syn@yourcomputer​ #Mar 1

I can accept being wrong about many of my opinions, but the exception is nuclear power.

I firmly believe that we either grow up as a species and embrace it as a pathway to fusion, or we collapse into resource wars and cease to exist as a species.

Nothing matches it in energy density.

Show threadCassandrichMar 1
@dave This is one you're wrong on. There is no way nuclear of any sort is ever practical in a world without centralized power backed by threat of violence. We can easily meet everybody's actual needs (not their technofuturist technofascist fantasies) with solar alone, even moreso solar and wind, and do this with local production where it's going to be used, no centralized targets that need to be protected.
Show threadLisPiMar 1

@dave Consider: Literally just the actively misused and wasted space is enough to cover for the USA's needs in solar.

That's the scale of things.

Sure nuclear has its uses but in a lot of ways it's just not even needed?

@dalias

You are being misled about renewable energy technology.

Let's learn and grow. New things are cool!Links 'n' stuff down below. Lots of links.First, the "clean version." Please pass that around.https://youtu.be/Zgxb...

YouTube
Show threadLisPi

@dalias @dave

There is no way nuclear of any sort is ever practical in a world without centralized power backed by threat of violence.

I disagree, here's one sort: nuclear batteries.

They don't require anywhere near the same kind of extraction and do have practical application without mass violence (low power applications in offgrid sunless areas).

Besides, uranium requires some extractivism and cannot (easily) work at scale without states, but that's also with current mining options. It is pretty abundant in the sea overall.

Fusion, if one ever manages to stabilize it, has various material options that aren't particularly rare. (And some that on the contrary are absurdly rare.)

Atomic battery - Wikipedia

Mar 1 at 11:23pmWeb