2 ms·

> You will notice hardly anyone is building nuclear power plants If by "hardly anyone" you mean "most of the world" [1]. Most of the world by population lives

> You will notice hardly anyone is building nuclear power plants If by "hardly anyone" you mean "most of the world" [1]. Most of the world by population lives in a country building nuclear power. This claim is throughly divorced from reality. > Yes, you've repeatedly claimed I'm wrong. You're the one who is wrong. Your objections are spurious, as I've repeatedly explained. Yet you neglect to actually point out any such inaccuracies, just insist I'm wrong without any specific criticism. Meanwhile, I've actually pointed out which of your claims are false: the notion that we can use existing hydrogen infrastructure ignoring the problems of hydrogen corrosion, assuming that underground hydrogen storage is ubiquitous, and trusting highly optimistic claims on the efficiency of electrolysis. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#/media/File%3ANuclear_power_station.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#/me...

pfdietz 6y ago
> If by "hardly anyone" you mean "most of the world" [1]. You mean, 19 countries? Maybe if you go by population. In many cases, the reasons for building reactors are clearly not because it's cheapest (UAE, I'm looking at you). There's clear regret in the US about Vogtle and Summer, and in France about Flamanville. (For that matter, in India about the cost overruns on their latest Russian PWRs.) > Yet you neglect to actually point out any such inaccuracies, just insist I'm wrong without any specific criticism. Go to those links you provided, where I refuted your cavalcade of bogus arguments. You seem to think that concatenating a series of invalid claims somehow turns that into a valid claim. The technique you were employing is well known, it's called a "Gish Gallop". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  I've refuted each and every one of your claims about the feasibility of hydrogen storage. For the second time, you claim that my claims are invalid, without actually specifying what's invalid and why. You claim to have explained why my criticisms are wrong, but you've done no such thing. In the more recent thread, you insist we have experience manipulating hydrogen at great scale. But I point out we actually have 2,000 times less hydrogen infrastructure. And I point out that 6% of natural gas production used for hydrogen production isn't all that impressive because most of it is used for heating, only a fraction of it is actually used in the steam reformation process. Explaining that our hydrogen infrastructure is orders of magnitude smaller than our natural gas infrastructure, you go silent. This hardly looks like a refutation. If you want to actually refute any of my claims please do so. But you're just insisting I'm wrong without even bothering to specific what I'm wrong about.

pfdietz 6y ago

> If by "hardly anyone" you mean "most of the world" [1]. You mean, 19 countries? Maybe if you go by population. In many cases, the reasons for building reactors are clearly not because it's cheapest (UAE, I'm looking at you). There's clear regret in the US about Vogtle and Summer, and in France about Flamanville. (For that matter, in India about the cost overruns on their latest Russian PWRs.) > Yet you neglect to actually point out any such inaccuracies, just insist I'm wrong without any specific criticism. Go to those links you provided, where I refuted your cavalcade of bogus arguments. You seem to think that concatenating a series of invalid claims somehow turns that into a valid claim. The technique you were employing is well known, it's called a "Gish Gallop". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Manfredo_1 6y ago
I've refuted each and every one of your claims about the feasibility of hydrogen storage. For the second time, you claim that my claims are invalid, without actually specifying what's invalid and why. You claim to have explained why my criticisms are wrong, but you've done no such thing. In the more recent thread, you insist we have experience manipulating hydrogen at great scale. But I point out we actually have 2,000 times less hydrogen infrastructure. And I point out that 6% of natural gas production used for hydrogen production isn't all that impressive because most of it is used for heating, only a fraction of it is actually used in the steam reformation process. Explaining that our hydrogen infrastructure is orders of magnitude smaller than our natural gas infrastructure, you go silent. This hardly looks like a refutation. If you want to actually refute any of my claims please do so. But you're just insisting I'm wrong without even bothering to specific what I'm wrong about.