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.
Post by twetch#9075
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
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 046
- Time
- 2020-05-15T14:36:11Z
- Signer
- 1AoadEyJevo9v7hRofpTHS1i5idmG1tcN9
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#9075
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1AoadEyJevo9v7hRofpTHS1i5idmG1tcN9 VerifiedReposted by (1)
Replies (13)
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.
‘Shortsighted’ - insomuch as the full context is either not considered or part of the argument.
And maybe this should probably be expected, too.
Those comfortable with exploration are perhaps more likely to throw caution to the wind, so to speak.
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.