4 ms·

Great wake up call for the modern world. We need more clean energy from within our own country.

by tiku 4y ago

QuarterReptile 4y ago
Sounds like we just need more energy (or a built environment that doesn't demand so much energy to function, if I may be permitted to dream a bit.)
tenpies 4y ago
It would be nice if the ecofascists in charge of setting the West's energy policy could chill with the solar and wind, and focus on nuclear. But it's probably too late anyway. We should all be bracing for a serious decline in energy production in the West - and remember - energy is not just AC and electricity. It's quite literally food and transportation. Energy is life and the West's self-destructive, overly-emotional policies are about to kill a lot of it globally.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Declining cost of solar basically means that we need to focus on it, not nuclear. It's the difference between $36/MWh and $110/MWh.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  Solar is much easier to build, has less regulatory hurdles, and incites less NIMBYism because it's lower risk and less obvious. Nuclear plants take ages to build so if we just tried to do that we'd miss the targets to reduce global warming impacts. If nuclear was going to be the answer we missed the chance in the 90s, 00s and 10s fighting just to get half the population to think maybe something needs to be done at all.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >has less regulatory hurdles, >Nuclear plants take ages to build >If nuclear was going to be the answer we missed the chance And who's fault is all that? Your line of reasoning comes across as a little more than tone deaf considering that the current situation with regard to nuclear was the fruit of a prior generation of environmental activism.
    - rtkwe 4y ago
      They're larger, more complicated, and more dangerous (when done wrong) structures than solar farms. Even without the anti-nuclear turn they would take longer to build and have more strenuous requirements to meet than a solar field...
      - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
        I don't disagree. Solar is the cheaper option. But nuclear is still a viable option and can/should be deployed too. My point is "green" crowd has less than no credibility in people's minds when it comes to nuclear. You people blew your load 30yr ago and other than baiting some people into debating with you online the general public doesn't really trust anything your crowd has to say on nuclear because you've shown your true colors.
        rtkwe 4y ago
        "You people"? 30 years ago I had just recently started mastering the toilet and was moving on to other things like reading and speaking words other than mama and dada so I'm not sure how much political capital I was exercising during that time period.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      Sounds like you are being "overly emotional." The climate crisis can't be solved with the blame game.

Great wake up call for the modern world. We need more clean energy from within our own country.

by tiku 4y ago

Great wake up call for the modern world. We need more clean energy from within our own country.

Sounds like we just need more energy (or a built environment that doesn't demand so much energy to function, if I may be permitted to dream a bit.)

tenpies 4y ago

It would be nice if the ecofascists in charge of setting the West's energy policy could chill with the solar and wind, and focus on nuclear. But it's probably too late anyway. We should all be bracing for a serious decline in energy production in the West - and remember - energy is not just AC and electricity. It's quite literally food and transportation. Energy is life and the West's self-destructive, overly-emotional policies are about to kill a lot of it globally.

whimsicalism 4y ago
Declining cost of solar basically means that we need to focus on it, not nuclear. It's the difference between $36/MWh and $110/MWh.
rtkwe 4y ago
Solar is much easier to build, has less regulatory hurdles, and incites less NIMBYism because it's lower risk and less obvious. Nuclear plants take ages to build so if we just tried to do that we'd miss the targets to reduce global warming impacts. If nuclear was going to be the answer we missed the chance in the 90s, 00s and 10s fighting just to get half the population to think maybe something needs to be done at all.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >has less regulatory hurdles, >Nuclear plants take ages to build >If nuclear was going to be the answer we missed the chance And who's fault is all that? Your line of reasoning comes across as a little more than tone deaf considering that the current situation with regard to nuclear was the fruit of a prior generation of environmental activism.
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    They're larger, more complicated, and more dangerous (when done wrong) structures than solar farms. Even without the anti-nuclear turn they would take longer to build and have more strenuous requirements to meet than a solar field...
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      I don't disagree. Solar is the cheaper option. But nuclear is still a viable option and can/should be deployed too. My point is "green" crowd has less than no credibility in people's minds when it comes to nuclear. You people blew your load 30yr ago and other than baiting some people into debating with you online the general public doesn't really trust anything your crowd has to say on nuclear because you've shown your true colors.
      - rtkwe 4y ago
        "You people"? 30 years ago I had just recently started mastering the toilet and was moving on to other things like reading and speaking words other than mama and dada so I'm not sure how much political capital I was exercising during that time period.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Sounds like you are being "overly emotional." The climate crisis can't be solved with the blame game.