Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

They work if light is massively cut down for 12 months. And can be fortified to the nth degree.


This has to be the most hilariously desperate anti-renewable argument yet.


In what way is it anti-renewable?


"Renewables (or, at least, PV) are bad because they won't work after a K/Pg-level asteroid impact."


Why would that make them bad? They're still good. It just isn't clever to rely only on one source of power. It is like chicken being a good thing to have in the fridge. That doesn't make a sack of potatoes in the cupboard bad.

On a 1:500 year time horizon we know there are threats that dim the sun (possibly quite a bit shorter now that nuclear weapons are on the table and we seem to be incapable of dealing with that threat productively - the number of actors with nukes is growing). Planning for that isn't anti-renewable, it is just cautious.

And nobody was talking about K-Pg events. You'll notice the years quoted were all after the Roman Empire was founded.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: