7 ms·

I did not think it was necessary to clarify that the amount of money you brought up would not build an entire nuclear power plant. That was not me misrepresenti

I did not think it was necessary to clarify that the amount of money you brought up would not build an entire nuclear power plant. That was not me misrepresenting anything. I'm always perplexed by the people that claim it is clear that nuclear power is a lost cause. If the evidence is so strong that renewables are the best economic choice, why is this company making up shit to draw people away from nuclear? Why do people resort to disaster scare tactics if nuclear isn't at least competitive on price?

ncmncm 6y ago
> I did not think it was necessary to clarify that the amount of money you brought up would not build an entire nuclear power plant. (No comment.) > Why do people resort to disaster scare tactics if nuclear isn't at least competitive on price? Perhaps to counter promoters who habitually resort to deception, as observed even in the august pages of HN?
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >Perhaps to counter promoters who habitually resort to deception, as observed even in the august pages of HN? This "because the other side lies we need to too" excuse is nonsense. If nuclear power is a "massive publicly subsidized boondoggle" then you should be able to show a clear advantage without resorting to deception.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    In some circumstances, the facts and truth carry no weight, and outcomes depend on who promises more. Such circumstances are reliably identified anywhere retail fission power got built.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      You keep saying things like the deception of the nuclear industry can be "reliably identified" yet you seem unable to provide any support for these claims. You then willingly turn a blind eye to the deception of the renewables industry, and your only attempt to defend this practice is to throw more mud at the nuclear industry. I just can not understand this position.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        There is no controversy over the fact that fission plants have always, right from the very first one, been more expensive than mature alternatives, often much more. Still, nuke plants got built, and still operate. Why? Promoters insisted they would not be more expensive, and would in fact be cheaper, knowing full well (as was revealed later) that they would not. Thus, the only reason nuke, and lately coal, plants continue operating is corruption. Most recently, details leaked of what happened in Ohio to keep theirs operating, involving $millions in bribes in exchange for $billions in public subsidies. So this "can not understand" is not convincing. The facts are public for anybody who cares to learn them. Protestations of innocence ring hollow. There is no one left to fool.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        You are blindly trusting the "facts" one side alleges while claiming the other side does nothing but shamelessly lie to fill their own pockets. That is what I can not understand. Stating there is no controversy in this position is ridiculous.

ncmncm 6y ago

> I did not think it was necessary to clarify that the amount of money you brought up would not build an entire nuclear power plant. (No comment.) > Why do people resort to disaster scare tactics if nuclear isn't at least competitive on price? Perhaps to counter promoters who habitually resort to deception, as observed even in the august pages of HN?

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Perhaps to counter promoters who habitually resort to deception, as observed even in the august pages of HN? This "because the other side lies we need to too" excuse is nonsense. If nuclear power is a "massive publicly subsidized boondoggle" then you should be able to show a clear advantage without resorting to deception.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  In some circumstances, the facts and truth carry no weight, and outcomes depend on who promises more. Such circumstances are reliably identified anywhere retail fission power got built.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    You keep saying things like the deception of the nuclear industry can be "reliably identified" yet you seem unable to provide any support for these claims. You then willingly turn a blind eye to the deception of the renewables industry, and your only attempt to defend this practice is to throw more mud at the nuclear industry. I just can not understand this position.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      There is no controversy over the fact that fission plants have always, right from the very first one, been more expensive than mature alternatives, often much more. Still, nuke plants got built, and still operate. Why? Promoters insisted they would not be more expensive, and would in fact be cheaper, knowing full well (as was revealed later) that they would not. Thus, the only reason nuke, and lately coal, plants continue operating is corruption. Most recently, details leaked of what happened in Ohio to keep theirs operating, involving $millions in bribes in exchange for $billions in public subsidies. So this "can not understand" is not convincing. The facts are public for anybody who cares to learn them. Protestations of innocence ring hollow. There is no one left to fool.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        You are blindly trusting the "facts" one side alleges while claiming the other side does nothing but shamelessly lie to fill their own pockets. That is what I can not understand. Stating there is no controversy in this position is ridiculous.