- cross-posted to:
- earthscience
- cross-posted to:
- earthscience
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
You must log in or register to comment.
Is there a question mark in the headline?
It’s bollocks then
Ha ha thanks, I knew there must be a word for it
No
Apparently its possible but the level of industrial buildup it would involve mixed with the fact that some folks actually think Yellowstone is in the process of going dormant makes local officials VERY hostile to the idea.
Like basically every local with any knowledge on the matter instantly shoots it down as not worth the benefit for the loss of natural beauty in the region even if the plant were located to minimize interference with the local ecology.
That and the locals who don’t have the knowledge see “massive creation of tens of thousands of high training high paying jobs in electrical infrastructure and maintenance” and immediately shit their riding chaps at the thought of all the liberal californians that could attract to the area.
Because anything to do with development between the Dakotas and the western slopes of the rockies immediately raises paranoia about attracting Californians, because heaven forbid people move to the area who thinks “child marriage” is just a fancy way to say “child sex trafficking ‘but he’s from a good family.’”
I would need to see some mock-ups of the theoretical plant, but I’d agree it wouldn’t be worth ruining a national park over. Now if there was credible evidence that Yellowstone was about to explode or we could make the plant with some cool ass future look that blends in with the environment, it’d be a different story.
The fear of Californians is dumb as hell though.
