4 ms·

> Did I say otherwise? I didn't. Um, no, you did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 "actually it's

> Did I say otherwise? I didn't. Um, no, you did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 "actually it's not even going down" Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. It's called reinforcing my wrongly held beliefs. So after saying "removing something" means "not removing something", now saying "it's not even going" down means "I never said it's not even going down". Am I again breaking HN rules by repeating the contradicting things you keep saying? New capacity in nuclear worldwide last year was roughly zero. There is around 50GW of in construction nuclear currently that will be finished god knows when and, which is about 1/6 of renewables that got deployed last year without a lot of fuss, being over budget and late. It's very much game over, and poor mental gymnastics you're showing here cannot change that.

fsflover 5y ago
> Um, no, you did. >Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. I didn't Google for the proof. I am well aware of the confirmation bias. I simply took this reference from the same discussion, different thread. Moreover, my original argument wasn't based on this reference and I'm ready to stand corrected if it's wrong. It doesn't matter whether it goes down on not in the end. What matters is the choice which harms the health of people and the environment. It's very sad if you are right about the end of nuclear. I see no reason for that except unscientific fears, and many scientific reports suggest that nuclear is the solution to the climate change.
- locallost 5y ago
  Right, it doesn't matter, therefore you post the misunderstood link that it went up. Yet another contradiction. Of course it matters, you wouldn't have posted it otherwise. You see no reason because you generally don't look at facts and numbers, and this is quite clear. Nuclear is stupid expensive and slow, and investing in it is guaranteed to prolong the death of coal. We have neither the time nor the money to deal with it. Germany is living proof that you don't need it to get rid off coal. Even if you're the smartest person in the world, you are not smarter than the majority of mankind that is currently looking the other way. If you don't understand the reasons, try to understand first. The mountain is not coming to Muhammad, so Muhammad will have to go to the mountain. Happy trails.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > Germany is living proof that you don't need it to get rid off coal. This is just bullshit. Germany is a living proof that removing coal before removing nuclear results in unnecessary damage to the environment and money to coal plant owners: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/01/14/germany-dramatically-behind-its-emissions-target-after-abandoning-dangerous-nuclear-energy/ https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/01/14/germany-dramatic.... I showed you proofs that nuclear energy is a green energy. You didn't provide any links against this point at all. > Even if you're the smartest person in the world, you are not smarter than the majority of mankind that is currently looking the other way. This is false: https://listoffallacies.com/appeal-to-majority https://listoffallacies.com/appeal-to-majority aka the Bandwagon Fallacy. I see that you are also full of bias against nuclear. You also don't have any scientific arguments and just playing with words and trying to find problems in my logic (which do exist, but they don't negate my main point). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy It's just not interesting to argue with you anymore.
    - locallost 5y ago
      You should've picked up by now that my argument is mostly economical. If you can do one thing fast and cheap, and the other slow and expensive, every rational person knows what to do, and it has nothing to do with science. I've repeated multiple times: - it's a fact building nuclear is expensive even when it's on budget, and it's costs can balloon to ridiculous levels - it's a fact it's slow even when it's on time which it can really blow up - it's a fact the costs of Fukushima will be multiple hundreds of billions of dollars. - it's a fact that had Japan switched off their plants in 2010 and invested $200B in renewables you would've called them crazy, but this would've been an amazing call for them - it's a fact that most of Germany's plants were old and planned for decomissioning anyway - it's a fact nuclear plants get decomissioned all over the world because of the same reasons. it's likely that nuclear capacity added for last year is negative since more was decomissioned than added - it's a fact Germany will have to pay €170B in the next decades for the storage of nuclear waste. this number would've only been higher without the forced decomissioning. instead the public invested in renewables with amazing results So those are all facts. The rational people around the world, that invest their $$$, have looked at facts and numbers and called your "scientific" reasoning total nonsense.

fsflover 5y ago

> Um, no, you did. >Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. I didn't Google for the proof. I am well aware of the confirmation bias. I simply took this reference from the same discussion, different thread. Moreover, my original argument wasn't based on this reference and I'm ready to stand corrected if it's wrong. It doesn't matter whether it goes down on not in the end. What matters is the choice which harms the health of people and the environment. It's very sad if you are right about the end of nuclear. I see no reason for that except unscientific fears, and many scientific reports suggest that nuclear is the solution to the climate change.

locallost 5y ago
Right, it doesn't matter, therefore you post the misunderstood link that it went up. Yet another contradiction. Of course it matters, you wouldn't have posted it otherwise. You see no reason because you generally don't look at facts and numbers, and this is quite clear. Nuclear is stupid expensive and slow, and investing in it is guaranteed to prolong the death of coal. We have neither the time nor the money to deal with it. Germany is living proof that you don't need it to get rid off coal. Even if you're the smartest person in the world, you are not smarter than the majority of mankind that is currently looking the other way. If you don't understand the reasons, try to understand first. The mountain is not coming to Muhammad, so Muhammad will have to go to the mountain. Happy trails.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > Germany is living proof that you don't need it to get rid off coal. This is just bullshit. Germany is a living proof that removing coal before removing nuclear results in unnecessary damage to the environment and money to coal plant owners: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/01/14/germany-dramatically-behind-its-emissions-target-after-abandoning-dangerous-nuclear-energy/ https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/01/14/germany-dramatic.... I showed you proofs that nuclear energy is a green energy. You didn't provide any links against this point at all. > Even if you're the smartest person in the world, you are not smarter than the majority of mankind that is currently looking the other way. This is false: https://listoffallacies.com/appeal-to-majority https://listoffallacies.com/appeal-to-majority aka the Bandwagon Fallacy. I see that you are also full of bias against nuclear. You also don't have any scientific arguments and just playing with words and trying to find problems in my logic (which do exist, but they don't negate my main point). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy It's just not interesting to argue with you anymore.
  - locallost 5y ago
    You should've picked up by now that my argument is mostly economical. If you can do one thing fast and cheap, and the other slow and expensive, every rational person knows what to do, and it has nothing to do with science. I've repeated multiple times: - it's a fact building nuclear is expensive even when it's on budget, and it's costs can balloon to ridiculous levels - it's a fact it's slow even when it's on time which it can really blow up - it's a fact the costs of Fukushima will be multiple hundreds of billions of dollars. - it's a fact that had Japan switched off their plants in 2010 and invested $200B in renewables you would've called them crazy, but this would've been an amazing call for them - it's a fact that most of Germany's plants were old and planned for decomissioning anyway - it's a fact nuclear plants get decomissioned all over the world because of the same reasons. it's likely that nuclear capacity added for last year is negative since more was decomissioned than added - it's a fact Germany will have to pay €170B in the next decades for the storage of nuclear waste. this number would've only been higher without the forced decomissioning. instead the public invested in renewables with amazing results So those are all facts. The rational people around the world, that invest their $$$, have looked at facts and numbers and called your "scientific" reasoning total nonsense.