3 ms·

Sorry, how is having a few, very delicate, power sources more resilient than an abundance of mechanically simple and widely distributed power sources?

• roenxi 2y ago
  They work if light is massively cut down for 12 months. And can be fortified to the nth degree.
  • pfdietz 2y ago
    This has to be the most hilariously desperate anti-renewable argument yet.
    • roenxi 2y ago
      In what way is it anti-renewable?
      • pfdietz 2y ago
        "Renewables (or, at least, PV) are bad because they won't work after a K/Pg-level asteroid impact."
        • roenxi 2y ago
          Why would that make them bad? They're still good. It just isn't clever to rely only on one source of power. It is like chicken being a good thing to have in the fridge. That doesn't make a sack of potatoes in the cupboard bad. On a 1:500 year time horizon we know there are threats that dim the sun (possibly quite a bit shorter now that nuclear weapons are on the table and we seem to be incapable of dealing with that threat productively - the number of actors with nukes is growing). Planning for that isn't anti-renewable, it is just cautious. And nobody was talking about K-Pg events. You'll notice the years quoted were all after the Roman Empire was founded.