Hacker News Reader

I find energy generation a really difficult topic.

I really want to remain unbiased and reach my own conclusions based on solid data but there seem to be so many reports and cost estimates that come to opposing views it makes it very difficult to do that without spending a long time in research. Hence I worry that even analytical people seem to give up and choose what 'feels right' to them.

Its like the global warming debate all over again.

View on HN

Normally, if you face a really complicated economic optimisation problem, you can cheat a "good enough" answer by seeing what the market has come to favour.

But the energy market is a very political market. So there's really no way to get a good feel for it any more. As I said elsewhere, for the medium term I see gas winning. It's "greener" than coal and it's cheaper and more compatible with existing systems than solar/wind.

In this case it's really easy. Nuclear fission is 1) not a solution. Uranium is finite and breeders don't work reliably due to fundamental design problems. 2) outrageously dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years 3) more expensive than solar and wind (see article)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com