|
|
|
|
|
|
by rich_sasha
1238 days ago
|
|
|
Not sure if that's the point you are making (or the opposite) but it's precisely how I perceive the discussion: football mentality. A vocal group of people, whose background is not strictly energy production/storage, shouts down anything but solar/wind/batteries. Maybe it's the optimum (I'm not convinced). But to narrow down on one approach that doesn't even quite work seems premature. If you wanted to just throw money at the problem, I'd just throw it at nuclear - reliable, carbon free, well tested and doesn't need much storage. But hey I guess that's the wrong answer to some. My background, FWIW, is also not energy, so I'm just happy to see the research net cast wide and well funded throughout. |
|
|
And most global warming activists aren't climate scientists.
Meanwhile the military industrial complex, who DGAF about the environment but crave lavish taxpayer subsidies for a nuclear economy, is shouting down solar, wind and storage - largely because it competes for subsidies and its low cost renders it a no brainer alternative.
They are louder, richer, more persuasive (cynically leveraging environmental messaging) and considerably more powerful than people who care more for the environment than military supply chains.
As with global warming itself, appeal to moderation doesn't work - the best solution doesnt lie half way between these two extremes.