2 ms·
Same can be said about cities: they are vulnerable to water issues (if a city loses access to water, it’s a major disaster), and military can weaponize them as
by xyzzyz 3y ago
Same can be said about cities: they are vulnerable to water issues (if a city loses access to water, it’s a major disaster), and military can weaponize them as fortification.
Does it mean that we shouldn’t build cities? No, obviously not, that’s silly: it just means that you have to make sure water is flowing, and that military invasions are hugely destructive.
- bwb 3y agoThat isn't a good analogy. Cities have multiple water sources, and it is a very complex system. Not to mention we have special trucks and responses when that happens (at least in the USA). Nuclear has some problems.
- crznp 3y agoDo cities have redundant water sources though? Not all of NYC's water goes through Hillview Reservoir, but it seems like a pretty serious vulnerability to me. It doesn't seem like a terrible analogy. But cities are worth the risk, can you say the same about nuclear plants? Most established designs can't operate as peaker plants, or even seasonal plants (eg: covering for solar in the winter when there is less sun and more load for heating). They are expensive because they are mired in political issues and red tape. I don't think it has to be like that, and I wish it weren't. But is fixing nuclear an easier problem to solve than to invest in grid storage and more dynamic pricing?
- bwb 3y agoIt is a good question, and I am not sure either.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoThat's a bizarre argument when the point being made is that solar is an alternative that doesn't have those problems.