4 ms·
I can say that: fusion is objectively better than fossil fuels because it’s a sustainable source of energy that doesn’t destroy future generations’ prospects fo
by pmiller2 7y ago
I can say that: fusion is objectively better than fossil fuels because it’s a sustainable source of energy that doesn’t destroy future generations’ prospects for a decent life. If you were to calculate the real costs of fossil fuels, including the effects on climate, I’m sure fusion comes out ahead. We don’t consider those costs typically, so we’re effectively externalizing them onto future generations.
- mypalmike 7y agoIt's hard to say a hypothetical energy source (commercially-viable fusion) is objectively better than one that actually exists.
- pmiller2 7y agoA hypothetical, completely clean energy source is objectively better than one that emits greenhouse gasses, on its face.
- LanceH 7y agoI'll counter with a hypothetical way to clean up greenhouse gases using fossil fuels. That is, until something can be put into production, it is not a superior product.
- pmiller2 7y agoOk, let’s add “renewable” to the equation. How do fossil fuels stack up to a clean, renewable source of energy?