2 ms·

I agree, but would point out that "Try every option based on how credible it seems" is also an insufficient or under-specified answer, because the viability of

I agree, but would point out that "Try every option based on how credible it seems" is also an insufficient or under-specified answer, because the viability of each option depends on how much resources are invested in that option. For example, if a trillion dollars were invested in nuclear reactors, it would probably be possible to build them fast enough and safely enough to satisfy most people, whereas spending just ten dollars on nuclear energy would not be enough to solve climate change. Similarly, over-building renewables and researching batteries with a trillion dollars might be enough to start reversing CO2 levels, but ten dollars won't make a difference. Given limited resources, determining how to allocate them to maximise the probability of success is really the essence of the problem, rather than just identifying that there are several approaches that could be tried simultaneously.

ncmncm 5y ago
The more money there is on offer for nukes, the bigger the corruption problem becomes. There is literally no upper limit on how much money corruption is willing to absorb. But there is a lower limit, below which corruption will look elsewhere.
joe_the_user 5y ago
I agree, but would point out that "Try every option based on how credible it seems" is also an insufficient or under-specified answer, because the viability of each option depends on how much resources are invested in that option. I could say that how many resources an option has is a part of how credible it seems. But I didn't really specify an algorithm for choosing options, I just wanted to point out that "try it because it's an option" isn't argument in a world where one generally has unlimited hypothetical options. Edit: all that said, different energy production methods have different capital intensity levels. You get zero for a ten dollar or even a ten million dollar investment in nukes today. Solar has lower capital intensity but can still can scale to meet needs.

ncmncm 5y ago

The more money there is on offer for nukes, the bigger the corruption problem becomes. There is literally no upper limit on how much money corruption is willing to absorb. But there is a lower limit, below which corruption will look elsewhere.

joe_the_user 5y ago

I agree, but would point out that "Try every option based on how credible it seems" is also an insufficient or under-specified answer, because the viability of each option depends on how much resources are invested in that option. I could say that how many resources an option has is a part of how credible it seems. But I didn't really specify an algorithm for choosing options, I just wanted to point out that "try it because it's an option" isn't argument in a world where one generally has unlimited hypothetical options. Edit: all that said, different energy production methods have different capital intensity levels. You get zero for a ten dollar or even a ten million dollar investment in nukes today. Solar has lower capital intensity but can still can scale to meet needs.