Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by caeril 1803 days ago
That's a good point. It's pretty easy to construct and maintain fission reactors without fossil fuels. I bet enriching uranium was a snap in the 18th century, too. It will be even easier even getting to the enrichment phase in the future, with accessible ores about 30% as rich as they were when the nuclear age began.

Looking forward to the fleet of electric concrete trucks carrying electrically-manufactured concrete loaded with batteries that were produced with lithium carbonate dug out of the ground by electric excavation rigs.

All of this construction work will also not be disrupted by any social unrest resulting from 3 billion people starving to death because the Haber process no longer has enough cheap feedstock to sustain modern agricultural processes.

Thanks for educating me.

1 comments

Your snark is misplaced. All of the issues you raise apply to any source of energy, including "renewables". The difference is, "renewables" (a) are not controllable, and (b) don't have nearly enough capacity to support a global civilization. And if you're worried about social unrest, by far the best way to ensure it is to refuse to make use of an obvious source of plentiful energy to help maintain and improve people's standard of living, and instead insist on keeping billions of people in poverty in order to satisfy your ideological preconceptions.