4 ms·
Yes, I didn't mention fission for 2 reasons #1 anyone who looks into nuclear already knows this and #2 anyone else is usually just confused by it. I don't spen
by jfaucett 9y ago
Yes, I didn't mention fission for 2 reasons #1 anyone who looks into nuclear already knows this and #2 anyone else is usually just confused by it.
I don't spend every day on HN so I just missed that story and dont have time to look into it now, but almost every article I've ever read till now had ways the energy was displaced and not actually reduced or at a plateau. Also why would you not want more energy? You can do more things, better, faster, etc. The only reason not to want energy is because of externalities, which is reasonable but needs to be weighed in the context of what your giving up i.e. convience, efficiency, productivity, etc.
- Jedd 9y agoFair enough. I always draw the distinction between fission and fusion when talking to people who do, or don't, know the difference - as the former benefits from the clarity, and the latter from the (new) understanding. It's like using solar now to describe only photo-voltaic cells - solar thermal is likely to be a much more interesting technology for grid-supply, but few people that aren't interested in the area know about it (at least here in Australia, where we haven't dabbled much, and have an administration that's very pro-coal). As to your question - you answered it yourself, I see. You wouldn't want more energy if it's going to ultimately cost you your civilisation -- that's the easy answer. But also if you have any concept of restraint, moderation, efficiency improvements, etc. (Though mostly if it's going to cost you your civilisation.)
- jfaucett 9y agoso... we pretty much completely agree :)