> If distributed works I am all for distributed. But distributed does not always work nor is it always a superior option. Imagine we figure out cold fusion. That will probably always be "centralized", but it could be vastly superior to any other power source we can fathom to imagine.
Okay, imagined it. If we need that much power in one place then great. We'll work on it then. But for the majority of individuals, they'll never need close to that level of electricity.
> I think nuclear is the safest viable option we have at this moment.
Based off nothing other than handwavey arguments about how, "Look how this system which has been deployed at a tiny fraction of the scale of the other systems has fewer deaths when we specifically cut out fuel procurement but count atmospheric pollution even if that's difficult to avoid confounding?"
This is not a compelling line of argument. No more so than the "what if we suddenly have a fusion breakthrough won't you want thousands of lines of cabling then?"
> It also doesn't mean we should stop funding the research of renewable energy and of energy storage. Quite contrary. But let us not fall for wishful thinking --- look at Germany.
I don't recall us saying science was bad. Rather, it was, "Concentrating capital on ever larger energy ziggurats is not something that makes sense in 2019."
Sure. Let's look at Germany, where they literally have such an abundance of power they can't migrate their grids to use it fast enough so they pay people to use it? Or how they're now investing in inexpensive and locally sourced storage options because they can power over 90% of their peak demand on a good day?
These are "good problems to have." Certainly better than "How do we shield this drone enough that we can make contact with the melted fuel rods at Fukushima."
Okay, imagined it. If we need that much power in one place then great. We'll work on it then. But for the majority of individuals, they'll never need close to that level of electricity.
> I think nuclear is the safest viable option we have at this moment.
Based off nothing other than handwavey arguments about how, "Look how this system which has been deployed at a tiny fraction of the scale of the other systems has fewer deaths when we specifically cut out fuel procurement but count atmospheric pollution even if that's difficult to avoid confounding?"
This is not a compelling line of argument. No more so than the "what if we suddenly have a fusion breakthrough won't you want thousands of lines of cabling then?"
> It also doesn't mean we should stop funding the research of renewable energy and of energy storage. Quite contrary. But let us not fall for wishful thinking --- look at Germany.
I don't recall us saying science was bad. Rather, it was, "Concentrating capital on ever larger energy ziggurats is not something that makes sense in 2019."
Sure. Let's look at Germany, where they literally have such an abundance of power they can't migrate their grids to use it fast enough so they pay people to use it? Or how they're now investing in inexpensive and locally sourced storage options because they can power over 90% of their peak demand on a good day?
These are "good problems to have." Certainly better than "How do we shield this drone enough that we can make contact with the melted fuel rods at Fukushima."