Everyone is politically motivated on this subject, and that's a good thing, because this is a political decision by default, where the "political" is comprised of is, the voting citizens. We can't let decisions like these be taken by unelected technocrats alone.

▲

gib444 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not filled with joy about my chav ("redneck") neighbours weighing in on nuclear vs solar and climate change and national and international energy markets and power distribution...

I don't have a clue either. Don't ask for my vote on how to power a country. Take my taxes and use them to listen to experts

	▲	dudefeliciano 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Plot twist, the experts are lobbyists and they convince our politicians to start fracking and massively increase the use of "clean coal"

▲

10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

cucumber3732842 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>and that's a good thing, because this is a political decision by default,

Why is it a good thing that everyone and their brother seeks to apply state violence to micromanage what should be a fairly arcane technical issue?

>We can't let decisions like these be taken by unelected technocrats alone.

Do you feel the same way about topics where your opinion differs substantially from the local majority?

▲

andor 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Very few things are purely technical decisions. In this case, it’s about centralized vs. distributed electricity generation (or freedom vs. dependence if you want to state it that way). One of these options makes it much easier for the billionaire class to continue extracting money out of the people.

Edit: I don’t understand how you get from „political decision“ to „state violence“. Politics are at play at all levels of civilization where actors have different goals, from your dinner table and your company Slack to democratic institutions.

	▲	roenxi 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> One of these options makes it much easier for the billionaire class to continue extracting money out of the people. I almost hesitate to ask, do you think that is the centralised or decentralised option? And, more directly, that is a bad theory. The billionaires will make money either way. It doesn't make a lot of difference to them as a class. They'll have an inclination to the cheaper form of energy because more energy -> more economy -> more money for them.
	▲	cucumber3732842 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>In this case, it’s about centralized vs. distributed electricity generation (or freedom vs. dependence if you want to state it that way). The venn diagram between people who act like renewables are "freeing" (which make no mistake, they absolutely could be) and the people who advocate nonstop for government management of how they are deployed is too close to a circle for me to take such commentary seriously. >One of these options makes it much easier for the billionaire class to continue extracting money out of the people. Ah, yes, billionares. Famous for not getting a cut when I buy a plug in solar panel from my preferred e-commerce site or big box store. /s The billionares have their money in everything. They get a cut of everything. You're just changing who gets the cut. And even if no billionaire is getting a cut, a publicly traded/owned investment bank or other corporate interest that would replace them is not really any less evil. >: I don’t understand how you get from „political decision“ to „state violence“. Politics are at play at all levels of civilization where actors have different goals, By not gaslighting myself into thinking politics is anything other than the process of deciding where, when and how state violence is applied. What backs up all those decisions other than credible threat of violence?