I think that HN is strong in software development areas but those people usually don't have a solid understanding of engineering topics. Using slightly differen

I think that HN is strong in software development areas but those people usually don't have a solid understanding of engineering topics. Using slightly different assumptions, data and mental models you can come to totally different conclusions. Then these energy topics have been heavily polarized by different interest groups for many decades and sophisticated falsehoods are being promoted. I think it is much easier to start with a conclusion and then to build an argument by selecting data than to go the other way of trying to understand all the different alternatives and their impacts. None of the energy sources is ideal in all the ways you can look at it, none of them is a clear winner over all the others (even though it may seem so if you have a simplified understanding). We need to cut through the BS and invest in at least one of the viable solutions. I even think that we can invest enough in all of the viable solutions and then some. The money we are spending on nuclear fusion is still peanuts compared to the whole picture. The "Manhattan project" style approach will happen once our platform is really burning but that may be many years into the future. I'm hopeful that solar and wind out-compete fossil fuel economically and gain enough traction that way.