[etaty]

We already have solved the issue. We know how to produce massive amount of energy, all day long. We just don't want to implement it, because of local incident risk. And because of this we are in the middle of a global incident. Technology available in 5 years are already too late.

[spuz]

> We already have solved the issue. We know how to produce massive amount of energy, all day long. We just don't want to implement it

That means we haven't solved the issue. The solution might require as much of a change in human psychology as a change in technology.

[Diederich]

> We know how to produce massive amount of energy, all day long.

Are you hinting at nuclear power? If so, I (somewhat) agree with you.

The environmentalists that I used to hang out with believed with a burning passion that nuclear power was an absolute evil. I understand that perspective, though I disagree with it.

If one takes the position that The Main Future Threat is related to and rooted in human released greenhouse gases, then nuclear power is right back on the table, front and center, even given its challenges, risks and long-term side effects.

About those, though: my understanding is that it has been possible, for some time now, to produce nuclear power plants that are exceptionally safe and cost effective. And with substantial research dollars, the plethora of possible 'next gen' fission reactor technologies would yield all kinds of fruit to, for example, mitigate or remove the long term side effects.

Given all of that, I think solar+battery (along with hydro, wind and their up and coming friends) is now the way to go, given how much costs have come down.

Going all into nuclear power probably made sense a couple of decades ago.

[prolikewh0a]

>We just don't want to implement it, because of local incident risk.

More likely due to capital. It's always capital. We're going to kill all life for capital.