oil supply sigint

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Tue Dec 13 00:34:37 PST 2016


On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
>         nuke is worse than oil and has the same 'geopolitical
>         dependencies'.

I know it has sourcing and mining issues but we know
safe open crowd reviewed plant designs and open
inspections are possible for those bold enough to
set aside secret corp profit bullshit, and obviously there
are zero emissions, except for waste. And maybe
similar source reserve timescales as hydrocarbon fuels.

>         "print energy for free" is obvious nonsense. Have you bothered
>         looking at the real numbers? Amount of energy that reaches a
>         particular place, efficiency and COST of the system to collect
>         it?

Yes deep sunbelt is a current requirement to break even
on short term corp quarterly profit bullshit timescales.
Longer term amortization vs hardware failure rate and
maintenance seems doable there too, even a latitude out.
There seems to be more efficiency yet to come,
combined with what a global shift from hydrocarbon
could do to economics there.
Look at the installed base growth curve, they're not all
dreaming lefty activists throwing their money away,
there's serious corps in there going for it.
So shoot me if I'm a bit bullish on nuke and solar / wind.
For the next decade at least while efficiency,
production, installs, and geopolitical / acceptance matures
to be able to tell for sure.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list