In other words, you are saying that nuclear power has been so demonized (because of the cough-cough connection with nuclear war) that the only way it's ever going to go forward is if you pair it with the biggest kludge ever.

I guess it would be better than going to an all-out nuclear war over the biggest reserves of uranium in the world, that according to Russia most definitely aren't in that country, but a casual glance at the map would suggest they might be economical with the truth.

On the other hand, how do you know there wouldn't be nuclear war over the biggest reserves of uranium in the world anyway? I mean, apart from saying that it would be an entirely irrational thing to do, but we've seen so many irrational things already, how do you know that this particular one isn't coming? Is anybody somehow still managing to keep track of the relative irrationality of stuff? Because I lost track of a lot of it after the literal zombie apocalypse topped by "let's defend democracy by trying to kill democracy, that has been dead for decades anyway".

Or are you trying to say that if we have nuclear war, at least let's attempt to get some nuclear power at the end of it, as opposed to, just turn everything to radioactive waste for no reason whatsoever?

Like I said, with this level of madness I get pretty lost. But I'd rather leave wind and solar out of bitcoin. On the grounds it gives me nightmares of a future where starving children worship a windmill attached to a bitcoin mining server with pretty lights – and the energy doesn't get used for anything else, and neither does the money.