Re:Renewables supplied 65% of new US utility-scale generatin...
by pdonis on Thursday May 18, 2023 @11:58AM
(#35989870)
> Here's the thing - you don't know what can happen.
With this attitude towards risk, we should outlaw all energy sources. And everything else, for that matter.
> You can have the world's 2nd best army surround it and make it purposefully melt down and pollute half of europe.
I've already responded to this elsewhere in this thread. We should not be restricting what we build in the US because Ukraine is currently a war zone. (As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, France gets the majority of electricity from nuclear even though it was invaded in WW II.)
> Your "risk per unit of energy" assumes risk is some small constant block of jello.
It does no such thing. What it does do is force people to look at the actual cumulative harms over time objectively, instead of fixating on particular one-off incidents and ignoring other long-term effects just because they take time to accumulate. If you think it's perfectly OK to kill millions of people over time by air pollution, while protesting vehemently about thousands of people killed by one particular accident and its aftermath, even though it was the only such accident over the same time period that millions of people were killed by air pollution, you are the one who has an irrational attitude towards risk.
With this attitude towards risk, we should outlaw all energy sources. And everything else, for that matter.
> You can have the world's 2nd best army surround it and make it purposefully melt down and pollute half of europe.
I've already responded to this elsewhere in this thread. We should not be restricting what we build in the US because Ukraine is currently a war zone. (As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, France gets the majority of electricity from nuclear even though it was invaded in WW II.)
> Your "risk per unit of energy" assumes risk is some small constant block of jello.
It does no such thing. What it does do is force people to look at the actual cumulative harms over time objectively, instead of fixating on particular one-off incidents and ignoring other long-term effects just because they take time to accumulate. If you think it's perfectly OK to kill millions of people over time by air pollution, while protesting vehemently about thousands of people killed by one particular accident and its aftermath, even though it was the only such accident over the same time period that millions of people were killed by air pollution, you are the one who has an irrational attitude towards risk.
> nothing you can do to predict things
Nonsense.