[DRAFT] When the Lights Go Out

[Candlewhisper Archive]

TITLE:
When the Lights Go Out

VALIDITY:
Follow on issue from adopting green power sources

DESCRIPTION:
International communities are applauding your embracing of green energy, noting that renewable energy sources are the wave of the future. However, critics are asking what will happen when poor weather limits power generation.

OPTION 1 - NO AUTARKY
"What we need is some sort of power-sharing agreement," suggests Remi Tintin, one of your junior party members, to the horror of his colleagues. "Wait, wait, I'm not talking about government. I mean electricity sharing, with some sort of @@CAPITALISED REGION@@LINK, transmitting electricity between green nations. Over a large enough geographic area, it all evens out. What's a few billion @@CURRENCY@@ for long term energy security?"
OUTCOME:
the path to a greener future apparently involves digging up the seabed to lay thousands of miles of cables

OPTION 2
"You can't rely on neighbours, you never know what they'll be doing next. Know what's reliable? The sea!" yells Captain Archibald Aeglefinus, his spat words landing on your face like so much ocean spray. "Seeming sanguine for solar sources is stupendously STUPID! Wilfully wanting wind? WANTON! Tidal turbines technology: 'tis terrific! Mandate ninety percent power from the sea, and ole Poseidon will provide perfectly. "
OUTCOME:
the nation is waving goodbye to traditional electricity generation

OPTION 3
"Tidal power is relatively expensive, per kilowatt hour generated, with set up costs, maintenance and environmental impacts," barks Snowy Milou, Minister of Pragmatism. "The intermittency problem can be solved by relying on a mixed approach, allowing nuclear power and a modicum of fossil fuels to take up the baseload power requirements. We can still be, say, sixty percent green. That's better than Daguo, and it puts industry first."
OUTCOME:
like an oil tanker painted green the nation's environmentalism is superficial

OPTION 4
"What's that? The tree thirsts? Water it then!" intejects Professor Sunflower, who is a little hard of hearing. "Anyhoo, I understand we're talking about poor generations and green eggs for tea. So let's increase welfare spending, help them feed themselves better. What would you do without me?"

OUTCOME:
government listens to the people but doesn't necessarily hear them

[Trotterdam]

There's a rather obvious option missing here. I could put it in my own words, but I think I'll just quote this weird kook named Candlewhisper Archive:

4) improving grid energy storage, e.g. through dammed hydroelectricity.

It's true that storing energy efficiently is notoriously difficult, and there are certainly costs associated with doing so, but it's still too relevant an option here to ignore

International communities are applauding your embracing of green energy, noting that renewable energy sources are the wave of the future.

"Noting", to me, implies "recognizing a fact that is objectively true", which I think is a little too strong for this context. Regardless of your convictions concerning renewable energy, "the wave of the future" is far too marketer-speak-y to be considered objective anything. "Opining", "promoting", or the like would be more fitting.

"You can't rely on neighbours, you never know what they'll be doing next."

You put a validity on option 1. This line would seem a little odd if the option where someone suggested relying on neighbors isn't visible.

OPTION 4
"What's that? The tree thirsts? Water it then!" intejects Professor Sunflower, who is a little hard of hearing. "Anyhoo, I understand we're talking about poor generations and green eggs for tea. So let's increase welfare spending, help them feed themselves better. What would you do without me?"

Just... no. Even crazy options still need to be somehow relevant to the topic at hand, not complete non sequiturs.

A bizarre idea that only someone with really weird sensibilities would think is a reasonable solution to the problem at hand? That can be a fun crazy option. Someone deliberately ignoring the problem at hand because he thinks there are more important issues? Dubious, but it might work. Something random that even the speaker doesn't actually believe is a reasonable solution to the problem at hand, because he has no clue what the problem at hand is? No.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

You raise good points.

I quote like Professor Calculus mishearing the previous speaker, but its a fair point.