The best metric by which to measure if someone is a reasonable enviromentalist/lefty is their openness to nuclear energy
Post by twetch#20102
I think it has more to do with the 'reasonable' part and less with the 'enviromentalist/lefty' part. If there is no requirement to categorise it is prudent not to do so unless wanting to show your own bias.
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 030
- Time
- 2020-05-15T13:33:11Z
- Signer
- 14eidzA2vstUZeW2zszHX5Fo329LgKwyqs
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#20102
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
14eidzA2vstUZeW2zszHX5Fo329LgKwyqs VerifiedReplies (14)
Perhaps my phrasing was bad. What i mean is if a person is legitimately motivated by reducing carbon emissions/pollution (as opposed to advancing a political agenda) they tend to be more open to nuclear power
correct
When it comes to the ‘reasonable’ part - that works both ways, too.
Everything is Bayesian: Everything has upper- + lower-bounds.
I’d wager that blindness to range-maxes (and mins) contributes to many slippery slope arguments.
ie: It’s not only openness.
Folks less comfortable exploring boundaries see the lack of an ‘upper bound’ on logic as ‘unreasonable’, because it’s shortsighted.
Nuclear is a great option. Whether it can be deployed and operated more cheaply than solar/battery is the question now.
Imagine being long coal hahaha
Its already deployed and operational over here and cheaper than solar.
imagine not being able to harvest 384.6 yotta watts efficiently.🤦♂️
I disagree. Nuclear is inherently subsidized so it’s a VERY uneconomic source of power. Nukes cannot get private disaster insurance bc no Sane insurance company will write it— see Chernobyl & Fuki cleanup costs. Nukes are the highest cost energy on earth.