3 ms·
I sort of agree with you, and it might appear like circular reasoning (although it's not really) but what you said just ties into the larger picture - people ar
by jacobush 8y ago
I sort of agree with you, and it might appear like circular reasoning (although it's not really) but what you said just ties into the larger picture - people are not rational.
I say, play to our strengths. Massive roll out of solar now - keep nuclear on the table (it's good tech), but don't rely on it to solve a substantial part of short to medium term future energy need. I also think we should plan for the event of "Global Thermonuclear War". Solar deployments and other renewables will fare much better. You can count on any centralized structures being targeted. That means (large) nuclear power plants and large hydro installations.
- kortilla 8y agoYour stance is just pro fossil fuels though. Advocating for solar without an realistic solution for energy storage is just advocating for burning coal and gas for steady state power. You’re accepting a real threat (global warming) to sustain an imaginary one (nuclear meltdowns of modern plants).
- tasubotadas 8y ago>You’re accepting a real threat (global warming) to sustain an imaginary one (nuclear meltdowns of modern plants). This deserves a lot of upvotes
- jacobush 8y agoI am not trying to sustain anything. I may just have a much more pessimistic outlook on humanity. We can argue pro or con nuclear however much we wan't. A build out large enough to affect global warning, is just not going to happen. I see a combination of battery banks, pumped hydro, but most of all, a movement to a smart grid, where base load just isn't as important as before. Where consumers and producers of electricity can be turned on and off in a way unheard of today.