6 ms·
People believe all of the following: >Coal needs to go >Nuclear needs to go >High energy (even unsubsidized gasoline) is politically untenable >Economic deprrs
by wallace_f 7y ago
People believe all of the following:
>Coal needs to go
>Nuclear needs to go
>High energy (even unsubsidized gasoline) is politically untenable
>Economic deprrssion from 1 and 2 is not tolerable, also
- kristopolous 7y agoAwful broken solutions aren't acceptable. Not in programming, building things, or running society.
- wallace_f 7y agoThe world isn't perfect, and I'm sure your code isn't, either. It's a series of trade-offs.
- kristopolous 7y agoSolutions that work for a while but destroy everything in the process aren't solutions. This isn't some cost/benefit stuff. Single use plastics and building concrete urban blight isn't worth a mass Extinction and global dieoff event. Especially with things like carbon negative concrete available. Not the same thing It's bad solutions, when good ones are available, at massive scale, to address things that either aren't problems or could be addressed in other ways.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoCoal and Nuclear are both expensive, they just get their hidden subsidies in different ways. Getting rid of them therefore won't cause economic depression, just affect the profits of specific well connected people, so they'll hang around longer than they should.
- wallace_f 7y agoAfaik nuclear appears to be expensive mostly because of excessive regulatory code/capture, and political risk.
- kristopolous 7y agoYes the NRC has regulatory capture, but by the actual nuclear industry to fend off regulation, oversight and scrutiny, subsidize the power and rubber stamp the projects. It's so prominent its given as an example on the Wikipedia page for regulatory capture. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture#Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture#Nuclear_R...