downsides, like you mentioned, you know, you have to flood certain areas and there are also some emissions associated with it.

I think it's because I can't remember exactly, but like basically a lot of plant material gets trapped into this giant dams and it dies and it's like puts off a bunch of CO2.

There's something like that with hydrogen.

There is something like that where hydropower dams specifically lead to higher CO2 emissions because of dead plants.

And I can't remember exactly the connection.

But, you know, I do think that we tend to get lost a little bit in these discussions because at the end of the day, yes, hydro has some downsides.

It's still way better than fossil fuels just because of what we talked about in terms of the particulate matter and the greenhouse gases that are associated with it.

So I still think it's a step forward.

You know, it's technology that's better.

Now, the biggest problem with hydro really is that we're very tapped out on hydro.

Yeah, exactly.

And that's how I feel about hydro.

You know, we can nitpick every single clean energy source and say, well, you know, it creates emissions if we do this.

And of course, because everything we do creates emissions because our civilization is, again, so dependent on fossil fuels.