[Arragonis]

@Frank, fair point well made but my point also stands. And we aren't discussing any of those 3, AFAIK. Maybe others are, not me.

If I seem hysterical then meh - these are words on a screen from someone you have never met (maybe never will) and we are seperated by a common language.

It wasn't my intention anyway.

On the point made :

Your reduced use of energy and petrol is superb and as you say using as little of it as possible and choosing the right "tool for the job" in transport terms is great - I don't have those options as my toolkit can only contain one instrument for various reasons (space, cost etc.) so I try and use it as best I can. I read here about how to do so and what works and what doesn't and post about it like others do so that maybe it can help elsewhere, or indeed just me in the future.

On your basis though you being on a PC posting here is an indulgence of some kind - you don't need to be here posting* - but that you are and that requires power which in some form or other comes from the grid, and ultimately a power station.

Your idea seems to be that as you save more than the average American (which is 3x as profligate as an average European and god knows how many x as profligate as the rest of the world) then you have "something in the bank" to support this activity.

Personally I think you are right in this.

But if it was that much of a priority to never need that generation capacity (nukes) then you wouldn't even use that indulgence, it would stay in the bank for the good of gaia and/or your bank balance - whichever priority you have.

I suppose in religion terms we are pondering puritan vs catholic - same faith, different amount of shiney things.

As an aside you have posted about how old your PC is (so no spend on it) and I suppose a discussion about whether a newer machine which is xtimes faster and uses /x as much energy is one to have elsewhere.

*(BTW I am not suggesting you don't post, just responding to the point at hand).